Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cherenkov Wavefront.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:Cherenkov Wavefront.svg

[edit]

Duplicate of original File:Cherenkov2.svg. Rendering fixed and improved at original location. Glrx (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep invalid request. Sorry Glrx but you have done an absolutely controversy global replace. You have also not the user right for a File Mover. It seems you are also don't firm with the Renaming rules. File:Cherenkov2.svg was the example file for 4 years. This mistake should be undone, all replacing done by Glrx should be reverted. This is the most visible example file of the textPath (straight line) effect (since 4 years). -- User: Perhelion 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the references to File:Cherenkov Wavefront.svg to point to Kuiper's original file, File:Cherenkov2.svg. How is pointing to the original file with the same appearance a controversial change?
That is not moving a file. I did not move any files.
I am not making a rename request, so Commons:Renaming files does not apply. Cherenkov2.svg is the original filename, and I am not asking to change that filename.
What I have done is straighten out the file history for Pieter Kuiper's contribution.
I am asking to delete this file (which was a copy of Cherenkov2.svg with trivial changes) and File:Cherenkov1.svg (which was also a trivial copy). The official guideline for editing files, Commons:Overwriting existing files, permits minor changes when "the essential composition is not altered".
The dates do not suggest that Cherenkov2.svg was created as an example file. Cherenkov2.svg is the original file.
  • File:Cherenkov2.svg (Pieter Kuiper) shows a creation date of 22 June 2007. It is the earliest file date.
  • File:Cherenkov Wavefront.svg (Inductiveload) shows a creation date of 4 October 2007. Inductiveload credits Pieter Kuiper. Inductiveload's upload has the same spelling mistake in the description. Inductiveload credits Cherenkov2.svg as the original file.[1]
    Cherenkov Wavefront.svg was created by converting Cherenkov2.svg's text to curves. It was a workaround for Cherenkov2.svg rather than an original file.
  • File:Cherenkov1.svg (Sarang) was created on 13 May 2018. It claims to be generated from the Cherenkov2.svg.
Cherenkov2.svg is poor example of librsvg's inability to do textPath because (1) the path is a straight line and (2) librsvg is capable of rendering text on straight lines. An example that uses a curved path would be a better illustration of the bug. There are plenty of maps with river names painted along the river's path.
We should not be keeping Cherenkov2.svg in a broken state. As User:Thomas Linard said recently, Commons should not be a "museum of old SVG horrors."[2] Pieter Kuiper submitted a perfectly valid SVG 1.1 file to illustrate Cherenkov radiation. We should not usurp his contribution to be a poster child for librsvg's weaknesses.
The only plausible controversial change I did was deleting the references to Cherenekov2.svg and Cherenkov Wavefront.svg on a de.WP page where they were used as an example for fixing a linear textPath. With the fix to Cherenkov2.svg, the illustrative value was lost. The example is dubious; how many linear textPath elements are out there?
Glrx (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx: Replacing is in fact a subpart of moving. And of course, partially the same rules apply as a basic requirement. A Global Replace is a higher intervention as a move.
The original file was never really used as such. This file was the first fixed after 2 weeks after the last version of the original author. So the original file to be the original file is fully irrelevant for usage.
What you have done is fully confusion. You also not mentioned the other file which fixed/used years before your claim of fixing.
@"museum of old SVG horrors." This was a very first illustrated example to omit such bugs, so deleting this long year example with this argument is not suitable, if we do not show another better example. Anyway, the quote is not really in context. "textPath" has many appearances, this is only one.
-- User: Perhelion 12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep What's bad to have different examples of how to draw such a diagram? Now we have versions with sizes from 1 KB to 46 KB, showing many ways of solution. IMHO we should select one file, maybe Cherenkov2, and add the interesting solutions of the other drawings as versions to it; then the other files can be deleted and the remaining file which shows all solution examples offers the possibility to select one of this versions as the best one. But nothing is lost, all interesting examples can be examined, and having only one file avoids irritation. -- sarang♥사랑 04:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I do not understand your comment. You are voting keep, but then you say there should be one file rather than three, so you seem to agree that deletions are in order. The end result of my deletion requests are to choose that one file: Cherenkov2.svg, which was the original. That is consistent with your one-file comment. Yes, there are versions of different sizes, but are any other versions interesting enough to keep? The formerly 46 KB version (Cherenkov Wavefront.svg) had the text converted to a curves. Consequently, it would be marked as deprecated with {{Path text SVG}} and we'd hope somebody would fix it; that's not an interesting version. That's what Perhelion did with Cherenkov Wavefront: he changed the file to use text rather than curves; he got it down to 1kB. Kuiper's original 2kB version used an element that librsvg does not render, but the fix is trivial. Kuiper used groups and indentation, but such coding conventions are not particularly remarkable. It's time to choose that single file to "avoid irritation", and the proper candidate is Cherenkov2.svg, the original. Glrx (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep
  • As long as a file is used on de:Wikipedia:Probleme mit SVGs I think the file should be kept. (In my option ideally this should haven been discussed/done before the deletion request.)
  • If Cherenkov2.svg should not be overwritten (since it is a SVG benchmark-file), this file will be used in articles again, then this request would be invalid.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cherenkov2.svg needs no special status as a "benchmark file"; it is a poor example for a benchmark because it uses a trivial straight line path. More reasonable benchmark files would use the textPath element with a curved path (where the textPath element is actually needed) rather than the trivial straight path. Cherenkov2.svg (with the unnecessary straight-line textPath element replaced with a simple rotation) can and should be used in files today instead of Cherenkov Wavefront.svg. Glrx (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really don't know what to say here. The original author of this illustration made File:Cherenkov2.svg to illustrate a physical phenomenon. Minutes after making the image, he put it in the Sound barrier gallery to advertise it.[3] The next day he marked the file as having librsvg bug.[4] He made the image using valid SVG; for example, the image displayed correctly when he drew it and it displays correctly on Chrome. In 2007, Inductiveload "fixed" the librsvg issue by converting the text to curves and posted the fix to this filename. In 2014, Perhelion removed the text-as-curves by displaying rotated text. Arguably, Perhelion's fix should have been made to the original Cherenkov2.svg file; making the change to Cherenkov2.svg would better preserve the file history; it would fix the original problem rather that fixing the workaround of the problem. That's what I did with my changes: I fixed the original file and made other wiki's reference the original filename rather than the workaround filename (I also added some RDF).
    Since filing this DR, my upload of the fixed Cherenkov2.svg has been reverted (breaking the images on other wikis)[5] and claims have been staked to make the original file an example of librsvg's limitations rather than the physical phenomenon.[6] That has usurped the original uploader's intent. The derivative files should be deleted and original uploader's file (with textPath fixed) should be used. That respects the original uploader's contribution. If an example of librsvg's inability to handle textPath is desired, then it should be forked as something like Cherenkov2-librsvg-limitation.svg (a file whose intent is to show the limitation). This file (Cherenkov Wavefront.svg) should be deleted; it was only intended to fix rendering problems with the original file. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally that had to be cleared before you global replaced this file (but now that horse has already bolted). Normally this is no reason for global replace. There is a small paradox in your reasoning, you give "respects the original uploader". Normally respect is, do not overwrite the original uploader. Normal is uploading a new file as derivative (use this) and keep the original, if the original has important details. -- User: Perhelion 18:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Perhelion: . You are misstating the guideline Commons:Overwriting existing files. It states, " the basic rule is that existing files should not be overwritten with substantially different content, whilst minor improvements should overwrite the previous version". Making a change the produces exactly the result intended without the librsvg glitch is a minor improvement and should overwrite the file. Converting text to curves, although giving the same visual appearance, makes the text unselectable, so it may not be "minor" and may not be an "improvement". Glrx (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that is arguable, for the feature example (librsvg), for the original uploader and for the visual appeareance (makes the file only usable) it was a substantially change, so at this point it is not a minor change. The question is not, is it a bug or not to overwrite, the question is, is there a reason for two files?? And the answer is still yes! That should be enough debate. -- User: Perhelion 19:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      By your logic, you would now prohibit the original uploader from making any changes to his own file because you want to use it for your own purposes. Your position is that Pieter Kuiper, the guy who sourced all of these Cherenkov illustrations, should be prevented from making his file usable for its intended purpose on any Wikipedia. Glrx (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not say that. Are you Pieter Kuiper?? -- User: Perhelion 19:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consequence
    1. File:Cherenkov2.svg should be renamed because it is now used (and again overwritten with file:Cherenkov Wavefront.svg).
    2. As File:Cherenkov2.svg is now the used file, file Cherenkov Wavefront.svg must now be overwritten with a duplicate of the original file Cherenkov2.svg
  • Conclusion
    Bloating file histories, (global article histories and) talk page time completely useless. (oh* forgot) for "respecting" the original uploader.
Then we do that. -- User: Perhelion 20:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JoKalliauer and Sarang: If you agree we don't need 2 versions as bug examples (only file history) then I would withdraw my keept-vote!? -- User: Perhelion 20:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: I just checked phab:T11420 and Librsvg_bugs, and found following bug examples
My favourite Bug-example would be Fort Hall Location Map.svg because it has two possible Workarounds (Text converted to Path, and one with rotate), but a proper workaround as in India southwest summer monsoon onset map en.svg is still missing.
Since we only need one example we could also just use the first one: Major levels of linguistic structure.svg
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated stiked by  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a weird DR. On File:Cherenkov2.svg we see a request to leave the file alone and to only upload new versions as new files. Then we have tons of overwrites of that file and nomination of another file for deletion. This is something very strange. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Regardless of how things need to be renamed, moved, overwritten, etc. there is no consensus whatsoever, nor any valid reason, to delete this file that I can see. Beyond this, if someone wants to fix filenames, uploads, etc. so be it. But that is outside the purview of DR. --Majora (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cherenkov_Wavefront.svg&oldid=327985145"