- Reason
- This a rare gem in wikipedia, a free image to illustrate an almost impsossible genre to find free images for, TV fiction, and at thirty years old, makes it even rarer. An image of the Doctor in his iconic costume
- Articles this image appears in
- Tom Baker, Fourth Doctor
- Creator
- Sunderland Echo (uploaded by Seahamlass)
- Support as nominator -- Fasach Nua ( talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest fixing the tilt. Image is unlikely to succeed otherwise. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the tilt? He appears to be upright, even though the poles behind him don't. Greener Cactus ( talk) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, the vehicle also seems tilted relative to the frame. Anyway, it's just my opinion, but I think others will say the same thing. Just giving you some warning. :) The general rule is that the head should be roughly above where the feet are. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to tilt, it's horribly grainy, has negative scratches and dust spots, and is not very sharp. -- Janke | Talk 20:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. Also, it would be nice if it was a color photograph considering the subject. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose quality and low resolution. Presumably this has been created from a microfiche or similar as there a distinctly un-filmlike pattern in the grain. Now if they could locate the original negative and scan it properly then it would be more likely to succeed. I can't believe there aren't any better, color images of him about. Mfield ( talk) 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Licensing seems dubious. Why would a commercial newspaper license an image under CC-by-sa? Is there an OTRS ticket or other evidence that this is true? Kaldari ( talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, needs OTRS confirmation, otherwise we call in the Cybermen. Posted on WP:PUI. The original source is [1]. MER-C 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the newspaper's website is full copyright, all rights reserved. I'm guessing they don't own the rights to the photograph itself and ran it under a fair use rationale, but there doesn't appear to be any basis at all for the copyleft assertion. Durova Charge! 11:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Terrible quality, I have also seen colour photos of this character so the encyclopaedic value of this image is diminished as one misses out on the colourful outfit. Capital photographer ( talk) 06:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Recommend early closure per WP:COPYRIGHT. Appears to be a nonfree image; snowball close would be appropriate. Durova Charge! 05:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawal request: Permission for use on Wikipedia has been lodged with OTRS. However, given the grainy quality of this picture, I would ask that this nomination be withdrawn.-- Seahamlass 23:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . -- John254 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- This a rare gem in wikipedia, a free image to illustrate an almost impsossible genre to find free images for, TV fiction, and at thirty years old, makes it even rarer. An image of the Doctor in his iconic costume
- Articles this image appears in
- Tom Baker, Fourth Doctor
- Creator
- Sunderland Echo (uploaded by Seahamlass)
- Support as nominator -- Fasach Nua ( talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest fixing the tilt. Image is unlikely to succeed otherwise. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the tilt? He appears to be upright, even though the poles behind him don't. Greener Cactus ( talk) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, the vehicle also seems tilted relative to the frame. Anyway, it's just my opinion, but I think others will say the same thing. Just giving you some warning. :) The general rule is that the head should be roughly above where the feet are. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to tilt, it's horribly grainy, has negative scratches and dust spots, and is not very sharp. -- Janke | Talk 20:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. Also, it would be nice if it was a color photograph considering the subject. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose quality and low resolution. Presumably this has been created from a microfiche or similar as there a distinctly un-filmlike pattern in the grain. Now if they could locate the original negative and scan it properly then it would be more likely to succeed. I can't believe there aren't any better, color images of him about. Mfield ( talk) 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Licensing seems dubious. Why would a commercial newspaper license an image under CC-by-sa? Is there an OTRS ticket or other evidence that this is true? Kaldari ( talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, needs OTRS confirmation, otherwise we call in the Cybermen. Posted on WP:PUI. The original source is [1]. MER-C 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the newspaper's website is full copyright, all rights reserved. I'm guessing they don't own the rights to the photograph itself and ran it under a fair use rationale, but there doesn't appear to be any basis at all for the copyleft assertion. Durova Charge! 11:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Terrible quality, I have also seen colour photos of this character so the encyclopaedic value of this image is diminished as one misses out on the colourful outfit. Capital photographer ( talk) 06:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Recommend early closure per WP:COPYRIGHT. Appears to be a nonfree image; snowball close would be appropriate. Durova Charge! 05:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawal request: Permission for use on Wikipedia has been lodged with OTRS. However, given the grainy quality of this picture, I would ask that this nomination be withdrawn.-- Seahamlass 23:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . -- John254 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)