Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Horse anatomy.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Horse anatomy.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2015 at 14:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horse anatomy.
@El Grafo: Grolier Academic Encyclopedia version ? --The Photographer (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a derivative work all right, but a derivative work of a GFDL-CC-BY-SA 3.0 work is a CC-BY-SA 3.0 work that we can host here ... that's the whole point of the free license. The format change does not in any way affect the copyright. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel Case. It is my point too; so this need to be credited to en:User:WikipedianProlific unless I miss something. ( I don't want to enter in disputes; but wish every FP need to be properly licensed and credited before appearing in next year's POTY. ) Jee 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is "silly" to make a DR when attribution can be "fixed". BTW, I remember you protested vigorously when someone (Alchemist-hp if I remember well) made a derivative of your PD work without attributing to you, earlier. :) Jee 03:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And where are the @Rodrigo.Argenton: and @Colin: comment?. Wait moment, oh yes! --The Photographer (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged... I agree with Jee: it is vital per the terms of the CC licence that derivative works mention the previous authors along with details of changes made. I suggest using the "Credit line" template as the best way to ensure attribution is correct. This is not "own work". These sorts of things are basic and should be checked prior to nomination if you want a smooth candidate. Only one to blame is yourself, and it is not "stupid" to show some respect for those whose work you are building upon. As for the image, I don't much like the luminous green lines (prefer the original dark red) nor the huge capital initial letters. Otherwise I'm fairly "meh" on this. -- Colin (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? Do you love me that much? Did you miss me or something? As you need my approval to live, I'll do that soon as possible; x0x0. -- RTA 23:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  tending to strong opposition, showing love:
Some areas are nothing close to the real skeleton (check it and I highlighted the main issues), and this should be a educational tool, so you must be accurate and precise. This one, for example, is more useful, and reliable.
I don't know why you choose the EN version to be a feature picture, should be a numeral version the featured, for WP-en, yeah, English, here...
This green arrows are not a intelligent choice, the normal use of this image it will be in white background, and with white, this green don't pass in any contrast of contrast check, even in the bone not passed. The SSE is not a acronym that us for this, so I didn't understand the boldness on this first letters.
The ears are in a strange perspective, best one and the image pointed at the begging.
So, when you decided to just vectorizing a job, and told us that was your work, you should, at least, fixed the problems in the original.
Obs:I had to fix the copyright violations, the original one was a CC-by-SA, that means that derivation of the original should be naming the author and use same license, only restrictions actually, nothing was followed, different from CC0 that we don't have any obligation to name the author or use same license, so you should study more about licenses. -- RTA 21:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Horse_anatomy.svg&oldid=179079242"