Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copyright-problem.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Invalid protected SVG, suggested fix rejected. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, this image is used – literally – thousands of times on pretty much every project which would make deletion a very disruptive act. Secondly, whatever SVG errors it may contain (what is the error, incidentally? It renders fine on every platform I can try) could be fixed without replacing it with the rejected Opti* images. Finally, honestly, "My proposed edit was refused, let's delete the image" sounds more like spite than maintenance. Coren (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dupe of an existing valid SVG. Actually a case for a simple fix (but that was rejected), or for a speedy deletion followed by a rename for the dupe. Whatever the solution is, it requires admin rights.
Rillke's quote: I see no benefit at all in scrubbing. It neither does it make the SVG easier readable (by humans) nor do we need to reduce size or similar since our SVG renderer converts them to a PNG thumb and caches the PNG. I'd say: "Never change a running system", especially if it isn't required. Making invalid SVG valid or removing references to raster images that don't exist is ok but this isn't the case here.

A detailed essay can be found at User:JoKalliauer/Optimization, which explains

  1. when files can be overwritten
  2. which elements/attributes (even if they are invalid) should be kept and why
  3. how to optimize/repair files
Be..anyone (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Making invalid SVG valid or removing references to raster images that don't exist is ok is what I said. Why not just removing the <foreignObject>? -- Rillke(q?) 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any solution resulting in a valid SVG is fine, protecting invalid SVGs or rejecting suggested valid fixes is not okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use. Improve if needed. Yann (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]