Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg, not delisted
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 07:20:40
Info Not referenced and some very confusing labeling (e.g. combining veins/arteries and nerves (sic!)). (Original nomination)
Delist -- Lycaon (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by “not referenced”? --norro 08:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is no source (reference) given for the labelling and depicted structures. Lycaon (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by “not referenced”? --norro 08:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
SupportRmSilva pode falar! 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Closer's comments: Not certain if this is a support to keep or a support to delist; however, in this instance, it makes little difference. Maedin\talk 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Labeling is not that important in my opinion to delist an otherwise impressive and very useful illustration. --norro 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Lack of source is probably also trivial? References and labelling make or break a scientific illustration. Now it has no value. Lycaon (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, talking about useful: it is not used in any of the larger wikis. Lycaon (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, have you checked this? It says IT IS used on 132 pages in 23 projects, what are you talking about? --Ahnode (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah sure, it's used on all transcluded Potd templates, but all serious articles shun it. Must be a reason. Checkout en: FP candidature too. Lycaon (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I haven't noticed that, but now I see why. You removed it from at least two articles yourself (Russian & Italian). Now when you did it, you got a formal "right" to claim it isn't used. That is at least not nice. --Ahnode (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's very nice cause I did them a favour. You don't seem to understand this, do you? As a scientist it is my duty to correct (or denounce) incorrect or confusing information, not to promote nice pictures!! Lycaon (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I haven't noticed that, but now I see why. You removed it from at least two articles yourself (Russian & Italian). Now when you did it, you got a formal "right" to claim it isn't used. That is at least not nice. --Ahnode (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah sure, it's used on all transcluded Potd templates, but all serious articles shun it. Must be a reason. Checkout en: FP candidature too. Lycaon (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, have you checked this? It says IT IS used on 132 pages in 23 projects, what are you talking about? --Ahnode (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, talking about useful: it is not used in any of the larger wikis. Lycaon (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep It probably took hours and hours of hard work to make this highly detailed illustration. Since you cannot substitute it with a real-life photograph of a dissected hand, the FP status of this image should stay. (P.S. I have such a feeling that I was not the only one to use wrong template in order to vote. Whoever is going to count votes, read the comments first, they might contradict the vote template.)--Ahnode (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It take as much hours to make a correct illustration as to make a partially useless one, so why keep the latter? Lycaon (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't useless because you want it to be useless. See above. --Ahnode (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I said partially (please read my comments properly) as it is salvageable should the original author (or someone else for that matter) want to do the effort. I'd rather have it as a correct image than not used! Lycaon (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it will be a good idea for you to notify The Photographer about this nomination to delist his illustration. At the same time, I would suggest you, as a scientist, to help us improve the illustration and explain precisely on the talk page (image's or user's... wherever) why do you think it is inaccurate. This is going to be the best 'favour' you can do so far (removing it from articles doesn't count, as you haven't discussed it first at the article's talk page). As for your claim regarding absence of references, Wilfredo specifically addressed this issue when replied to your comment. Probably you couldn't have asked Wilfredo to enter this information into illustration's description template. But again you haven't contacted him yet. --Ahnode (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- This was obviously not a reference. I can't understand why you are so adamant in wanting to keep this picture as FP when it clearly needs work done to it. It doesn't even specify whether it is a left or a right hand so that a laymen (99.99% of users here myself included concerning human anatomy) can't properly judge whether it is a top or a bottom view... Lycaon (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it will be a good idea for you to notify The Photographer about this nomination to delist his illustration. At the same time, I would suggest you, as a scientist, to help us improve the illustration and explain precisely on the talk page (image's or user's... wherever) why do you think it is inaccurate. This is going to be the best 'favour' you can do so far (removing it from articles doesn't count, as you haven't discussed it first at the article's talk page). As for your claim regarding absence of references, Wilfredo specifically addressed this issue when replied to your comment. Probably you couldn't have asked Wilfredo to enter this information into illustration's description template. But again you haven't contacted him yet. --Ahnode (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I said partially (please read my comments properly) as it is salvageable should the original author (or someone else for that matter) want to do the effort. I'd rather have it as a correct image than not used! Lycaon (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't useless because you want it to be useless. See above. --Ahnode (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 (2?) delist, 2 (3?) keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Maedin\talk 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
