Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Diet Coke Mentos

Diet Coke and Mentos Geyser edit

Original

Reason: An absolutely beautiful, high resolution photograph of the Mentos and Diet Coke eruption.
Proposed caption: The eruption caused by the chemical reaction of mixing Diet Coke and Mentos.
Articles this image appears in: Diet Coke, Mentos, Diet Coke and Mentos eruption, Steve Spangler
Creator: Michael Murphy

Support as nominator Prezboy1 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support lol. Debivort 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not encyclopaedic, not Wikipedia's best.--Svetovid 08:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm sorry but i was skeptical but upon viewing full size i saw a picture with great technical quality. Add to say it is not encyclopedic is not a fair rationale as it is used in this encyclopedic article Diet Coke and Mentos eruption. --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to understand what 'encyclopaedic' means in this case. Inclusion in an article(s) is not the sole criterion.--Svetovid 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what does an encyclopaedic picture of this subject look like? Saying something's not good is not a very constructive criticism. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a single picture can describe something like this in the first place. You need a video for that.--Svetovid 11:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I like it, but a couple of things if someone could clarify. (i) Is there any copyright or similar issue with using the clearly labelled Coke bottle in such a prominent situation? I guess it would be regarded as irrelevant anyway. (ii) I would prefer if there were some Mentos included in the picture beside the bottle to help with encyclopaedic value. --jjron 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Coca-Cola' logo is trademarked, but the copyright expired (published 1885) also it's just a common typeface so it can't be copyrighted Bleh999 12:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's trademarked? We're not starting a competing cola product called Coca-Cola, we're taking a picture of a bottle! What does trademark have anything to do with it? This is backward legal nonsense- instead of thinking "well the law is probably crazy enough to forbid us from doing this", think "We're uploading a picture of their product, a picture that could have been taken on any store shelf across the world, to the internet. How can that possibly be legally ambiguous?" --⁪froth^t 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I was just posing the question. I don't have that legal knowledge, which is why I asked. I assume you do to be answering. --jjron 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really :/ Just ranting! --⁪froth^t 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Are those blown highlights that I see? What is the dark streak to the right of the bottle-- a big blob of flying liquid? It seems to me that better lighting and a background that doesn't obscure the details would improve this reproducible photo. Spikebrennan 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. I'd actually considered nominating the image myself back in June, but decided against it for the technical reasons Spikebrennan gives above (well, aside from the background - I quite like it). The image is very good, but given that anyone with a few pounds/dollars/etc could reproduce the effect, the image really needs to be flawless. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few dollars worth of groceries and a few thousand's worth of camera equipment, yes…--Here T oHelp 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, does a good job of illustrating the subject matter. Jellocube27 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Slightly noisy, with some blown highlights here and there, but overall a good quality image that illustrates the subject well. NauticaShad e s 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The tech/aesthetic sides are borderline; it's a good shot, but there's no reason it can't be perfect (some presumably motion blur, some DOF lack of clarity, nothing too bad). Frankly, what turns me off is the use of a globally recognized trademark when there's no reason at all to use it. The effect occurs with any kind of cola - a similar picture could be taken with the label removed or with the cola in a generic container. As is, does this picture meet criteria 4 (free license)? I bet the good folks at Coca-cola wouldn't think so, but IANAL. Even ignoring that issue the, well, blatant use of the Coke logo is actually distracting to me. Matt Deres 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Diet Coke" is in the article title, so the photo adheres pretty strictly to that. Debivort 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tested this myself so am happy to be corrected, but I have been told by others that while this works with other colas to some extent, there's something with Diet Coke that makes it react so much more vigorously. Having said which, I'm a bit iffy on the label too. --jjron 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I have struck-through my opposition to the picture; according to the comments above and below, the use of a registered trademark does not affect the picture's qualifications for FP status. I only have it as weak due to some minor tech issues and because I find the brand use distracting. Matt Deres 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It would be better if the logo is wrapped around with some black paper or something, but it's good enough right now. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Just becuase they do that in TV shows and things to avoid giving a brand free advertising? There's no reason we should have to do that- in fact I think it's a mark of quality that we use "the real thing" in our images to be as encyclopedic as possible rather than a generic version for petty reasons that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia, like economics or even copyright. The image is for the DIET COKE and mentos phenomenon's article, it should feature diet coke. --⁪froth^t 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly doable with some generic diet cola instead of diet coke, but this is more of an issue on the name of the article than the picture. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Svetovid. -- Chris.B 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a diet COKE and MENTOS fad, there's no taking coca cola out of the equation any more than it would make sense to use a generic mentos. Also even if we have to technically claim this as fair use, this is exactly the purpose of fair use.. there's no reason we should have a rule that we can't assert our right to use the image. --⁪froth^t 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you asserting that the photo is in fact free license as per the GFDL the photographer released it under? I freely plead ignorance on the whole trademark thing, but surely there's a bit of difference between a photo that happens to have a Coke can in it or something and one with literally nothing in it except an exploding Coke bottle. The use of Mentos or some kind of equivalent is irrelevant since you can't see the candy anyway. You may also want to read WP:FP? where it specifically states that FPs cannot be fair use. Matt Deres 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair use, it can be freely licensed, a trademark is different than a copyright, the copyright has expired for the coca cola logo, also it is a generic typeface and cannot be copyrighted, it was designed by Frank Mason Robinson 1845 - 1923 Bleh999 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the rules and I'm just taking the opportunity to call that one out as irrelevant. We have just as much legal right to assert fair use as to assert a free license (as long as it really is fair use) so there's no reason we shouldn't. Seems like something someone years ago thought was a nifty idea, and we're all just following it like sheep because it's a rule. well we make the rules, and it's a stupid rule. --⁪froth^t 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's cool, its sharp and it makes me want to know more about it, heck, it even makes me want to try it, so, i guess that enough for an FP, Also, i even think its good to see the "Coke" label in the picture, as this clarifies the COKE and mentos eruption, and, really, the Coke logo is so widespread, u cant say i has to be fair use. Yzmo ^talk 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see how widely use a logo is affects its copyright status - it is either fair use or free. And, is the "Coke" logo (as opposed to the Coca-cola logo) no longer copyrighted, as Bleh999 said? thegreen J Are you green? 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome, well taken. Inklein 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I actually quite like this shot - and the quality is good even at 100% --Fir0002 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Svetovid. Looks a little tilted too. Schcambo 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I seriously do not understand what people mean by "not encyclopedic." We have an encyclopedia article on Diet Coke and Mentos eruption, and the picture clearly helps to illustrate what the article is about. Are you saying that the whole article should be deleted because it is not something that should be in the encyclopedia? Because I do not think that you can argue that the picture does not help readers to understand the article. Mcrawford620 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not encyclopedic but the eruption and composure are incredible. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A YouTube phenomenon last summer, well captured. Weak s. because there are no mentos positioned in front :-/ ~ Veledan • T 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 09:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]