File talk:Age of Consent - Global.svg

• The map was created in 2011 based on (presumably cited) information on Wikipedia, and has been updated 22 times as laws have changed. Unless there is some specific citable evidence that there is something incorrect in the map (in which case, the appropriate course of action would be to update the map), I see no reason not to have the map in the article; it has been there six years without incident. The same goes for nearly every world or country map on Wikipedia which depicts data about individual countries or regions. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender; and Jytdog -- So, I am guessing this means we can presume this file has been updated "22 times" based on sources used in the "Age of consent" article? Perhaps, it would be better to explicitly cite which sources (or references) are used to update this file. Otherwise, it could be, we are just saying this file's accuracy is based on presumption. I'm not sure restoring this file to the articles it was removed from is appropriate. It might be better to wait until after this is resolved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I am not a big fan of the argument "This sucky thing has existed for a long time so we should keep it". This is not like a picture of a generic tree captioned "tree". There are hard facts encoded here that need citations. We aim to provide the public with accepted knowledge and the only way we can be sure this map reflects that is to have the citations to show it. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the appropriate course of action would be to update the map" — that was my intention with the introduction of the tables under Age_of_consent#By_country_or_region, but couldn't find an easy way to that dynamically, i.e. linking the table to the map (not too keen on handpainting 200 countries). — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Softlavender. Just improve the "source" info here in the file so even Jytdog understands exactly from where the info is taken, and then modify the file to include the revision date (visible to the reader of each article where it is used), and poof every problem is solved.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me also remind everybody that I asked Jytdog what kind of info he would consider acceptable (to add to the file's "source"). I have yet to get a reply on that.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Making this personal is incorrect. This is en-WP policy. (The Commons has no V policy, so the SNOW reaction to the deletion discussion there is unsurprising; they will even keep images there that have incorrect information encoded). Citations in Wikipedia are common as dirt. See the section above where there is one valid citation and one invalid citation (Wikipedia is not a reliable source, per

WP:USERGENERATED). A list of the actual sources could be added in the page on the commons in the field called "Sources". This is not needed there, but would be useful in WMF projects like en-WP where they are needed. That list of citations could then be added to the caption where ever the image appears in en-WP - the citations need to be appear with the image in en-WP. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I nominated this file for deletion based on the above discussion. The deletion discussion is taking place here [1]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's

Seems like a lot is happening lately, Texas is flipping between edits, but it should be 17 olive colored Mattman00000 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]