Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Emperor penguins.jpg delist

Emperor Penguins edit

This is a good and encyclopedic photo, but with a such resolution is too small for a featured picture. It is also have minor blown highlights.

Delist. Arad 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The blown highlights are minor, and the picture is excellent, but way too small. I doubt anything other than a .svg could be a FP at 57k. HighInBC 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Just wanted to point out that this was already brought up less than two months ago. Seems a bit much to go through the process again. --Davepape 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vircabutar 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was nominated for removal only back in July and the no consensus result retained its FP status. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 15:49Z
Keep. Mikeo 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It still has all the same problems it had two months ago -- too small, blown highlights, doesn't show entire penguin. Not encyclopedic. (One additional comment -- "recently nominated for delisting" doesn't seem like a valid criterion for "keep." We're supposed to comment on the image, not side issues like how recent its last nomination for delisting was. If it's being nominated frequently and by different nominators, it's a reasonable assumption that it's lacking compared to other FPs.) -- Moondigger 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fir0002 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PPGMD 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went to the USAP project pages to look for another emperor penguin image that wouldn't have the same problems this image exhibits -- higher resolution, no blown highlights, etc. But from what I can tell, these images can't be used on Wikipedia. They are works of the National Science Foundation, which states, "Unless otherwise stated, images and other media in the National Science Foundation Multimedia Gallery are available for use in print and electronic material by NSF employees, members of the media, university staff, teachers and the general public. All media in the gallery are intended for personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only." (Emphasis [bold] theirs.) Also, the USAP website says, "Using USAP resources to conduct non-program commercial activities is prohibited." Can somebody tell me how these restrictions are compatible with Wiki-required licensing? -- Moondigger 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I don't believe you, but I couldn't find it myself on the site. Can you give us a link to the copyright policy? howch e ng {chat} 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. The specific quote from the USAP website is on one of their general website use policy pages, about 3/4 of the way down the page in the subsection called "Prohibited Business and Commercial Uses". The third sentence in that paragraph says, "Using USAP resources to conduct non-program commercial activities is prohibited." Look here: [1] Since that statement is a general statement that talks about USAP resources (which I'm sure includes images, but doesn't specifically say so), I checked the National Science Foundation website, which I found linked on the USAP website. (The National Science Foundation is credited for nearly all of the photography on the USAP website.) See this page: [2] which is where I got the first quote above. That's a general statement about NSF images, which specifies personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only. -- Moondigger 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wondered about the copyright too, and found this: http://photolibrary.usap.gov/information2.htm says that all submitted images become property of the NSF, and "All photos are free to the public. Reproduction and distribution are encouraged, however, the photographer and the National Science Foundation must be credited". --Davepape 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that statement, while saying that reproduction and distribution are encouraged, does not specify what kinds of reproduction and distribution are acceptable. The statements I quoted put limitations on those uses -- personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. -- Moondigger 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The USAP text you point to [3] looks more like internal policy for people at the Antarctic station (note the very bottom, where you're required to sign it), that may have been put on the public website by an overzealous rule-lister - it talks about things like personal use of telephones, videogaming, etc; Information Infrastructure/Resources in that case would just refer to the computers & networks, not intellectual property issues. Your second link [4] gives rules for the Gallery there on nsf.gov [5], it doesn't appear to say they apply to all NSF images everywhere (and USAP, being run by a contractor, could have different rules, even though it seems odd). --Davepape 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It also doesn't say it doesn't apply to all NSF images. At minimum we should attempt to find out if this and similar images are licensed under similar limitations. More generally, as I consider this it seems unlikely the NSF would allow free commercial use of their images. To use a common example, would the NSF support the use of their images on a coffee mug sold by an unaffiliated third party? -- Moondigger 04:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per last time. --jjron 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Moondigger. --KFP 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Unacceptably small, also blown highlights. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Far too small, far too many artefacts in the sky. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why re-delist a failed delisting so early? In particular, I like the picture, and are happy with both size and quality. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its worthy. Re-delisting over and over bothers me too. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. 7 Delist, 1 Neutral, 8 Keep --Fir0002 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]