Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kakapo
Kakapo[edit]
I have done a lot of work to rewrite this page, so I guess that would make it a self-nomination. I think the topic is interesting and highlights a critically endangered species. --Eudyptes 00:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Support. 81.168.80.170 09:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very interesting piece. Angmering 10:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:55, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
- Support. Revth 02:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Fantastic! Support. +sj+ 20:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Support. jengod 21:27, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Object. Would support if the kakapo image had source and copyright information. Jeronimo 10:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I noted the image has source information added, but judging by that information, the image is copyrighted. Jeronimo 18:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Added {{fairuse}} note. Wikipedia supports fair use of images. jengod 19:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer, but don't think tagging "fair use" to an images makes it all well. I don't see any particular reason to call it fair use; the image was just ripped from a website. If we can do this, I might as well take a photo from the front page of my newspaper, and tag it fair use for Wikipedia. I don't think that will be allowed, but you might have to ask others with more knowledge on the subject. A better solution would be to write the owner of the site and ask for permission. Jeronimo 07:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not as nice, but [1] might be an alternative. It appears to be from J.G.Keuleman and Buller's Birds of New Zealand, which had a second edition in 1888 so will be out of copyright. -- Solipsist 13:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)- There's now a new picture at Kakapo and all seems to be in order. Does this resolve the problem? Eudyptes 21:52 11 Aug 2004 UTC
- Looks good to me. As far as I can tell the new picture is Crown Copyright (NZ) and I've added a tag to that effect. Not as good as Public Domain, but good enough. -- Solipsist 16:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the objection can be withdrawn? I'm unsure on procedure here. -Eudyptes 00:21 13 Aug 2004
- But the tag that has been added is misleading when it states that the image may be freely reproduced. The website in questoin ([2]) states: "Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. Permission must be sought from the Department of Conservation for its reproduction." -- Emsworth 15:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The image tag in question is the {{CrownCopyright}} tag, which actually assumes UK Crown Copyright but is the closest match (not sure of the differences between UK Crown Copyright and NZ Crown Copyright, if there are any). Template_talk:CrownCopyright lists the usage with respect to various UK government web sites, but knows nothing of NZ. It may be that the notice on the www.doc.govt.nz site is not 100% accurate, but in the absence of any further information we should probably trust it and say that the image is not OK until permission has been sought. I hope that doesn't lead us back to Buller's Birds of New Zealand -- Solipsist 18:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But the tag that has been added is misleading when it states that the image may be freely reproduced. The website in questoin ([2]) states: "Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. Permission must be sought from the Department of Conservation for its reproduction." -- Emsworth 15:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the objection can be withdrawn? I'm unsure on procedure here. -Eudyptes 00:21 13 Aug 2004
- Looks good to me. As far as I can tell the new picture is Crown Copyright (NZ) and I've added a tag to that effect. Not as good as Public Domain, but good enough. -- Solipsist 16:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I noted the image has source information added, but judging by that information, the image is copyrighted. Jeronimo 18:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Support, great article about a unique bird. Lisiate 02:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)