I feel that this picture meets all the featured picture criteria. It is a well taken photo that adds to the articles it is used in and, personally, I find it stiring and think it deserves to be featured.
Comment. Can someone confirm the suitability of this image's licence, please?
Pstuart84Talk 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have left a note on the user who uploaded it's talk page. I'll look into it though.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It could be me being mega dim but I can't actually find the picture on the website - the link definitely works but I have no idea what it's used for on the site...
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"Copyright: If you want to re-use or reproduce the publications or information provided by Yorkshire Forward from a request under the Freedom of Information Act (for example, commercially or for circulation to third parties) you may need to apply for a copyright licence."
[1]Chris H 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Dusty, maybe even a stray hair, and the lights are blurred and blown.--
HereToHelp 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that the blown flood light isn't ideal. Is there anything that can be done about that?
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Close nomination due to incorrect license.ed g2s •
talk 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I recieved an email from the website operators saying "All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free." - I have no idea what licence, specifically, this would transfer to but it sounds like the image is fair game.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Er, if they are "copyright free" then we can use them. He didn't say "copyrighted but cost free". ed g2s •
talk 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have sent an email to clarify that the image is copyright free, and to see if they have a higher resolution version of the picture. Hopefully the copyright issue will be cleared up soon.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Yep - just had an email confirming all the images in the image bank could be used for comercial purposes and to make derivative works. So that's the copyright issue cleared up I think.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Could you forward that e-mail to the permissions queu of
meta:OTRS? I think it's permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.
Mak(talk) 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Permission has been approved.
Yonatantalk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support: a great picture that really stands out. --
TFoxton 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Blown highlights, doesn't even show that much of the stadium. ~
trialsanderrors 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Attractive photograph highlighting one of the most visually impressive stadiums in the UK. The contrast between the stadium's looks, and the unattractive surroundings, impresses me somewhat.
NeilSenna 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Poor, oversharpened scan of a nice enough, high definition pic. Would look miles better either downsampled to 2000px or (ideally) re-scanned.
mikaultalk 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per mikaul.
8thstar 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I feel that this picture meets all the featured picture criteria. It is a well taken photo that adds to the articles it is used in and, personally, I find it stiring and think it deserves to be featured.
Comment. Can someone confirm the suitability of this image's licence, please?
Pstuart84Talk 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have left a note on the user who uploaded it's talk page. I'll look into it though.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It could be me being mega dim but I can't actually find the picture on the website - the link definitely works but I have no idea what it's used for on the site...
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
"Copyright: If you want to re-use or reproduce the publications or information provided by Yorkshire Forward from a request under the Freedom of Information Act (for example, commercially or for circulation to third parties) you may need to apply for a copyright licence."
[1]Chris H 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Dusty, maybe even a stray hair, and the lights are blurred and blown.--
HereToHelp 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that the blown flood light isn't ideal. Is there anything that can be done about that?
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Close nomination due to incorrect license.ed g2s •
talk 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I recieved an email from the website operators saying "All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free." - I have no idea what licence, specifically, this would transfer to but it sounds like the image is fair game.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Er, if they are "copyright free" then we can use them. He didn't say "copyrighted but cost free". ed g2s •
talk 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have sent an email to clarify that the image is copyright free, and to see if they have a higher resolution version of the picture. Hopefully the copyright issue will be cleared up soon.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Yep - just had an email confirming all the images in the image bank could be used for comercial purposes and to make derivative works. So that's the copyright issue cleared up I think.
...adam... (
talk •
contributions) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Could you forward that e-mail to the permissions queu of
meta:OTRS? I think it's permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.
Mak(talk) 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Permission has been approved.
Yonatantalk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support: a great picture that really stands out. --
TFoxton 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Blown highlights, doesn't even show that much of the stadium. ~
trialsanderrors 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Attractive photograph highlighting one of the most visually impressive stadiums in the UK. The contrast between the stadium's looks, and the unattractive surroundings, impresses me somewhat.
NeilSenna 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Poor, oversharpened scan of a nice enough, high definition pic. Would look miles better either downsampled to 2000px or (ideally) re-scanned.
mikaultalk 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per mikaul.
8thstar 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply