Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rooster portrait2.jpg

File:Rooster portrait2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2008 at 09:30:44

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 09:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad 09:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if you concern that the focus is on the rooster's face - not the feathers... --Herrick (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good portrait --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice guy. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support yum yum --ianaré (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. ;) --Jagro (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Georgez (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the picture is perfect, but Commons FP is not just about it. Use some free Creative Commons license and I will change my vote. Using GFDL for media is a nonsence, GFDL was not created for media - this picture is than not free.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your complements about the perfectness of my picture. GFDL is an available license in the upload form when uploading pictures and many current FPs are licensed as such. Muhammad 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a relict there. It is there from the times, when CC licences were not existing. Now they are in here and they are better for images. Imagine a situation, someone would like to make a pexeso for children from featured pictures. If they were licensed just GFDL, each pexeso should have 5 pages of licence. With GFDL it is much easier. You as author can offer it under every licensed you want. So why not to change it to the dual license GFDLxCC-BY-SA 3.0. Well, the same q can come to other authors of GFDL FP:-)--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Juan, your oppose is silly. This image can be used under GFDL 1.3 - that means it's 100% compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0. (Unless I'm totally missing something here) --J.smith (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont say this. I dont think so, this will happen. This must be agreed by authors. You cant change a licence.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version " The bold part is what I'm talking about. Version 1.3 is out and it has clauses that permit conversion to CC-BY-SA in some circumstances. --J.smith (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pssst, do not speak so laud. If you were right, I will invite you for a beer and vice versa.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - MMmmmmm beer.... *drool* --J.smith (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 23:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ainali (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]