File:2015 Climate Conference.svg – Closure endorsed. Consensus here is that concerns about the infinite resolution of copyrighted fair-use images in the SVG format would need to be discussed at the project level before being applied as grounds for deletion. – Sandstein 09:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed as "speedy closure". I discussed this file with the administrator, David Levy. Apparently, he refused to undo the closure and reopen the discussion. David also suggested another central discussion. I tried doing so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). SVG files in general have been discussed, but there was no consensus to replace SVG files with less superior formats. The comments there seemed to favor shrinking the size of SVG files, but I'm unsure whether they favored PNG version. Is the speedy closure correct, although the recent central discussion led to implicitly "no consensus"? --George Ho (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors, George Ho continues to lack a basic understanding of the SVG format's fundamental nature and the files' use in MediaWiki (hence his above mention of "shrinking the size of SVG files"). He undoubtedly is acting in good faith, but his persistence has not been helpful. —David Levy10:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the FFD discussion is full of errors and misunderstandings:
WP:NFCC#3b states that a non-free file shouldn't be larger than necessary. When it comes to bitmap images, it is often useful to look at the pixel count, as reducing the number of pixels typically makes the file smaller. Vector images are constructed in a completely different way and are not based on pixels but on vectors. When a vector image is displayed on a computer screen, the vector image needs to be converted into a bitmap image as computer screens only can display bitmap images, but the pixel count is an arbitrary number which can be changed into any other arbitrary number without actually changing the size of the vector image. In the FFD discussion and related discussions on the closing admin's talk page and at WP:VPP, some users, including User:George Ho, seemed to think that the pixel count has something to do with the size of the vector image. In his closure, User:David Levy correctly rejected the idea that the pixel count has something to do with the size of the image. Therefore, I think that we should endorse his closure with respect to this aspect.
The discussion also circles around the reduction of detail in the vector elements, but the closure doesn't mention this issue at all. I considered listing the file for deletion review for this reason, but I found out that the closing admin reduced the detail in the vector elements after users had questioned the FFD closure on the admin's talk page and therefore considered the issue to be moot. The question is then whether the file was sufficiently reduced or if it was reduced too much. It is currently not clearly established how big a non-free vector file may be. There was a similar discussion about a different file at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#Regarding this. and at the file's talk page (File talk:Green Party logo.svg) where the outcome was inconclusive. In the end, the {{non-free reduce}} tag was removed by Cedric tsan cantonais (talk·contribs) in what looks like a violation of WP:INVOLVED, considering that the removing user participated in the discussions about the tag. It may be a good idea to list a couple of SVG files of different size at WP:FFD or somewhere else for the purpose of creating a method for determining when an SVG file becomes too big for WP:NFCC#3b.
The discussion was speedily closed, but this doesn't seem an appropriate situation for speedy closure as we are still having discussions about the file. I don't know if relising the file would lead to something useful, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #2, I didn't intend to imply that the concern regarding the SVG's level of detail was invalid. It simply wasn't directly related to the nomination, which was based on the premise that the SVG should be deleted and replaced with a PNG (with a rationale that would apply to every non-free SVG at Wikipedia, for reasons that George Ho seems unable to understand). No discussion is needed before performing a detail reduction and tagging the file to request the previous revision's deletion.
Regarding #3, I explicitly indicated that further discussion was welcome and recommended that it occur at the village pump. As reflected in your comments, the issue extends far beyond a single image in particular or even a small number of images, so an arbitrary file's FfD listing isn't an appropriate venue. The closure's purpose was not to stifle discussion, but to invite greater and more constructive participation by shifting it to a suitable forum. —David Levy20:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #2, you have to consider all concerns in the discussion, not only the nominator's concerns. In some cases, the nominator may give one reason for deletion or modification of a page, whereas other users may have other concerns or interpretations of policy. This was the case here. Also, adding {{non-free reduce}} to a file is only useful if it is obvious to both the tagging user and reducing users how to determine whether a file is sufficiently reduced or not. As this is not currently clear with respect to SVG files, discussion is needed somewhere, although it is unclear where the discussion should take place. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to {{orphaned non-free revisions}}, with which a file can be tagged after the reduction is performed (and which requires confirmation only that the modification is reasonable, not that no further reduction is called for). As I noted in a reply to you at the village pump, I didn't dismiss your concern, which is quite valid. Discussion regarding how to properly apply the non-free content criteria to SVG files is needed, but an arbitrary image's FfD listing wasn't the right forum. —David Levy21:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - There is a discussion to be had about interpretation of the "low resolution" requirement for fair use in the context of vector graphics, but it's too big for a single file's FFD. This was a reasonable close on procedural grounds. And if there was no consensus at the more general discussion? So be it. Sometimes "no consensus" is the consensus. Until there is a consensus there is very little point in nominating individual SVG files for deletion on that basis. Thparkth (talk)20:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear that WP:NFCC#3b requires files to be as small as possible and that WP:NFCCE requires us to delete files which are not compliant with the non-free content criteria. The fact that it is not fully clear how to determine if an SVG file satisfies WP:NFCC#3b or not is secondary. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that it is not fully clear how to determine if an SVG file satisfies WP::NFCC#3b or not" is not secondary, it is entirely the point. Thparkth (talk)21:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this logo should be stored in .png format because:-
1) It seems very clear to me that WP:NFCC#3b is about storing low-resolution versions of images to mitigate potential damage to the copyright holder, but a .svg file enables the end-user to produce arbitrarily high-resolution images;
2) There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia end-user in producing high-resolution images of a copyrighted logo, so there is no encyclopaedic purpose to using .svg in this case;
3) A .png would be a considerably smaller file size, with the consequent resource-saving for the end-user; and
4) Respect for copyright enjoins us to take a conservative and parsimonious view of copyrighted images.
With all due respect for all the ingenious arguments to the contrary, the idea that we should use a .svg file in this case appears to me to be completely untenable.—S MarshallT/C22:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I reduced the level of detail, resulting in significant degradation at higher resolutions. (As discussed above, whether the modification is sufficient is debatable.) I think that there are good arguments against Wikipedia's use of non-free SVGs (though I don't understand #3), but they've been argued on multiple occasions without leading to consensus (yet). Perhaps we'd be better off requesting advice from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department. —David Levy23:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you agree there are good arguments against the use of non-free .svgs, I'm struggling to understand how a speedy close of the FfD could be appropriate. But in view of your response and Jo-Jo Eumerus' response below, I'm starting to think the correct response here may actually be list at RfC.—S MarshallT/C11:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you agree there are good arguments against the use of non-free .svgs, I'm struggling to understand how a speedy close of the FfD could be appropriate. No rationale applies to this file in particular, which was nominated for deletion because of a misunderstanding. As I've noted, the aforementioned arguments should be presented to the Wikipedia community in an effort to solicit constructive feedback and establish consensus on the matter. An arbitrary file's FfD listing is not a suitable forum. But in view of your response and Jo-Jo Eumerus' response below, I'm starting to think the correct response here may actually be list at RfC. I closed the listing "without prejudice" and with an explicit recommendation that the underlying concerns be discussed elsewhere, so no such DR determination is needed (because there's nothing to overturn). George Ho initiated an RfC (which makes this DR more difficult to understand), but please feel free to conduct another (hopefully with a clearer focus than George's, as you've outlined below). My closure wasn't intended to discourage such an approach, let alone proscribe it. —David Levy21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It also seems to me that the decision about when to use .svg and when to use .png is highly fact-specific. The views I've expressed above would apply to corporate logos which are non-free content, but not necessarily to (for example) line art or map files. I would think the wording of the RfC, if that is the outcome, should be quite focused on the facts of this decision and not a general discussion of the relative merits of .svg and .png files ---- there are plenty of good reasons to prefer .svg in many cases.—S MarshallT/C11:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see reasonable arguments regarding the usefulness (or lack of such) of resolution as a gauge for NFCC compatibility and whether the current text of NFCC#3 can properly handle vector files. The point of view that PNG is more suitable than SVG laid out by S Marshall here is fair, but something that needs to be applied far more widely than just one FFD - and thus needs to be handled by a Village Pump discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Endorse the idea that we must have a broader consensus before taking any action on a specific issue in a discussion (or indeed letting that discussion proceed) seems nonsense to me. Broader consensuses are often formed over a period of time based on a number of different discussions which examine a number of similar (but ultimately different) situations. Per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CREEP, we are not trying to boil wikipedia down to a rigid set of rules "voted" on at RFC to enable every decision to be made by some robotic actions. Realistically the lower detail SVG could have been updated and formed part of the discussion, the administrative action here seems to have preempted that. That said unless someone perceives the current images a a problem relative to the criteria there seems little point in relisting at this stage. --86.30.174.23 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly investing time and effort to apply unestablished principles to individual files (selected arbitrarily by editors who happened to encounter them) and reaching inconsistent outcomes purely by chance is a perfect example of bureaucracy. No one advocates that we take a "robotic", one-size-fits-all approach, but the opposite – addressing concerns in a manner exceeding any distinctions that exist or are even believed to exist – is every bit as impractical. —David Levy21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you have a slippery slope argument, that this one is going to open the flood gates and lead to all sorts of problems. What garbage. Given that it seems that there is little appetite elsewhere for such an RFC what do you now propose? We ignore the issue? since getting a reasonable RFC going seems unlikely and David Levy (in a capacity I can't see a policy or otherwise basis for) has decreed individual discussions to be a problem? --86.30.174.23 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you have a slippery slope argument, that this one is going to open the flood gates and lead to all sorts of problems. No. I don't believe that such listings are likely to become common. I mean that they simply accomplish nothing constructive. Unless and until a set of basic criteria is established, attempts to apply such standards (to images singled out arbitrarily, no less) have no basis in consensus. In fact, multiple discussions have demonstrated the absence of widespread agreement that we should disallow the use of non-free SVGs. The nominator, having participated in at least one such discussion, was aware of this. (Nonetheless, I don't mean to suggest that we should abandon the effort.) Given that it seems that there is little appetite elsewhere for such an RFC what do you now propose? As noted above, George's wording addressed an excessively narrow aspect of the issue (and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding thereof), thereby failing to focus on the big picture. I believe that an appropriately structured RfC could be far more successful. We ignore the issue? That's highly inconsistent with what I've said from the beginning. since getting a reasonable RFC going seems unlikely See above. and David Levy (in a capacity I can't see a policy or otherwise basis for) has decreed individual discussions to be a problem? That's an oversimplification, but the policy relevant to my closure is WP:IAR. This DR will determine whether my application was advisable. If the community feels that it wasn't, so be it; my intent is not (and has never been) to circumvent consensus. —David Levy05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - If there is no general guidelines on using a PNG image version vs. SVG image version, and it is an issue in a particular case, then it should be discussed. FfD would have been an OK place to discuss the particular case in my view. However, FfD technically was not an appropriate forum for an article talk page discussion, so the speedy close at FfD technically is correct. Also, the SVG image version does not have to be deleted to use the PNG image version. I do not endorse the portion of the close requiring that a proposal to replace fair-use SVGs with non-scalable images be made first since the broader issue of using a PNG image version vs. SVG image version does not have to be resolved in order to come to a consensus on this particular issue. In sum, Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference talk page discussion with an eventual Request for closure should be enough to resolve the matter for use of an image version in the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference article. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you have misread the discussion. The only one who proposed replacing the SVG file with a PNG file was the original nominator. Other editors discussed reducing the file, which does not necessarily involve changing the file format. The closing admin needs to consider all arguments in the discussion, not only those presented by the original nominator. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed previously, I didn't disregard the reduction suggestion (which I probably should have addressed in my closing statement). That solution simply doesn't require an FfD nomination; any user in good standing is welcome to implement it at any time, after which previous image revisions will undergo speedy deletion as a matter of course (provided that the change was reasonable). Disagreement regarding the extent of reduction necessary is possible, but no such dispute had arisen. (A closure "without prejudice" in no way precludes or discourages raising an issue again, if needed.) —David Levy01:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An FfD nomination is needed if it is necessary to discuss how much a file needs to be reduced. Since it has not been entirely established how much an SVG file needs to be reduced, or how to determine if an SVG file is small enough, it is necessary to have a few FfD discussions about SVG files and WP:NFCC#3b in order to determine this. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An FfD nomination is not needed for such a discussion to occur, just as an AfD nomination isn't needed to discuss editing an article to address a copyright-related concern (e.g., prose too similar to that of a source). The XfD processes arose out of a need to centralize discussions involving potential deletions, which non-administrators cannot carry out. Their scope has expanded (rightly so), reflecting the fact that other possible solutions can (and often should) be discussed simultaneously. So while image reduction can be discussed at FfD (and article edits can be discussed at AfD), no external process is required (particularly as a first-line measure) when non-speedy deletion isn't proposed. Images have talk pages for a reason, and the talk page of an article containing an image is another possible venue (and otherwise should receive a pointer to the discussion). And even if the matter of "how much a file needs to be reduced" should be addressed at FfD, the listing in question contained no such discussion, so that scenario is irrelevant to the closure. —David Levy23:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The FFD discussion did contain such discussion, but the closing admin paid no attention to that discussion and only considered the statements by the original nominator. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The FFD discussion did contain such discussion,
As I've acknowledged and addressed repeatedly, the FfD listing contained statements that the image required reduction (which, as noted above, any user in good standing can perform at any time). Please direct my attention to the discussion of how much reduction was needed. but the closing admin paid no attention to that discussion and only considered the statements by the original nominator. Are you paying attention to my replies? If so, am I correct in understanding that you're accusing me of lying? —David Levy22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This has been discussed many times before in the generic situation, and a specific file discussion would not have had any useful additional outcome. Logos are also a special case for non-free, but these characteristics were not introduced in the discussion. Additional permissions for use would be available for logos, and it is important not to tarnish the original appearance. So deliberate degrading of logos is exactly what the copyright holders do not want. I also feel that George Ho should avoid the issue of non free svg files. This will help make his Wiki work more enjoyable as there will be less opposition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
