Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Buffalo Proof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] American Buffalo Proof

Modeled after the early 1900's Indian Head nickel, this 24-karat, .9999 fine, gold coin is the first from the US Mint.

Modeled after the early 1900's Indian Head nickel, this 24-karat, .9999 fine, gold coin is the first from the US Mint.

Edit 4 by Fir0002 - sharpened/removed noise

American Buffalo (Coin) is a well developed page, but all you seem to be able to look at are the two pictures to the right. Nothing like seeing the buffalo and Indian head adorning a huge gleaming gold coin. This will mark the first time the US Mint has produced a .9999 fine gold coin. With other denominations to follow soon, this will be a Very popular coin.

I wasn't sure which side to pick, although both would be best :)

This picture(the reverse, specifically) is featured on Template:Did you know. Joe I 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Joe I 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great detail. --Pharaoh Hound 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support edits 2 and 4. --Pharaoh Hound 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Few images perfectly capture the past mistakes of the U.S. After all, we killed off the reverse to starve the obverse, to get access to the mineral that constitutes the coin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 14:01

lol, oh my, very realistic you are :) Joe I 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sharp images. Either or both would be great featured pics. perhaps a montage of them side by side as one image? Support ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted to combine them, but I lack the computer technology. Can ya'll point me to someone who could. An example is here, but with alittle to much overlap I think. Joe I 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There, I've done a quick edit and here's a combination of the two. I wasn't sure if the obverse should go on the left or not, or if they should be stacked vertically, if either (or both) of those is the case I can fix it too. --Pharaoh Hound 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good. :) I actually think it would be nice to have them stacked vertically so that they display bigger as a thumbnail, though. Its worth adding to the nomination and we can vote which orientation we prefer. It looks like it will sail through and its just a matter of which version we like the best. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Pharaoh Hound 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made another edit. Joe I requested it on my talk page. --Pharaoh Hound 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support 71.199.123.24 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like it, but Per Lar with the combining idea (just for easier access, so they're grouped together). I don't think they should be split; keep them grouped because they're equally important. Tewy 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Both They should each be featured, as both sides of the coin are equally important. TomStar81 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ammending my vote to Support Fir0002’s edit. Of the present versions his, IMO, looks best. TomStar81 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support each of the two separate images. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Image:United States penny, obverse, 2002.jpg is the only current featured coin picture that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what standard we use for coins and how it applies here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, according to the mints site "The United States Mint may own copyright by assignment, as permitted by 17 U.S.C. §105. In fact, the United States Mint owns copyright in several commemorative and circulating coin designs." What research has been done to determine if this design is acutally copyright free?--Peta 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The original designs (on the Buffalo Nickel) were made before 1923. These are just copies of those original designs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 02:28
• Support edit 2 Anonymous__Anonymous 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support for edit 2. Would have been nicer to have them a bit closer together though. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either Edit 2 or Edit 4 --Fir0002 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• oppose its a coin--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid rationale. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:58
  • This is a coin, and its still featured. -- TomStar81 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment These coins are brillent, superb pictures, iconic, and elevate thier articles, and are extremely pleasing to the eyes. Criteria - met. Joe I 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • in my opinion i dont believe it meets criteria 3., be wikipedia's best work to me its a shiny coin and is not an example of wikipedias best photo.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • These photos are very well executed, very pleasing to the eye, illustrate their article in a way that no other images could, and are free-lisensed. How can this not be some of Wikipedia's best work? --Pharaoh Hound 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Personnally, I support edit 3 most, and edit 4, second...either way. I can also redo the captions to reflect the engravers, buffalo nickel, or bullion coins as ya'll see fit.Joe I 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeThe face of the buffalo just doesn't look sharp to me.--J Clear 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Requiring more input. There's certainly support for it but I really can't decide which version is more popular. I'll move it here for a while. Raven4x4x 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support version 3 although it seems version 4 is most popular Joe I 09:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 4. --Randy Johnston (‽) 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 4. It doesn't overlay (as opposed to 3). --Tewy 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 4 per Tewy. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with the dullness of the buffalo face. And what's up with that dark patch on the left? Morganfitzp 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)