Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 04 2017

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

==[edit]

Hm, very interesting, the coin is in own possession. It is not a flyer. Are other coins that are mapped then also affected? Rabax63
It's not a coin, its a medal. --Ralf Roletschek 21:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and where is the difference between your oppence?. I`am still waiting for your competent answer --Rabax63 22:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Münzen sind amtliche Zahlungsmittel und somit "Amtliche Werke" und als solche gemeinfrei. Medaillen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. --Ralf Roletschek 06:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Klar, das ist eine sogenannte Ehrenpägung und hat außer dem Material- und evtl. Sammler- keinen Nennwert. Die Frage ist, ob die eigene Aufnahme am Eigentum veröffentlicht werden darf. Wenn beispielsweise die Münze zum Weiterverkauf angeboten wird, dürfte auch kein Bild (bspw. ebay) eingestellt werden. Das sollte geklärt werden. Im Zweifelsfall raus mit den Aufnahmen. --Rabax63 09:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn du einen Picasso besitzt, darfst du trotzdem kein Foto des Gemäldes veröffentlichen, da die Rechte daran seine Erben halten. Man muß zwischen materiellem Eigentum (du besitzt die Medaille) und immeteriellem Eigentum (Urheberrecht) unterscheiden. Das Urheberrecht hält in der Regel der Künstler. Nur Amtliche Werke sind in D eine Ausnahme. Bei Medaillen kommt noch erschwerend hinzu, daß vielleicht mehrere Urheber existieren: Foto als Ausgangsbasis, ein Zeichner und ev. noch der Münzstecher. --Ralf Roletschek 12:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is info on how to get files deleted on this page. --Peulle 20:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 07:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==[edit]

  • Hm, very interesting, the coin is in own possession. It is not a flyer. Are other coins that are mapped then also affected? Rabax6363
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 07:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baleine_à_bosse_et_son_baleineau_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) near its whale calf, leaping out of water to keep away males. Taken offshore (Tahiti, French Polynesia). By User:Avatea --Thomas Linard 23:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Not something we see here every day. :) A little bit of purple fringing on some waves but it blends in with the sea so it doesn't interfere with the photo. Good quality. --W.carter 10:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Need to sort horizon. Also, the sea seems artificially bright. Sort both and it will be QI. It's a nice shot. Charlesjsharp 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please sign your post again. To me, this is a great photo and really exciting.  Support -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support IF by "sort horizon" you mean it's not level....I've spent more months than I care to remember on ships at sea and the sea horizon is not always level due to waves and swells. IMHO the sea is not too bright. PumpkinSky 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I see quality. --Peulle (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a nice shot but Commons QI guidlines say 'Images should not be unintentionally tilted'. This can easily be sorted and we should not be voting through an image until it is. @W.carter: @Peulle: @Thomas Linard: @Villy Fink Isaksen: @Ikan Kekek: Charlesjsharp 08:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure there ever was a tilt, but if you are referring to the swell being equally high on both sides of the whale, it is now fixed. --W.carter 12:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not seen any tilt on this picture, and I checked it in my software. --Villy Fink Isaksen 15:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well the adjustment was only 0.1 degrees, so negligible for most users. --W.carter 15:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Was it tilted because of the way the camera was held or because of sea swells? Or are we not sure? I think if it was tilted due to natural sea swells we should leave it alone. PumpkinSky 22:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp The sea looked like that when I took this photo, I did not change its brightness. Avatea (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 09:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Lutherstadt Wittenberg 09-2016 photo07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wittenberg (Saxony-Anhalt): Cranach Yard, street facade --A.Savin 11:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 11:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low quality; The roofs are completly unsharp, especially the fireplace with a CA in the center and the right unsharp section of the picture -- Rabax63
 Comment I know about limits of ultra wide-angle zooms, but "Low quality" goes way too far here. Unfair, unprofessional. --A.Savin 10:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, my comments are not against you. But unfair, unprofessional? Do you have not use the same words? --Rabax63 11:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have indeed written "low quality" in this nomination. A pity that you take it as an offense and consider it necessary to use the same term as revenge.. --A.Savin 13:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Take it the way it is. It is factual and non personal criticism. A pity that you think so. Revenge is unprofessionell, unfair and not my way. I couldn`t make any more images for fear that they might go through revenge directly. --Rabax63 14:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much distortion up top, IMO.--Peulle 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Manfred Kuzel 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support For me too, good quality. --Tournasol7 15:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Jkadavoor 03:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)