Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nepalese Rupee

Nepalese Rupee coin
Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2010 at 08:16:53 (UTC)


 * Articles in which this image appears:Nepalese rupee, Economy of Nepal, Rupee
 * Creator:Benjamint 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator --Benjamint 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before we start judging the image itself, we're going to have to ascertain the copyright of the coin's design. We typically tag coins with Non-free currency. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at some photos of Nepalese banknotes and only one was tagged, thats not to say that whoever uploaded them was correct though. I'll have to leave it to somebody more knowledgeable in this area to determine Benjamint 00:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All I could find in a quick search was that Nepalese copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years. Any idea when this design was first used? J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nepalese Copyright Act. How old is that design? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "Any reproduction of banknotes, coins, checks, securities or payment cards, denominated in Rupee, and the creation of any objects that by their design imitate any such banknote, coin, check, security or payment card, shall require the prior written authorization of the Bank." - think this image is on shaky ground, at best. That said, it'd probably be worth contacting the bank about it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a copyright concern; regardless of that issue, if the design is public domain, we're good. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it does stand as a sort of assertion of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support If you find out all legal matters are in order. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, but I really see nothing special here. No technical merit that would make this an exceptional picture. It is a medium quality reproduction of a coin. Easy to reproduce, and does not stick out in any way. --Dschwen 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By your logic then Dschwen no coin should ever be featured because by definition a good shot of a coin will be just of the coin which by your words is "uninteresting", that strikes me as fairly bad logic especially if it removes an entire subject from possibly being FPCable, flags, maps, and most diagrams are already impossible to get nominated so nice to know that we can now add coins to the list. Cat-five - talk 04:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not put stuff in my mouth, and do not throw out reason just because you are agitated. Basically your entire blurb is nonsense. My verdict is not based on the image being just of the coin, the technical quality contributes to my oppose. Geez, wipe the foam of your mouth and clam down. --Dschwen 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think this is among the best pictures here on Wikipedia, as Dschwen said, no technical merit. Only medium quality. -- Jack ?! 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - upon reviewing this, I still see something strange with the coin on the left. Is there a band of reflection going across the middle or is this how the coin is? -- Jack ?! 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the above opposes. In the full view I think you get a pretty good view of the coins, you can even inspect the metal quality. A different color background might be an improvement, though, but that's just a thought. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only medium quality, perhaps, but consider that at full size the coin is depicted at 14x it's native size.. whilst a much larger image is possible I find it hard to see how such an image would offer more EV; I think this image shows all the detail the coins have with sufficient magnification. Having said that, I'll take all suggestions for improvement into account and photograph the other denominations soon. Black bg next time perhaps? Benjamint 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the white is almost distracting, whereas a darker background like black or a deep blue would put more focus on the coins. I guess I agree that larger coins would be better to observe the subject. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good shot, good encyclopedic value. Cat-five - talk 04:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Changing to Neutral pending copyright being cleared up. Cat-five - talk 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd support if the copyright status were confirmed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I would too, but someone's going to need to do some serious legwork to work out whether it is PD. Note that if this is closed with copyright unconfirmed, I am going to nominate it for deletion at Commons. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That may actually be the best option: Commons is usually very good at finding this sort of thing out, and, if it gets cleared there, it could be renominated here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and nominated it now. I suggest this is closed and renominated if the design is determined to be PD. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Benjamint 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When was that coin issued? Is it the new brass-plated steel version? Description could use some love. There is also this design (also no year of issue, but at least it shows there are different designs on different coin generations). --Dschwen 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)