Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Electric steam iron.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Electric steam iron.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2013 at 12:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- 12:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Support This image is high-resolution, sharp and in focus from front to back. The angled profile shows off the steam plate as well as the handle, at the expense of the controls. The plate has a textured speckle finish -- that's not noise. Before anyone thinks "It's just an iron; no wow", consider our FP requirement is to find the "finest on Commons", which I believe this is. Commons currently has no featured pictures of small domestic appliances so I challenge you in the friendliest possible way to find or take a better one. :-) Colin (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)- Support per Daniel there. JKadavoor Jee 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 10:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Christian Ferrer 17:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support At long last a picture with the old "wiki spirit". I like such pictures. • Richard • [®] • 18:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- How about copyrights? Industry design is copyrightable in quite several European countries. There were many pictures deleted here on commons because of that. --Miha (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is a difference between Local Wiki Projects and Commons. This file is hosted in Los Angeles, USA, thus only american law can be applied to the image. • Richard • [®] • 19:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure of that ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relevant are the U.S. law + the law of the country the picture was taken (UK, I suppose). --A.Savin 20:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Utility objects and Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?. Further discussion of any copyright concerns should be in a DR, not here. Thanks. Colin (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not to be misunderstood, I like this picture, but there are some double standards on Commons. On one hand we are deleting pictures from WW1(!!) because of unclear copyright status and small car models or pictures of roads because of lack of freedom of panorama (which is total paranoia), but in this case when it is clear that someone holds industry design related copyrights noone seems to be concerned. --Miha (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- I owned one of these based on style alone, as such I will fore go my usual disdain for FP status on mundane objects. I am still not convinced technical brilliance = wow. I am certainly not drinking that kool-aid yet. Moreover, if I see a toaster here next week you should expect a dissertation on why Commons FPC should not be a mirror of en:FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that technical merit alone is insufficient -- the subject has to be attractive/engaging, though here we all have very varied tastes. Man-made objects don't have to be mundane, and this one is rather attractively styled imo and in absolutely pristine condition. My toaster on the other hand is old and bland. Even David Bailey couldn't get that to FP :-) Colin (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
