Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scleropages formosus

Scleropages formosus
Tihs Picture is a Arowana (Scleropages formosus), is a nice Picture


 * Nominate and neutral. - cele4 19:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move it up to the comment area. --vaeiou 20:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Created new wiki page, updated links, removed from below. --vaeiou 20:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Not much to say, it's a great picture! I just added it to the Asian Arowana article. &bull;&bull; MDD 4696  ( talk - contribs ) 21:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Could someone who speaks German please check the copyright status of this image and the others uploaded by cele4? I'm pretty sure they're fair game, but I would appreciate someone clearing this up for me since I don't understand the source website. I'm confused because on its special photos page it shows a number of images that have been featured on the German wiki, but on other photos it says that they are not to be copied. Help? &#126; MDD4696 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm&mdash;Cele4 claims to be Marcel Burkhard and claims to have taken the image himself. The external web site you give has an impressum, where Marcel Burkhard is given as the person responsible for that website. That user also has signed up at the German Wikipedia (Benutzer:Cele4). I see no reason to doubt his claims, and certainly he has the right to publish his images elsewhere under whatever license he pleases, including "all rights reserved". It looks like some of the images he uploaded onto Wikipedia became featured pictures over at the German WP, and he mentions that fact on his own web site. There's nothing wrong with that. Note: by uploading something onto Wikipedia, he does not give up copyright! In fact, the copyright remains with him. But if he publishes and licenses an image under a free license on Wikipedia, anybody else can copy it, too, but that doesn't mean that that "anybody" had acquired the copyright. In summary: this looks perfectly fine to me, and User:Cele4 should be thanked for sharing his great images and making them available under a free license. Thank you, Marcel! Lupo 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose, it is a great shot but without the full fish in the image I don't think its quite good enough. -Lanoitarus 04:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really, really, really want to support this image, but I think that having the entire fish in the photograph is critical for the Asian Arowana article. &#126; MDD4696 (talk &bull; contribs) 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great pic; I don't think it's necessary to have the rest of the fish in order to illustrate the article well. Sure, it would be nice, but this pic does it well. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Flcelloguy. --Fir0002 23:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good detail of head makes up for the fact we don't have the rest of the fish. Enochlau 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Does the article good. JustinWick 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. No need to show the entire fish, the closeup is great! -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

