Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom

Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom

Reason: An attractive and accurate SVG reproduction of the UK Royal coat of arms. Already featured on commons (nomination).
Articles this image appears in: Coat of arms of the United Kingdom
Creator: commons:User:Chabacano

Support as nominator the wub "?!" 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous failed nomination from three months ago. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Never mind. Is there no way to let people know a pic has previously been nominated? the wub "?!" 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I learned this the hard way too. Look at the image page Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg. Look down at the bottom, under the heading "File links". See the links for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/United Kingdom Royal coat of arms and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2007 near the end of your list? That's your indication that this image has been nominated before. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After looking at the seal on the official UK website [[1]], this one looks gaudy and too much like computer clip-art. Plus, many of the colors are not the same as the seal there. Clegs (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as the "right" colors on a coat of arms. What matters is that the blazon calls for red and a shade of red is inserted that isn't yellow enough to be called orange and not blue enough to be called purple. You can say that the colors look bad, but to object that it isn't close enough to a different artist's interpretation of the blazon is improper, heraldically speaking. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we really sure on the copyright status? On the image description page, it says Image:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom.png from this stock vector image website was used as a reference. To me, it looks like the vector image was purchased from the website, modified somewhat, and then uploaded. The stock vector website template on the raster img says: "vector versions are not permitted." Has commons:User:Chabacano really drawn this all from scratch? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did what I told in the license page: I drew this from scratch looking to that png and other references (like this one) using Inkscape, (and it took me hours). Please, next time assume good faith, because others can consider un insult your suggestion that they are faking the license information.Chabacano (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my bad. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cartoonishness, a la last time. de Bivort 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but nothing great to be featured. H92110 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks too similar to Image:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom.png, which is copyrighted. Not sure if this image is unique enough to have completely separate license. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, yes - it would have to be close to that in order to be correct, but there are a lot of details that are different, and I'm not even talking about the shading. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention they didn't create the original design... gren グレン 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blazons are public domain (almost always), and in this case the design was made in 1837 and would be public domain anyways See Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 10:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coronets need to be fixed. They should all be showing 3 crosses patée alternating with 2 fleur-de-lis. Right now the unicorn's has 5 fleur-de-lis, and all the other ones have 1 cross and 4 fleur-de-lis. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]