Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Daisy1web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Daisy1web

African Daisy.
African Daisy.

Very beautiful and striking. One of the best flower photographs I've ever seen. Used to illustrate the Daisy article. Uploaded by JoJan

  • Nominate and Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow! Sango123 00:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Groovy colors. TomStar81 00:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Bling bling. Josh Lee 03:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice --Fir0002 08:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, black background enhances the colors -- Chris 73 Talk 17:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely fantastic! - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, to some extent a flower is a flower, but this one is especially beautiful. Phoenix2 21:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent colors, high res. Very nice. -IanMcGreene 22:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- I didn't even have to click on the image to know I was liking it. - Longhair | Talk 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very detailed, nice color. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - amazing pic. Guettarda 13:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --brian0918™ 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely flower and photo. - Darwinek 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Submit to commons instead. Support now that the picture illustrates the right article and has been removed from daisy. See discussion below. - Haukurth 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) The image is certainly striking and beautiful. However, it doesn't really illustrate an article on Wikipedia, which is a requirement here. The Daisy article currently deals with three species of flowers, none of which is african daisy (Dimorphotheca aurantiaca) or even a member of the same genus. Until this is sorted out the picture is out of place. As a side-note I think the picture is more beautiful than illustrative. The black background means that we don't see the flower in its natural context. We don't even have any reference to estimate how large it is. - Haukurth 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a very good argument. Your reasoning is more in favor of creating an article on the flower than deleting the picture because there is no article. There are plenty of other plant/animal FPs that don't have articles on the exact species, but are illustrative of the type. As for the background color, that's pretty subjective. --brian0918™ 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Create an article on this flower species and I will support the nomination. Until then the picture doesn't illustrate an article on Wikipedia (keeping the photo in the Daisy article is misleading). My notes about the background are not subjective. Whether the black background makes the flower more beautiful is, on the other hand, subjective. - Haukurth 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • This picture is on commons, and is here. And the picture is fine for the WP article as it is a Bellis perennis which is what the article is about. The other images have just been misnamed in naming them "Dasies". --Silversmith Hewwo 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I freely admit that I'm not an expert on flowers. But I don't think the flower in question is a Bellis perennis unless it's been twisted and painted. I'm not sure what species it actually is or whether that species is properly called African daisy. I hope someone with more knowledge can clear this up. This page seems to be the source of the picture: [1] The only info here is that this is an "African daisy with studio lighting". Hmm... Weird licensing info: "If you plan on using this picture commercially, that's not a problem but please use some due diligence. I've tried to make sure I have a valid copyright on something before releasing it to the Public Domain, but the standard for commercial use is much higher. Don't be a dumbass." I'm not sure if we should take this to imply that the person writing is not the actual author of the picture or perhaps that he/she doesn't quite understand the Public Domain concept. I hope it isn't unreasonable to want these issues to be cleared up before the image is promoted. - Haukurth 21:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Regarding the license, it is clearly Public Domain and usable by us. I think the author fully understands the concept of public domain. from the pd photo about page [2]: "However, there are some things to keep in mind: This doesn't mean that you can take the material as is and then copyright it yourself. It's in the public domain and that's where it must stay. And if you intend to use an image you find here for commercial use, please be aware that standards for such use are higher than for other uses. Specifically, if you see a picture here with people you should assume no model release was obtained. And pictures featuring products or property may open you to litigation if you use them commercially without permision." I hope this clears things up. Lorax 01:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
              • Thank you. Yes, that's surely good enough. Now I just want to know what species the flower is :) - Haukurth 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a type of "Trailing African Daisy" Genus: Osteospermum fruticosum. The "Daisy Family" is Asteraceae, to which the plant in this picture belongs. I will make a seperate article tomorrow for this Genus, as that seems to be the system, which we can see by looking at Chrysanthemum. --Silversmith Hewwo 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. This cultivar has pinkish-purple flowers with 'spooned' petals; reverse is purple to lavender-blue; disk is blue. See this site [[3]]. I happen to have this plant in my garden. I'll make a few photos and I'll upload them in the Commons. But I'm afraid the quality of my photos won't be on a par with this excellent picture. JoJan 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support–Kaldari 22:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Should obviously be featured --Oblivious 21:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Shivanayak 13:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I argue that it is inellgible since it illustrates no article. It isn't mentioned as a variant of daisies in the daisy article and it is only tacked on to the bottom of another. Submit it to commons. Being featured there is no less of an honor. Note: I think it is a great photo. This link is Broken 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cultivars hardly get a separate article, unless they are very commmon such as the cultivars of Malus domestica, better known as the apple. Nevertheless I created the article Osteospermum, where I've mentioned this particular cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. There is not much more to be said about this flower. JoJan 13:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good work, JoJan! I now support the nomination. - Haukurth 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alright I'll change to neutral. My concern now is, do we know exactly what species this flower belogns to? (forgive me i know very little about flowers). This link is Broken 14:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On second second thought. I support. I don't know what i was whining about. This link is Broken 17:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A cultivar is NOT a species, therefore you don't need to be concerned. JoJan 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added the photo to the cultivar article, which previously didn't have any images. - Haukurth 16:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A strong image triggering activity in writing articles is part of what Featured Pictures is about. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)