Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coptic flag.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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:Coptic flag.svg

[edit]

I think we have a legal issue here, the uploader claims that own work but in the description said (created by Coptics activists), so that mean he is not the owner or the original creator. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not all flags are subject to "PD-ineligible" (acc. COM:TO), this is not a simple geometric shapes or text or even an old design, it's a creative design and contain some insignias and artwork maybe a copyrighted, we have a lack of information about creator or source and we are not sure if that is a flag or part of another design, maybe the designer his rights may have been violated. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 02:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Even if it doesn't have a real purpose there was an RfC like a month ago about fictional flags where it was decided that they are fine to keep. I'm pretty sure this would be covered under that if it's not official. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: what RfC? Extensive discussion on this point recently has proved no such consensus exists. Fictional flags, as in flags from fiction, are perfectly reasonable. Made-up stuff from the internet is quite another. GPinkerton (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: The RfC is here. Which you should know since you were involved in it. From what I could tell you were the main (or only) advocate in the discussion for deleting fictional flags. In the meantime, there wasn't a consensus to delete them just because they are fictional. As one person said "There is no consensus on how this issue should be addressed." Which doesn't mean we default to deleting all flags that aren't "real" (whatever that means) as you seem to think it does. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: That isn't an RfC, which is why I asked. I have never expressed any such opinion. "doesn't mean we default to deleting all flags that aren't "real" (whatever that means) as you seem to think it does" I have never expressed any such opinion, kindly do not represent me that way. "From what I could tell you were the main (or only) advocate in the discussion for deleting fictional flags" is a poor assessment for many reasons. I hope you will agree that your remark above "In the meantime, there wasn't a consensus to delete them just because they are fictional" is not germane to this discussion (since it is not because this flag is fictional that it should be deleted, and until your comment no-one mentioned fiction) and that it in any case contradicts your previous assertion that " it was decided that they are fine to keep" which is wholly wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it wasn't an "official" RfC, but someone asked for comments about fictional flags and people commented. So what's your point? There's zero consensus about to handle fictional flags. I don't really care to argue semantics about if that was a real RfC or not in the meantime. As far as your opinion goes, that's what it seemed like in the discussion based on my reading of it. People are free to read it and interpret your position however they see fit though. But you did say several times that fictional flags are out off scope and the only way to deal with files that out of scope is to delete them. So, I don't see how you can argue that wasn't your position.
Finally, my original message was in response to you saying the flag should be deleted because there's no "indication that this has a real purpose." I assume it would have a "real purpose" if it was a "real" flag. Instead of being (supposedly) made up by an activist. So how is the fact that it's fictional (I.E. made by an activist and not the Egyptian Coptic church itself) not relevant to this when it's literally the reason you gave for why the file should be deleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I see you're reiterating your (now wilful) misinterpretation: "how is the fact that it's fictional (I.E. made by an activist and not the Egyptian Coptic church itself) not relevant to this when it's literally the reason you gave for why the file should be deleted?" Such spurious and demonstrably false accusations are not worth bothering to respond to. Stop the strawman argument. COM:SCOPE demands files have a realistic educational use. This image, as I stated above, has no such use. Trying to shoehorn your own agenda about "fictional" flags into this discussion is inappropriate. Drop it. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: In your vote you said "there's no indication that this has a real purpose." What's an opposite word for real? For me fictional is. I'm not sure how that's a strawman or whatever other defensive crap you said. Let alone how me stating exactly what you said in your vote, but with a different word is "shoehorning my agenda into this." If "fictional" isn't a good word for it, cool. Instead of being uncivil just explain what you meant by "no real purpose." In the meantime, IMO opinion if it doesn't serve a "REAL" purpose it serves one as a fictional flag. But like I said before, that's just my opinion and other people might see it differently. I'm not going to badger people for having differing opinions like your doing to me or anything though. Nor am I going to try to censer opinions that are different then mine by hiding this discussion. I'd appreciate it if you don't either. Also, it served an educational purpose for me, because I didn't know there was Coptic Egyptian Activists before I saw the flag. So your whole "the file serves no educational purpose" thing is nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: For this argument of yours to make sense, all fictional flags would have to have no real purpose, a claim which is clearly absurd. "Real" is not the opposite of "fictional". "Not real" is the usual converse of "real". If this flag had a fictional purpose, then it would be within COM:SCOPE. It's not, because it doesn't. It cannot, as you claim, serve a purpose as fictional flag because this flag is not part of any fiction. I already said that policy requires a realistic educational purpose. Now I have said it again. This hoax really has no such purpose, as I said in my first comment. Your claim that it educated you is clearly a tendentious afterthought, you didn't supply that as a reason to keep in first contribution to the discussion, and is inaccurate anyway. There's nothing in this file (or its description which you have quoted uncritically in your own vote to keep) that is educational because it relates to nothing in the real world, and the image itself is actively disinforming. GPinkerton (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be an absurd claim if this conversation was about all fictional flags, but last I time I checked it isn't. So what's your point? Re: "Not real" is the usual converse of "real" I was thinking in terms of a real character of a book versus a fictional character. No one says Gandalf is a "not real character in the Lord of the Rings series." According to COM:EDUSE a file serves an educational purpose by "providing knowledge; instructional or informative." So how does the reason I gave for how it was educational for me not fit that? In the meantime, I didn't know we were required to list every damn reason something should be kept in our votes or that we couldn't come up with other reasons later. Also, there's zero evidence the image is "actively disinforming." Not that it's on us to delete things we think are disinformation anyway even if it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeatedly using the expression "fictional flag" and repeatedly misrepresenting arguments as relying on the flag being "fictional". If you can see the flaws in these arguments, which only you are making, why are you repeating them? "Not that it's on us to delete things we think are disinformation anyway even if it is." This is where you are wrong. The policy requirement of a "realistic educational purpose" is in direct conflict with this claim of yours. Disinformation and realistic educational use are mutually exclusive. The image itself provides no knowledge, is non-instructional because it claims to be something it isn't, and is not informative for both of these reasons. GPinkerton (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one that brought up the realness of the flag in the first place. I never used the term in my original vote. It's extremely disingenuous of you to do so and then accuse me of miss-representing things when I say it would still serve a purpose even if it's not "real." Educational use has nothing to do with if something serves a "real purpose" or not. No guideline says it does and no one other then you thinks it does. Same goes for your whole "Disinformation and realistic educational use are mutually exclusive" thing. Which is just ass-nine, nonsensical, and more importantly has zero basis for in the guidelines. COM:SCOPE says absolutely nothing about "disinformation." Let alone does it explicitly say that "disinformation" doesn't have informative value. Not that you can even show it's disinformation in the first place. So your the only one miss-representing things here because your on a crusade against "fantasy flags" for some bizarre reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you are misrepresenting the outcome of that discussion to fit your narrative and use this misrepresentation in your crusade as what you perceive as fantasy flags, had you simply looked at Wikipedia (as this flag is "COM:INUSE", not that that has ever stopped you before) then you would find that the activists are called "The Free Copts" so it wasn't initially created by a Commonswiki user, but the fact that you only look at sources and descriptions here and not take the 30 (thirty) seconds to actually investigate a flag at the wiki's they're used puts a new light on a lot of your nominations as Andy Dingley pointed out before. While I agree that this flag is externally sourced this brings the issue of copyright, as the source says "Few days ago, a number of Coptic activists from both Egypt and the Diaspora have adopted the design of a Coptic flag that underlines the Egyptian and Christian identities of the Copts. Yet, before certain people embark on accusing us of causing sectarian tensions, or of being the mouthpieces of Zionism, Imperialism, Crusaders, and all these meaningless accusations, we have decided to make our dear readers aware of the meaning of this flag and of the motive behind it." I don't read or write Arabic or Coptic so I can't verify what is written here, but the blogger claims that this flag design has been adopted by the diaspora as well. While I have a number of Coptic friends and never saw this flag, I would still want to see a source better than Blogger (unless "The Free Copts" are considered to be a large organisation within the Coptic community). Regarding copyright, the question then becomes if this flag looks sufficiently different from the original or not. It still follows the same design so it would be derivative work and depending on the "COM:TOO" of Egypt would have to be deleted / kept based on it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: As usual you're making wild accuastions without being able to substatitae them. I am well aware of the blog post, and you have not addressed the inevitable likelihood, raised in my first comment which has generated this irrelevant and ideological sidetrack, that the creator of image, blog, and upload are all one and the same. GPinkerton (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep So if an editor creates a digital image of a flag as a novel concept, it's deleted as WP:OR (or even more bizarrely as COM:SELFIE).
Now we have a flag where the flag's design does have some prior off-wiki existence, and where the editor here has drawn the digital version from scratch. So there's a call to delete it as a copyvio!
This is nonsense. The deletion rationale is hopelessly confused, and this is not how IP protection works on flags or heraldry. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: COM:SELFIE is policy. You are the first to mention OR, and it is still unclear why you would do so, since your claim "it's deleted as WP:OR" obviously applies to some other website. GPinkerton (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You write on your user page: nothing should be "out of scope" of the project, so any opinion of yours on whether something is out of scope should really be taken with a spadeful of salt. GPinkerton (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: The fact that I disagree with policy does not mean that my opinion is worthless; I expect that most contributors will disagree with policy on at least a few fronts. I am able to separate my opinion of what the project should be and what the project is in deletion discussions, and my votes are based on policy rather than my personal beliefs. When I am basing a deletion request vote off of non-policy concerns, I will say so, as I have done in the past.  Mysterymanblue  01:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted based on the copyright issues only. There is no consensus for automatic deletion of fictional or non-official flags, especially when they are in use. But this flag was created by some people (as stated in description), it is above TOO to be considered simple enough. And redrawing the flag into vector version by the uploader still keeps it as a derivative work that would have required a permission from original author. --rubin16 (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coptic_flag.svg&oldid=1033335745"