File talk:America Symbol.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello there,

This symbol has been appearing on sites for GOP member elections. At first, I thought it was to show winners of contests but then I noticed it seems to only be applied to GOP members as a way of highlighting them in articles.

I do not see a purpose for a custom-made symbol to be used to highlight one party, while members of the other do not get the same.

This should likely be removed. Any objections? If so, please explicitly state WHY this SHOULD be here, as I am unable to think of a reason and I am being as objective as possible. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official Republican symbol had a copyright problem (or was alleged to have a copyright problem), so this was quickly put together as a copyright-free substitute... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. But that answer is kind of like if someone killed a dog and I said "hey, why did you kill the dog?" and you said "because it is easier to skin that way". It does not answer my ACTUAL question. WHY is this symbol in the article AT ALL? It serves no purpose. It highlights nothing, OTHER than giving ONE political party a logo while NOT doing anything for the other party's winner or nominee? It seems, by your own admission, to be PURELY for partisan sake. In which case, I submit if that is so, we should remove it as partisanship is NOT a valid reason to highlight areas of articles with a special logo in Wikipedia. If anything, I would submit it is the definition of something one is NOT supposed to do on Wikipedia. Do you disagree? Please, outline in very clear language why you believe this incredibly partisan symbol should 1) exist for use, 2) exist for use with no democratic counterpart, and 3) the justification for doing so, remembering that partisanship is NOT a valid justification for doing stuff on Wikipedia/Wikicommons. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- your quarrel is not with this particular symbol, but with the idea that "winning candidate in a primary" should be marked by some kind of symbol. The place to contest whether the winning candidate in a primary should have a symbol by his/her name is somewhere on the politics projects or portals of English Wikipedia, not here. And the current U.S. Democratic Party logo is uncopyrightable under U.S. law, so there's no need to provide any kind of substitute in that case. AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no "quarrel", I am unable to justify the existence of this symbol. If the "winning candidate in a primary" should be marked, where is the mark for the Democratic winners? Why just GOP winners? If the Democratic symbol is available for use, why is it not used?
My "quarrel", if you want to call it that, is that this appears to be PURELY PARTISAN in application and serves not ACTUAL purpose, other then giving unwarranted prestige to GOP primary winners, and election losers as it is NOT limited to primary winners. The symbol is used even when the person loses. It does NOT denote ANYTHING OTHER than a member of the GOP. THAT is the problem. Please, if you have an ACTUAL reason to use this other than that, please state it. Otherwise, I believe this symbol serves no purpose OTHER THAN PARTISANSHIP, and as such, should be promptly deleted. Hearing no valid objection will have me nominated for such. I have yet to hear a valid objection. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your problem is not with the symbol image itself, but with the use of it on Wikipedia. You need to take it up on Wikipedia, in some such place as en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics (not sure that's absolutely the best location to discuss it, but there or somewhere similar...) AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to repeat that first sentence back to yourself. You state that my problem with the completely unofficial, totally made up symbol that you uploaded to Wikipedia and use, for partisan purposes, on Wikipedia is not with the symbol itself but rather the totally inappropriate and clearly partisan way you are using the symbol. Yes, that would be accurate. But given it is a TOTALLY MADE UP, NON OFFICIAL symbol, which serves no purpose OTHER THAN PARTISANSHIP, it's deletion would benefit the commons as a whole, as it would remove a completely made-up, totally unofficial symbol that has been used SOLELY for partisan purposes. I cannot believe I am having this argument. You are not even trying to be serious. Clearly you are an extremely partisan-ed political hack of some nature and you just want your work-around for partisanship to stand. Further discussion with you is fruitless. Request for deletion it is. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's a "made-up symbol" because the official symbol is covered by copyright (or was claimed to be covered by copyright). In categories such as Category:Association football flag icons Wikimedia Commons has many hundreds of "made-up symbols" which were created for exactly the same reason. You really do not have a sufficient understanding of the issues involved to accomplish anything productive here on Commons. If you were inclined to listen to sensible advice, you should go to en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics or similar on Wikipedia, and ask for help with respect to possible problems with winning-candidate-in-a-primary symbols (though if you aggressively lecture people there about things you don't really understand, then you're likely to quickly wear out your welcome there too...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so there is no "official" symbol you can use to highlight the winner in a table, so instead of doing the thing MOST places do, change the colour of the background in the table to denote the winner, you decided it was best to create a completely new symbol, selectively use that symbol in what appears to be a partisan fashion? Why not just change the colour of the table background, as is done with most articles? Why do you need to create an unofficial symbol to denote victor at all? Why it is selectively applied instead of applied congruently across all parties and challengers? These are the natural questions that arose when I saw this symbol being used out of no where. You have not sated this concerns and instead have taken to insults to defend your clearly not required symbol. I am sorry sweetheart, but just because YOU think it is important to do things different and literally just make-up a standard, if it is not applied regularly or in a fair manner, it serves no purpose OTHER than partisanship. Wikipedia does not condone out-right partisanship. I gave you a chance to convince me it should stay. You turned to insults to defend yourself. I am reverting the speedy deletion back as you just continue to use insults to defend yourself instead of addressing the ACTUAL concerns of this unofficial, completely made-up symbol's incongruent use. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Commons:Help desk and/or one of the English Wikipedia politics project/portal discussion pages, where you can learn some relevant facts, because right now you really don't know enough to accomplish anything useful with respect to the Commons file page here. If you make a conscious and deliberate decision NOT to learn any of things that you'd need to know in order to discuss issues connected with this image in a constructive or productive manner, then your situation from a moral and ethical point of view is not too different than if you were a spiteful and malicious vandal... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I never added this symbol image to a single article about Republican primaries on English Wikipedia, so that part of your remarks is as nonsensical as the rest. I also did not initially create this symbol image -- I merely inverted the stars and optimized the SVG code... AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


For evidence as to why this is being removed, I randomly selected four pages to see if the symbol was employed in a congruent and fair manner.
All four ONLY have this standard applied for Republican candidates. As such, it is clearly SOLELY for partisan use and therefore NOT suitable for Wikipedia. I am just sticking to facts. I found this symbol when I noticed the inconsistency. I asked for input, you came back with insults. Either address the concerns that this is PURELY for partisan political identification or respect the request for delete as it is an incongruent method for displaying a standard that already exists. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I DID NOT ADD THE SYMBOL TO ANY OF THOSE PAGES. And yet again, your problem is NOT with the image itself, but with the use of it on Wikipedia, for which you need to go to Wikipedia (NOT HERE!!!!). As I said above, "If you make a conscious and deliberate decision NOT to learn any of things that you'd need to know in order to discuss issues connected with this image in a constructive or productive manner, then your situation from a moral and ethical point of view is not too different than if you were a spiteful and malicious vandal." AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My problem with this completely unofficial, not required symbol is that this completely unofficial and not required symbol is being used SOLELY for partisan reasons, and not with the image itself. It is cute, kind of nice. In fact, why don't you get it as a tattoo? It serve more purpose on skin than it does here on Wikicommons. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:America_Symbol.svg&oldid=349323634"