Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

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.

These three maps are all variants of each other in different languages. They would be useful, but unfortunately, they contain a number of errors. Mine Creek is shown in the wrong state (should be Kansas), Pilot Knob is shown well too close to St. Louis, Glorieta Pass (note spelling diff) was actually located slightly to the south of Santa Fe, not north of it, the route of Price's retreat after Westport is wrong (should be west of the Kansas/Missouri line until after Mine Creek), and the relative positions of Camden and Poison Spring are erroneously flipped. These are used in a lot of articles across several wikipedias, but I'm concerned that there are just too many errors here.

Hog Farm (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Deleting these files while they are still in use would set a dangerous precedent. Brianjd (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianjd: - So we should keep error-riddled maps up? I think that's more dangerous. Hog Farm (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: did you try requesting corrections at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? Veverve (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not know of its existence. Will look into that after work. Hog Farm (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: I suggest uploading corrected version of all maps and then revision deletion of all previous versions of maps. A09090091 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a request at the graphics lab, including linking to a better map that would serve as a guide to correcting the Price's Raid errors. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A09090091: Revision deletion is supposed to be used sparingly. It is definitely not appropriate for this case. The upload summaries for the new versions should note that corrections were made. Brianjd (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianjd: Thanks. After reading the policy you gave, summaries seem to be even better. A09090091 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We don't delete files because they have some mistakes. Instead, we alert users about the mistakes and encourage removing the mistakes. Mark the files with {{Factual accuracy}}, which I have done. Glrx (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to remove it from all enwiki uses. I've always had doubts about Commons's willingness to make sure files are actually correct and/or properly licensed, this generally confirms my previous notions that quantity > quality here. Hog Farm (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hardly think deleting a file because it has factual inaccuracies sets a "dangerous precedent". That said, there's nothing wrong with seeing if some of our fine graphics people can make fixes. But our main concern should be that these Wiki-user produced maps simply don't reflect reality, not that some articles would lose a file if it was deleted (what's the point in having it if it misleads our readers)? -Indy beetle (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Indy beetle: Trying to determine whether a file has factual inaccuracies is not always a trivial matter. Maybe it is in this case, but where do we draw the line? Also, even if a file does have factual inaccuracies, that does not necessarily make it useless. In fact, according to COM:INUSE, this file is deemed to have an educational use. Brianjd (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the educational value of something if it is flat wrong? Some things are simply incomplete or speculative, and some things are wrong but they are historical (like very old maps and artistic depictions of certain events), and that is well enough understandable. But HogFarm is talking about maps other Wikimedians made which factually inaccurate and misleading. It sounds like you're advocating for a precedent whereby I can upload stuff that is wrong and have it kept because in my subjective view my distortion is "educational". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw this via the COM:SCOPE talk page - Maybe it is in this case, but where do we draw the line? There's no obligation to draw a line. Dealing with inaccuracy is a complicated problem and can be sorted on a case by case basis. I don't think abdicating our responsibility as a host of educational content and throwing our hands up in the air is desirable, nor declaring all inaccuracy to be out of scope. Some inaccuracies are hard to determine, some are notable as misinformation, some may be easily framed as simply a different perspective, some may be historically meaningful, but some have no conceivable educational use and are actively harmful. Working on the best approach to a particular case is what this page is for. We should drop notifications on the pages where it's used to alert editors of this discussion but then indeed proceed with this discussion with deletion as a possible outcome. — Rhododendrites talk11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've got this open in Inkscape and it's fully editable. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've got most of it but there are other errors: ex. Mansfield is in LA not TX> It's not the high quality Hal Jesperson map we're spoiled with... BusterD (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see I need to adjust "Valverde" rightwards, as I do "Honey Springs". BusterD (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The revised map is much improved. Hog Farm (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Deletion is not the way to go here. Please improve, revise, rename, merge the existing files as needed. --Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]