Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Old tram interior

Old tram interior
I came accross this image on the Tram article and really liked it. The lighting, wood and stillness of it give it a gentle by-gone era feel about it. The young girl in the picture adds life to it, its more than a stale musuem image.

This picture was created and uploaded by user:KF.


 * Nominate and support. - Thryduulf 00:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, looks like a bus to me, what's so special about this?-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a really nice image, the composition is nice and I agree about the lighting and wood. However, I think it's cropped too much on the sides and I think it would've been nicer if the photographer tried to center himself in the tram a little more. Also, this image is a really low resolution! On the other hand, it is the only image on the Tram page that shows a tram's interior... --mdd4696 01:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are other images of tram interiors on commons (e.g. Commons:Image:NET tram interior - 205 "Lord Byron".jpg and Commons:Image:Tramlink interior 20051024.jpg) but neither as good as this one imo, and the tram article has enough pictures already. Thryduulf 12:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too bright. Maybe an edited version would be better. sikander 05:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too small - Adrian Pingstone 10:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey guys, we're still in the commenting period... no votes yet! &bull;&bull; MDD 4696  ( talk - contribs ) 15:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are people not looking at previously featured puctures before they nominate? Really, you should know immediately that something like this has no hope before you even think to put it here if you just look at already featured images for a little guidance. --Deglr6328 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Thryduulf's efforts, but as the photographer and uploader of this image I ask you to stop discussing it. When I uploaded it more than three years ago there was no such thing as a "featured picture", and I have never intended this image to be a candidate. Back in 2002, images had to be reduced in size if they were to fit into a Wikipedia article as there was no way to magnify them by clicking on them. I could come up with a high resolution version, but I'm not going to after reading about all its other shortcomings ("cropped too much on the sides", "too bright", etc.). &lt;KF&gt; 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I really like this image - the lighting gives it the feeling of a Norman Rockwell painting. My only issue is that the picture is a bit unbalanced, and it looks like the left side of the picture has been cropped short. De nni &#9775; 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed why...the bus has a 1-2 configuration...so that means that the aisle will not be straight down the middle. So, unless the photographer stands in the middle of seats, you aren't going to get a more centered shot. I support the third. --vaeiou 02:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral until a higher resolution copy is available. I have spoken to KF and they may be able to find a better copy of the original. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have just uploaded the only two other versions I could find at Image:Tram_interior_original_II.JPG and Image:Tram_interior_original.JPG. I'm afraid that's all I can do. All the best, &lt;KF&gt; 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now edited the Tram_interior_original_II.JPG version and uploaded it to wiki. Editing details are as follows for what it is worth: Ran original II image through Neatimage for noise reduction, reduced in size slightly (from 1840px high to 1400px high) as the image retained slight artifacts from the noise. This removed most remaining artifacts. Then adjusted levels to bring the greypoint a little darker and then finally ran shadows/highlights tool to decrease highlight brightness slightly (about 7% from memory) leaving shadows untouched. Photo appears far more saturated than original now, but no saturation adjustment was done. I hope this allows the previous oppose voters to reconsider as I think compositionally the photo is very good, and the only problems with the original FPC were brightness and resolution. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support My edited version of the photo. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely has my support now. De nni &#9775; 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose all versions. Who's the girl? Do we have her (or her parents') consent to her image being used and re-published? She has personality rights... have her parents agreed to her picture being taken and published on the Internet? See Privacy rights in the U.S. and also de:Recht am eigenen Bild and a commentary on the situation in Austria. Commercial uses of that image would require the written consent of the girl's parents; and I wonder whether its being included at User:Nymph/girls could already be construed to be a violation of her personality rights. If the car was full of people or at least half full (so that one could still see the car's interior itself), I think we'd have less of a problem. (And it would make the image look less artificial.) Lupo 08:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The image was created and uploaded by KF, who I assume is the parent/guardian of the girl, and thus able to give permission - and, by uploading it to the Internet has given persmission for it to be published on the Internet. Assuming that this is true (I will leave a message on their talk page), then I presume that by licensing the images under the GFDL, permission has been given for the images to be used in ways compatible with the GFDL. The gallery you link to is not in voilation of the GFDL nor any other laws I am aware of (unless you know otherwise).
 * Regarding your second point, I do not think that this image looks artifical - as I deailed when I nominated it I feel the girl adds to the image. Thryduulf 10:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if KF is the parent, he can give that permission and everything is fine, which is precisely why I asked. Second, the gallery itself does not violate any laws (and I didn't claim it did); but I wouldn't be surprised if the girl or her parents had objections to that image being asssociated in any way with the term "nymph"&mdash;very close to nymphet (which is derived from nymph). Lupo 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support (any version, but naturally the larger version is nicer). It nicely illustrates its subject, and is attractive to boot.  The little girl really adds to the picture: she gives it context, scale, and character. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the original version. The edit seems to me to make it too glossy. I agree with the above that the girl strongly adds to the image's artistic merits. Sarge Baldy 11:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, a random search on Wikipedia revealed the following results: Image:Urbeach-christina-at-waterplay.jpg and Image:Sunglass-c.jpg clearly state who the people in the pictures are. But what about Image:Shopping_for_shoes.jpg, Image:Waiter!.jpg, Image:Auto_Mechanic.jpg, Image:Child_tongue.jpg or, worst of all, Image:SmokingandAddiction.jpg? Would you want your habit advertised worldwide? Could the smoker in the picture have consented to that?


 * Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying I want those pictures deleted. We're living in the 21st century, life has become hazardous and public, people's privacy is being intruded upon all the time. It's awful enough if you type your own name into Google, but what is worse is all those images people add to their personal web sites which show you doing silly things and you don't even know about it.


 * The photo I uploaded is an image of a car, not of a girl. You will find the same girl at Aspern; again, that's an image of a sculpture, not of a girl. She's there to demonstrate the size of the monument. She liked both images and agreed to have them published, but what if she changes her mind when she gets older?


 * Some days ago I asked you to stop discussing this image. It was one of the first pictures I uploaded for Wikipedia, adding it to a tram article which at the time had no other images. There were no tags on Wikipedia then. Next thing someone will come along and add Template:Violation of personality rights to it or remove it from the article. I am neither a U.S. nor an Austrian lawyer, and I'm certainly not going to read up on the situation in Austria, which I do not understand. Do as you please, and good luck to you all. &lt;KF&gt; 11:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PS I agree with Lupo on User:Nymph's collection of girls' images and on the obvious connotations. I don't like it. It's a sad sign of the times that we have come to be very alert to potential dangers such as child abuse, and if I had had more time I would have tried to do something about that user name in connexion with the girls' images. &lt;KF&gt; 11:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, preferably the edited version. Wikikiwi 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nothing special. --Deglr6328 07:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Diliff's edit. I think the girl breathes life into what would otherwise be lifeless. Enochlau 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - without going into any of the above arguments, I just find this picture to be excellent. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Subject matter seems boring to me - it's hard to tell what distinguishes this tram interior from interiors of modern busses/trams at this angle. Cute girl though. - JustinWick 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at pictures of modern trams, such as these from Nottingham and Croydon you'll see the difference. Thryduulf 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [[Image:NET tram interior - 205 "Lord Byron".jpg|thumb|right|Nottingham tram interior]] [[Image:Tramlink interior 20051024.jpg|thumb|right|Croydon tram interior]].
 * Support Diliff's version. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * SupportHamedog 01:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC). Diliffs ver.
 * Support third version (Diliffs edit). I just now bothered looking at the full res pic. This is actually an awesome photo. Composition, alignment and DOF are great. Also well balanced exposure now. --Dschwen 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support third version. The technical quality of the image is very good, and the overall effect is charming.  -Vontafeijos 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Diliff's version has the most support here. Raven4x4x 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

