Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earth Ocean Flag.png

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.

File:Earth Ocean Flag.png

Unused proposed flag; not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 16:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's greatly different from the majority of images in "Category:Flags of Earth". There are many hundreds of "Special and fictional" flags on Commons, and there's been a de facto policy for many years that such flags are not usually deleted just for being special or fictional, but rather only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). As long as this file is clearly labeled as fictional, it's not creating a problem.

By the way, some of your former nominations, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png were rather useless and non-productive, so I hope you're adjusting your modus operandi accordingly... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a mistake has not been corrected yet does not mean it has stopped being a mistake. Keφr (keep talk here) 07:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, were you perhaps speaking about things like these?

—Keφr (keep talk here) 07:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the deletion of phoney Nazi flags -- but unfortunately your overall automated boilerplate mechanical cookie-cutter "one size fits all" approach has problems, and sometimes leads you into blunders, as with your semi-stupid attempt to delete File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your solution? Wait until the media point out another "Bhutanese passport" style hoax? Boilerplate mechanical cookie-cutter "keep" votes cannot be said to do anything good either. Anything in defence of this particular file? Keφr (keep talk here) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's greatly different from the majority of images in "Category:Flags of Earth". There are many hundreds of "Special and fictional" flags on Commons, and there's been a de facto policy for many years that such flags are not usually deleted just for being special or fictional, but rather only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). As long as this file is clearly labeled as fictional, it's not creating a problem. AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone uploaded two photos of a naked five-year-old girl, and one of the images got nominated for deletion, would you argue "keep, this is not any worse than the other file we keep"? w:WP:OTHERCRAP is an "argument to avoid" on Wikipedia for a good reason. I have already nominated and had deleted several made-up flags and logos, not just Nazi ones; some of them are listed above. This alleged "de facto policy" seems not to be very consistently applied, and I am yet to hear any COM:SCOPE-based justification of it. Anything in defence of this particular file? What is it that makes it worth keeping? (And I really do mean irrespective of any other file's status.) Keφr (keep talk here) 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if you want to change long-standing general Wikimedia Commons quasi-policies, then the way to do so is to launch a public discussion to which everyone is invited (as opposed to Antemister's quasi-lame effort located under his user talk page, and only inviting people he knew agreed with him). Going after various individual images is not the way to change general policies. Meanwhile we have a specific template {{Fictitious flag}} to inform people that an image is not a flag with official status or significant real-world usage, but we have no template to mark child porn images to be kept on Commons, so your attempt to invoke the child porn card fails -- just as your earlier attempt to invoke the hoax card failed (real hoax images, such as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abbasid_flag.png can still be perfectly well be deleted, as I already informed you on your user talk page 3 months ago). AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no policy to begin with, cutie-pie. You are making things up, just like those flags. To contrast, COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTHOST are real, codified policies. There is no new policy to enact, it is just existing policies that need to be enforced. Sure, hoaxes will get deleted -- after everyone has had a laugh that nobody spotted them when it was first uploaded, because they were drowned in a swamp of useless images nobody bothered to curate. And the child porn thing was just to demonstrate a logical fallacy of "well, that other thing is just as bad". (I was going to write "a jar of faeces", but then I thought you might actually defend keeping that.) You still have not provided a COM:SCOPE-based reason to keep this file. Keφr (keep talk here) 23:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not an official formal policy, but there's a longstanding de facto practice, and the way to change it is NOT to go after individual images -- and your overall rather inept comparisons and metaphors have not added any particular clarity to this discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it required (and why should it be effective) to conduct a formal bureaucratic process to challenge a practice that came to be without any bureaucratic process at all, and which ignores formally codified policies like COM:NOTHOST and COM:EDUSE to begin with? For an "improper" way to "change a policy", just enforcing current policies seems remarkably fruitful. Where is the explanation of how this particular file is within Commons' scope? Keφr (keep talk here) 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require a formal bureaucratic process -- but an open public discussion based on the current acknowledged situation and whether or not it would be good to change it could cut short much of the quibbling and acrimony connected with individual files... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've also uploaded a similar file and premptively nominated it for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Confederate Nazi Swastika flag.png. Feel free to spread your wisdom there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC) This comment was not well thought-out and is a distraction from the topic, for which I apologize. The similarity is too broad to be applicable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Fictional flags are in scope. Accepted by the majority of users as de facto rule/policy. Many things we do here don't have a written policy. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Earth Ocean Flag.png

Unused fictional flag. Out of COM:SCOPE. Previously kept because in 2015 fictional flags were seen as in scope (apparently), but that's since changed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All indications are that this was a personal proposal which never gained traction. Omphalographer (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 09:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earth Ocean Flag.png

File:Earth Ocean Flag.png

File:Earth Ocean Flag.png

Navigation menu

Search