Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bigskyflag.png

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

No informational value; flag was designed by uploader and has no real-world recognition or notability. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Flag. Postdlf (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article was correctly deleted from Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that the image should be necessarily deleted from Commons. Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy as such, and traditionally has been rather tolerant of "special or fictional" flags (as long as they weren't uploaded with specifically malicious intent). AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It's possible it could have some value even as something other than as a flag. I can think of what it would be used for, but all sorts of color blocks and things end up in Category:Blue, Category:Colors, Category:Color combinations, and their subcategories. Of course, maybe some of those should be deleted also. --Closeapple (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather perplexed by these comments. This is completely outside the scope of Commons, because it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose." The uploader is the only person who recognizes these three random shades of blue as an alternate flag for Montana, and "learn what a random person thinks the Montana flag should be" doesn't strike me as a realistic educational purpose. Nor does Category:Colors consist of images of random color combinations without meaning or educational value, but rather it categorizes informative images based on their color composition (e.g., Category:Tricolor flags that have established real-world usage).

Incidentally, en:wiki doesn't ban original research in images either, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas," which this does. Postdlf (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm full of questions tonight:

•  Question: Uploader was asserting no free license on English Wikipedia (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Flag) and here until 2011-03-27. It appears from en:threshold of originality on Wikipedia and threshold of originality#United States on Commons that anything as simple as a standard tricolor flag would not be the subject of copyright in the United States. Any reason this flag should not be tagged {{PD-simple}} also?
•  Question: This image actually has 15 different colors for no appreciable reason (low-visibilty artifacts), and I can reproduce this flag (at, for example, 450×300) in 452 bytes with SVG (no copyright claimed by me):

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?><!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg width="450" height="300" version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<rect width="450" height="100" x="0" y="0" style="fill:rgb(55,15,111);"/>
<rect width="450" height="100" x="0" y="100" style="fill:rgb(0,108,181);"/>
<rect width="450" height="100" x="0" y="200" style="fill:rgb(104,191,230);"/>
</svg>

Also, from that SVG, I output a 203 byte PNG. (I can get it down to 98 bytes if I reduce it to the minimum accurate size of 9×6.) It appears there are four possible outcomes of this discussion:

1. The tricolor flag meets the criteria for Commons, and this copy of the file (having artifacts) should stay for some reason.
2. The tricolor flag meets the criteria for Commons, but this copy should be overwritten with a cleaned-up version. (I have a 450×300 one immediately available for upload on request.)
3. The tricolor flag meets the criteria for Commons, but this file is deletable as an inferior copy (because of artifacts) to a non-artifact copy (the above SVG, immediately available for upload on request).
4. The tricolor flag itself fails criteria for Commons and neither the PNG nor the SVG should be here.

Does that sound right? --Closeapple (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your SVG is far from minimal; try this: -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<svg width="775" height="519" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<rect width="775" height="519" fill="#68BFE6"/>
<rect width="775" height="346" fill="#006CB5"/>
<rect width="775" height="173" fill="#370B6F"/></svg>

•  Delete: All the above being said, I'm going to go with what I called #4 above: no evidence this specific set of colors has much hope for an educational purpose in the future, as it was a uploader-invented proposal about an off-wiki topic of which the off-wiki subject (the state of Montana) has not seemed to take notice. It is also not an image for which deletion removes a hard-to-recreate concept if it were needed: it a simple tricolor already documented right here. If it were ever needed, it could be re-uploaded with better quality than the current version anyway, as an SVG instead, and in 251 bytes at that, as demonstrated by AnonMoos above. --Closeapple (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This flag does have REAL WORLD RECOGNITION and there is an official attempt to change the flag of the US State of Montana even thought there is no source...YET! Oh, and i can't convert it to SVG because I don't have any program to do that so I can only save it as a .PNG Wolfdog406 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What "real world recognition" does it have? --Closeapple (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make another file of this flag but re-named it diffrently. Wolfdog406 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (not be me) as duplicate - Jcb (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]