Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Flag of the British Isles

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.

User-generated "proposals" for "flags of the British Isles"

[edit]

While there are some nice ideas here, all these images are fantasy flags of the users' own creation. None of them is proposed seriously or used by anyone (else). Hosting them here for ever and ever is out of COM:SCOPE. At least three have inveigled themselves into Wikipedia mainspace as though they existed in real life off-wiki. (I removed three of them from Chinese Wikipedia's article on the British Isles.)(Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host and Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use) The British Isles have plenty enough flags already; adding more invented ones is confusing and out of scope.

GPinkerton (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest of them they do not seem to be used anywhere except on a user page. I think it looks like a little more than af few user page images so I would say  Delete. But it will not free any space and I doubt they will misguide anyone so I do not think they are a big problem. --MGA73 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, three of these were in use on Chinese Wikipedia, whence I have removed them. GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If other wikis use files perhaps you should translate {{Fictitious flag}} to other languages so that users that do not speak English get a clear warning that the file is not an official flag but perhaps an userpage image? --MGA73 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MGA73 The template has already been translated into Chinese, and the template was proudly and conspicuously affixed to the files, as they were hosted locally on Chinese Wikipedia while in use illustrating the article on the British Isles. The template does nothing to stop people using the images. GPinkerton (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep "all these images are fantasy flags of the users' own creation." You know this how? You have studied the subject? Off-wiki too? Because I'm finding it increasingly hard to extend GF against this barrage of deletion requests with the justification "fantasy flags of the users' own creation" when you're repeatedly ignoring flags that have been out forward in serious debates regarding UK devolution or independence, and that are coming from recognised experts in the field or designers such as Charles Ashburner or Peter Saville. [1] [2]
But if you keep nominating more and more, I'm sure that some DRs will stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley There must be some mistake: you mentioned "serious debates" and then linked a Mirror listicle with flags (not any of these ones) pulled from Commons. In any case, all the the flags here are marked as Wikimedians own work ("You know this how?"). If you have any reason (beyond your lack of good faith) to believe otherwise, then that's a problem for another reason. If you have any such evidence or policy-based arguments why any of these files should be kept, I suggest you speak now ... GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with flags pulled from Commons." Evidence? Because I'm finding your stream of pejorative falsehoods increasingly tiresome. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you haven't any. By the way, the the first image in the Mirror listicle you adduced as evidence is clearly culled from File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg, and not one of the other images is anything to do with any of the nominated files here; I don't know what you think you might gain in mentioning anywhere on this page. I sympathize with your feelings of tiresomeness, but I'll ignore your allegations of "pejorative falsehoods" as spurious. GPinkerton (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arms are not the same thing as a flag (and again, I'm sure you know this, but you keep writing every comment as pejorative and misleading clickbait - it makes it increasingly hard to regard you as a GF editor).
I cited the newspaper article as evidence that the UK was under reconsideration for new flag(s), as a topic of discussion amongst the geenral public off-wiki. Your response was that the article consisted of "flags pulled from Commons.", which it does not. Now if one of their flags (created off wiki) used a component from Commons, that's something they're welcome to do (it's one of our functions here) and it certainly doesn't change the fact that they were creating flags, off-wiki, and that they were being published as news of note in a newspaper article.
So just what was your point there? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that your claims are inaccurate, and repeating them makes them no less so. You have provided absolutely no evidence any of the images here nominated exist off-wiki. You have shown a few listicles which you have decided to represent as newspaper articles, and you are claiming that the inclusion of several completely different flags in those webpages is good reason to keep the files nominated for deletion. This reasoning is at best deeply flawed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I agree with keeping File:Flag of the British Isles.PNG for the reason mentioned by MGA73. I see the reasoning of the other arguments but I don't see the real harm done by this image existing. I remember creating this image back in 2006.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete These user fantasies are disruptive and have no realistic educational value (images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted). Being used in error does not suddenly give educational value, it just demonstrates how they are damaging to the mission. User-created fantasies are not "knowledge", COM:NOTHOST applies. If sources can be provided that show the same mock flags are used in national papers, then they are no longer just user fantasies and that evidence should be added to the image page, copyright permitting. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all. I am generally of the opinion that very few things are truly out of scope. We generally allow contributors to upload a small number of personal files for their user pages. It is not our place to question what exactly they might want them there for. Maybe they think these flags look cool. Maybe they hope some entity eventually adopts the flags. Maybe the flags represent their personal or political place in the world. It doesn't matter. The whole point of this collegial courtesy was to allow users to customize their user pages without having their actions scrutinized against the "educational purpose" standard. When we start to nominate harmless files uploaded as part of this "personal allowance" for deletion, we might as well throw out the idea altogether. I do not support doing that.
I also think that arguments that we should remove the flags because they are "delusional" or "fictional" are unfounded. These flags are not any more delusional than the flag of Sealand, the flag of the Republic of Rose Island, or Futurama's flag of earth, all of which are hosted on Commons. They do not harm or mislead, and there is generally a disclaimer on every file page warning that the flag is fictitious or proposed. The project scope does not exclude representations of fantasy, and I do not have faith that enough digging has been done to show that these flags actually are out of scope (through some other criterion).  Mysterymanblue  07:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to say that I don't see the the use of one of these flags in a userbox about people interested in the British Isles is inherently misleading. It is a work of art that creatively merges the elements of two flags into one. I doubt that people are laboring under the belief that the flag is actually official in any way.  Mysterymanblue  07:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decoration for userboxes perhaps, but some of these images were being used in mainspace, and may well be again, so "They do not harm or mislead" is wrong. The potential for misdirection is potentially unlimited. Stuff invented on Commons for Commons is ipso facto not educationally useful (unlike illustrations of things that actually exist, like Futurama), and veers towards its exact opposite. GPinkerton (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has the capacity to be misused. The usual remedy is not deletion. As an (admittedly extreme) example, how many unspeakable acts of hatred do you think Commons' high quality SVG of the flag of Nazi Germany has been used to carry out? Is the solution to delete that file? The answer is no, and it leads us to the conclusion that misuse of an image is not a compelling reason for deletion.  Mysterymanblue  19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mysterymanblue This is a particularly weak argument strawman argument because I have not suggested that misusing an image is grounds for deleting it. Those ground are that it is not possible to use the files nominated here at all, because there would be no reasonable or educational purpose for it. Comparing fake fantasy flags with no function with real images of real symbols that exist off-wiki and demanding we keep the fake flags becuase real flags also exist seem entirely illogical. GPinkerton (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, kindly, assume good faith in others. Perhaps I misconstrued your argument, but you have clearly stated several times here that the flags were being misused on various projects, with either the purpose or effect of bolstering your argument. This is secondary to your primary concern on the potential educational value of these flags. I do not think that misuse should be taken as the sole reason or even as a significant reason for deletion. The analogy to the Nazi flag was not supposed or purported to be completely similar to your argument, it was only supposed to show the flaws in a particular line of reasoning, similar to reductio ad absurdum. I'm sure we could go back and forth on this a dozen more times, but maybe you should consider taking a step back from this discussion and letting others judge the points that have been made for themselves. I think you've already made your position and reasoning very clear, and sometimes the passion of an argument can wear its participants and talking points out. (I say this as someone who has myself been guilty of this.) In any case, I'm glad that the record now shows that we are in agreement: you do not think that the misuse of an image is grounds for deleting it.  Mysterymanblue  03:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the private idea of one user, who has promoted it by including it in a userbox which a set of users have used, probably in ignorance of the fictional nature of the flag. Its presence in Commons is misleading. PamD (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - These user generated fantasy flags are of no value, and are not proposed to be used in real life. Spleodrach (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spleodrach Sometimes files are created to be used in userboxes and I think such files are in scope. Should we delete such files just because someone use them in an article? --MGA73 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is some sort of vanity project, but we are not a web host, and the images are clearly causing confusion, at least on some WP projects. Bastun (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Commons' problem to enforce the accuracy of other projects?
There's a flag that GPinkerton is endeavouring to keep File:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg which is an inaccurate copy of a different flag for a different region. It's INUSE, but in an inaccurate manner. So why should we keep that one, but delete these? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley How is it inaccurate? And why should you be endeavouring to delete such an image if your alleged grounds for deletion could be remedied by simply renaming the file? Your arguments are extremely inconsistent. GPinkerton (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's not well drawn, and because it's inaccurate. You can't fix this by renaming it. Compare the good version and the poor version. But for starters, the flag proportions are wrong (yes, this does matter for flags), the colours are wrong and the cross position is wrong (probably inevitable, given the overall proportions). If we abandon accuracy (like your claim that West Yorkshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire are the same thing) then yes, we might keep it. But why? Especially when we already have an accurate version. Yet on other flags, you're making wild claims that they have to go because they're pure wikimedia inventions, even when they clearly aren't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley Thanks for that explanation I would never have divined that a flag could be "inaccurate" for the reason that "because it's inaccurate". I am much the wiser now ...
Are there any reasons you'd like to keep all of these that are not reliant on hand-waving whataboutism? GPinkerton (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: if they are not official flags or officially proposed flags, what are they? They have no standing and have no use in any encyclopaedia. Nothing, perhaps just to confuse people or cause trouble, or what? Delete asap. Just because some are in use, and that seems to only be in user pages, not in articles, is no good reason to keep them even though generally "in use" means they are in scope. Ww2censor (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are a variety which is why this nomination is so broken. There is no valid way to judge them all as a group.
File:Flag of the British Isles (Proposal 2).svg is widely seen off-wiki and is a typical response to the "There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack" criticism. Banksy used it as the basis of the stab vest he designed for Stormzy's Glastonbury 2019 performance.
Combinations of the Irish Tricolour with the Union Flag were also seen, as proposals for a "British Isles" flag. But since brexit, the Irish unsurprisingly think we've gone crazy and want nothing to do with us, other than maybe having back that Norn Iron we don't seem to want, if we're not using it loike. They're not pixel-identical, but File:Flag of the British Isles (Proposal).png is representative.
Any real decision here should be based on individual judgements, not trying to use this bagful to railroad the COM:AN thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Banksy used it as the basis of the stab vest he designed for Stormzy's Glastonbury 2019 performance." is absolute rubbish and yet again asserted completely without evidence. "Widely seen off-wiki" and yet in all of these discussion nary an external link to all this evidence you're claiming exists. I wonder why ... GPinkerton (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm finding your stream of pejorative falsehoods increasingly tiresome" First you get upset when I suggest your irrelevant allusion to wholly different images representing something wholly different in the Daily Mirror (online) is irrelevant, and now you're making claims that this very image is somehow the genesis of a creative process that led to a black stabvest having a ... black colour. And also having black stripes. And only one saltire. The Stormzy-Banksy vest doesn't have any red on it. It's nothing like the image you linked to. Do you really believe the things you're writing or what? GPinkerton (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite apart from your protestations, it's more than obvious that File:Flag of the British Isles (Proposal 2).svg is not "widely seen off-wiki and is a typical response" as you wrongly claim but rather, as stated in the file description (did you read it?) which is signed: "Concept and original PNG: Julius C". You have been wholly unable to prove that anyone anywhere (off-wiki) has "proposed" any of these flags to represent the British Isles. GPinkerton (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples https://www.theflagshop.co.uk/custom-red-black-union-jack-flag.html and https://www.elizkeith.com/london-taxi-cab-taxicab-tx4-black-union-jack-box-14648-p.asp and https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/go033l/the_black_union_jack_in_this_antiirish_propaganda/ and https://www.tradeindia.com/products/black-union-jack-chesterfield-sofa-in-canvas-c3459617.html --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MGA73 I must have missed where any of those images (packaging on a toy, furniture upholstery ... really?) is proposed to be a "flag of the British Isles". In at least one of them, the "black" is really just a low-quality print job, and in that case the proportion have been bungled in the usual way that was surprisingly common in the past. The flag here proposed for deletion does not share these features. There is still absolutely no evidence of it being "widely seen off-wiki. The sofa is an especially desperate reach - if it's a symbol that really exists off-wiki there would be at least one photograph and at least one sentence of intelligible discussion on it. All I see is ol'timey poster printing, and some union jack packaging. GPinkerton (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm convinced by the arguments made by Andey Dingley and MysteryManBlue particularly. The main complaint seems to be that they were being misused on the Chinese Wikipedia, but that sort of misuse is possible for any file and so is not a valid reason for deletion. Most the rest seems to be attempted justifications for disliking these files presence on Commons, but that's not a valid reason for deletion either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf Please read again; the misuse of the files does not form any part of the complaint, which is wholly that the files have no justifiable purpose and are out of scope because "Commons is not your personal web host". GPinkerton (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Files used on 100 userpage images is not in the category "personal web host". We have allowed userpage boxes and many wikis uses them. Have you checked all of the 100 userpages to see how many personal files each user have? And how many userboxes do you you think we should allow a user to have? --MGA73 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only one the nominated files is in use; I don't see that that has any bearing on the others. GPinkerton (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the arguments on this page, the ones in favour of deletion are significantly weaker and less compelling than those in favour of keeping. If the misuse truly formed no part of the nomination then it would not be mentioned so prominently. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trung Those "proposals" are for something completely different, and not one of them is the same as the images nominated for deletion here - check! They are every one of them different, and were "proposals" for something very different to the out-of-scope disinformative "Flag of the British Isles" concepts that we should delete as having nothing to do with anything. GPinkerton (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Community has no consensus. Today 4 images of the list have been deleted on an earlier date. The 3 remaining ones were only used on user pages on en:WP. I consider these 3 of no educational value and out of scope. Can be undeleted of course if somebody writes an article on these flag proposals and if that article is accepted on the relevant wikipedia. --Ellywa (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_Flag_of_the_British_Isles&oldid=875739112"