WikiFur - User contributions [en]

WikiFur:Featured picture candidates

2007-04-24T17:28:03Z

38.98.147.68: /* XianJaguar */

{{proposed}}

'''Featured pictures''' are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on [[WikiFur:Featured pictures]] should illustrate a WikiFur article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the [[WikiFur:What is a featured picture?|featured picture criteria]].

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.
For listing, if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] is in its favor, it can be added to the [[WikiFur:Featured pictures]] list for rotation. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

:To see recent changes, ''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=purge}} purge the page cache]

==Nomination procedure==
'''Please note:''' The nomination procedure on [[WikiFur:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure]] will not be used until wikifur requires it to be. Instead images will be listed below and if a general consensus is met that the image is of good quality the image will be used for picture of the week.
If you wish to add an image to this page please see [[WikiFur:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure]].

==Supporting and opposing==
* If you approve of a picture, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
* If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' followed by your reasons. '''Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.'''
** To change your vote, strike it out (with <tt><nowiki><del>...</del></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it.
Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

==Evaluating dark images==
[[Image:Shadowtest.jpg|right]]
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

==Editing candidates==
If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do '''not''' overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc) and describe the modifications that have been applied.

==Candidate list==

<div style="clear:both"></div>[[Image:Sl abbotts aerodrome cubey terra.jpg|right|234px]]
=== [[Cubey Terra]] at [[Abbotts Aerodrome]], [[Second Life]] ===
Composition seems good. Abbots is actually quite a popular area. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

<div style="clear:both"></div>[[Image:CubConclaveClubResurgenceDancer.jpg|right|234px]]
===Dancing [[babyfur]] at [[Cub Conclave|Cub Club Resurgence]], [[Second Life]] ===
Flashy lights ''and'' bright colours! A reasonable example of the sort of thing you get on Second Life. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Is this really a free image or is it a derivative work? --[[User:Rat|Rat]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
*:Hmm. Good question. My view is that it's no more derivative than if you took a snapshot of a fursuiter in a disco - and perhaps even less. The composition took nontrivial time to arrange, and it is the combination of the choice of situation, positioning of camera, ''and'' the depicted content rather that makes the piece worthwhile. Ultimately it does make use of assets made by someone else, but none of the user interface of the program is included, and it's not like I'm standing in front of a picture frame, taking a screenshot and calling it original. In addition, the fox model is generic, and I doubt the diaper was numbered.
*:Looking at [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html US copyright law] . . . the area itself seems to be excepted by this: "(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
*:The avatar may not count as a work because it is a generic copy and not numbered: "A “work of visual art” is — (1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or (2) a still photographic image . . ." --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

<div style="clear:both"></div>[[Image:Miles-df xian-jaguar.jpg|right|234px]]
=== [[XianJaguar]] ===
Just makes me to do the "Awwwwww!!!" thing. =~.~= -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Can also go with the [[Christian fur]] article. -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Not a freely-licensed image. --[[User:Rat|Rat]] 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
<div style="clear:both"></div>
*# If somebody gets around to adding MORE copyright templates, I'll gladly stick the proper one onto it, for the artist granted me full noncommercial rights on that one.
*# If that's the grounds to oppose this image, then SL images are also "borderline case" because they depict other people's intellectual property (or does Abbot's Aerodrome solely belong to CubeyTerra?). Copyright is one messy can of worms, don't get me started on it. -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
**Why not do it yourself? ;-) As for the SL images, they are indeed borderline, and need to be decided on a case by case basis. The aerodrome would seem to be a piece of architecture and [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120 there is a specific exception] for that in US copyright law. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*** Because the ground rule is, the one who's bothered by the problem, fixes it. I'm sufficiently happy with existing copyright tags. =^.^= As of architecture, nowhere in these paragraphs it mentions anything about e-rchitecture; it only talks about buildings (Webster: '''building''': a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)), so I doubt it's applicable. -- [[User:38.98.147.68|38.98.147.68]] 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

==Format of list==
list candidates below by image link in this format:
<pre>
===Candidate 1 ([[Image:candidate.img|link]])===
*Support -- Someone
*Oppose -- Someoneelse
</pre>

{{wikipedia|Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates}}
[[Category:WikiFur featured content]]

WikiFur:Featured picture candidates

2007-04-24T17:27:49Z

38.98.147.68: /* XianJaguar */

{{proposed}}

'''Featured pictures''' are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on [[WikiFur:Featured pictures]] should illustrate a WikiFur article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the [[WikiFur:What is a featured picture?|featured picture criteria]].

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.
For listing, if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] is in its favor, it can be added to the [[WikiFur:Featured pictures]] list for rotation. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

:To see recent changes, ''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=purge}} purge the page cache]

==Nomination procedure==
'''Please note:''' The nomination procedure on [[WikiFur:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure]] will not be used until wikifur requires it to be. Instead images will be listed below and if a general consensus is met that the image is of good quality the image will be used for picture of the week.
If you wish to add an image to this page please see [[WikiFur:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure]].

==Supporting and opposing==
* If you approve of a picture, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
* If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' followed by your reasons. '''Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.'''
** To change your vote, strike it out (with <tt><nowiki><del>...</del></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it.
Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

==Evaluating dark images==
[[Image:Shadowtest.jpg|right]]
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

==Editing candidates==
If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do '''not''' overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc) and describe the modifications that have been applied.

==Candidate list==

<div style="clear:both"></div>[[Image:Sl abbotts aerodrome cubey terra.jpg|right|234px]]
=== [[Cubey Terra]] at [[Abbotts Aerodrome]], [[Second Life]] ===
Composition seems good. Abbots is actually quite a popular area. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

<div style="clear:both"></div>[[Image:CubConclaveClubResurgenceDancer.jpg|right|234px]]
===Dancing [[babyfur]] at [[Cub Conclave|Cub Club Resurgence]], [[Second Life]] ===
Flashy lights ''and'' bright colours! A reasonable example of the sort of thing you get on Second Life. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Is this really a free image or is it a derivative work? --[[User:Rat|Rat]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
*:Hmm. Good question. My view is that it's no more derivative than if you took a snapshot of a fursuiter in a disco - and perhaps even less. The composition took nontrivial time to arrange, and it is the combination of the choice of situation, positioning of camera, ''and'' the depicted content rather that makes the piece worthwhile. Ultimately it does make use of assets made by someone else, but none of the user interface of the program is included, and it's not like I'm standing in front of a picture frame, taking a screenshot and calling it original. In addition, the fox model is generic, and I doubt the diaper was numbered.
*:Looking at [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html US copyright law] . . . the area itself seems to be excepted by this: "(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
*:The avatar may not count as a work because it is a generic copy and not numbered: "A “work of visual art” is — (1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or (2) a still photographic image . . ." --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

<div style="clear:both"></div>[[Image:Miles-df xian-jaguar.jpg|right|234px]]
=== [[XianJaguar]] ===
Just makes me to do the "Awwwwww!!!" thing. =~.~= -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Can also go with the [[Christian fur]] article. -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Not a freely-licensed image. --[[User:Rat|Rat]] 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
<div style="clear:both"></div>
*# If somebody gets around to adding MORE copyright templates, I'll gladly stick the proper one onto it, for the artist granted me full noncommercial rights on that one.
*# If that's the grounds to oppose this image, then SL images are also "borderline case" because they depict other people's intellectual property (or does Abbot's Aerodrome solely belong to CubeyTerra?). Copyright is one messy can of worms, don't get me started on it. -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
**Why not do it yourself? ;-) As for the SL images, they are indeed borderline, and need to be decided on a case by case basis. The aerodrome would seem to be a piece of architecture and [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120 there is a specific exception] for that in US copyright law. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*** Because the ground rule is, the one who's bothered by the problem, fixes it. I'm sufficiently happy with existing copyright tags. =^.^= As of architecture, nowhere in these paragraphs it mentions anything about e-rchitecture; it only talks about buildings (Webster: '''building''': a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)), so I doubt it's applicable.

==Format of list==
list candidates below by image link in this format:
<pre>
===Candidate 1 ([[Image:candidate.img|link]])===
*Support -- Someone
*Oppose -- Someoneelse
</pre>

{{wikipedia|Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates}}
[[Category:WikiFur featured content]]

Talk:K'sharra

2007-04-18T20:44:45Z

38.98.147.68:

I'm sorry, but bidding on your own mate's artwork? I dunno about you, but [[Tad Cooga]] doesn't make me pay for artwork he does; he /gives/ it to me if I ask for it. o.O It's forbidden for family members or spouses to bid on their relative's items on eBay, and for good reason - to me, it's no different from price inflation. I get the suspicion that K'sharra and her mate are working together to erase any evidence of [[Jurann]]'s article and its contents. See [[Talk:Jurann]] about how the Artists Beware posts have now been removed, presumably by [[K'sharra]]. [[User:SpazKitty|Spaz Kitty]] 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:The [[Artists Beware]] posts have been removed because they were posted to clarify a concern and make public amends. Instead they have been used to generate nothing but excessive drama, have been quoted in personal attacks, and have only served to worsen things: the exact opposite of the reason why I posted anything. As far as the issue in question from the post, it has been handled. So I see no reason the post should be left up to generate further damage.

:I'm glad that you and your mate are in a permanent relationship and in no need of funds. Jurann and I, though, have only been dating a few months and do not share finances, and I cannot afford to simply give away my artwork. If Jurann bids and wins, he pays me the bidded amount and the artwork is his to keep as part of his collection. He has been collecting my art for many years in this fashion, even before we met. I see no need for this to discontinue. We are neither family nor spouses.

:As far as your suspicion about Jurann's entry, I have nothing to do with his page. I am not working together with him in anything. If you will look at the history of my page, I have only been editing information, not blanking. I am doing my best to keep things fair and impartial, and I have made no attempt to remove pertinent information from my entry. Jurann manages his own dealings (including his WikiFur page), and I have no interest in it.
:[[User:Ksharra|K'sharra]] - April 17, 2007 12:02 PST

: With all due respect, and while defending Jurann is certainly nowhere near my intentions, I believe I should add my $0.02 here (for your reference: wesha_the_leopard @ ebay, 531 feedback, 100% positive). Namely, I don't see any problem in bidding on an item and not actually winning it at the end. For instance, I always stand up to my word, so if I claim (through my bid) that I will pay $399 for a certain item, and somebody else wins it for $400 and then botches the deal and backs out of it, I'm perfectly willing to pay the amount of my bid (on eBay, that's called "second chance offer") for the item. From what I see, this was precisely the case this time; and the items purchased were really ''paid'' for. The artist has received their money; the auction house has received their fee; IRS has received their tax share; the buyer has received their art and is now free to do with it as they wish (even if such wish constitutes re-selling the item somewhere else); everybody is happy, and as long as every party involved strictly adheres to the business rules, it's nobody's business who's who's "mate", relative, friend, or whatever. That's called free (as in freedom) market, the foundation of the capitalist economy. -- [[User:Wesha|Wesha]] 06:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::There is no strict problem with bidding and not winning. The problem is knowing whether or not the bids were motivated by intent to help the seller achieve a better price, rather than intent to win the item for themselves at the lowest possible price. For example, the winning bid at AFF's initial auction was specifically motivated by the intent not to let the pieces sell at such a low price, but to let the seller have another shot at it. Similar bids might also be made with the intent to "get the bidding started", or to keep it going if it has stalled. How many people complain about the ethics of this depends on the exact situation and apparent motive, and some may see nothing wrong with another person helping to increase the price as long as it's not beyond what other bidders are willing to pay - but I feel it can lead to a situation where it appears that an item is "worth" more than it would in auction composed fully of unrelated bidders.
::I explained this in more detail in my reply to the LJ post now deleted, but essentially: A random bidder would have no reason to overbid, because they have no interest in seeing the seller get more than the minimum possible. The closer a person is to the seller, the more likely it is that the reverse is true - if they win, well, they paid a little more, but they were interested in the well-being of the seller so they don't care that much. If they don't win, then a person they care about gets more than they would have otherwise. It raises the apparent value of goods based not on the value of the item to the bidders, but because of a relationship between one of the bidders and the seller - one which the other bidders may not be aware of. This wouldn't matter if the items were easily valued, but in the case of art, how much it is worth often depends on how much others appear to value it.
::Unless the bidder tells us (as actually happened above) that their motive was not to win the item for themselves but to help the seller get more money for it, we can never know that this was the case. However, it becomes far more likely if the bidder is related in some way. I don't want to go so far as to say that related bidders should ''not'' be able to bid, but I think there needs to be more than just their assurance that they are making an "honest" bid. In my mind, this issue could be helped by having such people seal a maximum bid for a particular auction ''before'' the first bid from anyone, and then having a trusted third party ensuring that - if necessary - they bid up to but not beyond this point. It wouldn't be a complete solution (perhaps someone can think of a better one?), but it might help prevent situations where the bidder doesn't really want the item for themselves but later sees it selling at a lower price than they think it deserves, or where they try to milk a person who outbid them for a little bit more. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::It doesn't matter how any bid is placed. People could have a problem with that "maximum bid" being there because they might consider it just the same as price inflation. The matter here is that someone who cares about me also collects my art. There's no good way to deal with that. I can't give it to them without hurting myself, and I can't offer sale to them without in some way offending others. I have been under attack for this, but I have yet to hear a valid way to handle it that does not cheat myself, my mate, or the bidders, or any combination of the three.
::::[[User:Ksharra|Ksharra]] 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well . . . if they express interest for a piece that you want to auction, you could offer to do the same exact thing for them for the same price as it goes for at auction. If they don't want it at that price, it wouldn't have mattered if they did bid, because they wouldn't have won. If they do still want it, that means you might not have got ''quite'' as high a price for the first piece as you would have if they were bidding . . . but you'd have a guaranteed sale for that second piece, with no auction fees. Both the third party bidder and your mate should be happy as they both end up with the actual art rather than prints of it, at a price below or equal to the maximum they would have paid, and you would be happy as you'd make close to twice as much money for the same art concept - which hopefully would be easier to make the second time around. The second one might even be an improvement, which would be a bonus for them. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Again, that cheats them in that neither of the buyers then have a UNIQUE original, which devalues each of the original works. Then, too, I might also run into problems if the buyer of the first original finds out a duplicate has been made later down the line and gets upset because they paid for a unique work and weren't informed of the possibility of another being made. Or if I advertise that a duplicate could be made, then it might lower the price of the bidding, devaluing the art. No, there is NO good way to handle it, from all the offers and options I have gotten. The fact is, being an artist who lives with an art collector is a hassle and not easy at all to deal with. There is no way for me to handle it in a way that makes everyone happy.
::::::[[User:Ksharra|Ksharra]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

::The above is geared towards a more general case rather than this specific one, and further discussion should probably go on [[Talk:furry art]] with a view to expanding [[furry art]] to have a section on how people sell it, and what things to be aware of when buying it. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]<sup>([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])</sup> 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In a few moments, I will be restoring the reference tags for the [[Artists Beware]] post. References remain valid even when the source is no longer accessable; there is a reason for the retrieved on date being included in references to an online source.

K'sharra [[User_talk:Sine/Apr2007|brought up a couple of points on my talk page]]. In reponse to them, I do think her specific statement that at least one of the pieces will be going up for sale is of note. I also feel that Ayukawataur's statement is highly relevant, and explains a significant part of her reasoning for the [[FurBid-SF]] decisions. It could, perhaps, be framed a little more, perhaps "Ayukawataur stated that, as she perceived" suchandsuch, although I don't think that is necessary. -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:: i have corrected the reason by which jurann was suspended from furbid-sf. please, for the record, if it must be placed here, it must remain accurate. and, for the record i do not believe that it belongs on her page. the only reason which her account/access to furbid-sf is being monitored is due to jurann. standard operating procedure when one of two mates is suspended. and trust me, i do not like it any more than they do. it means more work for me.
:: --[[User:Ayukawataur|Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur]] 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Ayukawataur in that the information on Jurann does not belong on my page. I have already tried to remove it once for its irrelevance, but Sine restored it. I would appreciate if the information about Jurann was placed in the proper section instead of mine.
::[[User:Ksharra|Ksharra]] 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm beginning to concur with the spirit of K'Sharra's request here. Individually the recent edits might make sense in the interest of clarification and providing additional info, but collectively what I see happening is that an article about a very talented furry artist is getting dominated and overshadowed by coverage of a couple of questionable acts in art auctions - not even by her, but by her mate.
:::Think of it this way - how much information about this is likely to be of interest 3-5 years from now? Or in a similar vein - if you were writing an article about similar types of incidents that took place 3-5 years ago, what would you include? --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::: Agreed. -- [[User:38.98.147.68|38.98.147.68]] 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)