| Successfully addressed suggestions from Bluerasberry
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Oppose I need more information that this flag has recognition as the "Free Speech Flag", and that is is not a minor work of art with no recognition. Reliable sources are not provided on the file page, the AACS encryption key controversy article, or the Commons "valued image" discussion. I am ready to change my vote when reliable sources confirm the significance of this image. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you, Bluerasberry, that is a very good point you made. I've added a secondary source to the article, thanks to your helpful suggestion, DIFF. I hope you will reconsider, — ::Cirt (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Cirt I do not oppose strongly but I still am not ready to support. The source provided is a passing mention, and I do not believe that the journalist looked deeply into this issue. At the time of the protests a lot of art was created, and I am not sure that Wikipedia should present this piece as more significant than any other art. The source you provide (I read the article) is not compelling to me.
- In a related case - there is a flag at File:Transgender Pride flag.svg. Because Wikipedia presents this flag as "the flag" of the transgender community, the artist who created it has benefited and a lot of well-meaning organizations have adopted the flag. It is difficult to track the reality, but at least some people say that the flag was popularized mostly by Wikipedia. I proposed to delete it in 2011. Some people say that symbolic value of this flag is based on Wikipedia presenting it as the definitive symbol when in fact, both the flag and the artist who created it have controversial places in the activist community. Wikipedia should not be a place to publish original content, and I have heard it said that flag mostly came from Wikipedia.
- It would be easier for me to support this image if it were labeled and named in a way that does not present it as the symbol of a social movement. It could be called "sample 09-f9 protest art, Free Speech Flag by John Marcotte" to indicate that it a work called "Free Speech Flag", and not the definitive "Free Speech Flag". Or it might be the definitive free speech flag - but if that is so, I would like to see more sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, Bluerasberry, that's a good idea to move the title to be more precise to the name and intention of the artist. How should we go about doing that? — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
|
- Change to Support if file is labeled as "Sample 09-f9 protest art, Free Speech Flag by John Marcotte" and in the caption and file description, it has a description like that. The point is to call it artwork with the title Free Speech Flag. It is a fair example of the artwork produced at the time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Done. I've changed the file and caption to Sample 09-F9 protest art, Free Speech Flag by John Marcotte, as suggested by Bluerasberry, above. Thank you for the suggestion, it is indeed more accurate and descriptive. — Cirt (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. I am happy to support now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks very much!!! — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please, let's not put thumbnails of other images in this FPC discussion -- it can be confusing to respondents.
The only time it's appropriate to have thumbnails of a second image in an FPC discussion -- is when it's an "ALT" image that's been modified from the original that is now also under discussion for Featured quality.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
