Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/File:Dreamcast-set-orange.png

Sega Dreamcast

 * Reason:Nice resoultion and the picture has been quoted as "Nice, crisp, and good composition. Exceptional lighting and no non-free logos visible on the game." Also, the picture has been selected as a featured picture by Portal:Video games.
 * Articles this image appears in:Sega, Dreamcast, History of video game consoles (sixth generation), History of the Dreamcast
 * Creator:Asim18


 * Support as nominator -- Secret Saturdays  (talk to me) 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as founder of Wikiproject Sega --  Gaogier How can I help? 09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support FP, not VP.  Zoo Fari  02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When compared with Canon EOS 400D which appears to have a good chance to be promoted, than you're probably right. it's a bit lower res, but is a better perspective. Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.-- Pedro J. the rookie 11:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Durova  379 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone explain to me why a logo can be in a free use image such as this? Isn't the logo copyrighted? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the logo in this image isn't copyrighted, as I mentioned at PPR. Some people seem to doubt that.  Zoo Fari  00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is more than just the spiral Dreamcast logo though. What about the SEGA logo on the front of the console? And the Windows CE logo? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The logos are not the main aspect of the photo. The subjects are the controller and console; the logos are incidental to these subjects. It's similar to this photo of Times Square that I took: the billboards comprise the scene, but the scene is not comprised of just a billboard. Incidentally, the Sega logo is not copyrightable, as it's simply text or simple shapes. I'm surprised the Dreamcast logo is set as fair use (in fact I question that decision), b/c it is limited to a typeface and simple shape. But again, this comes down to the fact that the logos are not that main subjects of the image; it just so happens that 2 of the three logos are not copyrightable to begin with (the Windows CE logo - but only when paired with the Windows window (otherwise it's only typeface) - is copyrighted).  upstate NYer  00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the CE icon from Windows covers a very small portion of the image, blurring it or cloning it out wouldn't be a problem.  Zoo Fari  01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - high resolution and good composition, which has clear EV for the topic it illustrates. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Not the best lighting, but a good photo and I like how it's a png with transparent background. Maybe we should look for more of those when we photograph objects (at least ones not in nature).  upstate NYer  00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment File has been superseded by File:Sega-dreamcast-set.png Elekhh (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt1 replaced the original in 3 of 4 articles since 19-20 December 2009. Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Very representative. - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- Zoo Fari  23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Oppose Alt1. Even though the Alt has a higher resolution, the Original has much better lighting and composition. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1, Oppose Original. I am delighted my photo has been nominated for Valued Picture. The original was taken just as a snapshot using a cheap P&S camera, whereas the Alt1 was taken with an SLR in a studio setup, solely for Wikimedia. I believe the lighting in the original is worse because I used direct flash. You can see the blown highlights near the edges, and the overall contrast is very harsh. In the Alt1, the lighting is much more even and visually pleasing.Asim18 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Why hasn't this been promoted yet? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A second version (Alt1) has been uploaded and replaced the original in 3 of 4 articles after most votes were cast. Only two reviewers have indicated which version they would support, and they are not in consensus. The nominator did not return to clarify her/his position. Elekhh (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing: This nomination has been active for over a third of a year, and I've read it three times in the last few weeks with a thought towards closing it. With no comments since 8 March, it is apparent this is all the input it is likely to get- most of the commenters from last year are liable to have forgotten about it. Rather than let this sit indefinitely, I'm going to explicitly invoke IAR and close this. As of this moment, the original image is not used in any articles, making it ineligible for promotion. For those who commented after the replacement, the numerical vote count is four to one- a sufficient quorum to promote had that been the only discussion. Among those who did not return to the debate, there was unanimous support- I believe ZooFari's support of Feature Picture status for the original can be read as, if not support for VP, at least no opposition to promoting this here, as current Valued Pictures can always be nominated over at Featured Pictures Candidates. Reading this discussion as a whole, I'm closing as consensus to promote ALT1.

--Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)