Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Central Java.svg
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.
not a true svg Antemister (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep I would hardly call it useless for not being SVG. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- As a PNG exists, we do not need the same file with an *.svg, as long it is also only a raster image.--Antemister (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I created this file. File formats are not among my areas of expertise. I wanted to display this flag in a userbox using Template:Uir on English Wikipedia. The template looks for a *.svg file by default, but that can be overridden. When I saw the *.png file in the Commons, it had a tag asking to help Wikimedia by uploading a *.svg version. I searched online and found a conversion tool and used it to create this file from a public domain *.png version. I thought I was helping. It would have been much easier to override the file used in my template. Now, it seems my help has only created a controversy. I really have no idea what makes this or anything else a true *.svg file. As the person who created the file and as one truly out of his element with respect to this issue, I think it is best that I not vote to keep or delete. But I do think the decision ought to be based on a few things unknown to me: 1) Is the quality of this file better than the *.png that exists? 2) Would keeping this file cause a true *.svg version to never be uploaded, because it will not be obvious that one is needed? Conversely, can this file be marked as not a true *.svg in a manner similar to the way the *.png I found was marked to let those who really know what they are doing that help is needed in creating a true *.svg? 3) Would it be more constructive for someone who knows what they're doing to just create a true *.svg and replace this apparently flawed one rather than discuss the merits of keeping the one that's there now? Taxman1913 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really a problem or a controversy. SVGs can embed raster images (bitmaps) in the form of very long data:...123456abcdef5555555aaaaaa... lines (data: URL). If that's all what the SVG does, and the bitmap is available here, the SVG is pointless for most purposes (excl. your template trick.) Something in this direction can also happen with a TIFF consisting only of one embedded JPEG, or a PDF consisting only of one embedded image, no text or meta data or anything else with a potential value.
- Quick sanity test, while looking at the SVG in your browser press Ctrl-U (or whatever is needed for "show source".) If you see lots of geeky pseudo-English code it's a "real" SVG. If you see lots of lines in the same length consistsing only of letters and numbers and beginning with data: in the first line it's an embedded raster image. And if you don't know what's going on just upload it anyway, and let others figure out if it's a redundant dupe of a raster image, or maybe a brilliant SVG-illustration based on a raster image. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete The creator should read about Vector graphics and Raster graphics difference and the file should be deleted as the main point of .svg is not in just creating a file but in it's vector content which is here present not. --BaseSat (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 14:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
"This flag is fictitious or proposed...." why not delete it? Allsan44 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. @Allsan44: The file should not be deleted because it's in use all over the place, from ace:Surakarta to zh:印度尼西亚各省人类发展指数列表. As a matter of policy, Commons leaves defers to other projects in matters of inclusion: since those projects are using the file, Commons should keep it. See COM:NPOV for the official statement of this. The previous deletion request for this file was closed Kept for this reason. --bjh21 (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I have suffciently argued for the case in the Wikipedia Talk page of Allen Istalaksana. Austronesier (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Not a valid rationale. The flag is in use, and looks well made. --Auric (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deleting the file in use. --whym (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
