Commons:Deletion requests/File:Area codes ct.png
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This is one of a few hundered NANP area code maps by Rfc1394 (talk · contribs). The cartography is horrible, the iconography sucks, there is almost no additional data, most maps got unsynched (or rather only a few got updated), the SVG redraws are almost as bad as the original PNGs (some are even worse), many (most?) filepages are missing {{information}}, and whichever source and copyright information is scattered thinly and needs to chased down. (F.w.i.w., File:Area_codes_ny.png is the image this one was modified from.)
- This DR is haphazard and deleting this one image will solve nothing, rather only crippling what is a complete set one which needs to be treated as a whole: No only concerning categorization (which I am currently doing) but also permission/copyright.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- This DR is not haphazard, it's caused by this edit, in which an information template was added without filling it in, so that the file entered the Images without source problem category. Making up that this would be own work by the uploader, which is obviously false, only makes things worse. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Guy, don’t give me that righteous rap — I’ve been around long enough to know this tune and how it goes. This is about some 400 images that have been here for more than 5 years, transfered from en.wp, of all places. You and your crowd never took interest in then, again for well known reasons. Now, my improvement edit (added {{information}}) triggered your action, like a human bot maximizing cheap admin action count, and bam! — a DR. My subsequent edit (learn how to link diffs locally already?) merely copied the authorship and source indicated in other images of this series — it was not «worse».
- Saying it’s worse only shows your bad faith. Don’t get me wrong: I do dispise half of the admins here, you’re right about that; but I dont go around fixing filepages and adding categories to spite you; on the contrary, I do it because I think it’s important for Free Knowledge and because it feels fun and relaxing.
- I plan to determine the origin of the cartographic data in this set and correctly tag each filepage with the appropriate authorship, source, and permission data. I plan also to clean up this set of maps, eventually even replace them, and while at it also improve the categorization of NANP area code related media — both the category tree and its population. That has only any sense if there is a big enough number of media files to warrant such categorization (yeah, because deleting temporarily empty categories is another way of maximizing cheap admin action count).
- I will not do that under a Damocles’ sword. So, if your goal is to delete this file, state it right away and I’ll immediately abbandon my work on NANP area codes and will find something else to do.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your so called "improvement edit" was not an improvement. Throwing a file from one maintenance category to another is in fact pointless. Now if you want to save this file, find out where the base map comes from, so that we can see if this base map is free. Regarding your rant about 'cheap admin action count', if I would want that, I would not have been working for two years already on the 'images without source' backlog, which is actually a very time consuming job with hardly admin actions. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: although I am leaning towards keep (the crude map may indicate that it is hand-drawn with a simple graphics editor), this map is somewhat more complex. But the uploader is still active on Commons from time to time. Let's wait for his/her input.
@Rfc1394: Please explain where the map came from. Thanks. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Rfc1394's contemporaneous uploads (e.g., File:DC & Arlington VA.png and File:Woodrow Wilson Bridge Location 450x500.PNG) credit the U.S. Census Tiger Map server (now datamapper.geo.census.gov) which, upon inspection, indeed reasonably seems also to be the source of this image. Given this, and that there is no indication the image appeared elsewhere before upload to Commons and the notions of COM:GOF, Rfc1394's "own work" claim is not significantly in doubt. --Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
