Commons:Deletion requests/File:English language.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:English_language.svg

[edit]

Nothing wrong with the contents or licensing, but the intended purpose of the contents (and subsequently the file's title), while made with good intentions, is problematic. It is currently used to represent enwiki and as an indicator of an English summary of a page in another language. Using national flags to represent a global project could be seen as unappreciative. Using national flags to represent a language used by billions might often be seen as offensive. Using a flag as an eye-catcher in a page of foreign-language text is useful, but if that's to be used, we should stick to the Union Jack, as it's the only widely recognised symbol for English. This originally came to my attention in the wiktionary Beer parlour. I'd suggest another use for the current file, but it also seems like a bit of a duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Night w (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to contact en_wiki if you wish to address content issues there. Commons is not the place to discuss this. If it's a duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg it can obviously be deleted, but I'm not sure which one should be kept. --  Docu  at 11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: I agree with Docu. If there is nothing wrong with the licensing, then deletion (except if it is a duplicate) is not warranted. Proper use of the file at English Wikipedia needs to be addressed there, not here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep in use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I have tagged the file as a duplicate of "File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg". There doesn't seem to be any significant difference between the two files, and the latter is a more descriptive name. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there's nothing actually wrong with the content, it's the way it's being used, even in commons: example. There was a previous discussion against using flags to represent languages here, wherein consensus was to use ISO text instead. If (in accordance with the instructions on the duplicate tag) I replace the instances of each image, would I presume that text or the ISO image is the preferred replacement? Night w (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, -jkb- (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) - see above, in use - - > in scope otherwise discus on enwiki; by the way, Night w, why do you delete (twice) the image on de.wiki with the comment it will be deleted on commons? It soesn`t seem so, I revert you the second time, OK? -jkb- (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Image is used, so in scope, per COM:SCOPE. Especially, Commons doesn't edtiorialize other projects. Dereckson (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:English language.svg

I believe File:English language.svg breaks the United States Flag Code that establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). This is a U.S. federal law. I think it should be speedy deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Clindberg has indicated, Supreme Court rulings mean that those provisions cannot actually be enforced under criminal law (otherwise people wouldn't be talking about an anti-flag burning constitutional amendment). AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a U.S. Federal Law. It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq) 4 USC § 8 - RESPECT FOR FLAG (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. Theworm777 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • United States Flag Code article: "The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). This is a U.S. federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with it and it is not widely enforced—indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech." Bulwersator (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it has not been enforced or is not widely enforced. Does not mean that people can break this law on wiki. It has not been removed from U.S. Federal Law so we should respect this law and not break it on wiki. It shows disrespect to the US Flag and U.S. Federal Laws I have shown above and should be removed plan and simple. Theworm777 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but 4 USC § 8 - RESPECT FOR FLAG] (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. Is a U.S. Federal Law not just the United States Flag Code that establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag. Theworm777 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First -- this is not a flag. A flag is a cloth article (or at least a physical item). This is a drawing. Second, it's a drawing of a diagonal half of the flag -- there is no other mark placed on it. It's merely joined with the diagonal half of another flag drawing. The flag code you cite is referring to other marks placed on the flag itself, not the same thing. I don't see how this is disrespectful in any way. Lastly, any use which *does* violate that section of the US Code is fully protected free speech anyways, meaning it would be perfectly legal (not that I think this drawing even violates the flag code as it stands anyways). Trying to prevent any such use is basically engaging in censorship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly breaks this US Law 4 USC § 8 - RESPECT FOR FLAG (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. Theworm777 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not "clearly" break any law, it is your opinion that it does (are you perhaps a lawyer or legislator?). It is not a US flag that has something placed upon it (by that argument it is also a British flag that has something placed upon it). It uses elements of both flags, and does not perport to being the US flag, or even a flag at all. Are you trying to argue that using any elements depicted on the US flag, violates some law? I think that would run straight into constitutional freedom of expression (aka freedom of speech). If you are serious, it is a much bigger issue than images on Commons, and we are not in a position to decide upon it, perhaps you have some legal precedent that you can quote? In my (non lawyer) opinion even if there was substance to what you claim, this usage would be seen as a legal trifle. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This file says it was Remade using Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg and Image:Flag of the United States.svg. The 1:2 version of the Union Flag was scaled horizontally to match The flag of the United States. Which says it is a U.S. Flag and quotes the same Law I have stated above. Theworm777 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??? We are not arguing that the image does not contain elements that symbolise the US flag, it is not particulary relevant that we take bits of code out of an SVG image that represents a US flag ??? Either you have a huge case, as important as the burning of flags, or none at all; either way a Commons deletion request is not a forum than can decide. The image does not appear to be violating Commons policy and even if there is substance to your assertion, the flag burning precedent would seem to suggest that we are not putting wikimedia in legal peril. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Silliest nomination I've seen in recent months. Fry1989 eh? 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's unenforced, unenforcable advisory law of questionable applicability here. (I would discourage anyone from using it; English is a national language of over 50 nations, and the dominant language of at least four other large nations, so the merging of two flags just doesn't cut it. But it's most definitely in use, though I might start thinning out some of the Commons uses outside of user space.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This nomination is the equivalent of saying burning a picture of a person is the same as burning the person. No. Depictions of an item do not fall under the same laws or regulations that protect the actual item. --auburnpilot talk 16:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course we can not run an SVG file up a pole and watch it wave in the wind. So I have corrected the lingistic mistake in the description [1], others may wish to amend the translations ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was uploaded first (in 2005); the other would technicallty be the duplicate. Also it has not always been a duplicate... there have been other versions at times. The different names may also indicate a semantic difference even if they are currently the same image -- if someone else comes up with a better "English language" icon, it may be done here, meaning it would no longer be a duplicate (while the other image is specifically for the combination of the two flags). This has also seen discussion of the matter on its talk page. Both are in wide use; not sure it would be a goo idea to delete either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an *exact* duplicate, different code size and slightly different rendering of the star field. But if we do just want to keep one copy, I would upload that version as another revision of this one (someone can subsequently revert it back if they like) and delete that one as the duplicate (after merging author info etc). That way the alternative svg coding is still available in the history even if is reverted. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to a  Delete, but not for the reasoning of the nominator. The edit war on this file is beyond rediculous, and there are better ways of representing the English language. Fry1989 eh? 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a justification for deleting a file in use on over a hundred pages over several wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is for me. Fry1989 eh? 23:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protection may be used, there is no need for deletion Bulwersator (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My vote stays. Fry1989 eh? 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't votes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as an exact duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Why are these two duplicates still around? If this was uploaded first, then delete the other one and rename this one. The other name is a better description and much less offensive. Night w (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, they are not quite exact duplicates, and there is a semantic difference between them. They are each used for different situations. Carl Lindberg (talk)
Actually, they're not. They're both being used for the same thing. You're right though, the coding is the tiniest bit different. Since it doesn't make a visible difference, they're still duplicates as far as I'm concerned. Night w (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will somebody just delete or protect the file and end this infantile edit war already? Fry1989 eh? 19:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Flag code. This discussion has established (i) the fact the code applies to this image hasn't been demonstrated (ii) even if it applied, this is not a rationale to delete a picture, as the code is non binding but advisory, and must be balanced with the freedom of speech. Duplicate. The two images aren't duplicate, there is currently an extra maple leaf on File:English language.svg not present on File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Fry1989 request. Edit war on Wikimedia Commons aren't dealt by DR. --Dereckson (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:English_language.svg&oldid=74527044"