Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 23, 2005

How about making the beginning of the featured lead like this: "The early life of Joseph Smith, Jr...." so as to have a link to Smith's article in the first sentence? Dralwik 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above - it would be too easy for people to think the featured article was Joseph Smith and skip the early life link - and Joseph Smith, Jr has not gained feature status. However, I do have a suggestion. The first sentence does not mention JS's claimed vision - perhaps this one would work better (see below). Trödeltalk 19:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. covers the period from his birth to the end of 1827, when Smith claimed to have had a theophany (called by his followers the First Vision); and to have located a set of Golden Plates engraved with ancient Christian scriptures, buried in a hill near his home in Manchester, New York.

I agree with Trodel - we'll leave the title linking as it is to avoid confusion. Raul654 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the wording now. I just wanted a link to Joseph Smith, Jr.'s article. Dralwik 04:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

You know, I'm not so sure that Image:Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg is really PD. A stained glass window isn't quite 2-D art in the same way that a painting is; there is considerable art in photographing it. An alternative image we could use is Image:Joseph Smith receiving golden plates.jpg. Is there any U.S. legal precedent known on whether or not stained glass windows are considered 2-D art for the purposes of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.?--Pharos 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is solid footing that this image is public domain. In Bridgeman, the court said, "The Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order compelling the defendants to cancel a recordation of copyright in the plastic reproduction on the ground that the reproduction was not "original" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act, holding that the requirement of originality applies to reproductions of works of art. Only "a distinguishable variation" -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original."[1]. See also the courts reasoning that the change of medium is immaterial. [2]. Finally, the source is clearly identified on commons, and no copyright is asserted by the owner to dispute its public domain status which is notable since pbs claims copyright on many of its other pages.

Although, the wikipedia article says that the decision applies only to photos of paintings, I could find no dictum limiting the ruling to paintings. Other than the fact that paintings were at issue int he case, there is no support for such a limited reading. In fact just the opposite is true - relying on this is reasonable (and in fact preferable). FYI Corel had a Religious stained glass Photo CD (see also here) available at the time the decision was made. Trödeltalk 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]