File talk:WWFlagsBarnstar.jpg

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

Seems to slight Japan... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive image

[edit]
Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.jpg

@Montanabw, Mattbuck, Alsee, and Bjh21: Okay, if this is not the place to discuss the deletion of this distorted and offensive image, where is the correct place? The image should instead include all the flags of the counties involved in an equally visible fashion. There is no German or Russian national flags in this image, btw. It's not so much that a swasticka is used, and should be banned everywhere, it's that at first glance this so called "barnstar" looks like an American flag with a swasticka at the very center, and on top of all the other flags. It comes off like like graffiti over a flag. It makes little difference if this image is used on "11,000 pages". The British flag is barely recognizable btw. Again, where does one go to resolve this issue if not here? Is the only issue for Commons the copyright status? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: The reason why this file is kept on Commons is that it's used by other sites, and one of Commons' purposes is to serve those other sites. So if you want the file deleted from Commons, you need to first cause those sites to stop using the file. If you visit Special:GlobalUsage/WWFlagsBarnstar.jpg, you'll find a list of pages across Wikimedia sites where the file is used. The vast majority of those uses are on Portuguese Wikipedia, where the template pt:Predefinição:Portal3/Portais refers to it. I'd suggest that changing that template should be your first target. You'd need to find a suitable replacement picture to represent the Second World War, and then since the template is protected request the edit on pt:Predefinição Discussão:Portal3/Portais. If you don't speak Portuguese, you might find pt:Wikipédia:Embaixada to be useful.
Regarding your general question, Commons will delete files for non-copyright reasons, but in matters of taste like this we're very cautious about treading on other projects' toes. As long as other projects think it's acceptable to use this picture on their pages, we're likely to keep hosting it for them. --bjh21 (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck my suggestion above that pt:Wikipédia:Embaixada might be useful because it turns out that that page is no longer used. --bjh21 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the logic of “keep because it’s in use” is rather ridiculous. It’s an image that was created on wiki, so it is of no historic or cultural value that might otherwise justify keeping an image that is otherwise offensive. If Portuguese wiki wants to use it, they can upload it locally and argue about it in-house. I think that a clear line can be drawn between images of historic relevance versus user-created “awards.” This one is particularly egregious because of the way in which the swastika is interposed over imagery of the Allied nations. Even a non-censored venue like Commons has a few hard lines. We would not hesitate to remove something like, for example, a “kiddie porn” award. This image contains imagery that is affiliated with grotesque racism and genocide. As such, it is not appropriate to be an “award”. Montanabw (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw: However ridiculous it may be, COM:INUSE is Commons policy. It's a bit flexible in practice: I've seen the occasional file deleted when all its uses were vandalistic. In this case, though, the file is clearly in good-faith use across multiple projects and (as seen above) a Commons admin has already declined to delete it. Your proposal of uploading the file locally might work on some projects, but it won't work on Mirandese Wikipedia, where local uploads by non-admins are forbidden. --bjh21 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I would recommend that someone create a new WW II barnstar/template, and that any editor who has this award be notified of this discussion and offered the new barnstar. This way, this offensive image can be phased out on a volunteer basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Additional:] — @Montanabw, Mattbuck, Alsee, and Bjh21: Does anyone know of someone who is adept at making template generated barnstars who would be inclined to take on this task? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwillhickers Sorry for the slow response. Given that the file is in pretty massive use spanning several wikis, it would be a staggeringly large task attempting to get it phased out for non-use deletion. I'd personally say the image is in poor taste, but we're not the poor-taste police. Even setting aside the Nazi angle, there's a reasonable case that it's a poor design. But again, we're not the poor-design police. I have seen no evidence from anyone that it is being used for improper purposes. I'd suggest just moving on to other work. We never can catch up on all the stuff needing to be done. Alsee (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems contradicting to the other polices I've mentioned. Their wording makes it clear what to do with non-educational files. Jerm (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the policies are contradictory. Commons:Deletion policy says that a file that is not realistically useful for an educational purpose may be deleted. The phrase "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is a link to Commons:Project scope, which says that A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. So when the deletion policy says "realistically useful for an educational purpose", that phrase includes files that are in good-faith use on other projects, whether for educational or operational purposes. It's a slightly messy construction, but it's consistent. --bjh21 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This leads back to my first comment. Realistically, barnstars are not for realistic use as they are not applied on articles nor on useful navigational templates via not "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" per COM:NOTUSED: * "A File not legitimately in use is a media file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above (COM:INUSE)". Jerm (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nor legitimately in use as discussed above is the critical part here. This file is "legitimately in use as discussed above" because it is "in use for some operational reason such as within a template". Or as you put it, the file is "applied ... on useful navigational templates". In this case, the template is pt:Predefinição:Portal3/Portais. --bjh21 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar templates are not navigational though. They're just templates to hold the barnstar, not for redirecting to useful pages. Jerm (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but pt:Predefinição:Portal3/Portais is not a barnstar template. It's a navigational template that (among many other things) provides a link to pt:Portal:Segunda Guerra Mundial on over 5000 articles of the Portuguese Wikipedia. --bjh21 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding barnstars to a navigational template still does not give them any educational benefit though. They are still barnstars and are used for the same purpose as is on any language-Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've run out of ways to explain COM:INUSE. Sorry. --bjh21 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
K, thnx for responding to my comment though. Jerm (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:WWFlagsBarnstar.jpg&oldid=571304595"