Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.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:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png

It has no sources whatsoever, I opened a discussion a month ago and the author never replied, and on top of that, according to the description he used "data" from the year 2000, that's 16 years ago and quite outdated. El bart089 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The map is widely used, so it cannot be deleted except for copyright violation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png

This map has NO SOURCES, I opened a discussion and no one ever replied, the author was notified and he didn't reply either. Further more the map has inaccurate "data" from over 16 years ago, which even if it was correct (which is not) it would be extremely outdated.

I already nominated it for deletion but the person who saw it refused to delete it simply because "it was used in many articles", which is an absurd reason to keep it considering that they all copied it in the first place.

Keeping this erroneous map would be spreading wrong information and promoting Wikipedia inaccuracy. Supaman89 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, it does not matter, how bad, erroneous and misleading the map is. It is widely used and therefore in our project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense, if I create an image that says that half the population of the United States is of Asian descent and then make a bunch of copies of it in different Wikpedias and then add that image to a bunch of articles promoting missinformation should we also keep that because it is "widely used"? Supaman89 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: :Lo lamento, no he estado muy activo últimamente en la wikipedia, de manera que no me entero pronto de estas cuestiones. El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv. Procederé a colocar la referencia en estos mapas. En el tiempo en que fue subida la imagen esto no era estrictamente necesario. Yavidaxiu (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png

This file was initially tagged by Fæ as no permission (No permission since). I restored the file due to the discusion on my talk page. Ju Ta 10:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kein Löschgrund erkennbar, ich zitiere die obige Stellungnahme des Hochladers: "El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv." Als Urheber ist folglich Benutzer @Yavidaxiu einzutragen (Own Work), was aber jetzt ohnehin schon der Fall ist. Based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JuTa: . I do not understand the restoration. Could you explain that here for the record, rather than referring to talk page discussions?

Where exactly is the verifiable source of the underpinning map, i.e. not the overlaid user created synthesis of data?
If the data is a derived work from a map in Mesoamerican indian languages, then the original map is sufficiently creative to be copyrighted (there's simply no "hard" data that makes this a pure data driven chart) and consequently the overlaid map fails COM:PRP.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The numerical data is from CDI-Conapo, as told in the file (CDI, now INPI, is the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Conapo is the Mexican Census Authority Consejo Nacional de Población). The geographical data is based on Suárez' map (1983) which does not constitute any problem, neither (only hard data without creative activity). The graphical representation is from the uploader. There is nothing doubtful about it, at all. All based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this does not make the map verifiable as far as I can see.

It is not credible that the detailed coloured regions on the overlay map are a "graphical representation" "from the uploader", these zones must be from somewhere. This is not "numerical data" as literally there is no "numerical data" displayed.

Neither has any source been given that can be verified for the under-pinning map. Again this is not "from the uploader" as it is not credible that the uploader drew a detailed map of a country from their imagination. If it is a public domain map, exactly where is the source, and can we verify its copyright please, per COM:PRP and COM:L?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing we have to verify. The uploader made a map based on governmental data, that's all. It is his responsibility that the data provided is correct, has nothing to do with copyright or permission. If the information provided by uploader is not correct, this wouldn't be a reason to delete his work. You just have to trust him.

The numerical data the uploader relies on and takes his information from (for the whole series of maps he uploaded) is the number of speakers for each language in the year 2000. This information is from governmental sources, as he tells us in his file (CDI-Conapo). It is free data and he is free to make a map about it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons.

The geographical data the uploader relies on is provided by a map in a book by Jorge A. Suárez from 1983 (as stated in the file description). You can see the original map in the book using the link I provided above (it is named: "Map 1. Present day distribution of Mesoamerican Indian languages"). This data refers to the geographical delimitations to limit the region where each language is spoken. This is hard data taken from a scholarly publication and the uploader is free to take it for the purpose of making a map he wants to upload to Wikimedia Commons.

There is nothing wrong with it, no copyright violation can be alleged and no permission is missing. Your action of pointing out a "no permission since" was simply a mistake or misunderstanding, your fault not his. The author of this file is just the uploader himself (own work) as stated in the file description. There is no reason at all which justifies deletion.--Jordi (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how COM:PRP works. The copyright of this map has been called into question, and should be considered a copyright violation unless a source for the map can be produced. In this case the underpinning map, for which zero evidence has been produced that it meets COM:L, and the detailed map of areas that has been overlaid, again for which there is no verifiable source or explanation of how it was produced, apart from vaguely waiving at a copyrighted book that it does not match.

No, this is not what COM:PRP is about. The copyright owner is the uploader who made the map, there is no assumable violation of copyright here. COM:PRP deals with cases where the uploader published a file whose copyright belongs to a third party, which is not the case here. Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required. In this case, there is no permission required because the protected work was entirely made by the uploader himself. The data he used for it is not protected by copyright, so he needs no permission by a third party.

On the other hand, if by "underpinning map" you mean the general map of Mexico and its States (light grey parts of the image), this isn't protected, neither. Such a general map of Mexican States is widely used on Commons in all files which are based on a blank map of Mexico. Of course, using one of the blank maps of Mexico listed in our Category of the same name is not a reason for requesting Deletion of a file.--Jordi (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided to "Map 1" in The Mesoamerican Indian Languages, it does not appear to match. If it matches a different map in that copyrighted work, then it is a derived work. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully what I wrote, pls. The Suárez map is used as data source, it is visible in Google Books to me and others, but the pages available on Google Books may differ from country to country.--Jordi (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there are more data sources the uploader has been using to compile the statistics for his maps. As he tells us the data is from governmental institutions like CDI-Conapo. We do not know exactely if and to what extent the reported results are accurate. They seemingly are, if you compare his maps with similar maps and sheets based on the data provided by INEGI, CDI or other Mexican Government Agencies, but we don't know. However, this has nothing to do with the copyright status of the file. Even if the uploader has invented or misrepresented the public data he claims to use, this would affect only the reliability of the file, but not the copyright, which belongs unquestionably to the uploader, since he has drawn the map. So there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file and no reasonable cause to call it "into question", as you say. Precautionary principle thus does not apply in the way you want to trigger it.--Jordi (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using many words, you agree with the facts about copyright:

The underpinning map has not been identified. It is not File:Mexico_Map.svg as there are many detail differences. Copyright has not been verified, nor even claimed as being public domain or something else. This is grounds for deletion per COM:PRP.
The overlay of very detailed areas has no verifiable source, it is extremely detailed and is not a simple user "imagining" of what these zones would look like, nor can it be created from a simple table of data. Vaguely waiving at an increasingly large number of possible sources, is not verification. Copyright has not been verified, and this may be an unstated derived work and is grounds for deletion, per COM:DW and COM:PRP.

--Fæ (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many words or few words do not matter, what is important is the content of the arguments.

1. The underpinning map is just a blank map of Mexico, it is identical with the map shown above from our Category "Blank maps of Mexico", further details (different tone of grey and missing emphasis of the City of Mexico, I cannot see any more) do not matter and are not protectable. Blank maps of Mexico are widely used on Commons for all purposes imaginable and obviously do not constitute a valid reason for requesting deletion of a derived file.

2. The data for the detailed areas is not protectable by copyright. Also, there is no increasingly large number of possible sources, it is just that you didn't understand the remark "Fuente: CDI-Conapo" which has been shown in the file ever since.

3. The data sources are only important in order to verify if the map is reliable (for example, if you want to use it for an article in Wikipedia). Has nothing to do with copyright. The freedom from copyright is sufficiently shown by the fact that the data is free and that the uploader has drawn the map by himself, no matter where he took the data from.--Jordi (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some facts:

If two maps are different, they are not "identical". Your claim that File:Mexico_Map.svg was the underpinning map was factually and demonstrably incorrect.
"data for the detailed areas is not protectable by copyright" is literally a correct statement, however the fact is that the artistic creations represented by the areas drawn on this map are sufficiently creative to have copyright. They are not tables of data, nor are they simple polygons generated by a table of data. These drawn areas have no verifiable source but are so detailed, they appear to have been copied or traced from a published source which has not been declared. COM:PRP applies.
The underpinning map does visually match File:Mexico_states_blank.png, a source which was not declared. However this map has no source and the statement of own work is not credible. That map has been marked as no source and may itself be subject to deletion if a source remains undeclared. It is also the case that the png map is lower resolution than the file this deletion request is about, it remains unlikely that that specific png file was used as the underpinning map, there may be yet another source for the original, higher resolution, underpinning map.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The maps #1 ("Mexico Map.svg") and #2 (underpinning map of our file) are identical in respect to copyright aspects, there is no protectable difference between them in terms of copyright protection.
There is no artistic creation in a map using alphanumerical and graphical data from elsewhere in order to show the geographical extension of the use of different languages. If there were any creative credits in drawing such a map these would be the uploader's credits only, because he has drawn the map by himself. The geographical delimitation of cities or urban hinterlands or other areas are not protectable and the uploader is free to represent these zones as detailed as ever he likes to do it, using any source he can reach to.
For copyright purposes the free source has not to be declared, it is sufficient that the source is factually free.
It is not necessary that a specific png file was used for creating that underpinning map. The copyright does not protect any specific file, but only the content, which is identical in all three (and many other) files. There is no acceptable reason for requesting deletion of a file only because it is based on a blank map of Mexico widely used in the Wikimedia universe.

Thanks! --Jordi (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are rather peculiar statements, and they are untrue in the following respects:

Nobody is debating the copyright of "alphanumerical ond graphical data", not least of which is the fact that no such verifiable source has actually been provided. Vaguely waiving to a shelf of books or websites, is not the same as a verifiable statement that provides real data that can be checked through point by point on the map.
Different images that are "identical in respect to copyright aspects", is meaningless. You may mean a rationale about derived works, but the fact is that we have not in reality even confirmed that the underpinning map is copyright free, because it has no verifiable source.
"is sufficient that the source is factually free", this is bizarre. Facts are not facts if they cannot be verifiable. "God exists" may be believed by many people, but it is not a fact.
Vaguely pointing to lots of other maps, is not proof that the underpinning map is copyright free. No source file has yet been provided that can be verified as copyright free, so no presumption can yet be made that the underpinning map, or the overlaying map of areas, are copyright free. COM:PRP applies because it is fundamentally true that either copyright can be verified, or nobody knows what the copyright is.

Please stick to facts rather than a form of "proof by exultation" which would be meaningless in a copyright case. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you that the precautionary principle does not apply in the way you want to trigger it, simply because there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file and no reasonable cause to demand a "verifiable statement", as you call it. There is no doubt about copyright issues in this case, it is clearly an "own work" copyright, you can cite "COM:PRP" as often as you want, this changes nothing about the facts I explained to you.--Jordi (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also explained to you that the maps shown above are identical in all relevant aspects for copyright questions. This is not "meaningless", but a true statement whether you understand it or not.--Jordi (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also told you that the alphanumerical and graphical data this map is based on is free and hard data which cannot be subject to copyright, because there is no creative activity involved. Alphanumerical data are names of languages, cities or regions and numbers of speakers for each language, graphical data refers to delimitation and location of the cities, subunits or urban hinterlands or other areas the uploader has drawn into his map, i.e. all the data the uploader took from CDI or Conapo sources or from the bookpage he cites (or elsewhere, it doesn't matter from where). None of these informations can be protected by copyright, so your constant hinting to "COM:PRP" (which refers to copyright protection only and needs a third party copyright owner involved who simply does not exist in this case) is meaningless, to say it with your own words, i.e. not relevant for the question we are talking about.--Jordi (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you have not provided is:

a verifiably copyright free file that matches the underpinning map
the source of the overlaid ranges, which you appear to believe has been automatically generated from something unspecified

Provide them please.

Until there are verifiable facts, there is significant doubt per COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the author of this file. I cannot tell you more than what I already did:

The underpinning blank map of Mexico is widely used by many, many files on Commons, so it belongs to the project scope and there is no reasonable basis for requesting deletion of an individual file only because it is based on such a blank map of Mexico listed in our Category "Blank maps of Mexico".
The source for the overlaid ranges is given by the author himself ("Fuente: CDI-Conapo", and he cites Jorge A. Suárez' standard work, page xiv-xv). There is no reasonable doubt that the uploader has drawn the map, so he is the copyright owner. The data he used is free by its nature and cannot be subject to copyright, whereever he took it from. So, we do not need any more information in order to state that the terms of copyright are fulfilled.
I never said that I believe the file has been automatically generated. I always told you that the uploader has drawn the map and was free to do so without any permission whatsoever. This is because the overlaid ranges are not protectable by copyright since there is no creative activity involved in compiling them.

It is important that you understand that the "verifiable statement" you demand is not necessary to judge if a copyright was infringed by this map or not, because by nature and definition there cannot be any copyright protection for the kind of things this map shows. Verifying the sources can be important in order to be able to judge if the map is reliable and can be used lets say for an article. But this has nothing to do with copyright. If the map is reliable or not is not our concern in this debate, since the file cannot be deleted except for copyright violation.--Jordi (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important that you understand that your claim that the ranges are so detailed that they "appear to have been copied or traced from a published source"

firstly, is a mere suspicion without sufficient grounds which cannot trigger COM:PRP, simply because there is no significant (= serious) doubt about the freedom of the file, and
secondly, there would be nothing wrong with tracing or copying locations, limits or positions from a published source like for instance an atlas to make a map, as long as the map in the atlas is not absolutely identical (like, for instance, a photocopy) with the one you are drawing and the data you are compiling is free. No copyright infringement can be done in this way, and therefore your suspicion is even more exaggerated and completely irrelevant for the copyright status of the file.--Jordi (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you write: COM:PRP applies because it is fundamentally true that either copyright can be verified, or nobody knows what the copyright is.

This is not true either. Of course we know who the copyright owner is (the person who has drawn the map, i.e. the uploader). There is no significant doubt that the map (like all the oher maps of this series) is his own work. As shown on the right, the series contains eight maps (including the present file, basically three types in different languages), all listed in our Category:Linguistic maps of Indigenous languages of North America and therefore widely used. It is clearly visible that all drawings are from the same author.--Jordi (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. The uploader did not wake up one day after dreaming about flying in space, with a perfect map of Mexico in their mind, then draw it using their home computer.

This map was either directly cut and paste from another file, or exported from a mapping tool, or directly traced from another map. Either you can provide the correct source, or COM:PRP required it is removed from the project.

Your ongoing links to related maps are irrelevant as they provide zero new evidence about copyright, they just create unnecessary tangents and mess up this deletion discussion page. They have exactly the same issue. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity is yours. The uploader used a blank map of Mexico listed in our Category of the same name which is nothing forbidden to do. The same blank map is used in many hundreds of files all over Commons (some of which shown above) and it seems to have been originally uploaded in 2005 by Jacob Rus, well known for his maps of Mexico at that time, as shown in the other file you want to delete. This dispute has nothing to do with the individual file we are discussing here.

As I tell you all the way, COM:PRP cannot apply in the way you want to have it because there is no serious doubt about the author who has drawn the present map (referring to the number of speakers and geographical ranges of languages shown here, not referring to the underpinning map of Mexico which is of common use). It is irrelevant if he used a mapping tool or traced the limits from an atlas or where he got his data from, since all these things are free and not protected by copyright. The only thing relevant for copyright status is that he has drawn the map by himself and not photocopied or pasted an existing map drawn by another person. Only the drawing can be protected by copyright, not the content or data of the map.--Jordi (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No verifiable sources = significant doubt.

Your claim " all these things are free and not protected by copyright" is false. Not all tools, published maps, or derived works based on copyrighted works can be presumed to be "free".

Please provide some facts, rather than more exultations of freeness. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lack of sources is not to be equalized with a significant doubt (concerning copyright, not reliability). There is no doubt at all that the uploader has drawn the map, whatever his sources were (since they are all free). This is the only important thing you have to know to be sure that he is the copyright owner. Furthermore, the source is not lacking here, but declared by the uploader.--Jordi (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right that not all derived works based on copyrighted works can be presumed to be "free", but in this case yes they can, because in this case the data shown in this particular map (number of speakers and geographical ranges of use of languages) are free from copyright by nature and cannot be protected. Therefore it is irrelevant (for copyright purposes) where the author of the map got his data from, he was free to compile it from any source at his reach.--Jordi (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not supplied any evidence that the areas drawn on the map are not derivative works. They are not a set of data, nor were they created using just a set of data.

Using hundreds of words, you have not supplied any verifiable evidence that can be used to determine copyright status. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you both made your individual point of view now clear enough. I think you should now just wait for the decision of (another) admin. Thx. --Ju Ta 11:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. It is all said.--Jordi (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info There are two official sources available which help to understand how the data of these maps (referring to all three types of the series) has been compiled.

Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI): Catálogo de lenguas indígenas mexicanas: cartografía contemporánea de sus asentamientos históricos. México, D.F. 2005.
Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI): Catálogo de las Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales: Variantes Lingüísticas de México con sus Autodenominaciones y Referencias Geoestadísticas. México, D.F. 2008 (Diario Oficial de la Federación, January 14, 2008, section I, pp. 30-78, and section II, pp. 1-112).

The first source is described as Conjunto de 150 mapas de toda la República Mexicana, los cuales presentan, de manera sencilla, la ubicación y densidad de las poblaciones hablantes de lenguas indígenas en el territorio nacional. Constituye el primer paso importante para la catalogación de nuestras lenguas nacionales.[1]

The second source continued this work and has all the geostatistical data in the form of extremely detailed lists with the names of the languages and the villages where they are spoken, see here. However, this source does not give the numbers of speakers (to be derived from the publications of Census Authority Conapo).

The second source (published in 2008) was not available yet when @Yavidaxiu has drawn the maps and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons in 2006. But the atlas published in 2005 was already there. One of the 150 map sheets is online, it refers to Chinantecan languages. Looking at this sheet you can see how it works: The geostatistical data is represented by symbols distributed over a limited area. The text also mentions the numbers of speakers acording to the census of the year 2000 in Mexico as a whole (133,374) and in the area shown in the map (84,395). If you compare this data with the corresponding yellow range marked in our file you can see that it refers to the same geographical area shown in the atlas, located in ~~eastern~~ [should be "northern"] Oaxaca near the border with Veracruz. The number (more than 100,000 speakers) also fits into the range this map is about.

There is no doubt that the data is free (governmental publication), and that an experienced Mexican mapmaker like @Yavidaxiu (VG-4 level expert, author of similar own drawn maps, author of the basic file for the most widely used location map of Mexico in Wikimedia) is able to draw these ranges acording to the data given by his source. It is also not relevant for the copyright if he took it directly from the 2005 INALI atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it, let's say another map which showed the delimited areas already drawn in a similar way or with dots indicating the density like in this file. As I pointed out before, for the copyright the only thing important is that he has drawn the map by himself an not photocopied or pasted it from elsewhere.--Jordi (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is magical thinking. Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map?

Rather than throwing a shelf full of haphazard possible sources of something or other, please provide a link or a precise source that can be verified for this image. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.

The underpinning map is of no further interest here in this talk about this specific file, I showed you the map above ("Another blank map, even more similar to the one used by the controverted file") and you used my information for trying to delete it as well (see our talk about the map "made by Jacob Rus"). It's just a blank map of Mexico listed since 2005 in our Category "Maps of Mexico" and can be used by anyone for any purpose, nothing wrong with it.
Here we are talking about the areas where certain Mexican indigenous languages were spoken in 2000 acording to the Conapo Census of Mexico of the same year and the geostatistical data published by the competent Mexican government agencies (INALI/INEGI/CDI). I explained you how @Yavidaxiu got the data in order to draw the present map, because you were suggesting that he must have "copied or traced [it] from a published source" which you thought would have been a copyvio.
I have proven with my newly added information that this is not the case. The data was publicly available in 2006 and @Yavidaxiu was free to use it without any permission in order to draw the map. There is also no doubt that he was technically able to do it (VG-4 mapping expert) and that he uploaded similar drawings made by himself in other files (for example File:Taínos.svg). So there is no significant doubt about the authorship of the present map, and therefore there is no doubt about the copyright status.
Yesterday you said that the areas drawn on the map are not a set of data, nor were they created using just a set of data. With my newly added information I give you evidence that they are. That's all, the rest we have already talked about, I don't think we should repeat the same arguments eternally.--Jordi (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I have now also added the info about the underpinning blank map of Mexico to the file description table.--Jordi (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map? You have managed to spend several hundred words avoiding the question. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to spend so many word because you repeat ever and ever again the same questions already answered more than once. Only some moments ago I wrote: I showed you the map above ("Another blank map, even more similar to the one used by the controverted file"). There is nothing more to say, the source of this underpinning map is given on the corresponding file description page ("Made by Jacob Rus") and discussed elsewhere, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mexico states blank.png.--Jordi (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if that file gets deleted, this one has to be deleted then. It was confusing because you have given several different answers now to the same question, and used several different arguments, most of which had no basis in copyright law.

With regard to the overlay, what precisely is the source of the maps of the "villages" or regions. These cannot be deduced from simple population data, and must have come from regional maps. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to confuse. The underpinning map is of no further interest here in this talk, it has nothing to do with the copyright of @Yavidaxiu's drawing, he used it rightfully when it was listed as a free blank map of Mexico in the Category of the same name of Wikimedia Commons, there is nothing strange about this. I did not mention it at all in the newly added arguments which were only focussed in the maps drawn by @Yavidaxiu about indigenous language distribution, not in the underpinning map he used for them because that is of common use on Wikimedia Commons. It is extremely widely used and therefore in the scope, and if you really succeed deleting it, all the other files based on that blank map could be in danger, that would be several hundreds or even thousands of widely used files all over the Wikimedia universe (as I have shown in the corresponding deletion talk). This is not our topic of conversation here.--Jordi (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your second question reveals that you do not even read and check out what I write. I explained exactely how it works above, has nothing to do with population data, but the geostatistical data given on the 150 map sheets of Cartografía Contemporánea (2005). You can try how it works if you look at the sources I linked to. Simply compare the yellow area of Chinantecan languages drawn by @Yavidaxiu with the point cloud from the corresponding atlas page.--Jordi (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be less vague please. We need to be able to verify that this map was created from public domain materials. In the absence of Yavidaxiu (talk · contribs) giving an understandable explanation, you are instead making up a process from scratch that you think might have happened. This is not "proof".

Exactly where are each of the "150 maps sheets" to be found that can be verified?

Comparing https://www.inali.gob.mx/pdf/carto.pdf to the areas marked as Chinanteco, this is not a good match. There are significant differences, and it looks impossible to overlay the zones on the uploaded map to create a match. This appears to firmly debunk your theory that this could have been the source that this work was derived from. --Fæ (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All untrue. The data of the atlas matches exactely the area shown in the file. Even the small details like the isolated language island of El Porvenir in the south or the community of speakers relocated to Veracruz as a consequence of the building of the Cerro de Oro Dam (as mentioned in the atlas) are reflected. There is no more "proof" necessary than to prove that the data was publicly available and anyone could draw this map at the time user @Yavidaxiu did it. I gave you the link to the source and I put it on the file description page, that is all what is necessary to provide a verifiable source. I already told you that it is not relevant for the copyright if @Yavidaxiu took the data directly from the atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it. No more talk necessary.--Jordi (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No "verifiable source" has been provided. What has been linked is one map of one region, which you now, after several other prior claims, claim shows the uploader used a set of 150 maps to create the map overlay we see.

However the map we can see was not be traced or derived from those other maps, presuming the other 149 (which you have not provided, so we have not seen) are similar.

In particular the dots on the map overlap, which is not shown on the map we see. There is no reason to think that it was these maps that the uploader used to create their zones. It is equally as likely that they traced a map of counties or large pueblos which has not been declared, which lined up with the centres for language areas.

Exultation is not copyright proof, and claims by yourself is not the same as the uploader making a clear statement of which sources they derived this map from.

FYI, these maps along with other publications by Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas are "ALGUNOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS". Index on WorldCat OCLC 70928091. So if parts of the map uploaded to Commons was traced from the INDLI maps (like El Porvenir), then it's a copyvio per COM:DW anyway. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you ~~claim~~ [should be "say"] is irrelevant. The dot cloud was there and matches virtually exactely with the map created by the uploader. He is free to draw it as he wants to, we are not judging the quality of his map but only the copyright situation, as I have told you so many times. As long as he draws it by himself he can also trace county borders or larger pueblos as he likes, this is all free data he can use to reelaborate a design. He told us above that he also used the map by Jorge Suárez for the elaboration of his map. I already told you that he may also have used some kind of intermediate source for it. That would not change anything about copyright and freedom of the geostatistical data in which the map is grounded. The 150 map sheets are published and can be consulted at any time by anyone in any place where the book is stored, it is not necessary that they are available online on the Internet to be a verifiable source. The uploader made several similar maps reelaborated from existing publications in journals or books.--Jordi (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is nothing "overlapping" in INALI map No. 7, what do you mean? The different colors are not different languages, it is all Chinantecan. I think your misinterpretation may be a result of poor understanding of the map legend (no problem, I will explain it to you, if you wish).--Jordi (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"What you claim is irrelevant", perfectly true. I have been asserting facts, not making claims. I have made zero claims about how the uploader created this map. I have asked for the source so that copyright can be verified.

Assertion of fact: the maps that you are claiming were used to create the regions shown in this upload are not free. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The geostatistical data is free and was publicly available at the time @Yavidaxiu made his map, that is all we are interested in. Of course the maps published by INALI are not free, neither Jorge A. Suárez' book is free, but that is completely irrelevant for our question.--Jordi (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks: I'm nealry sure the deciding admin will not read your whole discussion here (I stopped it some days ago). There is no need to turn it arround and arround and arround... --Ju Ta 12:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: kept per Jordi - the underlying map is free to use, so, no copyright issue here. Errors and other issues aren't relevant here for Commons as the file is used. --rubin16 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]