Commons:Deletion requests/File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png

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.

File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png

Bad quality; non-educational. As noted over years on talk, in notes, and Wiki talk pages, this item (while theoretically useful) contains so many errors as to be a disservice and should not be available for use. (Attempts to improve its low quality have met with reversion from User:Bidgee.) LlywelynII (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, its entire purpose is to compare the borders of the two countries but the borders have been drawn completely haphazardly and arbitrarily. Rome lacks Britain and Bernicia in Egypt but includes numerous client states it should not properly have (Judea, Mauretania, chunks of Asia Minor) and large chunks of Germany and Arabia. China includes far too much of Korea, Hainan, and the Tarim Basin and the rest of its borders have been done essentially at random.

It's not a bad idea but, since attempts to improve it are being blocked, it's better not to leave something so incorrect lying around.LlywelynII (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For comparison, more accurate maps of Rome and China c. AD 1.LlywelynII (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Keep In scope, in use in w:it:Relazioni diplomatiche sino-romane. Tm (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is a bad thing, if we aren't fixing it.LlywelynII (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but Commons policy dictates that you have to remove all uses before you nominate for deletion on an "out of scope" basis. If it's in use, it's ok for Commons purposes. darkweasel94 11:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it change anyone's vote here if I got to the Italian wiki and remove it? It seems like that should have no bearing on the argument and that it would be rude to remove it if people here really think it's hunky dorry. Anyone know enough Italian to explain to them the problems with the map? LlywelynII (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Delete: I said so as early as 2010 that this political map is as useless as blatant POV:

1. The border lines are awfully drawn. Apart from the issues mentioned above, the Tarim basin was never incorporated into Han China's civil administration, but was only a military protectorate. Since 95% of the basin is anyway uninhabited desert, the question remains why huge stretches of this territory should be painted in a colour at all.
2. The second issue is that any date chosen is bound to remain arbitrarily chosen and POV, as the two empires peaked at different points in time. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Speedy keep since this nomination is invalid, as this file is in use and in scope. It's very well known (and it should be for an editor who has been here since 2008) that overwriting a file that changes it greater then what the creator had uploaded and deemed as contested or controversial, it should be discussed on the talk page of the image or upload it (the new version) under a new file name (in this case LlywelynII should upload their version as File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD117.png). The past (not the last day or so) history speaks enough about how contested and controversial it had been in the past but very little discussion has been done, I have no opinion on the matter, just that this file has had enough changes to it in the past and if you don't agree with it upload a new version under a new title (as I stated above). Bidgee (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out to you repeatedly, there is existing discussion on the page regarding the changes and the "controversial" changes had nothing to do with the first part. (Albeit I included too much of Britain for Augustus's reign.)LlywelynII (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Keep This is Commons, not Wikipedia, and a file being "wrong" isn't criteria for deletion. We have plenty of things on Commons that are "wrong". Commons is a repository of free-license content, and not a place to find "right" things. If usage of the image on Wikipedia is becoming problematic, remove the image from the relevant Wikipedia articles. -- 李博杰  —Talk contribs 02:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried to correct the errors first, but was blocked by User:Bidgee. I don't see how saying that you have fictional material qualifies: this purports to be an actual map of the actual world. It is miseducational for that purpose.

Is the solution here really to relabel the map as "fictional"? LlywelynII (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. At risk of suggesting an edit war elsewhere, have you considered uploading your own version of the map, LlywelynII? Based on the linked maps, your version does appear to be more accurate, but we can always just have two versions, a "maximalist" one a la Bidgee on a more conservative map as in your version. SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  I did. Bidgee reverted them. In fact, my map did grant too much of England for AD 1, but I could fix that. Can we all agree that the image (at its current name) should at least be brought into alignment with reality (see the maps linked in my original post). Budgee's repeated desire for me to take it to the talk page is nonsensical: A there is existing conversation there he has still not bothered to read, which supports changing the image; B in general, people don't come by, see, or talk on these talk pages. How long do I let my comments sit there before he accepts that they have a "consensus" for fixing the numerous documented errors? LlywelynII (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  Did you try to upload it under a new filename ? File:RomanAndHanEmpires1CE.png for instance. -- 65.94.78.9 03:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Kept: As long as this is in use, it cannot be dleted for quality or subject matter reasons -- only copyvio. Commons policy is to never make the kind of judgement that Llywelynil wants us to make here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)