File talk:40 weeks pregnant.jpg
Details about donation of image[编辑]
The owners of this image donated it to Wikimedia. The original version that the owners donated had a watermark which has subsequently been removed according to Wikimedia policy. See here. The present image (without watermark) was donated by Wouter Vergeer <wouter.vergeer@tribal.nl> on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 on behalf of 3DPregnancy.com. Mr. Vergeer stated in an email to Ferrylodge on that date:
| “ | For now we are only willing to share these four 3D pictures under the CC-SY-BA license. Lets first see how this goes before we decide to share more or, perhaps in the future, all our works....I noticed you changed the picture and removed the CC-SY-BA notification. Which is fine by us. We just added them to make sure everybody saw they were released under CC-SY-BA license and nobody would delete them. We did notice, however that the quality of the images has decreased
quite a lot due to the cropping. I enclosed new versions of the images at better quality with this email. Would you be so kind to upload these? Or should we do this? The company behind 3DPregnancy.com is Tribal Internet Projects. We are Dutch based publisher of family websites. We are working on a corporate website containing more company information. If you have any more questions, please let me know. And thank you for your involvement. With kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Wouter Vergeer Managing Director Tribal Internet Projects BV Larenweg 24 5234 KA 's-Hertogenbosch The Netherlands Toll Free form U.S. and Canada: 1-888-766-5577 Tel.: +31 (0)73 6158113 (NEW NUMBER) Fax.: +31 (0)73 6124756 Internet: www.tribal.nl E-mail: wouter.vergeer@tribal.nl |
” |
This image is now licensed under a "free" license.Ferrylodge 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I converted the images to black and white, in response to some objections here. I also notified the staff of 3D Pregnancy, and received the following reply (at Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:55:23):
| “ | Thank you for notifying me. The black and white version as currently online, are fine! Thnx for the change. With kind regards, Wouter. | ” |
Because I was the original uploader at Wikimedia, and because the BW images that I made were approved by the donor, and because some other editors (not myself) found the color images problematic, the image available at this page is now in black and white. Ferrylodge 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Dupe?[编辑]
Please do not delete this image. I have requested that its duplicate be deleted. See here.Ferrylodge 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew c reverted to a color version in the middle of a deletion discussion. I have reverted back, pending the outcome of the deletion discussion, in addition to providing ackowledgment of his re-desaturation.Ferrylodge 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Rename[编辑]
"...and it's not clear that it is the offspring pictured." Seriously? Rocket000 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there's no need to rename. If no species is indicated, then it's implied that we're talking about a human. If you look at the gallery of fetus images, you'll see that very few have names specifying that they are human, since that is the obvious implication if no other species is identified in the file name. This rename request therefore strikes me as being more trouble than it's worth, since it would require rewriting links in multiple articles, and going through that process four times (since we have images at 6, 10, 20, and 40 weeks). As one user put it, file names should be descriptive, but it's not important because no one will see the file names when they read a Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- All true. And there's history on this page that would be lost. Rocket000 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there's no need to rename. If no species is indicated, then it's implied that we're talking about a human. If you look at the gallery of fetus images, you'll see that very few have names specifying that they are human, since that is the obvious implication if no other species is identified in the file name. This rename request therefore strikes me as being more trouble than it's worth, since it would require rewriting links in multiple articles, and going through that process four times (since we have images at 6, 10, 20, and 40 weeks). As one user put it, file names should be descriptive, but it's not important because no one will see the file names when they read a Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant by that is from reading the title alone, I picture something like Image:Expecting mother.jpg, not a full term fetus. "pregnant" is not what is being pictured, ergo it isn't clear by looking at the name alone that it is the offspring pictured. -Andrew c 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I agree that this is not the best possible file name. However, I support keeping the file name, for several reasons. First, it is the file name that the image donor chose. Second, changing the file name at this point would cause disruption (e.g. file history would be altered, links in Wikipedia articles would have to be changed, this process would have to be repeated for the three other companion images, et cetera). Third, the file name does suggest human pregnancy, which is at least somewhat descriptive of the image. Fourth, if you look at the gallery of fetus images, you'll see that several of the other file names are not very descriptive either. Fifth, file names should be descriptive, but it's not very important because no one will see the file names when they read a Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 06:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
