Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elephant sculpture London
I really like this sculpture, and I really like that the picture was taken at sunset. The quality is quite good, and I think it does the sculpture justice. Picture taken by me in 2004. It is used in the Albert Memorial article. - Silversmith Hewwo 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - Silversmith Hewwo 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Good picture. I'm a bit confused by the licensing information. I gathered that there was some kind of fatwah against non-commercial pictures here. - Haukurth 17:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That licence is my own template for all the images I upload which I took. Both CC and GFDL are fine for FP's. The GDFL means that it can be used for commercial purposes, the CC means that if you don't want to use it for commercial purposes, you can use it without including the massive page of GDFL text. The main point being though that anyone can use this image. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think we had this problem before with another one of your pictures. "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" is a deprecated license. The problem is the "non commercial" part. --brian0918™ 18:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- People, please actually read the image description page. The picture is under the GFDL. End of story. Now vote on the merits of the photo. — Chameleon 01:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also see this, for an answer about the licence from JamesF. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I did read the image description page, all of it. Obviously you didn't. It's licensed under GFDL and then under a non-commercial license as well. I don't know how that works, but at least I've acknowledged that there was dual-licensing. --brian0918™ 17:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, well, I hope this licence business is clear now anyway. If there are any more questions about it, please write to me on my talk page, or put up a querey on the discussion page of FPCs. :-) Silversmith Hewwo 17:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- People, please actually read the image description page. The picture is under the GFDL. End of story. Now vote on the merits of the photo. — Chameleon 01:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think we had this problem before with another one of your pictures. "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" is a deprecated license. The problem is the "non commercial" part. --brian0918™ 18:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That licence is my own template for all the images I upload which I took. Both CC and GFDL are fine for FP's. The GDFL means that it can be used for commercial purposes, the CC means that if you don't want to use it for commercial purposes, you can use it without including the massive page of GDFL text. The main point being though that anyone can use this image. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Is it just me or is there somthing funky with the image quality? This link is Broken 03:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, my camera is not a good one. But I think it's quite sharp and not out of focus at least. I understand if you will oppose because of it. I can't get a better picture though. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Sweet. - Darwinek 11:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)- ( − ) Oppose I'd have to agree with Broken Segue (alias This link is broken) --Fir0002 June 28, 2005 10:41 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. G-Man 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is fascinating, but the quality of the photo is sub-par. Sango123 15:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Enochlau 13:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)