@Elekhh The file itself claims to be licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. But it was supposedly uploaded by the author and tagged {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Therefore, the file is licensed under both CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0. Files may be released under any number of licenses, only one of which needs to be acceptable for Commons. Brianjd (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Brianjd and thanks for fixing. The map is using data from ABS and is simply downloaded using the ABS Table Builder, both under CC-BY-4.0 license. It seems this map is used 'as supplied' by ABS. The BY clause requires ABS to be mentioned - is a misrepresentation to show the User as the 'author' and sole copyright holder on the Commons file. It is also my understanding that something released as CC-BY cannot be restricted under a more narrow license, such as the CC-BY-NC-ND. Separate from this the encyclopedic value is compromised, because most of the map is covered with labels, and it uses an odd and distorted geo-projection. --ELEKHHT00:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the facts. Each scientifically correct map is based on statistical data taken from one or more sources. The only maps not based on external information are the fantasy world maps. My maps didn't "download". They just didn't exist before I created them. My job was to visualize statistical information and its graphical representation. This is the usual role of every cartographer. Sergey Kondrashov (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for labels and geoprojection, this is the subject of a possible constructive discussion. I appreciate any well-founded criticism of my specific visual decisions. But the very posing of such questions already contradicts the thesis about the absence of the author's contribution to the creation of the map. I chose the suburbs layer for the map, which I think is easier for Australians to locate. The Local Governments layer may be used instead of the suburbs layer. This makes the map more visually appealing, but I'm not sure if it makes it easier to understand. The other geoprojection may be used as well. I will only note that any geoprojection distorts a section of the geoid surface. As an example of alternative representation of the same geospatial information: Melbourne population density by mesh blocks (MB), according to the 2016 censusSergey Kondrashov (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elekhh If someone builds on the work, it is acceptable to release the new work under a more narrow license, such as CC BY-NC-ND or CC BY-SA. But a license notice for the original work (including a reference to CC BY) is also required – that is the real problem here, along with the fact that the ABS is not credited. From what I can remember, all the files are in use, so quality issues are not relevant here. (I am not familiar with ABS work, so I take your word for it that this is from the ABS.) Brianjd (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with the statement that "ABS is not mentioned". Most of the text in the "copyright" section of the map is occupied by detailed referencing of the sources of information used. Also to reiterate, the map could not have been "simply downloaded using the ABS Table Builder". ABS Table Builder does not create maps. It creates spreadsheets in .csv format used by the cartographer to create a map. Sergey Kondrashov (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergey Kondrashov It isn’t good enough to claim that it is Own work and refer to the detailed attribution in the file: required attributions must be mentioned in the file description.
Sorry Sergey, I didn't realize TableBuilder no longer provides the map function (as it still indicates it does on its frontpage) - so you must have done it by importing into QGIS/ArcGIS? That explains the initially incorrect projection (the revised version looks much better). You still need to mention your copyrighted data sources on the Commons page. --ELEKHHT08:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I gratefully accept constructive criticism and try to improve my work. In terms of geoprojection, I rather agree with you. But look, for example, at the projection in which the maps in this Melbourne publication are made - this is exactly the projection that I used in the first version. Yet this is not a "mistake", but one of the widespread variations.
Good we agree on improving this. That report you linked to is not produced by geographers, so don't take it as an authority on mapping. Regarding attribution, as indicated earlier by Brianjd please acknowledge ABS on the Commons page of the file, not just in the footnotes of the image file. Regarding the latter, what does "Relative ethnic majority areas do not correspond to any political or administrative boundaries and are calculated using a set of different parameters" supposed to mean? Is a map of residential density regardless of ethnicity - I suppose. -ELEKHHT11:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Achh I see. Either delete Melbourne density.jpg, and rectify the description of Melbourne density 1.jpg, or upload the latter on top of the original and remove the duplicate. --ELEKHHT11:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
