They write at their main page that "every flag is recreated in great detail according to official data and color specifications (where available)", and since they claim the 1:2 proportion to be official, I assume they must have received it from some official source. Maybe someone is able to find information about the flag at some official site. –Vzb8315:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ten versions in one day - edit war? protect?[edit]
Up to this hour, there have been ten versions of this simple green flag. It is a widely used image. Would not it be better to play somewhere else? With less risk of damage? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"protect?"
Please no. If the file becomes "protected", he will still screw up the file, only no one will be able to do anything about it, as you should already realize...
Resio -- the only real difference between your version of "05:14, 6 April 2010" and Zscout370's last version of "05:05, 6 April 2010" is that your file contains some XML "syntactic sugar" which may be helpful in processing the file with general-purpose XML tools, but has very little relevance to how the file is used or viewed on Wikimedia Commons, in Inkscape, with Firefox, etc., so I'm not sure what's worth having an edit war over... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first issue I had with him over code; the US flag image is another one (along with Vietnam, Bahrain to a degree). However, what me and X were doing was not an edit war, but more like a (who can get the smallest code). I did notice with the last few edits that the color was slightly changed, so I could see a reason why for the reverts. User:Zscout370(Return fire)23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to description needed due to 2011 conflict (NPOV)[edit]
{{Edit protected}}
The description of the flag (in various languages) should be updated to something along the lines of "Flag of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "Flag of Libya under Gaddafi", "Flag of Libya according to Gaddafi", or "Flag of Libya (Loyalist)". Libya ≠ Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, just as Libya ≠ Libyan Republic. --NetRolller 3D (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NetRolller 3D -- There's no real need for Wikimedia Commons to predict the future or get ahead of events. When events settle out and one side has triumphed, then this file will be updated, if necessary. Until that time, you can use File:Both flags of Libya 2011.gif or similar... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Commons is predicting the future by expecting Gaddafi to win. As of now, calling either flag the "flag of Libya" is either taking sides, or predicting the future. --NetRolller 3D (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't take sides; this was the flag of Libya before the conflicts this year and keeping it as such until we know for sure for wins. We have the Bengazhi flag on here; we focus on files and not what their description or use are. User:Zscout370(Return fire)20:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Netroller -- In cases such as this, we usually wait until the dust has settled and the situation has become clearer before making changes (if they become necessary at that time). This policy may be stodgy and conservative, but it helps minimize abrupt changes of images used on a large number of Wikipedia pages, and unnecessary nationalist political disputes here on Commons. So in fact we're NOT predicting the future at all -- instead we're governed by sluggish inertia ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be long now; probably there will be news that Qadhafi has either been arrested or killed or left the country, followed closely by news of the formation of a new government which is dropping the "transitional" from its name, and that would be the moment to change the image... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only when the rebel government officially takes power the status should be definitely changed and in the meantime the new government should be labelled as de facto or transitional. Media speculation shouldn't be a reliable source. We are not media slaves, we have our own responsibility. SpeakFree(talk)18:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should not replace this flag, even after Gaddafi is gone for good.
The reason is "backward compatibility". This image is used in many, many articles in icon form. Many articles about historical events during the 1969-2011 period.
So if you just replace it with the current flag, all these articles will be broken. For example, the flag appears in en:Sudan People's Armed Forces, where "Libya" is listed as a supplier. You do not want the new (2011) flag suddenly appearing in articles such as this one, do you.
What you need to do is make sure that no articles use this image, using bots to replace all instances of this image in articles with the identical File:Flag of the Libyan Jamahiriya 1977.svg. Only after you have done this can you use this file name for the new flag.
What usually happens is we do replace this image with the current flag, but make sure all pages that are specific with the Jamahiriya are changed first so such damage is small. User:Zscout370(Return fire)17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann -- Your approach would have advantages and disadvantages, but it's contrary to past precedent, according to which the simply-named "File:Flag_of_X.svg" image shows the current flag -- see File:Flag_of_Myanmar.svg, File:Flag_of_Malawi.svg etc. A lot of the work is actually done in editing master template definitions on each wikipedia (sub-templates to en:Template:Flag etc.) rather than individual articles... AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, I think you misunderstand. Let me try again. The approach must be:
step one, use bots to make sure that no article uses "Flag of Libya.svg". In all articles that currently use this image, it must be replaced by File:Flag of the Libyan Jamahiriya 1977.svg. This concerns thousands of Wikipedia articles.
step two, discourage use of this filename (perhaps even upload an image saying "do not use" as a temporary solution), and wait for Libya to get a constitution.
step three (to be taken ca. 2013), upload the new, constitutionally defined flag of Libya under this title. At this point, and only then, can all the templates be changed to point to this image.
I know that the simply-named "File:Flag_of_X.svg" image shows the current flag . The problem is not in this convention, but in reality being less simple than the convention, inasmuch as there is no unambigous current flag at this point. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but while we're not going to be in any rush to change the flag before the dust fully settles (see "sluggish inertia" comment above), if Qadhafi is definitively gone long before 2013, then the flag will be changed long before 2013. There will be a little bit of confusion at the switchover (see my upload on Flag of Malawi, which was caused by a momentary inconsistency between different image files), and some articles will display the wrong flag for a brief time (and it's possible that a few relatively obscure articles will display the wrong flag for a longer time) -- but that was never found to be a good reason to delay the flag image switchover for two years before, and I doubt that many will agree with you about establishing a new policy to that effect right now... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am using AWB right now to sort out the articles, so a lot of the articles using this current image will not have a lot of problems using the incorrect flag. However, it is hard for us to know what each wiki will do. User:Zscout370(Return fire)12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I am not suggesting a new policy. All I am saying is that before you change this image you need to make sure it is not in use anywhere or you will break articles. And by "anywhere" I mean all wikis. This affects thousands of pages. That's really all. Thank you. --Dbachmann (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed approach might have some advantages (along with some disadvantages), but it's not the way things were done in similar cases in the past, and it doesn't really seem that those who are going to do most of the work at the switchover have expressed much interest in the idea. In any case, there are instances when uses of the current green image should be continued as uses of the red-black-green... AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to this as such, but I was hoping for a slightly more decisive turning point, such as the taking of Qaddafi and the declaration of a non-transitional government. However, if it turns out that probably neither of those is imminently about to happen then we could do the switchover.. AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to an article on the BBC website yesterday, the NTC is planing on forming a new government within ten days. I propose that if nothing dramatic or decisive happens before then, that we take that as the signal to switch the flag image over... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object if someone did so, but it seemed like we were drifting along waiting for some event, and so I'm proposing that should be the event... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still in the process of fixing the smaller wikis when it comes to the image changeover, but I want to figure out what event should be. The UN? Government formation? Gaddafi given a dirt nap? User:Zscout370(Return fire)21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
