Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map of the Village of Williamsburgh (1845)

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Map of the Village of Williamsburgh (1845)]]=

:{{la|Map of the Village of Williamsburgh (1845)}} ([{{fullurl:Map of the Village of Williamsburgh (1845)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map of the Village of Williamsburgh (1845)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

A merger suggestion tag has been removed without discussion almost as soon as it was inserted. This belongs as a picture with caption in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, not as an article on its own. Merge, and, if they don't want it there, delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

::MERGE or delete, does not qualify as an article.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color{Red} \oplus$} 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge should not be an article on its own. RP459 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Image page already has all of this text in its description, which is where it belongs. Whether or not to include the image in Williamsburg, Brooklyn is a decision for the editors of that article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a duplicate of the image page. WillOakland (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's PRODable really, but as we've got this going anyway. It's simply a recreation of the imagine itself, perhaps a confused uploader? --Ged UK 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
LEAVE AS IS I created it because it is a map, so a small thumbnail with a caption in the article is too small to be very useful. I would have it link directly to the image, but the image is quite large and wikipedia defaults to display at largest possible dimenisions when you click on the image. It points to the need for better image management tools on wikipedia. I don't relly see the harm in leaving this article. By having it present makes wikipedia better and provides more information to the user. Shouldn't the user experience be the ultimate test? Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Nobody is saying the map should be deleted. The file File:1845_Williamsburg_Map.jpg is valid. You've said that By having it present makes wikipedia better and provides more information to the user, but it doesn't. The article contains the exact same information that is contained on the file page. It's pure duplication. On the file page, if you want to see the full size image, just click on the picture and you'll get the full version. --Ged UK 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment It is not the same thing. The full resolution page is unwieldy and not easy to navigate. Try the experince for yourself, starting from the WIlliamsburg page. How about I just uploda the map at a lower resolution and we delete the extra page? Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Currently, the article under discussion is a full size version of the map and info on the map. The map page itself contains a link to the full size map, and info on the map, thus they are the same. I totally agree that this page is unwieldy, but I'm confused as to what you were trying to achieve with this page. Yes WP defaults to teh largest size when yuo link, but it can easily be resized. See Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax for help on how to do that. If you want to insert the map into another article, say Williamsburgh, then the only sensible way is by using Image:{name}. Does that make sense? --Ged UK 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment I hera what your saying, but the average user doesn't know how to save or manipulate images. I changed the size and uploaded full res to wiki commons.
Comment from nominator. Please note that I never suggested that the file itself should be deleted. On the contrary, it should be kept by all means, at least until a better resolution becomes available. Now you could have a thumbnail version of the map within the article, as suggested, and all one would have to do to get a full-size version of it is click on it. No need for you to do anything more, actually. What the article nominated here is really doing is nothing but duplicate a page that serves your purpose in a much better way than what you intend to do. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment It's alright. I made all necesaary changes. Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
DELETE Thumbnail exists in Williamsburgh article. I uploaded a lower resolution version of the file so it is viewable in a reasonable manner. I moved the hu-res version to wikicommons for use by researchers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repliedthemockturtle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
transwiki & delete - http://wikimapia.org/ or http://www.mapipedia.com/ is more appropriate. But really user:Repliedthemockturtle has done whats needed. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment I removed the link from the Williamsburg, Brooklyn article, so all taht is left to do is to actually delete the page and removed the "merge nomination" template from Williamsburg, Brooklyn.Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.