Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peking Lastenfahrrad-20110104-RM-102214.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Peking Lastenfahrrad-20110104-RM-102214.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2023 at 08:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
- Info : Defective cargo bike parked in a subway in Beijing. I really like the minimalistic composition with some clear clues where the picture was taken. Excellent technical quality. Created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the nom Arild.--Ermell (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment no FoP in China for 2d artwork, the poster is clearly visible when zoom is done Ezarateesteban 12:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly a case of De minimis imo. The poster is a very small part of the images and mostly hidden behind text.--ArildV (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not de minimis and will without doubt be deleted when nominated for deletion. The poster is definitely a part of the composition and not small. Pity. You could save the picture by blurring the photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO the photograph is certainly de minimis. Almost nothing is visible. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I can see it very distinctly even as a thumbnail. Maybe we need to request deletion and see how the closing admin rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not a copyright expert but has really De minimis to do with whether the protected object is clearly visible or not? If we look at our own examples; Pyramid clearly visible, Tower clearly visible and clearly visible? But I am happy to nominate the image again when the copyright status is investigated. I don't think the image has a fair chance now. Regards--ArildV (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is addressed in Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. I see this photo as being beyond category 5, but the "keep" argument is that it's category 5. Could we have an advisory opinion of an admin like User:Yann, or do we need to test this by requesting deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- IMO this is pretty clearly de minimis. The compositional reason for including the display is for the text above, which is below COM:TOO China as "simple factual information" (COM:NOP China). The poster is just intrusive advertising (COM:DM #2). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with KoH above. We could blur the lower part of the poster, and the picture would retain its meaning. That's a clear test for de minimis. Yann (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your opinions, and sorry for the digression. I've been spending a lot of time at COM:Deletion requests, so these questions are very present in my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is addressed in Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. I see this photo as being beyond category 5, but the "keep" argument is that it's category 5. Could we have an advisory opinion of an admin like User:Yann, or do we need to test this by requesting deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not a copyright expert but has really De minimis to do with whether the protected object is clearly visible or not? If we look at our own examples; Pyramid clearly visible, Tower clearly visible and clearly visible? But I am happy to nominate the image again when the copyright status is investigated. I don't think the image has a fair chance now. Regards--ArildV (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I can see it very distinctly even as a thumbnail. Maybe we need to request deletion and see how the closing admin rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO the photograph is certainly de minimis. Almost nothing is visible. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not de minimis and will without doubt be deleted when nominated for deletion. The poster is definitely a part of the composition and not small. Pity. You could save the picture by blurring the photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly a case of De minimis imo. The poster is a very small part of the images and mostly hidden behind text.--ArildV (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Moral support and I hope that the photo does not get deleted. It would be morally disappointing if we would have to delete this charming photo because of that small, ugly, badly designed poster. --Aristeas (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Moral support +1 for Aristeas comment --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)