Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bottlenose Dolphin

Bottlenose Dolphin
Quite straight forward, but its got the knowing smile you would look for in a dolphin. Ultimately from stock.xchng.hu and recently added to the. - Solipsist 19:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) 
 * support. - Solipsist 19:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I noticed that it has been tagged as GFDL by the uploader, is the uploader claiming to be the author, because the only license I can find relating to this image is the stock.xchang license which is far from free?  ed g2s  &bull;  talk  20:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misread the terms page you quoted, and the specific page for this image. Pcb21|Pete 21:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Pcb21. The entire site is free content.  If you look at the specific page for this image, it says "There are no usage restrictions for this photo."  Oh, and support. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 21:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly I feel this is not the case. "There are no usage restrictions..." referes to specific restrictions that can be placed on the photo by the uploader, that fact that they have not placed extra restrictions on the photo does not place them in the public domain, they'd have to explicitly state that there are no restrictions on the photo. When they upload to the site they do so under the stock.xchng terms of conditions which license the images under the stock.xchng license . This is not a free license. Some user pages have comments like "you can use my image for any use without permission" or "all my images are licensed under cc-by-2.0". This user's page does not, so the only license that applices is the stock.xchng license.  ed g2s  &bull;  talk  21:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this a valid objection for the featured pictures page but the image reinforces an inaccurate stereotype of what a bottlenose dolphin is like - particularly what wild BDs are like. Pcb21| Pete 21:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree...I'm sure there is picture of a dolpphin in a more natural pose. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate licence &mdash; to quote: "you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here", so we couldn't actually put it on Featured Pictures visible. James F. (talk) 23:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) Ah, I see now that this is fixed. Support. James F. (talk) 19:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I uploaded this picture. I got the personal permission from the creator to upload this picture for any use. I only set the link to stock.xchng for information about the author. If i have choose the wrong license type, please apologize. I think we can stop this senselessly discussion please. Mb2000| 23:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah great. In future if you get permission from the author please state so explicitly. As far as I knew, the only confirmed license was the stock.xchng one, hence the concern. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  00:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  00:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Great shot. But again, I don't see a featured image in a dolphin swimming around a Seaworld swimming pool. The same picture taken in its natural habitat will immediately get my vote. Janderk 09:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And you would tell the difference how...? I can buy this argument zoo lion looking a little bored, or even not having snow behind the Arctic Wolf below, but in this case what would change? The colour of the water - there are plenty of locations where dolphins live with water this bright. Is the dolphin bored - how would you tell. -- Solipsist 09:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the water, which got swimming pool blue all over it. Another give away is the fact that there is no horizon. Oh, I just noticed that the image caption states that it was actually taken in Sea World. Images where you really can't tell do get my vote. For example, you will see that I voted for the coyote above. Personally I have no clue if that picture was taken in a zoo or the wild. Janderk 18:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 22:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Looks good little but the full image looks pretty ordinary. Espcially the eye region. --Fir0002 04:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Fir about the eye-region being a disappointment. But its still a really good picture.--ZayZayEM 00:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't find anything special about it. Enochlau 03:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was going to archive this when I realised the vote count was +6/-3. Any more votes? ed g2s  &bull;  talk  04:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, more than just the head should be included to be a featured picture of this animal. - Bevo 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose- clarifying my opinion from above BrokenSegue 23:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not promoted, +6 / -5 - Solipsist 18:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)