Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infoboxes on older country articles

Hello, everyone. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been working on our article on Cameroon trying to expand it and find sources for what was previously a wholly sourceless article. I've finished with everything except the infobox (the one that includes all the facts and figures). I'm guessing someone in the primordial days of Wikipedia did all these country infoboxes from the same source, and I'm guessing that the source is the CIA World Factbook, but I thought I'd check. Is this the case? I'd like to source the material if possible. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen references to CIA world factbook pop up for the infoboxes, although more frequently updated countries also use other sources (eg national research institute figures as these tend to be more up-to-date). I would say, put it in the infobox and add the factbook reference to it. Arnoutf 13:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Location maps (again)

It looks like a noob user is systematically changing the European location maps to the EU version. Does anybody have an idea about when the poll will be closed? The poll places the old style images at the lead but it is not a supermajority. I'm not sure what policies say about reverting without a closed poll? I must admit to having reverted his first image changes, at a time when I thought he was just doing a few in order to test his ability to actually edit pages. Now it seems like he is replacing the entire lot. Whatever we do, we should also take care not to scare this new user away. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it is customary to keep debated content unchanged while a discussion is ongoing; in this case that would be mkaing sure the old maps stay. However, the argument is not an arbitration or mediation or similar and as correctly stated above - wiki is not a democracy. The problem with our poll is that it basically divides opinions into 3 more or less equal groups: Keep old; Make new for EU, with EU borders; Make new for all, without EU borders. So there seems a small majority for new maps, but how to implement these is not agreed upon. I agree with you a consensus has to reached sooner rather than later.

Back to the new user, perhaps you can explain on his personal talk page that there is some disagreement on the location maps (with a pointer to this talk page) and ask him politely not to change them as it is debated territory; but that his/her opinion is welcome in the debate and will be taken seriously. Arnoutf 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also a new svg locator map being added to countries, see Image:LocationWesternSahara.svg and others like it on commons by Rei-artur. Perhaps there could be a poll on whether to use this new style. Also see Image:LocationTurkey2.png, a png made from the svg. --Astrokey44 12:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That new development is (IMHO) the worst of two worlds. The old, neutral map, with the low details partially coloured in fancy colours. The very best thing about the previously suggested new maps was the better level of detail; which is pretty bad in the old styel (especially for smaller countries with an explicite shape (e.g. the Netherlands where the lake, islands and the inlets are all left out]]. I think a new style should at least imporve level of detail, colour in my opinion are merely cosmetic. So no to that one. Arnoutf 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please make our minds? I am growing fatigued of people reintroducing the EU maps to articles without even bothering to check neither the talk page of each individual country nor the edit history. Not only I consider the EU png maps as highly POV but they take an eternity to load. Those maps may be OK for the Commons atlas or even for the EU article but using them for each European country defies logic. Besides, the old style map makes more sense for countries which span across two continents, such as Spain. The new EU-style maps are simply too Eurocentricly POV. Regards, Asterion^talk 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

There has been a change in the Manual of Style regarding the use of date formats in articles. Specifically, individual countries or groups of countries have been removed. The section now reads:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

There is a list (of sorts) available in the Calendar date article, but one very good idea proposed during discussion was that the WikiProject for each country decide which date format is preferable for articles pertaining to that country. --Pete 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle East Maps

There seem to be new Middle Eat maps - look at Jordan, Israel, etc. I was in the process of making my own, but the creator hasn't applied them to all of the Middle East, so I changed the colors of mine to suit his ones.

Here are examples of his ones:

And here are some examples of mine:

What does everybody think? Should I put up my maps? --Amjra 13:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the the maps. Both yours and the other creator's (Rei-artur). I recommend you to upload all free images to Commons, so that they can be used in all Wikimedia projects. --Boivie 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is everyone making new maps in all sorts of wild colors? The new maps are good, but if they were done in the color scheme of the old maps, they would help keep the look and feel of Wikipedia's country articles consistent. I rather prefer the gray/white/green color scheme of the old, low-res maps. — BrianSmithson 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be the Rei-artur maps. I like the look and the level of detail but they're incomplete and it's hard to actually locate the smaller countries on the locator maps.

I understand why some people may be frustrated by the poor resolution of the current maps, but does it really matter? These are locator maps, and their purpose is to simply indicate a country's position relative to other countries: until a consistent set of maps is complete, why mess with what we have? (end rant)

Though I appreciate your efforts, Amjra. I'm not an artist so all I can do is complain and whine but you're really helping out. But I still think it'd be best if all the country-level maps worldwide were changed at once (see Europe map debacle above) Kelvinc 09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wanted to see what everybody thought about it first... but when is action going to be taken? The issue has not been solved for months, and while I agree these are just locater maps, the current ones are way too inaccurate. I personally believe we don't need something on the level of the European maps, but we should have something that at least slightly resembles the real world countries.

That said, when everyone decides on a solution, I will be more than happy to help out with whatever changes are to be made. --Amjra 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your maps are very good, but those high resolution svgs are spectacular. Ideally we should try to get something like the svgs for every country. Until that time, your jpgs are certainly an improvement over the current maps. - SimonP 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A final solution for the entire maps issue?

Here is what I propose: We obviously have some very able users here who can create maps to a high standard - what I personally think should be done is that we all should agree on one format (SVG, PNGm JPG, whatever) and then each user skilled with photoshop/an SVG editor should work on a certain section. This way nobody has the impossible task of doing the entire world.If you guys were to take this approach, we need to decide on what colours to use, etc. My personal opinion is that we should drop the current gray/green/white scheme, as it does not look good at all - also, I think we should do it the whole thing in SVG if possible, but if it is easier to do it in JPG then we should use that as we already have quite a bit of maps (e.g. the European maps above). Thoughts? --Amjra 21:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that svg is the preferred format, and I personally don't care much about the colour scheme. It actually seems like Rei-artur is working on creating svg maps for every country in the world, and has about half of them done. If other people are willing to help fill in some of the gaps on that page, we could have a high quality and universal set of locator maps in short order. - SimonP 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some technical advice: I would go for SVG or otherwise for GIF. JPG was developed for photo's not for graphics; its' compression techniques are developed to be hardly visibe for gradual changes in colour (as you typically see in photos); however, JPG's tend to blur if you put in straight lines.

When uploading the images be sure you choose a license that is liberal enough, because otherwise you may run into acceptance problems (see comment on the elongated Europe discussion).

I would involve local editors to provide maps of their own country, Rie-Arturs Image:LocationNetherlands.svg map for example misshapes the IJsselmeer (one of our most distinguished geogpahical landmarks) in a pretty bad way.

Some instructions how maps maybe adjusted maybe given to allow consistency over the many editors you invite.

Personally I am not a graphic making expert, and not convinced that the maps need to be replaced, so I won't actively participate in this monster project but I wish you all the best of luck Arnoutf 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At commons (where all free images ultimately should be placed) PNG is prefered over GIF for drawings. But I suppose vector images (SVG) is even better for this kind of maps. I'm a little worried of the size of Rei-artur's image files. Are some parts of them too detailed? Anyway, it shouldn't bee too hard fixing stuff like misplaced lakes. --Boivie 10:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, commons does prefers PNG over GIF; slipped my mind. And indeed vector formats (SVG) seem most appropriate for this kind of maps (they allow scaling without stange things starting to happen). Arnoutf 12:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears Rei-artur's work is based on an already existing map, and while it is quite good, the borders aren't all accurate - we need to decide whether this is good enough or whether we need something more accurate. I personally think that we don't need 100% accurate maps, just something of higher quality than the ones we have now. If we stick to using this svg as a template, we only need to decide on the colors we should use, as everything else is pretty much already done.--Amjra 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue and the pressing need to change? We need to discuss these things and agree on a consistent style etc. before users make such changes; see above regarding recent changes to European locator maps: given the options, the prior ones are preferred. Your maps Amjra are quire good but why red, for instance? Just because a SVG is available, that doesn't necessarily mean it should trump a prior PNG image (with no inherent flaw) that has existed for quite while. Ideally, can't we just 'copy' the style and rendition of the prior locator maps but improve their quality and convert them to SVGs? Until then or unless some standards are agreed upon, let it be and I feel compelled to restore the prior locators for consistency, if nothing else. Quizimodo 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I like the style of the old maps better (green for the landmass and white for water). I think there should be a discussion before the locater maps are changed. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think changing the level of detail and changing to SVG format; while keeping the old colours, will not be a problem (does not change wiki feel and look). So YES go ahead with that if you like. But I agree that before changing the look of the maps as dramarically as these do, consensus has to be reached first (I had to revert the Netherlands map twice this week already..... Arnoutf 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Once the file is in SVG format, it is trivial to change the colours. Just edit the XML. Jkelly 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this discussion is trying to find a solution to the whole issue... I am not saying that any certain colors or styles HAVE to be used, I am saying that we should try to decide, maybe through a vote, on the issue. --Amjra 08:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As Jkelly remarks above, the colour issue becomes easy after the maps are transformed into SVG. So why not start out with making higher-detail level - Vector maps (SVG) in the old color scheme. This is after all the really hard work. I am pretty sure, nobody will argue against that. While that gargantuan project is being conducted; we might discuss future changes in the color schemes at a more leasurely pace (after all those changes are then relatively simple to implement in the newly defined SVGs). So here my proposal to take it from here:

Start replacing the current maps with high-detail .SVG maps, while taking care to keep the old color scheme (and in general the look and feel of the old maps)
- Release the .SVG maps to the public domain, to allow other editors to adapt and use for further improvement
Discuss at a separate location (for example on this talk page) options for the color scheme (but do not implement that)
After all maps have been changed to SVG and consensus on colour is reached, change the maps to the new colours (or the old if those are preferred) Arnoutf 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't particularly care about the colour scheme. The one advantage of the red and beige scheme is that it seems we will soon have an entire set of high quality svgs, while, to my knowledge, no one has taken up the task of making green and grey ones. How much longer must we use the current pngs? Maps like Image:LocationDjibouti.png and Image:LocationUnitedArabEmirates.png are really an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. My worry is that if we wait for the perfect solution, we will wait indefinitely. - SimonP 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree some of the PNG's are awfull (e.g. the green blob in Image:LocationNetherlands.png Does not even look like the country seeImage:Netherlands-map.png. My proposal above was to replace the maps with high-quality svg's in the old colour scheme; the big advantage is that while the improvements are immediately visible; wiki keeps a consistent look and feel. Replacing the maps with high-resolution ones will be a lot of work; so it is not feasible that this will all be done in one day; and having the same colors will allow a period in which both the old PNGs and the new SVGs exist while that is not immediately and annoyingly obvious to a casual visitor. People have been stating above that changing colours of an SVG is an easy job, so once we have all maps as SVG we can rapidly change the whole set. Arnoutf 10:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As an example, I took the Canada svg image (Image:LocationCanada.svg) and changed its colours to those of the old maps in Image:LocationCanada2.svg. The colours that had to be changed are as follows:

Selected country: red->grenn: #D40000->#2D5F2C
Ocean: blue->white: #DAF0FF->#FFFFFF
Unselected countries: beige->grey: #F4E2BA->#CDC3CC
Lakes: blue->white: #DCF1FF->#FFFFFF
Borders: dark grey->white: #787878->#FFFFFF

The question is now, who can automate the process? -- Jeff3000 22:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the new svg still has a border, and that would need to be removed for it to look like the original png locator maps. -- Jeff3000 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Or set the border at the same colour as the ocean (or set to white) because then it will just blend into the background. Arnoutf 08:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Another issue to consider. Although .SVG vectors allow infinite detail level; we really shouldn't because the image files would become very large and hence very very slow to load for people who have a less than state-of-the-art Internet connection (and those are definitely also people Wiki is aimed at). Arnoutf 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikimedia software converts the image to a raster image and resizes it to the required size so that the bandwidth requirements are limited. Anyone know about how to automate the process of changing the colours? -- Jeff3000 14:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is more advanced than I thought. Nevertheless, when it is possible; a smaller image puts lower demands on the servers running the software, and will therefore probably result in faster time to show the completed figure on screen. Arnoutf 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The image that is shown is the size of the image set by the user in the Wiki markup. For example, take the Egypt page which has the new svg's. But if you right click the image and select view image (on Firefox), you'll see that the actual image is a png that is only 250px wide, which is exactly the size of the image in the article. Having a smaller image expanded to 250px wide will cause blurring. -- Jeff3000 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Move Netherlands to the Netherlands

I know it has been discussed, but that's been over 1,5 years ago and one of the things I noticed is the lack of Dutch people in the discussion. Some Dutch feedback would be appreciated this time. On top of that, it seems it wasn't really an unanimous discussion.

Ask any dutch person about their country and it is "the Netherlands". Not because of how it is said in a sentence, like the United States, but simply because that's what the name of the country is. You only see the use of Netherlands in lists where it is easier to have it in order under the N.

As far as official things go, both the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual (Page 25, paragraph 3.11) and the dutch government website use the Netherlands.

Please discuss here.

Cheers

JackSparrow Ninja 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Or using the placeholder here
Arnoutf 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop forcing map change

Some of the proponents of the new maps have taken it upon themselves to keep changing the maps (e.g. of the Netherlands. However, as there is clearly no consensus that the new David Liuzzo maps should be used (neither here where there is actually a majority against using the maps as they are now), nor on the Netherlands talk page I think this is unwanted, unpolite behavior and an act of POV pushing. My opinion here is that until (at least a minor) consensus in favor of changing the maps appears, the current (grey-green) maps should be considered the status quo, and should NOT be changed Arnoutf 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with using the grey maps, as they are clearly inferior both from an aesthetic and from an accuracy point of view. The new maps may have their flaws, and there may be no consensus yet on introducing them, but reverting back to the status quo will immediately kill off the whole issue again. Some people will be on this page arguing endlessly over endless variations of maps, and the normal wikipedia contributor will never even notice. At least we managed to get people's attentions by introducing the new map for Europe. Luis rib 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether the new maps flaws outrank their benefits; if they don't they should not be used. One of the things we should NOT want is to get the attention of normal users on these kind of internal debates. Arnoutf 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A short overview of the story

User:MarkThomas recently switched maps, arguing the new one was in line with other EU-countries. However, this in itself can in my opinion never be an argument. I can switch them all back using exactly the same argument.
I think based on the fierce response we will all agree that the map issue of the EU states is controversial.
Apart for the lack of consensus here (which tends to be slightly) negative towards the EU maps, I went through all 27 EU states and counted the current status of the discussion.
Supporters of the new format are already referring to the 3RR rule, on the maps, forgetting that the 3rd reinsertion is the violation. Supporters tend to discuss less then opponents

I counted 7 countries where there was no discussion on this issue whatsoever (Spain, Ireland, Malta, *Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria)
In 2 countries there was only a very limited reference to the maps (but no argument in favour or against). (Germany, Slovenia (where- One reader complained of being confused by the eternal swap of maps)
In 2 countries there was a discussion; where although no consensus was achieved it seemed there was a small tendency to support the maps (Greece and Estonia).
In all other 16 countries there was no consensus with a tendency to be against the change of maps.

Based on these counts I would conclude at this moment that the ONLY THING TO DO AT THIS MOMENT, is to revert all maps of all EU members states to the old ones and freeze it there untill a consensus has been achieved. Arnoutf 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, based on the above discussion, the new Euro centric maps should not be used. -- Jeff3000 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the main point of contention is the shading of the EU. Actually, when the map is reverted back, it is often reverted back to the non-shaded version. This clearly shows that people actually like the new maps; they just have problems with the EU issue.Luis rib 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There were edit summaries on the issue on Spain, even if no actual debate on the talk page. I find particularly annoying that someone keeps reverting to the EU map when it is obvious by the edit history that this is not welcome. My reasons to oppose the new map are that it is too POV (being a Spain location map, why should it show Finland much more than let's say Morocco?), they disregard the Canary Islands and they use an outdated Mercator projection. I would rather stay with Rei-Artur's. Asterion^talk 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is an important point. Similarly, why does the position of Iceland matter to Cyprus when the positions of countries such as Syria, Egypt, Turkey, and other nearby countries are more relevant. Matthew 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I could not go through the whole edit summary history. Actually that is why some things need attention at discussion pages as well. Personally I think Rei-arturs maps are a better way forward than the David Liuzzo maps.

What happens in revision only gives a view of the opinion of editors doing the revisions (apparently the supporters of the version of the new map are a bit more fanatic in changing maps they don't like than the opponents). Although the actions of active editors may carry some additional weight, we should not disregard the voiced opinion of e veryone else. Arnoutf 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my frustration in the previous post. I think this is simply going too far, with people reporting each other for 3RR, not assuming good faith and so on. Not sure what the way forward is but I reckon any systematic series of changes need community approval. Not really sure whether a wikiproject talk page is the right place either. Should this be taken to the Village Pump instead? --Asterion^talk 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think taking it to the Village Pump is not a bad idea at all, that would involve some editors that have not yet chosen a fixed position, have no emotional feeling about this issue, and have no vested interest (ie a lot of work) in one of the options. Arnoutf 11:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[reset indentation]
Not only is the drive to use the David Liuzzo maps unwarranted but arguably misrepresented and unjustified: the poll provided three options, and a plurality supported retaining the old maps ('OLD'). Summing votes for the two options for 'NEW' maps is misleading (and doesn't yield a consensus) since both 'NEW' map options cannot co-exist. In absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail. Anyhow, these maps will eventually be changed to conform with maps used for all other countries (e.g., classic maps, new ones with tweaks by Rei Artur). Corticopia 03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The poll was misleading by splitting the option against using the old maps in two. The question should have been asked like this "are you for keeping the old maps or for replacing them with the new style" the issue w/ or w/o highlighted Europe could have been solved afterwords if people decided for the new style. To understand the situation it would be like having to vote for 1 Republican and 2 Democrats (or the other way round) running at the same time for US presidency, would that be fair? (the 2 Democrats, or Republicans running against 1 opponent would not stand a chance) -- AdrianTM 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If Joseph Lieberman runs and is somehow successful, even though it may split the vote, of course it's fair. :) Anyhow, if that is truly the case (and I don't necessarily agree with that), we're back where we started. Why? Even if you sum the 'NEW' votes, there's still no consensus for the proposed changes and deferrence should be given to the status quo (as already noted above). And if there's a belief that the poll was flawed, it should be conducted properly, not misinterpreted to support decisions it may not. Corticopia 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case Liberman would run as Independent not Democrat, my example was not perfect maybe, but I think most of the people understand what I meant, anyway why "deferrence should be given to the status quo" (and BTW, what's status quo in this situation when most of the articles for European countries use the new style?)... what happened with Be Bold! somehow I don't feel like "status quo" and "be bold" go very well together... "let's be bold and preserve the status quo, hurray!!!" -- AdrianTM 04:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth consideration that someone's preference order may have been 1) new-style map with just country highlighted, 2) old-style map with just country highlighted, and then 3) new-style map with country and EU highlighted. In this case, summing the votes for the new-style map could also be misleading. Had I preferred the new map to the old this would have been my preference order as I'm not keen on the EU being coloured as well as the country, as the point of the maps is to draw reference to the country in question and not that country's position within the EU. A further map in the article can do that if necessary, or a map on a more-relevant page for such a thing. Matthew 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the poll was flawed. Then again the poll was NEVER intended to be a final vote. What became clear of the poll is that there is NO CONSENSUS only a small majority for some kind of new map, or a small plurality for the old maps. This issue is furhter complicated by the introduction of a new version of the maps halfway through which makes intrepretation of the results impossible (to stay with US elections analogy - it is like Hilary Clinton is running, but is halfway through the voting day suddenly swapped for Al Gore). More importantly, important technical (license, .SVG, Mercator) and usuability (too high level of detail - mountains,rivers,etc- interferes with interpretation; boundary states (esp) Cyprus are placed outside any useful content) were raised during the poll, as well the existence of the Rei-Artur maps. Thus in my opinion the only conclusion from the poll is that there is no consensus; and that for any map format some essential conditions need to be met. Arnoutf 10:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The assumption that there might have been a majority for the old maps is definitely incorrect, even if one would highly unfairly consider "one of three" choices, the one for new maps without highlighting the EU is the 'winner of the election', be it by a minor margin:
Of the 'New Euro style only' votes, numbers 2,3,9,10,11 already explicitly made clear to prefer the new maps regardless whether the EU is highlighted, though others might be of that opinion as well. Of the 'Old style' votes, number 18 stated primarily the new should be used when a freer licence is available, be it also expressing concern for more simplicity; as the licences now became freer for the maps without EU-highlighting, this vote (though perhaps a weak favor for new) is for now to be considered neutral as far as preference for new versus old maps is determined. This bring the balance of 'old' versus 'new' without EU highlighting to 17 versus at least 18, while it might as well be 17 versus 26 (12+13+changed 18th vote for 'old'). — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 11:17 (UTC)

You confuse plurality (most votes for a single option) with majority, more than 50% of the votes; there was no majority for any of the 3 options and anyway it was a poll not an election. Furhtermore your calculations based on remarks by users are interpretation and should therefore not be used; only the caster of the original vote can make that decision not you. And as stated above, Wiki is not a majoritan democracy but a consensual democracy. Ie even if there were a majority, the ball is in the court of that majority to convinve the minority to stop their protest before the majority point of view is generally accepted. Arnoutf 11:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf, please continue indentation - especially when replying to someone. Your remarks are beside the point: you mentioned "a small plurality for the old maps" and there was no interpretation that one could reasonably contest, while your reply came too quickly to have allowed reading -let alone studying- these 6 voter's formulations. Therefore one can state their is a majority for the third choice, note that my edit comment was "'We have a winner!'(be it much like Bush won his first presidency)" ;-)
Note that Wikipedia is not conservative: the old maps have no preference simply because they are already there, less of course this being a reason one votes for old maps and thus would (and nearly did that way) obtain a majority. Obviously, this is not a clear consensus and should not be a final outcome. It does make clear that for now, removing a new map is not better than replacing an old one.
In case you think you can make a convincing case that the old maps might still be preferred by a majority of all the voters we had, and thus requiring to start all over again, please make it; I do not assume many voters to be very happy with such. That leaves us at the proposed survey. It too will have a majority, consensus or not, and determine which and where new maps should be and where these have to go, instead of now being a haphazardly mix as result of the edit-war of the day. That is also why I present a brief period for the survey.
Afterwards, one might consider making an improved survey with at least the Rei-artur maps as one of the options, possibly once more the old maps, and of course the David Liuzzo maps. Perhaps better first try and find consensus for what improvements might be interesting and find someone willing to create maps that e.g. show Europe much as if from a satellite above Germany so the deformation towards edges is smaller, if our soon-to-be survey would determine EU highlighting for some countries to be a reasonable idea, it might be done in a light gray shade (instead of a too strong colour, while having the darker gray for non-European nations as the David Liuzzo maps)etc. But for such survey and for one that would actually determine finished maps to become used, the details of presentation and of sequential choices and of how to weigh and count votes, should be discussed well before starting a survey - much like I in detail worked out and timely presented for the 'final survey' of what we are to do now. That should have been done months ago but we cannot set the clock back and have to move on with an apparatus created with a blunt instrument. It still beats not making a decision, while haphazardly picked maps cannot be contested and/or with edit-warring over those. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 12:08-12:16 (UTC)

Bush won by plurality vote, he had fewer votes compared to Al-Gore. So actually your argument is one in favour of the Old maps. And besides that, Al Gore was the winner in the polls, and since this was a Poll not an election......

I plainly state that WHATEVER argument people give with their votes, nobody is allowed to subtract that vote because of a stated condition but that person him/herself; sp there is truly no reason for me to read anything. This because this would inevitably create POV. By the way, did you scrutinize the in favour votes as closely as the opposed? As far as I know there are not yet provinces and municipalities provided by DavidLiuzzo, a precondition made in my own (weak)support vote; why did you not cancel my support vote in the light of the argument???? (Actually this is why I think we should not recount, whatever we do). You exhibit a clear POV in favour of the D-L maps; which is your opinion; and which you are entitled to, only please realise that you should be very, very careful in interpreting other editors opinions, as any interpretation is likely to be colored by your POV; and thus no longer the other editors' opinion.

The problem with your new survey is that the way it is phrased now, I would oppose, up to strongly oppose to almost all options, so how do you think to arrive at a majority (unless the opposition is too tired and gives responding). To be honsest, if you get fewer than about 30 votes, I would not even start interpreting it, as it is clear you missed about half the involved editors.Arnoutf 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, one cannot require clearly more than half of the already brought votes, by requiring 30 votes while only (18+12+13+3) 46 voters were there, a minority of ([46-30]/46) 35% can enforce its will against an 65% majority. We cannot assume whether new voters or how many might come to the survey. It could be reasonable to require 24 votes (half + 1). But then tell what happens if only 10 or 23 votes would be made...
My POV is indeed clear: David Liuzzo colour scheme and full detail for a map of entire Europe as this is the one and only reference normally expected (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, how far out of the European mainland is Iceland,...) when locating any European country, with EU highlighted for EU members that have voluntarily become a subdivision of the EU (Schotland has its own parlement and can make certain decisions autonymously but we do not contest the UK, though who knows it might declare independence one day and what could happen then; if Flanders would break with Belgium what military power would stop it?) and it's the only (supranational) 'other' besides Taiwan in the non-European oriented CIA World Factbook, but highlighted as I suggested in my former comment and with the there-mentioned projection.
More importantly, I do not allow my POV to falsely interpret other voter's expressed intend. Of many I cannot state what I might expect, of the ones mentioned - why do you not contact these on their talk page and ask? The 18th opposed vote, by my reading, is in favor of new maps with a freer licence, but I still counted it as neutral even though that was stated to be 'primarily' the reason for voting for old maps. And I think you agree that the summary is pretty NPOV by now; you had emphasized 'Old' POV, perhaps you were by then in favor of the Rei-artur maps, or you were afraid to show a POV according to your own vote, or you are more succeptive for points different from the ones you are already aware of. NPOV is NPOV... and the whole idea of Wikipedia is not to have neutral contributors, but to have contributors with their clear POVs writing decent NPOV articles. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 13:09 (UTC)

How many votes would you think would be reasonable if not 30? I would not dare to attach any meaning to the votes in your renewed survey if e.g. only 2 editors voted. Arnoutf 13:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for my somewhat confounding figures in my former reply, I was in a great hurry to leave; I corrected it straight in there as the conclusion is not different.
I hope for at least 24 voters to give it some weight; but if you and I would be the only ones and in the event it would not be a tie... I hate to say it but one way or the other a decision is not avoidable; the blame would be for the absentees. I do not think it'll be that bad, as soon as the EU-highlighted licence is OK (I don't know what's keeping David Liuzzo from taking care of it: it appears a two minute job), the survey should start and we'd better notify each of the known earlier voters on their talk pages. From 24 votes onwards the decided maps can be given some time so as to see reactions from a larger public and learn some lessons. In case the reactions are not too bad, it should remain at least for, say a year, longer if reactions stay out or appear favorable, or till apparently better maps would have been designed; else we would still be able to take some time for a presentation (including objective and known subjective pro/contra arguments for all available maps) or even to find one who would create a sample for a small and one for a larger country, according to reasonable suggestions. With less than 24 votes we would have a temporary solution, but 'reelections' with once more only 2 voters, do not solve anything; it could however not serve to keep someone (else) from restarting the discussion and/or a new poll. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 16:10 (UTC)

[reset indentation]
I think you place undue weight on your survey, but just let's see what happens. Arnoutf 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the rationale is not agreeable: there is a Wikipedia tenet to 'ignore all rules'. If the subsequent survey is as flawed or misinterpreted as the original (i.e., you cannot merely add mutually exclusive 'NEW' votes and say that this is a mandate for action), then it too is not authoritative or useful. In this instance, 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4. And, to flip the topic on its head: those who maintain and support 'NEW' maps without consensus seem to ignore the months that transpired during which countless editors explicitly or implicitly supported the status quo (i.e., the prior simpler PNG maps before any of this began). That's not to say that innovation isn't desired, but the proposed change isn't necessarily it -- for instance: I support Rei Artur's maps or SVGs with a similar colour scheme to the originals. Corticopia 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As well, In 2000, Al Gore garnered a plurality (more than anyone else) of votes cast, but a plurality of eligible voters didn't vote (since less than half the electorate voted), while Bush garnered a majority (more than half) of Electoral College votes. And some say that Bush won because the US Supreme Court said that he did. :) Corticopia 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The vote was organised by a voter for 'old'. Then the badly designed and badly formulated split of 'new' in two was done by MJCdetroit who voted for 'old' on November 16, 2006. This was criticized by several voters for 'new'. The 'new' sections were not entirely mutually exclusive, even when inspecting the voter's comments and arguments and taking only those into account that clearly prefer the other 'new' above 'old', as I showed earlier in this section, give a majority of 'new' (in that case without EU) above 'old'. The split had been construed either maliciously or innocently in a bad way, trying to abuse the obvious outcome for your point is not acceptable. There were no two 'candidates' for 'new' fighting each other, but the single 'candidate' for 'old' forced his opponents to split incoming votes. There is indeed a Wikipedia tenet to 'ignore all rules', but it should not go too far... — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 19:45 (UTC)

You interpret one of my former edit comments correctly: the US was the laughing stock of the world because it apparently could not organize elections properly, so there could be a discussion and need for a disputable ruling afterwards. But that was indeed done. Whatever one may say about the survey I designed, all is timely and in great detail open to criticism, and the possibilities are clearly visible for anyone before voting, knowing it not needing any interpretation afterwards. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 19:57 (UTC)

I think it was probably not on purpose, and I think that editor could not have foreseen what happened afterwards. I am very hesitant to go further than saying there is no clear consensus based on the results of the flawed poll (actually you are the only one insisting that the poll resulted in a clear outcome). Briefly on your new survey. I think that one it truly to complicated (what do your statements mean, how do you have to vote, what adds to what) so that may be the flaw in your survey. IMHO if you have to read a manual (and your survey has one) the service or product is too complex to be useful. Arnoutf 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's simple enough: the line in bold says it all. The rest are technical details that explain how exactly one will assume such second choices, to eliminate discussion afterwards and avoid multiple successive polls, when votes have actually been comitted: just assume whatever number of votes and start from the top of my detailed explanation, see if you get stuck or could go two ways. One does not have to learn the details to vote, but of course it does not hurt to understand it either. If you think any assumption of second choice is unlikely to be the natural one for a particular vote, best say so before that survey starts. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 21:33 (UTC)

Ok then there are several unclarities to me, even after reading the text:

Can I submit more then one vote, or should I only vote for one option.
What to do if I agree with some and disagree with others, how can I give that subtlety in the case I am only allowed one vote? (ie I am not sure your options are that nested as you suggest)
How should I vote if I oppose to all options, and how will this be added up in the mysterious additions you proposse.
You say that you will add some votes together. How can I be sure that when I support one option but strongly oppose another that my vote will never be added up to the option I oppose?Arnoutf 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's good to worry, but either work it out theoretically, or best actually follow my advice with practical what if's. Now your answers:

Title of vote section: "Your vote under only one of the seven options" (it's in italics there as well).
Do you suggest giving 1/3 vote here and 2/3 there? Pick what is best, or what you least object to. It's called voting. But arguments can of course be given, no personally preferenced second choices (see last point)
If you equally oppose to all options, you decline: you had been definite supporter of 'old' and refuse admitting to a next best thing. Nobody is obliged to bring a vote. (You might have supported Rei-artur maps, but that was not an option of the first poll; we cannot change that any more and those maps were only mentioned by very few.)
Simple: assume any personal point of view that stands even the faintest chance of convincing a few people. Bring your vote to what is best or least inacceptable. Assume you voted for I and II had more votes, see in the explanation what happens with your vote, which option becomes supported. Can you think of any better option of II? If you voted for II and I had more votes, ... If your own primary (I or II) has most votes, your vote is not transferred to the other section, but might support another within your primary. See if any of these could possibly upset any personal POV: your vote cannot possibly support what you strongly oppose.

— SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 22:50 (UTC)

In that case I disagree with your survey. If opponents to all options have to decline voting and are thus not counted in the total votes cast you will always find a majority (a bit like the communist voting system where you can only vote for the current president). I think that is a major problem in your system Arnoutf 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. None of the voting options presented to me allow me to register that I am dissatisfied with them all. (Not voting doesn't differentiate me from anyone on Wikipedia who doesn't even know about this, so that's not a mark of dissatisfaction) If I were to vote for a least-worst alternative then I risk adding further credence to maps that I think are fundamentally wrong because they do not best show the location of a country in relation to its neighbours and are unnecessarily complicated. The issues of whether or not to shade in the EU countries or whether other continents should use similar maps are very much secondary to me. Matthew 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course one disagrees with the survey if one's only intend is to vote against everything the survey offers. Where do you see a 'against all candidates' voting list? People stay home or where voting is obligatory they put a blank form in the box, they are indeed not counted apart from the unaware, the indifferent or the lazy. The 'old' / 'new' was voted for; the current survey had been clearly presented well in time; no suggestion ever came. The moment the voting is finally opened, suddenly one gets creative - be fair, please. Or should it be one section 'None of the above', so that all 'old' voters will be able to say "See, none of the seven 'new' sections was supported by more than 9 people, but we had 17 votes - thus our clearly largest group wins, the old maps must stay or return!" — It's already been done once and that 'argument' did arrive. What other purpose could an 'oppose all' option serve? Matthew already voted to say he's dissatisfied with the new maps: we know that. He now gets the opportunity to state which is not quite as terrible. If he would sincerely think the seven options to be equally terrible, he would be crazy because some options allow the new maps to become more widely used than others: One then votes for the most restricted option. Though I really do understand, I too do not like to vote for something I strongly oppose. But I did so not long ago on an entirely different matter (and 'lost' the second round as well. S... happens). — SomeHuman 5 Feb 2007 17:50 (UTC)

There you are wrong. Blank votes are counted with the turnout, and in many elections systems a proposal needs a majority of all cast votes to be accepted. Ie 51% blank votes would mean rejection of the proposal. More problematic is the liberty you take with carrying over the votes to other options which are in your opinion similar. What if the only difference between options is just that difference the voter is vehemently opposed to; who are you to determine that the vote can be carried over? Arnoutf 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The voter is responsible for his vote by the rules that are set out: the important thing is that the voter cannot be deceived and that the rules are final and public before any vote appears. The way blank votes are counted, depends from country to country; there too, it is important that deciding upon which handling mustnot occur after elections. The carrying of votes is not set out arbitrarily but rather logically, and is the only way to obtain a practical decision without at least one more voting round. By the very last sentence of your (rephrased) vote, I realize that you might misinterpret the weight of this survey. The presentation overview clearly stated for all three II-options (using bold style etc here as it is there): ...", but maintaining older maps for other continents (pending separate discussions later on)". I've now put a [*]-mark behind each actual vote — where I had not wanted to make each of the three sentences too long by repeating something that should be all too obvious: we simply have no right to let 'our' survey stop people from later discussions on usage of maps. But we can refer to this survey if a few maps for e.g. the Middle East become available and some people try to put them into articles without a proper discussion. In other words, my vote under II does not mean I oppose using the maps elsewhere, but that I do not want it to happen as anarchically as it went for Europe. — SomeHuman 6 Feb 2007 18:02 (UTC)

Gallery of different map formats

Just to remind us what we are talking about; here are the different maps:

Classic map series: No vector- Public domain
Classic map small states
Rei Artur map series: Vector- Public domain
Rei Artur map small states
Europe location series: No vector- Not fully released to PD
Europe loc for small states
Europe loc for smaller states
EU location series: No vector- Not fully released to PD
EU loc for small states.
Europe loc for smaller states

Summarising some of the arguments not immediately visible on the maps:

Scalable Vector is the preferred format for technical reasons
Wide application and editing would benefit from unconditional release to the public domain
The maps should be available on WikiCommons.
Mercator projection should preferably not be used.

Based on all above, my vote goes to the Rei-Artur maps series because they are vector, released to public domain and uploaded on wikicommons, reasonably detailed but not overly so, are limited in the amount of space they require and are not in the mercator projection. Arnoutf 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I found this page through the AN/I about the map controversy. I did look for the aforementioned Village Pump discussion, but couldn't find one, so I'm posting this here. I don't edit Geography pages much at all, beyond requests for a few towns in the Rhineland-Pfalz of Germany(Check my contribs if needed). I went looking at a few of the EU pages, browsing edit histories, and I wanted to cast my support for the Rei-Artur maps. The pseudo-natural colors are a bit more 'legible' to the less-discerning eye, and the color, overall, attracts the eye. Just my feelings. ThuranX 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also coming here as an innocent bystander, I don't much care about the issue of the EU being colored differently, but the EU maps seem much too detailed for the scale at which they are being used in the articles. The relief colors, rivers, etc. all just make the map much more confusing when it is ~250px wide, without adding much relevant information. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

as somone who is new to this discussion, I prefer the Rei-Artur maps as they are in .svg format, and don't use the Mercator projection (France shows up as being less than half the size of Sweden, obviously looking incorrect unless you look at it more closely). --Bob 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

agree with Bob the Rei-Artur maps are the best choice. --Barry^talk 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Greece

The following was moved from Talk:Greece#Map:

The reason I am reverting back to the original map is the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries. In order to maintain some coherence, the decision of which map should be used should be done there. Note however that I am not a member of WikiProject Countries, nor have I participated in that discussion. For a similar discussion, see Talk:Sweden#Which map should we use?. For now, you should all consider changing the map a violation against community consensus. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? On this article? Is there a consensus here to use an ugly map? Is there a Wiki policy about maps? -- AdrianTM 17:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides even on that page I see 23 votes for the new style and 18 for the old style, why do you talk about "consensus" what consensus? -- AdrianTM 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a wiki policy - but it has been discussed by the WikiProject "responsible" for ensuring all Wikipedia's country articles are kept in line with each other. How you count 23 for the new and 18 for the old I don't quite understand - the tally is 18 for the old, 11 for the new with EU highlightning, and 14 for the new without EU highlightning. While one could interpret this as "no consensus", a lack of consensus means that it should stay until a consensus has emerged. Furthermore, you argue that there is no consensus here to use either one of the maps - well, there is no consensus to change it, either. The only two who have given an opinion is you, and me, and our opinions are equal. As there is no consensus to change it, it should remain in it's original state until the issue has been settled and a consensus reached. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the tally I'm speaking of is the one found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Vote. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see 23 for the new design against 18 for the old one. (as I noted in that page dividing new design vote in two is not democratic) -- AdrianTM 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are "WikiProject" decisions binding for us? -- AdrianTM 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The "new design" is not one design - that page speaks of two entirely different designs. And if you'd count them as one, the tally would be 18 to 25, not 23... WikiProject (have you not ever heard of a wikiproject?) decisions are "binding" in the sense that they represent a community consensus. Think of them as a centralized discussions. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that Wikipedia is not a democracy doesn't mean using weasel ways to split the vote... but who knows, believe me, my count was accurate 'at the time I posted. It's 18 to 24 (actually I double voted) so... why use a minority view? Please explain. -- AdrianTM 20:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"WikiProject (have you not ever heard of a wikiproject?) decisions are "binding" in the sense that they represent a community consensus. Think of them as a centralized discussions." -- the point is that people who edit this page and other didn't even know that there's a vote taking place in other part that affects this page. That's a heck of "consensus". -- AdrianTM 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the top of this very talk page, there's a huge yellow box saying "This article is part of WikiProject Countries, an attempt to formulate a template for country articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion." And even if one would consider your points to be correct (which I still do not), there is still no consensus to actually CHANGE the map - and as thus, no change should be made until a consensus has been reached. I'll revert back to the original map and then I'll list this at WP:3O. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Without a working knowledge of European geography, I have to say the new maps give a clearer impression of the correct shape of each nation-state, however, this article is about Greece and not Greece's position within the EU so I see where some of the resistance could come from. A good way to resolve this dispute would be to deflect it back to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries and retain the old map until a consensus (a mostly-mutual agreement, not a numerical majority) is reached there. Flakeloaf 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you reach a "consensus" when people have different opinions? You can hope that people that have different opinion to change their mind or to get bored by the discussion, but the thing is clear, people don't like the old maps and the strange projection used for those old maps (the vote clearly showed that people don't like the old maps, deciding which one of the new maps is used: with or without EU highlighting is another discussion). -- AdrianTM 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Two points: one, the location maps are not for showing the shape of the nation, they are for showing the country's position relative to the rest of the world. A map of the country itself could perhaps be found under the header Geography or Political divisions or perhaps in subarticles dealing with those subjects. Two - AdrianTM, at least I hope you can now agree that on this talk page, the majority decision is to retain the old map until a consensus - or some form of discussion - has been reached. The count is two to one, if tallies make you happy. I've also notified Thulium of this discussion as he reverted away the old map earlier today. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So you use weasel polls and counts again... you can't say that 2-1 is "consensus" besides you ignore that somebody else changed that map. If you look for most European countries you'll see the consensus is to use the new maps. -- AdrianTM 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Look: France, Germany, Portugal, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Italy and the list continues. -- AdrianTM 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell whether there's an actual policy or consensus on which map should be used (vis-à-vis the non-binding self-made interpretations of certain users), however the new graphically superior maps are still widely used, so may be they should be removed from other articles where it won't be disputed first. Thulium 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to both AdrianTM and Thulium:

AdrianTM, I did not say that 2-1 was consensus. I specificially avoided that word as it would not be true - the term I used was "majority decision", the argument you yourself claimed in favor of the new maps.

AdrianTM and Thulium, two wrongs do NOT make a right. Using that as an argument is a logical fallacy. I would gladly revert back to the original map on those articles too, but I have better things to do with my life, so I'll stick to watching Greece and Sweden, and some others where the original map still remains.

The primary reason behind me reverting back to the original maps is not trying to make a WP:POINT, not because I prefer their graphical look, or anything like that - I am simply attempting to uphold a certain standard on Wikipedia, meaning that all Country articles should follow the same graphical guidelines. As it is quite obvious that no consensus has been reached either here OR on the wikiproject countries discussion to change the maps (even if one counts the two new alternatives as one, it'd still not be close to consensus), the original maps should remain in place in the meantime.

If you care about my personal opinion in this matter, I am against the new images because of their unfree licensing. That, however, is completely irrelevant to what I'm doing here.

Now, I'll just leave the map be - I have no intent to get into an edit war and violate WP:3RR. I hope you will read this and reconsider. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above in this section was moved from Talk:Greece#Map; the following fluently continued on this WikiProject Countries talk page :

I still don't see the point to use the old maps. There is - according to the vote that took place above - a majority that wishes to use the new ones. Why should there be a "consensus"? How do you define "consensus"? BTW nothing prevents users from Asia, Africa, etc. also to develop their own maps for their continents. The fact that currently there are only new maps available for Europe does not mean that there won't be similar ones for other continents in the future. Luis rib 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You ask: 'Why should there be a "consensus"?' The answer is simple, because it is an official Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Consensus) and is so for good reasons. Note especially the following passage from the policy page: Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how Wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. A large minority of the participants in this map poll did prefer the old maps, the poll did not include Rei Artur's SVG maps, participation was low and the debate still rages on ==> no consensus. --Bjarki 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for pointing that out. I must confess I wasn't aware of that policy. Still, as you said, the debate is still going on. There is no consensus on the new maps, true, but at the same time there is no consensus anymore that the old maps should be kept (indeed, Rei-Artur maps begin to appear here and there, and the UK at times has its own map style). It somehow seems that this conundrum will not be solved for a while. Luis rib 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The concensus policy is there for good reason, but cannot resolve every problem: There is a need for a map in a country article, I think we may assume consensus for that. There is no consensus which map to use. Solution: majority decision. Else any map must be removed, since Wikipedia is not conservative, see for instance WP:BOLD, and one cannot argue that an existing situation can only change after reaching consensus. Consensus is what we seek to determine whether or not changing and if so whereto; no consensus does not stop WP's existence. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 20:08 (UTC)

No it is not. Wiki is based upon reaching consensus (ie all involved parties being able to live with the solution). If no consensus is reached there is a dispute and majority voting is nowhere to be found in the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes article; all solutions aim at solutions that all parties may live with (including arbitration by a neutral arbcom). Arnoutf 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In case a consensus cannot be reached, a majority can be accepted by consensus; such consensus is largely expected from people participating at a survey - and I really hope it to be a well argumented one - and people may have changed their opinion since their vote; but as explained elsewhere, it is unlikely that improved maps and freer licence could now show a consensus for old maps. I think that is clear for supporters of those as well. Then accepting a majority from the new survey is by itself a consensus. The alternative is indeed (edit-war or) arbcom. How will that go, do you think, in order to have the best acceptable if not consensus? — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 20:50 (UTC)

Let's hope we find a solution, but that will probably involve some giving and taking from all sides (and perhaps a different set of maps). The benefit of arbcom is that they are non-involved editors, so a decision by them maybe acceptable by everyone. Arnoutf 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was absolutely non-involved not so long ago, but when I saw the discussion and its topic, I did have a rather clear point of view and expressed it... The outcome of arbcom might largely depend on the arbitrators, because many people took part in the discussion but we did not see someone bringing arguments based on clear Wikipedia guidelines or policy, except about the former licence and that problem seems solved now. I think arbcom usually decides upon abuses, on this talk page the discussions remained relatively civil; and I do not know whether an arbitration committee would see itself fit to get out of a tie about maps: they would probably have to pick a side without convincing shelter by WP policy, and such tends to weaken the confidence in arbitrators. I hope to get out of an impasse without such: none of the map styles is so great or so terrible that a choice could be worth weakening an institution necessary for dealing with really serious disputes. — SomeHuman 6 Feb 2007 19:29 (UTC)

You are completely right. It has never been my intention to let this get out of hand and go to arbitration, treat above discussion as that of the hypothetical benefits.... Arnoutf 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a dazzled Greek

I'd rather talk about the Parthenon and stuff in Talk:Greece, so here's my two drachmae:

This WikiProject has made a lousy job in dealing with this issue. Did it occur to any of you here that the editors dealing with the related articles themselves might actually have a say in all this? I recognize that this is a global WP issue, so here's my proposal:

Stop deflecting the talk in all sorts of places.
Construct an unbiased, non-divisive, comprehensive binary (i.e. 2 options NOT more) poll for all your issues. Namely:
- Looks/colors etc of the maps
- EU or not EU
- add yours
Post a notification in all involved talks of countries for the editors to come and vote/comment.

I'd be happy to help if you agree. Niko Silver 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Such an idea has already occured to other users. See above under "Final Survey". Luis rib 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'm really interested but I find this too complicated for fresh users to follow. (I couldn't follow it through myself). Just simplify it as follows while there is still time:

You vote one time for each of the following three questions:

Map style/colors
1. I (link)
2. II (link)
EU-highligh
1. Yes
2. No
If yes above then EU highlighted for which countries?
1. for all countries of the European continent
2. for EU members only
3. for EU members and official candidates only

Then you won't have to add I.c.2. to II.b.3 et al, and the freshly invited users from all involved articles of all European countries will be spared the instruction diatrebe! Niko Silver 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Niko, I had read this section including Luis rib's reply, and later on did not remember this section name and did not read your last comment until now. The presentation of the survey pointed out by Luis rib, asked to put for criticism in another section... Anyway, the binary would not do so well: as there are no new maps in different colours (except for what your 2nd binary asks for), the 1st binary would repeat the closed poll between 'old' and 'new'. If we would ask people to have that vote once more, this time it should also have a third option: Rei-artur maps. In case none of the three has more votes than both others together, the voters for the style with least votes should then need to be asked to vote between the two remaining styles (2nd round). If then the David Liuzzo maps would obtain a majority, it would be likely for voters of maps without such available, so far to have 'supported' their preference by voting 'No EU-highlighting'. Such preemptive voting might not occur in case they already know the new maps to have been chosen. Thus a fair decision about EU-highlighting would require a third round, which might coincide with the third binary. In fact, the third 'binary' would not be one: the presented 'final survey' offers a third possibility, this again could (like here-above mentioned 1st round three-option choice, require a final 4th round. But someone now asking people who already saw a poll open since November 16, to participate at a three-or-possibly-4-round survey... Not I ;-) — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 03:26 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt to explain, but I'm afraid I need hours of homework before I understand. Anyway, I like this sort of maps. Where specifically do I vote? StillDazzledNiko :-) 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, (as a redundant outdated clarification), my previous comment refers to the method for the poll, not to the actual questions that can be asked, and "binary" is not an issue per se, but binary or close to binary helps achieve consensus (60% required -hardly attained when there are many options). Niko Silver 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly complicated as well. Anyway YOU CAN VOTE HERE. I wish you wisdom ;-) Arnoutf 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are infinite codified options there where you direct me. Can someone fix this poll so that it becomes functional? I've noted only a couple of (lengthy) vote+comments (from those extensively involved?) and the poll appears to have started 3 days now! Isn't this an indication that the poll setup sucks? (sorry for shouting -poll formulation should not be a controversial issue anyway) Also, why should I forcefully express my opinion for a sum of irrelevant issues to my interests? (e.g. I don't care to investigate the issue of the older maps for non-European countries!! - let those who do decide that only!) Jeez! Niko Silver 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not my idea this specific poll, I agree with you that it is very complex; and made remarks to that effect somewhere else on this page (I have forgotten where....). Arnoutf 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It was deep down "A short_(sic) overview of the story", but it's far less complex and a lot faster than your latest suggestion. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 18:39 (UTC)

Overuse of progress arrows

I noticed the overuse of the progress arrows in country infoboxes, manely in the HDI field. I'm against their use not only because they mess up the box with flashy colors but because they might be used also for all numbers that appears in the infobox (population, GDP...). It's the problem when Users try to fit too much information in an infobox. Any thoughts? CG 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem (yet, anyway). When it comes to a rating like the HDI, it seems relevant to show if the number is going up or down. If the use of these arrows spreads into other infobox entries, then I might reconsider, but at the moment, I don't see a problem. Just my thoughts. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So-called countries

Are so-called countries, like Abkhazia in this project's scope? - Patricknoddy 4:18pm, January 31, 2007

I assume only UN recognized countries within the recognized territories should be represented on the maps. If there's an article about a separatist region then is normal to show a map with that region, but otherwise when the article presents the recognized country is should display it in its entirety. -- AdrianTM 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regional Bloc Infobox

I propose that we create a common infobox for all regional blocs, so that we won't have disparities in the way infoboxes appear and are implemented, as you would see if you contrast the two articles Association of Southeast Asian Nations and European Union. However, I know only basic Wikimedia syntax. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Social issues/human rights abuses

Does this project have a consensus on whether main-level country articles should have sections describing social or human-rights issues? I'm working on getting Cameroon up to FA-level, and I'm not sure if the article should or shouldn't have such a section. My concern is that such a section will most likely consist entirely of negative information about the country and will potentially violate WP:NPOV. Another user recently added such as section to the Cameroon article, but I removed it pending a request for consensus from the folks here. What's considered our best practices? — Brian (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In principal I like the idea of adding social / human rights issues everywhere, but I don't think every country needs one as bad as any other, if it is truly not an issue in the country, why spend a whole section stating that; this probably means that the countries with the most problems will get these sections more often. Of course if human rights/social issues are truly that bad in Cameroon stating the truth is not really violation of NPOV (is it); otherwise we could remove human right issues from all Nazi articles as well as that would also be almost entirely negative. Arnoutf 08:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf. A consensus on this WikiProject Countries should not even be the primary concern here: the NPOV policy is not negotiable, one should "simply" abide to its section on undue weight. Articles on countries do not need to be copying one another, an article is not a template. — SomeHuman 3 Feb 2007 15:20 (UTC)

That's the question, though: Is the presence of the section in and of itself a NPOV violation? Note that only two or the featured country articles have such a section. And there is a recommended template that this project has agreed to support; it's on the project page. But I'll go ahead and add the section per your recommendations. Perhaps a bigger question is how does one determine which subsections to create in an article once one strays from this project's recommended template? I note that some country articles include "Eduation", "Military", "Human rights issues", "Ecology", etc., etc., and all of these could conceivably be added to Cameroon's page. But that would make the article too long. What's the solution here? I've never worked on a broad country article like this, so your help and advice is much appreciated. — Brian (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you could add all those. In general I think much of this information maybe relevant, to mention at least in a single paragraph. Perhaps you can use a summary and create an article where the specific issue is explained in depth (see e.g. the Netherlands). What to take in, that is a tough question and is mainly at the editors discretion, it is a thin line between putting in irrelevant details and creating a (too) long article, and omitting essential information. I think these are choices we all have to make, and the multi-editor involvement in Wiki may help there to balance these questions. Good luck Arnoutf 10:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That so-called 'template' is in fact a structure, advisory only as the project page explictly states; not a Wikipedia template that enforces an identical structure as part of the article it is used in: an article is not any template but needs to describe its topic as well as possible; it may help to start from a basic sample so as not to forget a section and it makes sense to use a same order of sections unless there would be a very important reason to deviate from it. Depending on the intercontinental and well-sourced perception, and on the historically lasting or highly contemporary character of such, the human rights issue could have an entirely separate section, or be a subsection of for instance - depending on the factual situation in a particular country - 'Politics' (if mainly perceived as caused by or as a clear responsibility of the government), of 'Subdivisions' (if the problem is typical for a specific subdivision), of 'Demographics' (when mentioning religions or ethnicities in case the human rights issue is mainly of such nature) etc., or as a mere paragraph if the problem is notable but not quite the main thing people normally associate with the country or if it appears to be a very temporary issue (other than a near genocide); if such paragraph cannot be clearly associated with one of the specific sections, it can be in the 'Miscelllaneous topic' section (where it might be the main issue of the subsection on foreign relations).
Your real problem is to establish the proper weight to be given by verifying how (recent) general sources e.g. not articles on human rights or at the contrary touristy articles) handle the country and its human rights issues (and compare that with such for other countries), and then verify whether in sources that specifically handle human rights issues, the country has a more or less dominant part. — SomeHuman 4 Feb 2007 10:49 (UTC)

Turning the map issue upside down

The current debate on the maps show little progress. I suggest to hold a discussion the other way around. Let us just discuss what the new maps need to conform to, and then determine which set of maps fits that best; or perhaps that a new set of maps need to be created. Let me put in a few categories up for discussion. Arnoutf 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss your ideal maps below. Please try not to write towards one of the existing maps, but towards a truly ideal map. Feel free to ask more topics. Thanks Arnoutf 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics

Colour, scheme, general looks and feel should be discussed here.Arnoutf 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Usability

How should we deal with small countries?
Where should the map be centered upon, (the country and its neighbours or a larger structure)?
How detailed should borders and coastlines be defined?
What other structures should be presented on the map (e.g. ocean depth, mountains, rivers, or none)?Arnoutf 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical

What map projection should be used?
What licensing, and allowance for editing by other editors should be adopted?
What format (bitmap or vector) should be adopted? Arnoutf 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a locator map? To me, a locator map is used in an article about a country to illustrate its location compared with its neighbouring countries. Any more detailed information should be provided either in a separate map further down the article or elsewhere: follow the KISS principle.

Therefore, the only information on a locator map should be:

Country to illustrate.
Neighbouring countries.
(Optional) large bodies of water.

Illustrating ocean depths, every river in a country, land elevation, etc. is completely unnecessary for a knowledge of where a country lies. Look up the elevation structure of Switzerland in the Geography of Switzerland article. See the depth of the North Sea in the North Sea article. It is not necessary to add all this information to the locator maps, and just makes for distracting pretty colours and headaches for when the geopolitical situation changes (the status of Kosovo, for instance, will most likely end up affecting all European locator maps).

It is pretty clear where I stand on current maps suggestions, based on my comments here. I hope my explanation has clarified on why I stand as such, and convince some other people on the necessity of simplicity in this matter. Kelvinc 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this. Matthew 11:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this from another point (and I'll mention a particular aspect not mentioned lately, if ever, on this talk page), to me the main goal of a locator map is:

I must easily spot the country to illustrate; not necessarily its shape (not a location matter) but where it is on the map (strong colour contrast helps best). I have no complaints for either 'old', 'Rei-artur', or 'David Liuzzo' style maps, while my eyes are not what they used to be.
Its location, not as an answer on which are its neighbouring countries (often mainly a political/cultural/economical interest), but on where is it: which continent and where on the continent (north? central? southeast? - those are the terms we normally first use to say where a country is located, its geographical location - though often that will give political/cultural/economical information as well).

My major new point is that this locating of a country on a continent is not well served if I see an area of the world that I first need to identify, and then still have to figure out scale and which unnamed surrounding countries might those be. The advantage of the David Liuzzo maps is, that a map of any country at the continent shows exactly the same contours of Europe: not only is it by most people immediately recognized as 'Europe', but after once having seen one such map, later I do not need to study it for a second, I'll spot the orange-red dot or spot at first sight and simply know the location.
As the number of continents is very limited and their shapes very distinguishable, that principle would work elsewhere just as well. I cannot visualize the location of a country (unless I already know it) that quickly by the old style or by the Rei-artur style maps. If my interest would not be, or not only be, the location, then clicking a David Liuzzo map shows a large scale map with more details that stands much more chance of fulfilling such (further) interest. (And I'll spot the Alps not only more quickly that way than finding a link to 'Geography of Switzerland', as someone had suggested, but also where the rest of them is.)

Another matter is the often criticized Mercator projection. It has its known disadvantage of blowing up areas towards poles, but my sense of locating something is rather vectoral: I'm the guy that immediately sees a painting hanging just a notch out of line or a slightly leaning door post. For me it's clear that Gibraltar is south of Lands End, not somewhere under Mizen Head - and the old maps get still worse near the poles. A 45 degree angle to the upper right is northeastward; that's how I visually remember a relative location and keep seeing meaning in it. It works on a Mercator projection, not on the 'old' maps. A vectoral distortion further away from the central meridian that gets incredible towards the poles is just as clear as the distortion of a west-to-east distance towards the poles, preference for general usage appears subjective. — SomeHuman 6 Feb 2007 00:21 (UTC)

Honestly, besides the pretty colours, I have no problems with the DL maps. The license issue is pretty much resolved, and the matter of their implementation wasn't pleasant but it's nothing against the maps themselves. Vector graphics would be much easier, both on servers and scaling, though. The differences in country sizes make should the same continent for each map tricky, but your point is well taken. As for Mercator, I think there are projections that preserve the latitude-longitude grid without the excessive size distortions in Mercator. The problem right now is that there is a very very visually different set of locator maps being suggested for Europe, which would be difficult to transfer to other continents unless the creator is willing to do all this work again for the other continents, which is unlikely. Simplicity and consistency are the main driving forces behind my views. Kelvinc 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just in order not to mislead outsiders, my usage of 'vectoral' has nothing to do with the technical issue of 'vectoral' graphics (which are not used for the old maps either). I also assume there are better projections: simply put, the Mercator type applied starting from the middle of a particular map (approximately Germany for the European continent) instead of an equatorial view - though I don't know very much about this, I admit). I think that the usage of maps for Europe will rather sooner than later stimulate creation of similar (or even better) maps for other continents, and I assume a few others can do such just as well: but compare the likelihood of such effort while not even knowing whether the work will become used... would it be reasonable to wait until some crazy maniak does that for the whole world? — SomeHuman 6 Feb 2007 01:13 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear consensus and the provision of a generalised solution for all countries (including any outside Europe), it makes no sense to use any version of the new maps, as far as I see it. On top of this, a survey in a wikiproject has shown not to be the best way to create any kind of consensus. I suggest to lay this to rest, restore any old wikipedia standard maps (in order not to break the unity and style of the whole encyclopedia) and revisit the whole issue in six month time at Wikipedia:Village Pump so to gain a broader expose and hopefully a consensuated solution by then. Regards, --Asterion^talk 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not having a consensus does not change the fact that fewer supported the old maps than the new ones, knowing the arguments like 'unity and style'. Anyway, the green box at top of the 'Final survey' had asked to criticize the survey presentation in #Proposal to close this poll, and since voting became open to Criticism on ongoing new survey, I answered a few points there. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 02:53 (UTC)

Well it is clear brute force, non summarised edits have won. There has never been consensus for a change in maps, none of the technical problems (with which everyone agreed) have been solved nevertheless by stubborn and aggressive editing the new maps have become the standard. Now my challenge mto you all as you apparantely have limitless energy in pushing the maps, solve the main technical problems and provide the maps for world wide implementation within the next year otherwise the locator map issue will be a lasting inconsistency in wiki, and will lead to new controversies in the future (not even the EU article is provided with a 'new style' locator map).Arnoutf 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, n'est pas? You'd have thought that would have been the first map made...—MJCdetroit 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

There is a considerable difference between Gibraltar and the Canary Islands. As Asterion says these are an integral part of Spain, albeit as far away as Gibraltar is from the United Kingdom. However Gibraltar is not part of the UK except for EU purposes. Apart from this, Gibraltar has its own Internet tld and exists as a seperate entity to the UK. You pass through UK immigration and Gibraltar immigration when transiting between the two places.

--Gibnews 18:28, 26 February 2007

Four unassessed articles.

It looks like something is wrong with the template added to article talk pages. If no rank is given, the template gives a default value indicating "This article has been rated as NA-Class on its quality ", which can't be correct. I've cleaned up the template on the affected articles, but they still need assessment. This affects Iceland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Tuvalu. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

People's Republic of China FAR

People's Republic of China has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to strike

This poll that is taking place here is too complex and too ill-formatted:

The voters are required to study a diatrebe of instructions.
The voters are obliged to vote for combinations of multiple issues. This is obligatory, even if they may not wish to express an opinion on certain issues! I'd resort to random voting for those issues that don't concern me!
As an indication, only 3 users (the immediately involved?) have voted since it started (3 days now) compared to the c.40 that voted on the previous.

I propose:

We cancel this poll while it's still early (in terms of votes).
We throw several polls; each poll for each issue.
We invite all WP:XX (where XX=country) and post messages to all talks of all counties concerned. Niko Silver 11:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
and conduct the polls here (or central spot), and centralize everything here. Corticopia 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with last addition of Corticopia! Niko Silver 11:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby declare that I boycott this procedure because I refuse to vote on issues I'm not interested/educated/aware/eager-to-learn etc in order to also express my opinion for those that I do care. Anybody who agrees is welcome to sign below, and I promise I'll do my democratic best to help sort this complicity out with a decent poll!Niko Silver 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

..."The first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part..." Now, seriously, this is completely mental. Either we get a simpler poll or we let this to rest as I proposed above. Asterion^talk 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree -- the current poll is too complex and too limiting (e.g., not addressing original flawed interpretation justifying newer maps, excluding Rei Artur's maps), and should be scuttled/devised anew. Corticopia 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the vote is nearly unfindable, tucked away somwhere in the middle of the page, and the options do not include the Rei Artur maps as far as I can tell, which have been quite well received lately, and would be my choice. -- Eugène van der Pijll 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Agree. Why excluding Rei Artur's maps? Asterion^talk 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I tried to find out where to place my vote, but I couldn't find the place. The breakdown into so many minutely different options is really confusing and too much hair-splitting in my opinion. And I don't see an option for "Scrap 'em all and use the classic maps". — Brian (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You already did vote that way as BrianSmithson as number 10 for 'old' maps in the first poll. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 03:55 (UTC)

Yeah, but now I'm being asked (on my talk page) to vote again, hence the confusion. — — Brian (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this motion...the poll is poorly structured, both in the sense that it excludes popular options (which may serve as a useful basis for developing consensus), and in the sense that the options are barely comprehensible -- "for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way." could be interpreted any number of ways. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The green box at top of the 'Final survey' had asked to criticize the survey presentation in #Proposal to close this poll, and since voting became open the green box linked to Criticism on ongoing new survey, I answered a few points there. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 02:49 (UTC)

Method

SomeHuman, please! This is just not workable! More people have expressed agreement to that, than have actually voted above!! Let's work together and list the issues below. I'm making an attempt, please correct me:

1. Type of maps:

Ray Arthur's
David Liuzzo's
Whoever Else's

2. EU:

Not higlighted
Highlighted

3. If EU highlighted:

Highlighted for EU members only
Highlighted for EU members and candidates
Highlighted for all European states irrespectively

4. Non European countries:

Same as European (whichever is chosen)
Different than European (will be decided in different poll)

Now if we make 4 polls, per above, (and per whatever else I may have missed), I'm sure the results will be non-ambiguous, and they will need no further interpretations! Plus, users not concerned with either of the issues above, may just not vote for those issues, while expressing their opinion for the ones that do concern them. Finally, as a bonus, users won't have to be the New York Times crossword puzzle 60" solvers to participate!

Let's just comment on the poll method first, and then we see which issues and options are eligible for listing. Does everybody agree that the above method will help build consensus? Niko Silver 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That method seems much better! --Boivie 11:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I also would like to propose we archive the whole thing above and start afresh! Niko Silver 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NikoSilver had suggested the multiple-round poll before and by the anwers should realize its intrinsic caveats. The first selection by NikoSilver would require each voter's second-choice indication as well. The suggestion to 'archive the whole thing and start afresh' cannot be taken seriously: the first poll started in November and was decisive in chosing between map styles. Rei-artur maps came too late in the discussion, and my answers in the subsection linked in my earlier comment above, point out Rei-artur maps to have severe problems as well (follow the links in that subsection).
There could well be a new fresh start (properly designed, presented, discussed and agreed upon before voting starts) when new maps would become available that address the problems that neither 'old', 'David Liuzzo' or 'Rei-artur' maps tackle properly; meanwhile there are location maps at countries's articles. The current survey continues to find a minimal consensus for what to do with those articles regarding what remained totally undecided by the first poll. (25:18 for new maps is workable especially as new maps became improved and obtained a better licence and thus one has no reason to expect a new poll to reverse that preference; 13:12 on where to apply which version of new maps was not workable). The current survey runs for a short time and will give a practical solution till really good maps are no longer pure science fiction, and those may stand a chance to gather consensus instead of a majority-of-the-month. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 14:03 (UTC)

I think Niko has a good point. Although I would make his structure slightly different sorry slightly more complex but now only binary choices. Ie a majority will be more easily gained.

1. Type of maps:

No change keep the old maps
New maps

1.a. Two new maps styles are available, which do you prefer at this time (note you are allowed to vote even if you favour the old maps, these votes will ONLY be considered if the new maps are favoured)

DavidLiuzzo's (include image example)
Rei Artur's (include image example)

2. EU:

Not higlighted
Highlighted

3. If EU highlighted:

Highlighted for EU members only (the status of candidate members to be discussed on their own article)
Highlighted for all European states irrespectively

4. Non European countries:

Same as European (whichever is chosen)
Different than European (will be decided in different poll)

Or something like this

As a post-scriptum. I suggest to collect all topics of the map issue into a single map-discussion archive, and leave a short summary, with a hyperlink to the archive on this page. Arnoutf 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As a good map is not available, better set out issues (how to get near distortionless projection for each country; identical large area per continent/American subcontinent/Middle East that makes it easy to locate each country in its typical reference area, or else a per country separate small area with country central and only (part of) neigbouring countries; in the first case, how to indicate small countries; in the latter case, should names of the neighbours occur; sufficient dark/light contrast for colours that might otherwise confuse the colour-blind, while colours should be intuitive for water/land areas; all maps having toponomical details (major rivers, mountain ranges, large lakes within a country) or better having a set of maps without these details for location as well as an identical set with such details; in the latter case, does WP offer a technique to show the simple map in the infobox but the large detailed map if one clicks on that small one; the advantage of scalable vector graphics (is svg also required for a small map version designed for being shown only at a fixed scale in infoboxes?); ...
Then new maps can be created and after proper presentation be discussed. NikoSilver's and Arnoutf's suggested multi-sequence polls would keep us running around in circles forever: if anything was proven so far, it is that none of the (partially) available maps can gather a real consensus. A few choices have to be made, most unsatisfactory aspects however do not require a compromise but just a good design. Take care of that before having people voting once more while not even having proper licences or svg etc which makes people choose maps for reasons that should be made irrelevant in the first place. And the EU highlighting would be either a de facto accepted thing, or should be determined only after having proper and no longer disputed maps for at least the European continent and best for the entire world. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 18:39 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Users with more than 20 edits prior to Feb 1st, 2007 are eligible to vote. Poll ends Feb 14, 2007 midnight UTC.

Statement: Scrap existing poll taking place right now above because it's complex, ill-formatted and forces users to vote for multiple issues for some of which they may not be willing to do so; and implement multiple simultaneous polls that will result after healthy discussion per the above methods described by NikoSilver and Arnoutf.

Sign below in the respective column if you agree or disagree with the above statement:

Support

Niko Silver 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Make it a quick, straight slice. Corticopia 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments to straw poll

Per my position in #Motion to strike section right above. Niko Silver 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No straw poll here would reach consensus, no matter how it is rephrased. At the moment, the ongoing one does not lead the voter through closed options. No proper debate can take place when people stop assuming good faith and accussing others of sabotage. In all honesty, I am not sure whether a wikiproject talk page is the right place to discuss all this. Also a reminder that Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so this is not about "the new maps got more votes than the old ones", but on trying to reach a workable solution. IMHO, Liuzzo's maps have proven in the past far too controversial to be considered in this sense (you only need to revisit any country edit history to come to realise). Therefore, I insist we take this somewhere else, opening a Request for Comments, properly announce it and stop voting at all. Regards, Asterion^talk 11:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Comments could hardly bring something that has not yet been presented as comment. Perhaps you should have a look rather deeper down in this talk page's section 'Greece': the discussion about 'consensus' and where also Arbitration Committee had been considered. — SomeHuman 10 Feb 2007 14:20 (UTC)

Sabotage attempt

It's bad enough if one cannot accept the outcome of a poll at which 46 people took part while it was open for 2 1/2 months. It's worse to disrupt an ongoing survey that was presented in detail a week before it started, while it had provided ample room for criticism. It's simply ridiculous for one editor today having tried to reach two to four others, to put up a poll to strike the survey on which already eight people voted in less than 5 days time, and which is to close by itself in another 11 days. Thereafter, provided the outcome would not clearly show it to be inappropriate, the dissatisfied editor(s) might run the multi-sequence series of polls that were presented just today. Remember that the current survey was left open to prior discussion after being presented, for a duration not much less than it takes from today till the closing of the current survey. Trying to strike the latter and/or launch a newly designed poll instead before the current is closed, is a clear sabotage attempt and disrupting normal Wikipedia procedure, and cannot possibly result in obtaining any consensus whatsoever. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 22:18 (UTC)

SomeHuman, I ... have .... no ... idea ... about ... the ... previous ... poll's ... results. If you feel that the interpretation of these results makes certain questions or options in my proposed #method non-eligible, feel free to remove them. Now this poll running up there, is totally mental. Just simplify the darn thing!

As a side note, your comment is rather insulting, and I suggest you revise. Also, your poll forces people to vote on things they don't want (along with the things they do want). This is highly un-democratic! Niko Silver 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I had expressed these concerns well before the poll started! Niko Silver 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You had created a new section for a multi-stage suggestion, to which a quick response came (quote): "Such an idea has already occured to other users. See above under "Final Survey". Luis rib 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" (end quote). You then rephrased your suggestion, but still did not make any comment in the section linked from the green Final survey box that asked for reactions before the survey would be open. The next reaction on your suggestion came not before the third day that the current survey was opened, and was from me arguing not to agree with your suggestion. Your concerns had 0 (zero) support, till it was too late as several users already had voted. On the fourth day of the survey, the next user reacted (quote): "I thought it was fairly complicated as well. Anyway YOU CAN VOTE HERE. I wish you wisdom ;-) Arnoutf 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" (end quote). Thus all three users that appear to have noticed your suggestion explicitly referred you towards the survey you call totally mental.
And yet, you started another new section "Motion to strike"... and you call my poll "highly un-democratic"... As can be expected after my calling in about 70 people ever having shown a relevant interest, including those of an opinion very different from both the outcome of the first poll and of my own opinion, and whom I had provided links to each relevant section including the one with your suggestion on their talk page, a few people supported you.
Today (actually yesterday, it's that late now), you once more started a new section attempting to strike a survey that had 8 voters by then... — SomeHuman 10 Feb 2007 01:53 (UTC)

Please note that I have voiced my concern about the impossibility of opponents of any map change (mind you a minority; but not a small minority) are not presented with a choice in your poll that reflects their sentiment. I did this well before the poll opened; but you decided not to include an option - None of the above.

Just let me suggest this: Let the poll run its due course (close on feb 21 as announced). Then try to interpret the votes. That will be hard enough as there appears to be some argumented (ie more than I don't like the colors) criticism on the maps, and it also appears David Liuzzo is not happy to overhaul his maps; whatever we do here. Arnoutf 08:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I had answered your concern: with a number of opponents of David Liuzzo maps, a single 'None of the above' option is bound to have more votes than any single one of the 7 options for how to use David Liuzzo maps. The so far only supporter of NikoSilver's straw poll to strike the 7-options survey had before that survey openened already objected to counting the first poll's two options for David Liuzzo maps together (25 votes) because the single 'old' map option had more votes (18) than either of the two (13 and 12). That split of options by an opponent of David Liuzzo maps had been strongly criticized by several voters of the first poll who saw this as an unfair attempt to make the single 'old' maps option appear to be most supported. The current survey builds on the result of the first poll, allowing also opponents to vote for the best or least bad of the options that remained; it does not attempt to keep repeating the first poll and definitely not the flaw that was by an 'old' map supporter build into its design. We know that 18 preferred the 'old' maps, 25 the David Liuzzo maps; in case we would now obtain for instance 31 votes for all 7 options together, this would not mean that 'new' versus 'old' would have come at a 31:18 ratio, for all we know that stays 25:18. The current survey just tries to get out of the first poll's impasse of 13:12, while offering not just the 2 options for 'new' that had been shown not even to offer the actual preference of some David Liuzzo map supporters. — SomeHuman 10 Feb 2007 12:07 (UTC)

Note that I expect and hope choice b (I.b.1., I.b.2. and II.b) to stand little chance, but we should not disallow the possibility, hence the more complex set of options. By democratically correctly inviting not only the first poll's supporters of 'new' but also supporters of 'old' maps —as the latter did not offer EU highlighting— I'm afraid the non-EU highlighted option c (I.c. and II.c) is more likely to be the final outcome. That's a fair consequence as democratic polling is concerned; though to my opinion it highly incorrectly breaches NPOV towards EU matters, and on November 2, 2006, before the first poll, NikoSilver had most clearly expressed to share that aspect of my opinion. Nevertheless, if I can't convince others, I'll simply have to accept whatever (even if little) consensus that may be the outcome. — SomeHuman 10 Feb 2007 13:17 (UTC)

Your suggestion is precisely in line with my own expectation: I already pointed out at several occasions that none of the available map styles is really good; but till there are clearly better ones, we still need location maps and the current closed-options survey allows making a decision for the time being. We shouldn't blame David Liuzzo, his maps are rather well accepted on some other than the English-language Wikipedias; the licence allows anyone to make adjustments, though I think one (or David Liuzzo himself) cannot start from his maps because the projection is at least here not well received and that is the basis for any style of maps — see under the invitation there and my first comment here. — SomeHuman 10 Feb 2007 12:47 (UTC)

You "invited 70 persons" and only 6 unrelated users have voted in 5 days... That's is simply pathetic. Reading and responding to your humongous comments (like reading and understanding the humongous poll instructions) will not help either of us. I quit. Have it your way. I really don't care so much anyway. Niko Silver 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Playing naive? As three had voted before, the 69 by February 7, 2007 20:44 (UTC) informed about the results of the first poll while being asked to first thoroughly examine argumentations and discussions before finally making up their mind and vote, included you. You put up your 'Motion to strike' at February 8, 2007 16:41 (UTC) (see [1], you later modified it and changed the date), well before I had modified the infocomments to clearly invite everyone with a direct link to the vote section by February 9, 2007 00:36 (UTC). When people go check an invitation and spot there is a very recent 'Motion to strike', one cannot expect many to vote immediately — the 5 votes on February 9, 2007 between 00:47 & 16:17 (UTC) then were many considering all these European times for maps of the European continent (and 46 voters in 77 days for the first poll). So far, no-one voted after your putting up the 'Straw Poll' of February 9, 2007 21:13 (UTC). Mission accomplished, why should you care. Perhaps a few people will still have a look later on and are wise enough to see here above that you had acted alone and realize that taking away a rail in front of on oncoming train, is not generally considered to be very nice, and doing it twice (having one supporter)... another act of good faith regarding the eight passengers that survived? — SomeHuman 11 Feb 2007 02:01-02:06 (UTC)

SomeHuman, I really don't understand why you keep supporting this carnival of a poll. As you pointed out, we don't disagree on the poll option supported. It's the poll method that is crazy. I just want to help de-sabotage, a self-sabotaged poll.

Re "un-democratic", you haven't explained: How can I vote on the map that I wish for the European countries without expressing opinion also on the non-European countries? How can I vote on whether I want EU highlighted without selecting a particular map design? Aren't these four issues totally unrelated? Why do I definitely have to express opinion on all of them, rather than some of them?

These are independent issues, and I believe that the reason you had so little response (apart from the insane poll complexity) is that people don't want to be forced to respond on issues for which they're not educated or interested to do so. So kindly spare us the witch-hunt on why this charade went wrong in the first place.

When this finishes, I look forward in cooperating with you in order to establish indisputable consensus by means of a method that doesn't force people choose irrelevant options randomly in order to vote for the options that do concern them. I would further advise you be more Laconic. Greeks say that's where the true philosophy lies. Niko Silver 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This survey builds on results of the first poll, and those David Liuzzo maps exist only for Europe. It appears that David Liuzzo is working at maps for the Middle East. Perhaps other people might adapt that style for other continents. We don't like the edit-warring as you know very well from the Greece article (you moved the section from its talk page here). Hence we try to find out whether one tends to accept new maps to replace 'old' style maps as soon as maps in the David Liuzzo style become available, or else better to have these properly presented and discussed before putting them in articles. That's the choice between I and II. (For Europe, that choice was made by the first poll.)
There are only 2 versions of David Liuzzo maps; these are identical except that on one version, the European Union is so-called highlighted (in fact shown in a light orange shade, while the one specific country of each map is deep orange as always). Thus in particular for the European continent (the only maps now available) we need to know for which countries to use the version with EU highlighted, for which countries the other version. That means that in fact mainly the practical choices are I.a or II.a, or I.c or II.c. For completeness in the light of future development and to avoid another discussion then, I.b (.1 and .2) and II.b are offered as well. I don't say you should vote for option I (which as you seem to express, gives a kind of blanco cheque to use future maps): like I expressed in my own vote for II, such maps can better be presented and discussed first. By your comments of early November, I would expect your vote in the same choice of a/b/c as my own, definitely not on c.
When this all ends (and it will be soon, the survey specifically intends to give a practical solution on the short term), as all available maps have serious flaws, polling 'which maps' or 'which version' is not to be our primary concern: we need to find a consensus on what we expect from a location map, and thus we can guarantee that someone going through the trouble of creating a decent map, will see the result of his/her work being used. Calling off the sequence of first poll and current survey, or starting another sequence - even if it were better designed - cannot deliver good maps on which we can find a proper consensus, thus we cut through that phase quickly and live with the result for some time, which offers an opportunity of building a better result as soon as possible. — SomeHuman 11 Feb 2007 14:01 (UTC)

I had to revert your totally undiscussed modification of the current survey: First of all, you mispresented II.a as if it would not have the Eu highlighted; it has the members highlighted (exactly like I.a). Second: the style of presentation was open to discussion before the survey opened and (by lack of criticism) was accepted as it is. Options of a survey that is open should never be reworded while it is going on; it is too late then and is bound to cause disputes on interpretation - unless a clear flaw can be helped but only after a short discussion with people that designed and examined it. Third (in fact closely related to Second): you offer as text what is your major concern (EU highlighted or not) but you do not express the choice between I and II: people in favor of highlighting the EU would tend to automatically take your first title to say it all and thus vote under I.a while in fact II.a offers an identical choice as far as highlighting the EU is concerned: the headings invalidate the choice between I and II. Fourth: Its complexity is why the options are first presented as a group of 7, to have a good overview and make proper distinction there, make one's choice, and only then go to that option and vote. Having subtitles invites people to pick from the incomplete information by headings shown in the 'Contents' box at top of the talk page, and directly jump to what there appears fit. (The latter is a problem for many polls: Wikipedia should offer a way to jump from the presentation towards the appropriate vote, without automatically showing that link in the 'Contents' box as well). — SomeHuman 11 Feb 2007 14:01 (UTC)

Jesus, I don't understand a word. May the force be with you. Niko Silver 17:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling upon either supernatural phenomenon, may not bring understanding; try reading. ;-) — SomeHuman 11 Feb 2007 19:26 (UTC)

Sorry SomeHuman, but I understand Niko here, your prose is often very complex and hard to read. If people don't understand a written message there are two options. (1) the reader is stupid andor lazy (2) the author wrote an incomprehensiblelong/complex text. Assuming option 1 is not true (or otherwise you would find another way to spend your time compared to editing Wiki)....... Arnoutf 21:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Arnoutf. I did address NikoSilver, in immediate response of his edit comment Λακωνίζειν εστί φιλοσοφείν as well as thereafter. ;-) — SomeHuman 11 Feb 2007 22:08 (UTC)

It says Lakonizein, not Cryptographein (and that includes the poll instructions). Niko Silver 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had made up for my 11 Feb 2007 14:01 texts, at 19:26 (UTC). ——— Anyway Niko, the lengthy text tried to answer your questions: the EU highlighting is only available for David Liuzzo maps; his maps exist without EU highlighting as well; his map style had most support by the first poll; his style is only available for countries in Europe; he is working at similar maps for the Middle East. Thus it is hard to separate issues while 1) ensuring a practical solution for immediate needs (stopping edit wars), 2) prevent edit-warring once again in the (near) future, and 3) prevent calling in people to vote too many times while some are dissatisfied for keeping another new style of maps (Rei-artur) out [not yet available when the first poll started, no EU highlighted version, a projection worse than David Liuzzo maps that many had criticized for the projection]. I did not see an elegant solution.
Really hoping to cooperate, primarily in establishing priorities for a properly designed set of maps; if we can get those made, polling for a consensus will be much easier. — SomeHuman 12 Feb 2007 01:09-02:21 (UTC)

[resetting indent]

SomeHuman, that's exactly where our misunderstanding lies. We have fundamentally different views on the approach for this issue. Your approach starts from what I consider to be the end. Let me explain:

Map makers in WP have started to create maps without knowing what they're supposed to do: Some have highlighted EU, some have not. Some make vectors, others make bitmaps... It is time for WP to set the standard for how maps should look like. Then, all those people's work will not be in vain! They won't have to adapt their maps to our peculliarities every time. Having created numerous maps myself, I understand their frustration and disappointment, because this is a very tedious business! The worst part is when people come to criticize your hard work.

Starting from the maps at hand is also bad for the project because it forces us limit our expectations and makes us weigh incompatible issues. For example, one may resort to accept highlighting the EU contrary to his opinion, because he just likes the style and color better.

Now, if these map-makers had specific guidelines, then the only issue to discuss would be a beauty contest. I long for this guideline formulation so as to free the hands of our (apparently numerous) artists, and help them work in a direction where their hard effort is more likely to be appreciated and distinguished. Niko Silver 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NikoSilver, you're idea that "We have fundamentally different views on the approach for this issue" is most incorrect: our views on a proper approach are identical. (See my 1st paragraph here, my 2 comments here, my comment of 12:08-12:16 here, my comments of 00:21 & 01:13 here, and clearly the very last sentence of my latest comment here above — please do take the time read these references). It is precisely why I let the current survey quickly finish what was started in November (before I came to this page) by the first poll. That process does need some outcome to serve while determining what would be better maps and making those.
Our differences lie in my acceptance of reality having gone a wrong way while keeping such as short as possible, and your attempt to strike that process while it is near its end of 3 months of discussions and voting.
I say, starting afresh can obtain a proper consensus more easily and quickly after (as everyone sees) an imperfect outcome, than by abruptly rejecting methods that people had trusted so as to discuss and vote. It's not healthy for people to have the impression that their efforts have been futile, because neither is a proper set of maps clearly displayed nor a decision made about less perfect maps. — SomeHuman 12 Feb 2007 15:41 (UTC)

Ok then, but at some point those people need to have a direction, rather than we being directed by what they randomly design. Niko Silver 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, please read those references. — SomeHuman 12 Feb 2007 16:00 (UTC)

Projections

About projections. The Rei-artur maps are basically zoomed in versions of Image:World map pol 2005 v02.svg in Robinson projection. The "zoomed-in" explains why some lakes are strangely shaped (it's easy to fix in some SVG editor), and the projection explains why some parts of the world looks strange, like Chile, Alaska and New Zeeland. For Europe, Middle East and Africa the Robinson projection is good. The Liuzzo maps are in the Mercator projection, which is good for areas around the equator, but is bad for Europe, where the northern parts becomes oversized. It's impossible to find a world map that will look good in all parts of the world, so maybe the projection should be adjusted for each continent? --Boivie 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose there's a way people are used to see each continent emulated in 2D. I'd say that Asia being the largest would have the biggest problem (and Oceania the smallest). I propose this issue becomes continent specific (rather than global). Niko Silver 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the creation of maps by cropping from a world map. See (also just referenced in the section here above) my 2 comments here. Is the blank scalable vector graphics world map sufficiently detailed to allow scanning, computing for a projection as if any particular area of the globe were photographed from above it, drawing the result in svg? — SomeHuman 12 Feb 2007 15:55 (UTC)

No it isn't but local vector maps can be easily adapted by reshaping the vector nodes. Arnoutf 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature

Wildlife of Iraq

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks — Atulsnischal 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too.
See Wildlife of India for reference.
Thanks — Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution.
Sincerely — Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Locator maps

I notice many countries are using non-standard locator maps in the infobox (France, United States). Shouldn't the locator maps be standardised? (We'd need to convert to svg format first) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL thousands of bits have been sacrificed in continued squabbling over the issue: just scroll through half of the current page! I seriously suggest reading through at least some of that stuff (as tedious as it is), because it covers a whole spectrum of issues with locator maps and you would avoid repeating what's already been discussed if you go through it. Personally I just got exasperated after a while and stopped giving a damn once the David Liuzzo license issue was resolved. Kelvinc 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps look Great

These maps are great, what is the situation regarding the nonrecognised countries Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, how are they to be dealth with. Buffadren 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Euhm which maps are you talking about, the original Gray-Green ones, the DavidLiuzzo maps, or the ReiArtur maps. Arnoutf 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

David's new maps. But some countries are currently controlled yet claimed by neighbours. Moldova legally 'owns' Transnistria, yet Transnistria has complete independence for 16 years and claims its own statehood. Other regions like Abkhazia also claim they too are independent countries but their sovreignty remains in dispute. like Buffadren 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is identical for any type of map: if it is not an internationally recognized country, e.g. belonging to the United Nations, there is little chance of a map being available. It is not Wikipedia's task to depict such area as if it were an established nation-state, and it could be more useful to have a map that shows both the mother-state and the de facto state (as for Moldova and Transnistria). On the other hand, the licences of maps do not reserve the right to make similar maps only for nation-states, and Wikipedia guidelines do not appear to reserve a particular style for a particular purpose either, thus anyone might be willing to produce such style map for any region or for any would-be or de facto nation-state. Which map could best be used is open for discussion but not necessarily directly related to which location map is generally used for nation-states. If however the article on such disputed area handles its topic in a way closely following the WikiProject Countries model including an infobox as for countries etc, I suppose usage of a location map in the style of its neighbouring countries would be the most logical. — SomeHuman 20 Feb 2007 20:26 (UTC)

The survey

I disagree with the way the survey has been run. There is no option to use Rei-Artur maps or others. We are made to choose between Liuzzo or Liuzzo, completely disregarding the great opposition against this kind of maps that many country articles experienced. This voting system is an abomination. --Asterion^talk 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think people may have noticed:

I do oppose the new style maps. The EU is not a country, depicting it otherwise is simply POV. Besides, the Spain new map is terrible, it does not even show the Canary Islands. Regards, Asteriontalk 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) PS: Any massive scale implementation like this should be consensuated and agreed beforehand. This is not the way.

And your vote for old maps (not David Liuzzo's):

6. Old style was far clearer and NPOV. Asteriontalk 23:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And then:

Can we please make our minds? I am growing fatigued of people reintroducing the EU maps to articles without even bothering to check neither the talk page of each individual country nor the edit history. Not only I consider the EU png maps as highly POV but they take an eternity to load. Those maps may be OK for the Commons atlas or even for the EU article but using them for each European country defies logic. Besides, the old style map makes more sense for countries which span across two continents, such as Spain. The new EU-style maps are simply too Eurocentricly POV. Regards, Asteriontalk 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As well as:

There were edit summaries on the issue on Spain, even if no actual debate on the talk page. I find particularly annoying that someone keeps reverting to the EU map when it is obvious by the edit history that this is not welcome. My reasons to oppose the new map are that it is too POV (being a Spain location map, why should it show Finland much more than let's say Morocco?), they disregard the Canary Islands and they use an outdated Mercator projection. I would rather stay with Rei-Artur's. Asteriontalk 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Followed with:

Excuse my frustration in the previous post. I think this is simply going too far, with people reporting each other for 3RR, not assuming good faith and so on. Not sure what the way forward is but I reckon any systematic series of changes need community approval. Not really sure whether a wikiproject talk page is the right place either. Should this be taken to the Village Pump instead? --Asteriontalk 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And again:

In the absence of a clear consensus and the provision of a generalised solution for all countries (including any outside Europe), it makes no sense to use any version of the new maps, as far as I see it. On top of this, a survey in a wikiproject has shown not to be the best way to create any kind of consensus. I suggest to lay this to rest, restore any old wikipedia standard maps (in order not to break the unity and style of the whole encyclopedia) and revisit the whole issue in six month time at Wikipedia:Village Pump so to gain a broader expose and hopefully a consensuated solution by then. Regards, --Asteriontalk 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And:

..."The first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part..." Now, seriously, this is completely mental. Either we get a simpler poll or we let this to rest as I proposed above. Asteriontalk 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

After another contributor's comment followed with:

Agree. Why excluding Rei Artur's maps? Asteriontalk 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And not not forget:

No straw poll here would reach consensus, no matter how it is rephrased. At the moment, the ongoing one does not lead the voter through closed options. No proper debate can take place when people stop assuming good faith and accussing others of sabotage. In all honesty, I am not sure whether a wikiproject talk page is the right place to discuss all this. Also a reminder that Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so this is not about "the new maps got more votes than the old ones", but on trying to reach a workable solution. IMHO, Liuzzo's maps have proven in the past far too controversial to be considered in this sense (you only need to revisit any country edit history to come to realise). Therefore, I insist we take this somewhere else, opening a Request for Comments, properly announce it and stop voting at all. Regards, Asteriontalk 11:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately this new section you created here today, throws a more clear light on your opinion than all your preceeding comments on this same talk page. Do I understand you correctly, you do not fully appreciate David Liuzzo maps?
Just in case someone jumps to the latest created section, the action till 23:59:59 (UTC) today is there — SomeHuman 20 Feb 2007 22:31 (UTC)

I appreciate your respect for other editors' opinions. It is hard to assume good faith after comments like this or previous accusations of sabotage issued against NikoSilver, who also pointed out the form defects of such a survey. Asterion^talk 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Well, the point is that we are back to square one with no clearer solution that at the beginning. It would be a good idea that you stop aggressively pointing the blame at other people and accept that the whole survey was not properly drawn and run once and for all.

In my opinion Asterion makes some valid comments. Most problematic (as I myself have announced prior to the poll) is that the no-new-map (which was a large minority opinion in the first survey) was completely excluded from this poll. Also I made remarks about the complexity of the poll. Although Somehuman tried to do something with that, this problem was never completely countered (see NikoSilvers and Asterions comments).

If I look at both polls in conjunction I can conclude 2 things about the David Liuzzo maps (1) There is no clear consensus that they should be used at all (2) Even if they are used there is no consensus whether EU should be highlighted. In summary -> There is strong opposition, and no consensus whatsoever.

However, I agree with Asterion that we should not overly trust this democratic polling; but should try to come to a consensus from arguments. When looking at the comments of people who object to the DavidLiuzzo maps, there are several serious problems (besides liking or disliking) with the DavidLiuzzo maps. Just a summary: Cyprus does not show its immediate neighbours; parts of Spain are not shown at all; Mercator projection is unreasonalbe for Scandinavia; Rivers seem included or excluded randomly; Level of detail of mountains and ocean depth hinders usability; maps are in .PNG while for this type of graphic .SVG is considered better.

How furhter. Well I think we have a problem. There are several options.

Stick with the old maps. But this goes against many editors sentiments; so that is not really an option.
Go with either version of the David Liuzzo maps. Again this goes against many editors sentiments; and that supporters are pushing their POV by inserting the new maps everywhere is not an argument. Again not really an acceptable option for many
Adjust the maps by DavidLiuzzo to accomodate the argumented objections. Here, again is a problem as David Liuzzo himself has more or less announced he is fed up with the critisism on his maps and won't make a new version for Europe. Looking at the sheer amount of work involved in adapting the existing maps to account for all those points, I am afraid the maps by David Liuzzo can never accomodate to all (technical) problems that were mentioned.
Do something else; e.g. adopt the ReiArtur maps; initiate a project - new locator maps - where several editors can cooperate to share the workload and make maps according to agreed upon principles; other ideas welcome....... At this stage, this also is impossible, as these options are not discussed in depth.

So in my opinion we have landed in an anarchy, I don't know a way out. Suggestions welcome. Arnoutf 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the suggestion from ... not sure who ... but it said that we were looking at the maps from the wrong angle. Instead of doing what we are doing and trying to decide which maps best fit our needs, we would be better to arrive at consensus on what we want from a set of maps, and then to find or create maps that suit these needs. Matthew 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We did not land in an anarchy. The first poll was badly organized but took too long a time to neglect it, thus my survey built on what could be used and appeared complex - which is not a good reason to try and stop or discredit it the way it has been done ; it is not as complex as wild suggestions had indicated: there came votes for only 3 out of 7 options (I had expected one more kind, but certainly not many votes for any 'b' option) and adding the results of both 'a' does not seem disputed even by my strongest opponents: it was simple logic but that requires a precise and detailed presentation (even for unlikely events), else the results would be disputed (as happened after the first poll though adding votes of Liuzzo map supporters was very logical as well, it should have been clearly stated from start). We're actually rather fortunate: despite a very unclear EU-highlighting outcome of the survey (just as of the earlier poll), the EU countries' articles ended up by maintaining one style. The survey gives no right to start changing every article's map, and one can expect people to have a look on what other EU countries did before committing changes (or else be quicky reverted without much sympathy by other regular contributors); Sweden was waiting for the survey's outcome and will probably follow the other countries as 'Sweden' did not suffer a particularly vicious edit-war. As such, there may become a de facto consensus (just as most people had accepted the 'old' maps without discussing those till a new design came up). 'Spain' might remain an exception, at least it can claim a reason, though I personally am not convinced it to be a valid one. I had hoped the survey to deliver an answer about EU highlighting or not for EU member states... see my answers to Arnoutf, but knew very well that we all prefer better maps than what is available. If the need is as real as it appears immediately after being involved in long discussions (might there be more important improvements possible at Wikipedia?...), I suggest reading through all discussions once more and have a good look into the talk pages of the European countries, mainly putting attention on what is mentioned about what a location map is supposed to be. Let's read and think for a couple of weeks or so instead of losing our time and energy in futile discussions (some aspects of what people want are contraditory and will remain disputed, a map that suits everyone just fine cannot exist, but let's be aware of all considerations before pushing for a specific design). — SomeHuman 21 Feb 2007 23:28 (UTC)

No outcome, stay with old maps

Somehuman started to push his own POV; the EU-location map series, while this has a clear minority over BOTH polls (ie first poll 12 in favour 14-18 for other options / in his own poll 8 in favour 9 for maps without higlighting). The only argument is that it is accepted in other pages (for now); and that this has become status-quo; hence the TRUTH; however as I tried to find arguments on talk pages and could not find any; this renewed status quo is just the result of a number of FANATIC new map supporters. Accepting this new status-quo is just giving in to agressive POV pushing; if the world had done that the whole of Europe would have been part of the Deutsches Reich; so that CAN NEVER BE AN ARGUMENT. David Liuzzo provided a legend for his maps, which was understandingly was in German (1st) and English (2nd) as David himself is German. However; due to his choice of languages I am of the strong impression that this legend CAN NEVER BE REFERRED to on English Wiki for countries that do not have German as first language (ie germany, Austria and Switzerland). Hence ANY REFERENCE TO THIS LEGEND MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALL OTHER COUNTRIES. Arnoutf 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry for shouting and rude language, but SomeHuman took his interpretations of as the polls and the POV pushing by other editors as a reason to push his own POV all-over; this must be stopped here and now.

I agree completely, A.: there was NO consensus for the changes to begin with, so a renewed consensus cannot exist to reaffirm. Nor has any arisen from the recent poll. In actuality, and using the pollster's logic, the original PNG maps are the consensual maps because they were in place for months before the recent morass. Nonetheless, change will happen. Anyhow, there's no need to shout: after all, in cyberspace, noone can hear you scream. ;) Corticopia 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to keep believing in the good faith of some editors, a poll that I had not conducted and was open for several months had shown 25 people to prefer a David Liuzzo style map, only 18 the old style. I recognized that fact and started a survey to finds out which of the two versions (different in only one aspect) should be used, and for which countries (especially if a similar style map would become available for non-European countries). By the time the survey ended at the precise moment that was said before it was started, just about all countries of the European continent have the David Liuzzo style map put in the article - sometimes after edit-warring but never by me, I never touched the maps during the poll and survey. And the survey had not given a very convincing answer with 8 against 9 votes, but 25 out of 27 !!! EU countries had the map defended by those 8 and was still disputed in only a very few countries' talk pages, for the very large majority there was no controversy any more. The poll, the survey, this Wikiproject Countries article, and general Wikipedia guidelines, all clearly stated to keep a sense of uniformity. That is not my pushing my POV, is it?

Your accusations of POV pushing... I know of about 5 people to have gone through great lengths to jeopardize the survey or the introduction of maps at a countries page: User:The Professor-User Talk:The Professor on the UK article, User:Asterion on the Spain article and on this WikiProject talk page, User:NikoSilver on this WikiProject talk page (but might have become more moderate, we had quite sensible discussions later on), and (at first seemingly moderate) User:Arnoutf at this WikiProject talk page and suddenly at the Netherlands article and elsewhere, and User:Corticopia on this WikiProject talk page. Only the latter four seem to have been in a clear conflict with me. For the survey I had contacted 69 people on their personal talk pages after 3 others had already voted, and I put a note in each of the 27 EU countries' talk pages... 4 out of who knows how many people, does not sound like I am the one overly pushing my personal POV, does it? Especially since I tend to take clear undubious stands in argumentations, without weaselry, and I clearly conducted the highly visible and discussed survey and my signature is at every of the nearly 100 invitations to it.

Arnoutf suggests that I introduced a "primarily" German 'legend' at the maps. That 'legend' link already was introduced for nearly all articles (I think it was for Germany and for Ireland that I introduced it, about 3 countries did not yet have that link). For all other countries I simply rephrased the map caption text and maintained the existing link. That bilingual legend was there all the time during a long discussion and I think it may have been David Liuzzo himself who pointed at it. Never one comment. But now the overwhealmingly important capitalized argument should suddenly allow disregarding everything else because a few people cannot accept a de facto consensus... ??? Funny coming from Arnoutf who had earlier strongly emphasized that a poll is not a voting machine and should only be used in order to obtain consensus.
— SomeHuman 24 Feb 2007 00:08 (UTC)

By the way, Corticopia, you should have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Comments following the 'final survey' that was closed before February 21, 2007, which is where Arnoutf should have formed his further criticism. Perhaps my argumentations there would not make it seem all so obvious. Please note that I only knew about the Liuzzo maps and came to the WikiProject page when the discussion had been going on for a while and I never changed an article's map or so until a few hours ago.
Your argument as if the old maps would deserve being kept because they were there a long time, makes very little sense: there was no competition. The David Liuzzo maps became inserted in many an article as soon as their existence became known, they were discussed and for some countries caused rather serious edit-warring. Under such hard conditions coming to a nearly total practical usage of the Liuzzo's and his EU type for nearly all EU members, usually without further problems, is about the best consensus one can expect.
As I already explained in several sections (users keep creating new sections for old topics), the even more recent maps like those by Artur-rei did not gather equal enthousiasm as Liuzzo's (though some contributors did receive the former very well), and have very serious flaws that would not survive an in-depth scrutinizing as was done for the Liuzzo's. This appears also the case for TharkunColl's map style that received very little support on the UK talk page.
And not I was introducing the Liuzzo map anywhere, I just reverted to it on one article after checking its discussion page, and then Arnoutf suddenly put an Artur-rei map in the Netherlands article he and I were in an edit war for a few hours. For the two EU countries that had not yet adopted the Liuzzo maps undisturbed for at least several days, I joined the discussion on these countries' talk page. Though in the case of the UK, I would have changed the map if the article had not been protected for totally unrelated edit-warring shortly after one person had forced the wrong David Liuzzo map in, to average readers presenting the UK as a non-EU member (no other EU country used that map), which is not just POV but a straightforward false statement. I'm not touching the 'Spain' map (the article is not protected) because it uses an Artur-rei style map and thus does not appear to make any statement regarding Spain's EU membership. The discussion there is still going on, on nationalistic grounds, I assume. — SomeHuman 24 Feb 2007 01:34 (UTC)

Mind you, I tried to be reasonable, but not only did the D-L map appear (without any of the many technical problems mended); suddenly there was also an unwieldy caption and IMHO unacceptable reference to a German+English legend added (it was not there before in the Netherlands article). Hence I cannot but conclude that SomeHuman overinterpreted the leeway his own poll gave him in a major way. Something I have protested against from his first version. That he disregarded the protests of everyone against the flaws in his survey; and that he labels anyone standing up against his actions afterwards as vandalism and bad faith, seems to be bad faith in it self.

For now I will accept a EU-location map for the Netherland, but not as official policy, only not to pollute Wiki with edit warring; and because I truly am not looking for any kind of edit-war. However, this solution is not satisfactory to me at all; and I think it is essential to keep looking for maps that have none of the many many flaws of the David Liuzzo maps; I hope that if we ever find such maps they can be accepted without such problems. Arnoutf 09:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this is a morass -- grandiloquence, contested conduct of the poll and fcuked interpretation of results, and editorial involvement in this issue has further conflated it and not yielded an iota of consensus. My opinion has not changed -- thus, I or someone else should request third-party review (e.g., by a bureaucrat) of this entire situation. Until then ... Corticopia 10:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I am getting too much involved to see the (undoubtedly present) good side of some others. Some outside interference may diffuse the situation. Please go ahead. Arnoutf 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit late to come up with, but I think we (myself included) fell for almost all of the pitfall the Polling is evil essay warns against. Arnoutf 10:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Polls aren't evil per se: their conductors and participants are. :) I'm unsure I can lead the charge on this, but I want other editors to comment as well. In the meantime, someone must judiciously archive this talk page. Corticopia 10:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

True the poll is just a tool; but if you read the essay you will immediately recognise our ways of the last few weeks :( Arnoutf 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

hm, isn't this a clear case of "case by case"? "No consensus" always means "argue case by case". The new maps were an improvement in some cases (Germany, Armenia), while they were no improvement in others (Malta, Iceland, Greece). Can't we keep the maps that were an improvement? And maybe do "new style" maps also for cases like Iceland and Greece that address the concerns (location maps should put the thing highlighted in the center). dab (𒁳) 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And who would decide for which countries one map is better and for which that map isn't good? That causes edit-wars all over, I'm afraid. No country's article is 'owned' by its long-time regular contributors, those normally working at a neighbouring country might come in to force the(ir) standard there as well.
Anyway, there is a clear consensus on having and using a set of location maps. I know of at least 8 different kinds of map, while most do not have maps available for several countries in each other's neighbourhood; at least one country is still using such. Occasionally there might be a really good reason for not following a standard, but in general the need for a standard (if not world-wide, at least for countries near one another) is obvious, and was a much used argument in the poll and survey.
For Europe, the availability problem eliminates everything except 'old' style and 'David Liuzzo' style. As many (I think all but one) countries have adopted (more or less eagerly but by now nearly everywhere without reverting) the EU-shaded Liuzzo type on EU members and the non-shaded for non-members, that makes it a consensus; and a much more valued one than the outcome of polls or surveys, the latter could only be a starting point so as to achieve what appears now accomplished. Obviously, whatever map would be chosen, even a completely new and near-perfect design, there will always be people who really dislike them or who would have liked another type more. This does not imply that the presently used maps are near-perfect, just that they are found to be acceptable. — SomeHuman 27 Feb 2007 01:19 (UTC)

There are 3 of your arguments you gave that I would like you to consider (mind you not as a personal attack, but just to think over whether the arguments you use are as strong as you put them).

(1) If the one set of maps if so important, then we should have waited untill it became available for the whole world. Apparently you don't agree with a country article making its own decision, but think it is a good idea if a region does. Although there is something to be said about a complete region, the argument contains some subjectivity (how large should the region be, e.g.).

(2) Have you considered an alternative explanation for your 'so-called' consensus, namely that supporters are just more aggressive POV pushers compared to opponents; and that opponents have just given up to prevent (in their opinion) harmful revert wars. If you browse the pages you will see that on hardly any of the talk pages this issue has been treated in detail, and nowhere as far as I could see a few weeks ago has consensus been achieved. Consensus is not about badgering the other party into submission, it is about mutual respect and taking into account minority opinion. This has clearly not happened.

(3) I agree, there may be problems with new maps, whatever the quality. However, a better map may get closer to a larger consensus (i.e. unanimous) or at least a minor consensus (i.e. almost unanimous about 20 to 1; or grudging acceptance of the minority group). Please acknowledge that the David-Liuzzo maps are highly controversial (i.e. not acceptable in the view of a large minority) with only a relatively small majority liking them better compared to the old maps. Arnoutf 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the larger the region using similar maps the better, but as in particular the discussed area is the entire continent, there cannot be a problem. With the possible exception of islands in an ocean, a map suitable for a continent and showing that continent entirely as well, makes sense: location of a country is mainly done by realizing it's 'in the West of South America', 'in Central Africa', 'in Northwestern Europe', 'in Southeast Asia'. For the latter continent, its large size may even allow for instance maps locating countries in generally used areas such as Southeast Asia or the Middle East. But of course, there is no need to have other aspects than the depicted area, to be different for each area. Europe will probably be just a start.
Your majority respecting a minority sounds nice and I'm most strongly anti-fascist so I realize very well that even a large majority must allow a minority to exist and live well. But it makes no sense to use that argument when deciding on which one map there is, or to decide whether we drive on the right or on the left side of the road.
Whether one side would be pushing harder than the other is an unfair argument: it can be (ab)used for any decision on any subject. Fact is that for instance Corticopia who strongly worked against Liuzzo maps, got suspended for 24 hours for pushing ("4RR", actually it was 5RR), within 24 hours after which once more violating 3RR on a different matter (edit warring with an equally stubborn user, both still got a second[sic] chance); that author was also reported for "profanity" even elsewhere all in a day's job (not exactly an argument I would have used). So I have no reason to believe that Liuzzo maps were enforced or defended more fiercely, though rather by more authors. Note also that while the splitting of votes for Liuzzo maps was disputed, none of the Liuzzo maps defenders tried to strike the poll, but opponents did try to strike the survey that continued after it. Perhaps your argument, unfair as it is, explains why the results on this talk page could not obtain a consensus on this talk page. With no more such pushers available on the wider scale, even with myself as defender of Liuzzo maps here never touching maps on articles during the polling and surveying, on that larger scale the relatively less envolved contributors apparently could come to a de facto consensus. — SomeHuman 28 Feb 2007 15:36 (UTC)

If there were truly consensus there would be no edit wars, no blocks and no problems. Hence the existence of edit wars alone is a sure sign of lacking consensus (mind you I have not gone out and changed everything either)

Even in a decision on maps consensus should be achieved. Under Wikipedia:Resolving disputes; you will find that a majority vote is never ever considered. Hence that is not even a valid option here.

I think the main opposition against your vote was the a priori assumption that one type of David-Liuzzo map would achieve consensus afterwards. Hence it is not strange that opponents protest to that (in their opinion biased) poll. Note that again under the Resolving dispute guideline, there was no reason to assume consensus or even a supermajority was reached for that decision. Hence it was logical that only opponents protested (as supporters saw their vision being affirmed one way or the other by the poll). Arnoutf 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no edit wars going on. For countries having Liuzzo maps for a while, only the mentioned opponent started one recently (three others reverted his unilateral action at the 'Malta' article). Having been stopped shows what consensus was reached. Your second argument does not make the least sense: the undisputed consensus of having a map requires to pick one. There is no discussion against your last paragraph, taking the first poll into account follows by what I say about the second: a decision was required because not having a map or having both maps was never even suggested. It's like choosing on which side of the street one should drive: the precise outcome is less important than having a decision, we all want to drive safely (read: have a map with a minimum of edit wars). — SomeHuman 28 Feb 2007 16:14 (UTC)

The problem is that we delegate the power to make the street decision to the state; in wiki we have to make the decision by ourselves. Arnoutf 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

China vs. Taiwan

Please see this map dispute. Your input would be helpful. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Captions with locator maps

In the current version of the locator maps of for EU-members a map caption is given along the lines of:Location of Countryname (deep orange)– on the European continent (light orange & white)– in the European Union (light orange) [Legend].
I think we should be very careful adding captions as this clutters the infobox; and I think most readers are sufficiently intelligent to understand the map without the caption.
If we nevertheless decide on any caption I would prefer a shorter caption that reads Location of Countryname (dark orange) within the EU (light orange) and the larger European continent (white).
I think the reference to the legend should not be used for 2 reasons. First of all, the map is pretty much self-explanatory; so no need for a legend. Second and in my opinion essential is that the legend is bilingual German-English. In my opinion this combination of languages can be used in German wiki for articles that deal with English speaking countries, or on English wiki for German speaking countries. It is however very strange to refer to e.g. Italy or the Netherlands on English wiki using a legend containing German texts. As the legend is not essential anyway, I suggest to remove reference to the legend from the caption.
If people think there is a need to maintain the legend, a solo-lingual (if such a word exists) version should be made in English for use on English wiki. Arnoutf 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PS User:Noira has taken prompt action and made an English only version. Without objections, I will start replacing the wikilinks on the other EU countries toward this En only legend soon. Arnoutf 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You could simply use {{legend}} and keep legends off the maps. Zocky | picture popups 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is about locator maps inside a country infobox (e.g. see Netherlands). I think you suggestion would inflate the size taken up by the locator map to unreasonable proportion. I would prefer no legend at all, as it was in the good ol' days of the green-gray maps; but the new maps are much more complex. Arnoutf 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting Spain to Peer review and GA status

Editors at WikiProject Spain have undertaken the task of getting Spain through a Peer review process and up to GA status (and up to FA if possible). If any editors in this WikiProject would like to lend a hand, or offer any advice and suggestions, your assistance is solicited. EspanaViva 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon at peer review

I requested that Cameroon be peer reviewed. The subpage is Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Cameroon. I would be most appreciative of comments from the members of this project. You know better than anyone what it takes to make a featured article on a country. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Éire FAR

Éire has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

City coat of arms in the Template:Infobox Country

I have noticed that many of the country articles have the Coat of arms of the capital city in the infobox I have started removing them as they serve no point what so ever in fact they can make the infobox look messy but they seem to keep getting added in, there is no need for them to be included if the user wants to see the city coat of arms then they can go to the city page is there any consensus as to whether they should be removed from the infobox --Barry O'Brien entretien 03:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, we should not overfill the infoboxes with irrelevant details; that will only diminsh readability and the overall quality of Wiki country articles. Arnoutf 15:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I.: This exact discussion seems to be occurring in more than one location. The bulk of the discussions were moved over to Template talk:Infobox Country. You should comment over there and for the record I think they are unnecessary. —MJCdetroit 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon

Hey, folks. I've nominated Cameroon as a featured article candidate. Feedback of all kinds is welcome on the nomination page. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Busness sections in country articles.

World Bank has setup a website (doingbusiness.org) with very useful information that might be of interest of anyone wishing to expand the "business climate" coverage of an article. Just an FYI... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Belgium FAR

Belgium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bhutan FAR

Bhutan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Victor12 00:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Government type

What are the guidelines for "government type" information within this project? One editor's "golden paradise" is another editor's "totalitarian dictatorship." Are we primarily interested in what the country officially calls itself (in which case, the Soviet Union would have been listed as a Democracy) or in terms more relevant to political scientists? I'm asking because the North Korea article has an editor who insists on calling it a Juche state (after the leader's published philosophy) rather than anything useful like "dictatorship" or the more apt "Communist state one-man dictatorship". Thoughts? Rklawton 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In general I would say use the name the country uses itself under the condition the used concept is generalisable beyond the border of that country. In the case of North Korea I would say the Juche is NOT generalisable and is a NK relevant only. So I would suggest to go to the first acceptable overarching category (that may well be "one-man communism" althoug CIA factbook not necessarily have a NPOV). If we start with adding Juche, we might as well call the US state form "Bushian Democracy", or the UK's "Blairian Democarcy" or the Cuban rule "Castroist Communism" etc etc, that is a nonsensical part and we should not go there. Arnoutf 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the response I received after posting objections in the article's talk page. In short, it doesn't look like the editor wishes to discuss the matter. It's his way or the highway. Rklawton 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question - while I've implemented your idea exactly as you suggested, it just occurred to me that "one-man" seems to be an awfully nice way of saying "dictatorship". Is there a difference? Is that the standard for country articles? Rklawton 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not necessarily the best suggestion, just a brainstorm. I "dictator" is not necessarily correct as the government type is not standard dictatorship. Typical seems to be the almost "divine" power attributed to the leader. How we exactly word this maybe subject of dicussion, but I think that should be on the North Korea page not here. Arnoutf 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to discussing it on the North Korean talk page, but I thought that the current government type is such an aberration to the country project that it might bear some discussion here with some resolution added to the project page. Rklawton 23:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with treating it as a generic issue here, but we were going into the NK specific details, and I think that should not be here. Arnoutf 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chad Peer review

After a major overhaul of the Chad article, if anybody has some time to spare I would greatly appreciate to hear the opinions of the major number of people possible at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Chad. Ciao,--Aldux 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes

Why does your Infobox, Template:Infobox Country, use footnotes? What are their purpose? Should other Infoboxes support footnotes? We request your comments at Template talk:Infobox CVG. Taric25 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, I'd say, to avoid the information presented in the main body of the template being cluttered by (<small>) clarifications, annotations, etc. I suppose <ref>-style footnotes could be used, but, if I recall correctly, it was not favored as the infobox footnotes tended to be of a different kind (i.e. clarifications rather than providing reference information).

Whether or not other infoboxes should support footnotes depends, I guess, on whether or not they (could) include similar clarifications, annotations, etc.

Hope that helps. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

external links for contries

An external link tha is great finding out things about contries is [2] but um ya I thought some one mite want to add it to some countries because i dont want to incase i would mess something up. --Sivad4991 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

CIA factvook s indeed often used as a reference in the country articles. Arnoutf 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

I've made these new maps in inkscape, and the purpose was basically to vectorise David Liuzzo's maps in a good way. You know; SVG=sharpness, PNG=blurry rendering..
I know about the issue with gray/green standard wikipedia map colours, but I think Liuzzo's orange/camel/white are brilliant, and his maps have obvoiusly survived many months in every European country articleSsolbergj 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)



For other maps, see Wikimedia commons

I've allready been notified (by Krator) with these problems: "The lines of the red boxes on small states' maps are too large, and some are not neat. (for example, the top line of the small Cyprus box is larger than the others) Perhaps the Swedish lakes should be coloured blue?"

If people here in general think theese new maps are OK; i'll fix those things..Ssolbergj 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These maps are definite and logical improvements over their predecessors, and I would support their prompt placement in lieu of D Liuzzo's maps. I think these maps have lingered for months longer than necessary since this is a big topic/project to chew on and has been divisive in the past (and even now), but I'm glad you have weighed in. In addition to comments above, I believe these maps can be enhanced as follows:

since the map appears some sort of azimuthal equidistant projection (a huge innovation), the perpendicular latitude/longitude lines should be removed
simplify the globe; clearly demonstrate (and colour) the relevant country on it, and maybe other entities too
no need for bathymetric lines in oceans/seas: render all waters a single shade of (lighter?) blue
perhaps fine-tune Europe/Asia continental border; looks a little off (e.g., at Ural junction with Caspian Sea; portions of Kazakhstan) and the map cuts off (European) Russia at the Gulf of Kara
related point: perhaps expand the scope of the map all around somewhat to include all of Europe: extend it northward to include Svalbard; southward to include all of the Mediterranean (that way, insets for Malta and Cyprus can be designed to be placed unobtrusively in Northern Africa/Western Asia and not in Europe); eastward (perhaps through insets) to include Madeira islands (closest to Europe)

One more considerable issue: I also began creating a series of locator maps, but (based on some comments above) which are more in line with the original PNG locator maps (i.e., green/grey colour scheme). Amidst some rigmarole at Netherlands, I was intending on developing a few new variant maps, one harking of your designs. For consistency with other locator maps within the scope of the wikiproject, I believe the colour issue must be addressed. Thoughts? In any event, I'd be happy to assist or retrofit. Quizimodo 22:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: this talk page is HUGE and should be archived by TPTB. :) Quizimodo 23:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think marking the individual country on the globe would be the best. Now it tells where Europe is. I'm sitting here with my cheap HP laptop and I'm not intending to kill myself while drawing small borders on that globe.. But i'll make the white seaborders on it thinner.
Yes i'll remove those bathymetric lines. though would it look better then?
I'll make the eurasian border more precise.
I don't think drawing what's beyond would be necessary because we've got the dillemma with zoom vs detail - and i've as of now zoomed further out from what was the case in Liuzzo's. We don't need to see Egypt and all of Svalbard IMO..Ssolbergj 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But if the colour issue needs to be adressed now is the time.. Before I'm starting to produce and upload 27+ new files. It takes hours.Ssolbergj 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that

this

is a particularry fine colour.Ssolbergj 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the green is a bit darker than that, more like RGB=0,128,0. I might agree otherwise, but most other maps use the green/grey colour scheme: besides, that was one of the main reasons for me creating and changing some of the recent maps, and is somewhat reflected in prior comments about the locator maps. Quizimodo 23:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering/integrating my suggestions. Bathymetric lines are not really necessary for (basically) a simple geopolitical locator map. In response to your 2nd and 4th comments above:

the point of the locator map is to place the country in question, not necessarily the continent; thus, I think it prudent to somehow highlight the country on the globe; otherwise, there's a sort of disconnect between the globe and the rest of the map
I am suggesting expanding the borders of the map so that it includes slightly more territory -- that is, a little bit more of Europe. This would allow for the placement of insets (for smaller territories) outside of Europe.

If desired/necessary, I can replicate these maps and assist -- this is, after all, a collaborative exercise. As well, let's put some real consideration into this: if we come away with an agreeable standard -- and to do this the colour issue must be resolved -- we can replicate the basic style for all country articles (and I am willing to do this, in SVG, though it may take some time) ... and that would really be something. :) Quizimodo 23:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the globe, removed the bathymetric lines and played around with colours. What do you think? If you have got inkscape, it would be great if you would improve the Eurasian border.. I disagree with you when it comes to marking the country on the globe.. On Liuzzo's maps for instance, individual countries weren't highlighted in the small world map..

We've included all of europe exept more or less uninhabited Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard. I think that's enough. Ssolbergj 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One occasionally confuses bathymetrics with geometrical lines further above, I assume. Unless my eyes deceive me, there are no bathymetrical lines but only colour nuances indicating depth, while also the geometrical latitude/longitude lines appear only on oceans. The latter are necessary (also over land the way David Liuzzo did) because they give a precise indication of which/where/how strong distortion occurs. The maps appearing in country infoboxes mainly serve as locator maps, but should (almost) like David Liuzzo's offer a considerably larger map with good detail (whether or not this would include mountain ranges, bathymetrical depths, rivers - though with less contrast between height levels and more faintly coloured rivers than D. Liuzzo used, very few readers will still find it distracting while many may find it appealing and it offers useful extra information when looking at the larger map readily available with a mouseclick. Rather than considering green (like maps for many countries outside Europe), the blue water and camel land was quite appreciated; the green colour was only preferred by a number of readers because of consistency with other maps and others had preferred the 'green' maps only for simplicity (not as many colours, that is) - the colour itself did not appeal to anyone, as far as I remember the long discussion. If the maps for Europe become not merely accepted but also appreciated, one should be prepared to create the same style for other areas of the world; as several users appear to be able and willing to work at maps, a shared effort would allow this and take away worries about consistency. Marking the country on the globe could become awkward for small islands etc, and draw too much attention to the locator-of-the-locator map, be too distracting. — SomeHuman 19 Jun 2007 01:24 (UTC)

Nice. Comments:

As all major land features are rightfully omitted, there's no reason to include bathymetric 'colour nuances' on a simple locator map for countries: it's an over-complication, and waters should merely be rendered in a single, simple shade of blue.
The latitude/longitude lines may be necessary but the current ones are totally mismatched with the map -- for this map projection, they should radiate downward from the North Pole (longitude) and concentrically away from it (latitude); they should not be parallel with the map border (as in the Mercator D L maps). If these must be included -- and I maintain there is NO need for this (or perhaps including the major ones) -- let's do it right; otherwise, don't include them.
I see a clutch of comments from editors who 'appreciate' the orange/camel scheme, but I also see other editors who appreciate the green/grey scheme. After all, 'green' may also mean 'land'; as well, this colour scheme prevails across most locator maps for country articles. Is there a particular reason why countries of Europe should be treated differently? If this can be rationalised and is agreeable amongst editors and throughout the wikiproject, there shouldn't be any challenges and may strengthen efforts to develop/renew a project-wide standard. However, I surmise from the above that this situation has arisen largely because this has not been dealt with properly, with a number of confused votes and unclear, conflated consensus being declared from them (no matter what some editors say). This aspect must be dealt with properly: otherwise, we risk perpetuating inconsistency when, really, there should be none.
How does marking a country on a globe become awkward? These are country locator maps. For a smaller territory, a circle can do that quite nicely.
As well, as good/bad as D L's maps are, we are not married to them, either, and can innovate as needed. Speaking of which: I will work on adapting your maps (e.g., enhancing Eurasian border) and or producing and placing some variants in the next day. Stay tuned.

Thoughts? Quizimodo 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not intending to start drawing vector heightfields for this map. If someone with a better computer than mine would like to draw rivers, that would be fine.

So is camel the best colour for these maps?Ssolbergj 01:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be, but I truly believe we need to explore this s'more before saying so. Quizimodo 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I like these maps over the Liuzzo maps. First of all because they are now in SVG. Also removal of sea-depth, mountain height and rivers is (IMHO) an improvement as this allow much better scaling down of the image without making it unreadable. (If consensus grows nevertheless to add these features anyway I would strongly support objective criteria for inclusion; rather than cosmetic ones).

A suggestions for improvement. The globe looks nice, but I think it has little information value as it reads very difficultly. I think a (almost iconic so) well-known map depiction of the world might serve this goal better (whether this is like D Liuzzo or Quizimodo does not matter much). Arnoutf 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who decided that green is the standard colour for maps, and why did Wikipedia agree with that? Does anyone here know where that was discussed? I would like to see the initial arguments in the discussion over the colours. IMHO the camel just looks better (more natural) than the green, and I wonder why the green was chosen. --User:Krator (t c) 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure who decided that, but it is clear that the green/grey maps have been around for quite some time -- years? -- and are still predominant in Wikipedia. Many of the general use PNG or SVG maps (of the world, for instance) still use that colour scheme, and many (if not most) of the country locators do too. So, if I am reading the consensus guidelines properly, those who wish to argue that the D L 'orange' maps are legitimate because they have been in place for (mere) months as of late, particularly despite the contention which apparently surrounds them, cannot argue that maps which predate them for even longer and are still being used are any less legitimate.

IMHO: if we are to use the 'orange' scheme for these and other locator maps, and I'm yet unsure of that, it would have to be modified: for example, would the continent on which a country is situated be coloured white or grey? Or camel? That is another advantage of the maps I created: they simply hark of many of the other maps in Wikipedia, without over-complicating the colouring issue. Perhaps this is an example of life being shades of grey? ;) That is not to say consensus cannot change, but let's resolve this before we attempt to devise or renew a standard for European and other locator maps. Quizimodo 10:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I remember where I saw the 'orange' scheme too: all US states use it. --User:Krator (t c) 11:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, apples and oranges: the scheme isn't quite the same, with the relevant state being red (not orange), the remainder of the US light camel and adjacent territories a darker shade, with no grey. And Alaska uses a different map entirely. Quizimodo 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Full discussion

I'm eager that a full discussion is held over these maps, so clear and wide consensus can be reached. To achieve that I've posted a pointer to this discussion on many European article talk pages, can other editors add such a pointer to the articles I have not added it to? Thanks/wangi 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the SVG lossless :-) implementation. The globe I think is useful as well--I'm sure I can't position every country on the globe, and my knowledge of geography is fairly good. As for the color scheme, the current "orangey" against the blue water is just fine. Blue+green (mentioned earlier as an alternative) are too close to each other on the "color wheel" to differentiate as well. Thanks for the notice (and hard work)! I'll take a more critical look at the detail to see if any refinements might be suggested. (Country interests = Baltics, Balkans) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you do a "negative" image, you'll see that the blue and orange are opposites of each other. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, very clear. Just one request. I think it would be useful to have internal borders shown. While I appreciate that is a lot of work, it will appease those with national sympathies especially in the UK and help to give some additional info in larger federations such as the US or Australia. Where you draw the line (excuse the pun) between borders that merit inclusion and those that don't is open to discussion. (Ajkgordon 15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes we could include the national borders inside the UK on the British map. I don't know if Germans etc. vant their Federal state-borders to be shown..Ssolbergj 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unnecessary appeasement of nationalists. --User:Krator (t c) 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's simply realisation that these maps aren't limited to being used on only EU country articles. There's no reason why they shouldn't be used within a "country" too - i.e. for England, Scotland, Wales etc. Thanks/wangi 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, much improved less unnecessary detail level. I am not completely sure about the usability of the Globe depiction though.

With regard to internal borders: lets put on all the municipality borders in the Netherlands up.... Euhm no. I think for the locator maps simplicity is good. The internal border can of course be entered in more local maps (e.g. Image:Uk-map.svg which is on the UK page. Or perhaps we can make maps showing (e.g. the map of England within the UK is provided Image:Europe location ENG.png). Arnoutf 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's what I mean by what level of border do you include. The trouble is, constituent countries of the UK, municipalities in the Netherlands, German lander... they're not synonymous. And I would defy anyone to rank them in seniority lest we provoke all out nationalistic wikiwar! So, perhaps not include internal boundaries. (Ajkgordon 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

What, specifically, is wrong with the current green maps? (Ajkgordon 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)) Ignore me. I scrolled up and answered my own question. (Ajkgordon 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I've centralised Europe as SomeHuman requested. Technically it's more neutral, but I think the globe became less recognisable.. Thoughts? I've allso compared green with camel. Ssolbergj 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetically, I prefer camel. But that's purely subjective.

I don't think the globe as it is adds any information (even though it looks great). There are no landmasses depicted that are instantly recognisable and, as such, doesn't achieve its purpose - positioning Europe on a world map. I think the only way of doing it would be to (somehow) include the entire map of the world similar to this example. (Ajkgordon 21:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I would agree with the observation above that internal borders would make the maps too complicated and they would stray away from their purpose. Hopefully the globe isn't quite necessary to point out Europe; however, if adopted as a general standard, I think it could be quite helpful for some of the lesser known countries. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Vote for lower orientation of globe. :-) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good; some comments:

The incorrect latitude/longitude lines remain; they are misleading and mismatch the projection of the map
I maintain it is necessary to locate the relevant country on the globe (which exhibits only one hemisphere at a time) or whatever worldview there should be (e.g., including the CIA world map, as in my maps, which depicts all hemispheres). Again, these are country locator maps, and perhaps someone in Indonesia may want to know where on Earth Moldova is, not necessarily where in Europe it is. :) Otherwise, the worldview becomes little more than an affectation and perhaps a distraction. If retained, I would also rotate the globe 10 degrees or so west, to present a better aspect of Europe.
Internal borders are unnecessary: after all, these are country locator maps. However, perhaps variants can be produced for each of the UK's entities (for use on their respective pages only).

More to follow, including some variants. Quizimodo 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree that countries should be marked on the globe. The purpose of the globe is to show where in the world Europe is, and purpose of the main map is to show where in Europe the country is. I've got the impression that is is very standard practice for locator maps, and I don't see why you want to duplicate so that the individual country is shown both on the globe and the main map.
I didn't fix the latitude/longitude lines for these v 1.1 test images because I thought you were doing it in your new variants. Are you?
Yes I do also think that UK domestic borders shouldn't be included in these maps. Personally I wouldn't mind it, but it is too obvious that some people will protest.

Ssolbergj 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is this: the purpose of the worldview in the locator map is/should be to exhibit where a country in Europe is on the globe/in the world, not merely where Europe is. This might be appropriate for just Europe, but not necessarily for countries in Europe. Actually, take a glance at country locator maps elsewhere -- [3], [4] -- and you will find that the country is highlighted both in the worldview (a 'macro' view) and regionally (a 'micro' view).

Yes: I will fix and place some variant maps in the next day or so. I've been somewhat waylaid, so Iregret the delay. BTW: am I correct in assuming that you used the SVG map at Eastern Europe (or similar) as a basis for your maps? Quizimodo 01:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using image:Blank map europe.svg. yes, the same thing exept some lake-layers. In image:Blank map europe.svg I think they are 30% whiter than the rest of the country. Quite stupid. You can paint them blue.

I think you've misunderstood.. In the Britannica map, the square on the globe marks the frame of the main map which is cropped to a tight central europe, (instead of our full europe view)in which Germany is located in the middle. Germany isn't directly marked on that globe, just a tight frame around it. I see no conflict.Ssolbergj 02:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I used that same map when creating mine, but added details to it. It's not ideal, but better than others I've seen.

I have not misunderstood: the box in the Britannica locator crops tightly around and pinpoints the relevant territory. Compare Germany with its neighbour, Poland: the box position is slightly different. This is not the case in the globe on your map, and it serves little useful purpose otherwise. And the other locator link above clearly delineates the country in both ... and not too badly, I might add.

Anyhow, I believe the globe is better placed in the ocean, and not (obtrusively) over Iberia; however, I like that globe's orientation (which exhibits surrounding territories better), but perhaps you can rotate it southward 10 degrees or so?

I will create some variants and place them soon. Thanks! Quizimodo 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Partially agreed that internal borders shouldn't be shown although I think you are likely to receive complaints from Brits with constituent country nationalist sympathies!
I still think the globe is not the best way to show macro location even though it looks very nice. Those who are not instantly familiar with the north coast of Africa will not recognise it and those who are probably know where Europe is anyway! A flat world map projection is more useful IMHO. Where you squeeze it in I don't know! (Ajkgordon 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I made a third globe that shows all of Africa and Saudi Arabia in addition to Europe. I think that should be recognisable enough. It has less details than the one below, (which has over 8500 nodes/I din't make it) because I did it by vectorising a screenshot of the globe in Google Earth when using a wikipedia blank map in google earth's "image layer" feature. If people think it's ok I'll add more detail. - Ssolbergj 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Using a globe with arbitrary rotations makes the location less recognizable. A view down over the equator or down over a pole should be used for location. Consider using an arrow in the middle of the globe image to point toward a location. (SEWilco 12:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, the third globe is better (I hadn't spotted it) but it's still not as clear as a flat projection world map IMHO. Aesthetics A+, information B- :)(Ajkgordon 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I think a flat map of the whole earth (like Quizimodo) is the most usable option; also because these maps of the earth centered have become iconic picturs so very easy to recognize for almost everyone, this also allows you to make it (realtively) much smaller compared to a globe (although the globes look very nice). If the consensus moves to the globes I would support no 3 (with Africa).

With regard to the box on the globe. I think in cartography it is common to make such boxes (more or less) using the borders of the depicted map. The idea is that by placing the whole depicted area in the larger context, the smaller focus is also placed in that context. In this case Europe would be the whole depicted area, the specific country the smaller focus, so no need to highlight the specific country on the globe.

Colour scheme. I think the combination Blue-Orange works much better compared to Blue-Green, so I go for Blue Orange. (From color theory you can see that Orange-Blue are opposing complementary colour (like green-red) which make up for the strongest possible contrast).Arnoutf 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf on every point. I do have a suggestion for the world map: use a rectangle instead of the spheroid found in Quizimodo's maps. Perhaps a crop of the spheroid would do. Rectangles are more suitable for insets than spheroids, and distract less. --User:Krator (t c) 15:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted a rectangular world map (and moved Iceland a bit).Ssolbergj 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Restarting indents I think the top map is an awesome, save for the "iceland solution" isn't there a way in which both Iceland can keep its position, and this rectangular map can be used? --User:Krator (t c) 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking good -- I like the top map much more, but can we accomplish that without having to dislocate Iceland? That was one of the intents of my maps (see map provided): extend the scope of the map northward to include the northern parts of Europe (even if not as fully as in the map provided), and overlie Greenland (which is of Denmark but not generally considered a part of Europe) with the worldview. I also did so with the intent of not obscuring Jan Mayen, though this is minor. And, to better accommodate southerly insets (of Cyprus and Malta) without obscuring any part of Europe, I think we should extend the map southward to include more of the coast of Northern Africa (in neither map yet). I also like the globe to the left and its (unobtrusive) placement, but it needs to be more functional.

In addition, the flat-map worldview should use the spheroid, and not a rectangular, border. The worldview is a Robinson projection (or similar), for which the periphery does not form a quadrilateral, and using a rectangle in lieu is just plain inaccurate.

And let's remember that we should try to develop a scheme that can be replicated for all countries: have we fully explored the colour issue? Is the orange-camel-blue scheme ideal?

Anyhow, I still haven't had a chance to create/place alternate maps (work!), but will soon. Quizimodo 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I definately think the countries are small enough as it is. If we really want to get rid of the dislocation-square around Iceland, it's better to lie a bit and place it closer to the world map. (to be correct it would have been in South Africa) What's nice about placing it further west though, is that the presens of the otherwise empty sea (without the globe) in this map is being justified.
I had problems placing the frame on the world map. I think we definately want a squared map. IMO there's really no problem with cropping a Robinson projection, but it's not easy to place that frame. It's obviously not rectangular and definately arched, but is it symmetrical? Quizimodo or someone else can trie to fix it if you know what to do.
I haven't seen any camelsceptics other than you, Quizimodo. So right now the camel/orange/brown seems pretty definite.

Ssolbergj 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Actually, I am not a camel-skeptic (though the D L maps definitely left me wanting, for many reasons), but I am aware of the reality that many, if not most, locator maps in Wikipedia have the green-grey colour scheme. Nor is that going away, at least in the short-term. Consider me more a devil's advocate. I'm glad that we have been able to discuss standards/requirements for enhanced locator maps, and not without some pain along the way, but we need to be sure that what we arrive at is reasoned and agreeable yet more functional. We are essentially discussing standards for renewed locator maps not just for European but all countries (hence this wikiproject), and I believe there have been prior (abortive) attempts to do that. If we get it right, implementation may be easier and less contentious than previously. After all, the devil is in the details. ;9 Quizimodo 00:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Looking really good now - very professional, aesthetically pleasing and informative. My comments are:

Stick with the blue/camel. Best for contrast.
Go with the spheroid macro map.
Would it be possible to make the macro map 50% opaque? Might this help in not obscuring Iceland or Greenland? Probably not but worth a try.
I'm not sure that obscuring anything is particularly problematic. For this example, i.e. location map for Germany, you could put the macro map over Russia. That it obscures part of Europe doesn't really matter because this is about Germany, not Russia or Europe. As long as it doesn't reduce the map's familiarity.
Quizimodo's last map (green on white, larger area) might be too "wide-angle". Fine for large countries like Germany but you would probably relegate lots of medium-sized countries like Belgium to being small enough to warrant a zoombox. Again, I don't think it is necessary to include all of geographical Europe.
I would like to see this scheme done for, say, Vietnam.
From all the points above, I would suggest that the locator maps are fulfilling the following functions in the following order of importance:

1. Shape of the country.

2. Location of country in relation to its neighbours.

3. Location of country in relation to smallest recognisable geographical shape, in this case Europe.

4. Location of country in relation to world.

You might want to play around with the order of importance. It might help.

I wish I could help with the work rather than just criticize! Excellent stuff. (Ajkgordon 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Okay, I didn't have time to read all of the above discussion but have two concerns:

The color red. The light/darl Green color scheme is a better choice than the red-organge color scheme. Red is by nature in aggressive color (which is why you're no longer supposed to grade student's papers in red for example); green on the other hand is more soothing and calming (that's why so many surgeon's scrubs are green). Besides it's just prettier! So, if green is, even if just a little, more soothing to the eye and pretter, why not use it?
Locator maps to point out where Europe is. We should point out the extent of the EU, but is it really neccessary to point out the location of Europe? If someone was really unfamiliar with the location of the European continent, it stands to reason they'd go to the Europe article (though most people who don't know the location of the continents probably can't read Wikipedia). Granted these maps location Europe look kind of pretty, but arn't really needed.

Regards, Signature ^brendel 08:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your first point.

Your second point potentially opens up a can of worms: why have such broad-scale maps in place for non-EU countries? Does one's understanding of the location of, say, Norway depend on where Greece is? For all intents and purposes, if we consider to not depict Europe in these locator maps, then one can argue that there is little compelling reason to depict the EU (sui generis entity or not) either. After all, it is the European Union. A basic (and main) function of a country locator map is to locate a country in relation to its neighbours, not necessarily to place it within a supranational entity or continent; however, both of these can be/are fulfilled through a clear worldview on the locator (look at my 'green' map above for a preliminary example). And is that a standard to replicate across all locator maps? For instance, when I go about creating new maps, should I depict all of North America – or the Americas – when creating Mexico's locator map? It is a part of that continent and a member of NAFTA. Or do I focus on its location in Middle America? Quizimodo 13:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my second point. We should show all of Europe (EU and non-EU). But what is the use in showing where in the world Europe is located. Yes, we obviously should show the location of Sweden in relation to Norway. But do we really need to point out that Europe is north of Africa and West of Asia? The EU should, however, be depicted. According to the CIA, for example, the EU is a more than just an international community such as NAFTA or NATO - though it isn't a country either; it's somthing in-between and well worth showing on a map. Overall I think the third map on the right up above has got it right, except for that little world map insert which I deem unesseccary. Signature ^brendel 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not generally debating the unique nature of the EU, but the utility in using a similar sort of map to depict non-EU countries and whether it's prudent to consider maps with more of a regional focus for Europe and other world regions.

Yes: I think we do need to point out that Europe and, by extension, the EU is north of Africa and east of Asia. More precisely, I think we need to exhibit that x (European country) is in Europe, north of Africa, and west of Asia, hence my insistence on pinpointing this in the worldview for each country. Otherwise, the worldview is of limited utility. By depicting this clearly in the worldview, it literally answers the question: "Where in the world is x?", both on a larger (global) and smaller (regional) scale. The worldview may also implicitly answer the question: "What hemisphere is x in?", since the map projection exhibits those four hemispheres (N,S,E,W) in sync with the four cardinal directions; this would be even clearer if we added the equator and prime meridian to the worldview. (BTW: I created the third map. :)) More to follow. Quizimodo 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sample maps

Hello! I've uploaded six test maps (for Spain), which exhibit variations dealt with above and not. Thanks for your patience:

#1	#2	#3
#4	#5	#6

1 = green-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, white water, Robinson locator (save the blue coastlines, this map format is consistent with the green-grey colour ones found in many other locator maps
2 = green-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator
3 = orange-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, white water, Robinson locator
4 = orange-grey colour scheme, black borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator
5 = orange-grey colour scheme, white borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator
6 = orange-white-grey colour scheme, black borders, blue coastlines, blue water, Robinson locator (this is closest to the D L/Ss locator maps)
A few caveats:

An innovation all images share is the presence of blue coastline. As well, the country of note is pinpointed in the Robinson worldview. I've also added some details, like islands for the Aegean Archipelago and elsewhere.
The scope of the main map of Europe is somewhat larger than Ss's versions, but less than in my original creation; however, it is my intent to change this slightly depending on the rough location of the country. For instance, the scope of the current map (for Spain) will be used for all countries in Southern Europe (e.g., Malta, Cyprus); the southern frontier will move up for others. Conversely, the northern frontier of the map will move upward for Norway and Iceland. For most other countries, the scope of the maps will be in between these two extremes.
The worldview map will hark of the main map (in terms of border/coastline colours) in the final versions; they may not yet, and this is is somewhat unworkable given the size and complexity of each image version.
The camel may need to be toned down -- CorelDraw lists this colour as 'sand'.
For ease, these are PNG maps; once standards are agreed upon, I will create and upload SVG versions.

Also note that the same basic map is used by Ss and in the above maps I've created. Thoughts? Quizimodo 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Borders between countries are invisible on my monitor at this resolution on maps 1, 2, 3 and 5.
For a better colour Camel, you might want to steal Ssolberj's colour. I don't know how that tool is called in English, but I'm sure you know.
I would prefer the blue used in Ssolbergj's maps for better contrast. It is slightly darker.
The world map is 'vague' - whatever is on it is not easy to decipher on any of the maps, again on my monitor at this size. Removing Antarctica will enable a slightly larger map, and changing the blue per above would be an improvement too.
Again, I would prefer the slightly brownish colour used earlier for non-EU Europe.
Overall, I like map 6 the best. It has some clear advantages over Ssolberj's maps, but I wonder if it would be possible to colour the world map in the dark scheme used in his maps. That looks good and can be deciphered easily.
I still think Svalbard sacrifices too much for little gain.

--User:Krator (t c) 08:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sample map is the best. I like the design and green color scheme. Signature ^brendel 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also like map #1, but some of the others (particularly #3 and #6, with modifications) also have merit, and I do not believe we yet have a critical mass to decide this issue without controversy. And now we have a hodge-podge of sorts, with #1-like maps in some European articles and D L maps (a la #6) in others. Shall I proceed to produce consistent maps for the rest of the continent (like #1 or, as a conciliation, #3?), and then we can deal with possible inequities after that? Quizimodo 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On my LCD screen I cannot see the white borders in the reduced size (as they are presented on the page), so that is not ok. Also the world-locator map is too small, I hardly recognise it as the world, let alone being able to find the location of interest. Arnoutf 08:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will try to increase the thickness of the borders (as in Ss's maps), without the image becoming too malformed; this may have more to do with the sample maps being PNGs (though final versions will be SVGs). However, I can hardly resolve the borders on the DL locator maps let alone those for Canada, United States, etc.; perhaps that is one advantage of Ss's maps: country borders can clearly be resolved. Nonetheless, the colours/contrast for the topic country are sufficient and the zoom feature will nonetheless provide more detail. For me to increase the size of the worldview without occluding any significant territories, I believe I must extend the northern frontier farther northward (consult the first green map); I will try to change the contrast as well. However, I wonder whether we've come full circle. Quizimodo 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that these locator maps have a function to show at first glance all the relevant information. Zooming is nice, but should not be necessary to see the relevant information. I think basically that the black-colour contrast is stronger comared to white colour (theories of human vision agree with this in that black fonts seem stronger, even if the absolute contrast is the same, that is why you often have to use bold fonts when printing white on black, but not when you print black on white), and therefore in my opinion black lines are to be preferredArnoutf 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK: another primary function for these maps is to highlight the relevant country -- which some do better than others. I am not convinced that the white-bordered maps will not resolve more clearly when in SVG format. I'll upload some other variations soon. Quizimodo 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A smallish point, but Lampedusa is missing (the third Italian island south of Sicily, WSW of Malta, 35°30′N 12°36′E / 35.500°N 12.600°E.) I would think it should certainly be present in the Italy locator map as its very proximity to the African coast has lent it significance in terms of Italian and EU borders. —Ian Spackman 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Longitudes

As you can see on the David Liuzzo map of e.g. Iceland, that country is about 14° west of Ireland (and a lot more north, of course). This matches its longitude lines. Some of the newer maps show longitude lines, but completely wrong; they must be corrected. The only other option, without lines (which would not matter all that much for Liuzzo's Mercator projection), is entirely unacceptable for these maps: Iceland appears to be located exactly north of Ireland, and even more to the east than Portugal. Correct longitudal lines (which would bend towards the centre the more one goes to the north) are needed to exclude such utterly false visual suggestions. — By the way, notice that there is not enough room to show 'camel & dark grey'; one should think about the map captions as well as the maps themselves, when selecting colours. — SomeHuman 30 Jun 2007 04:36 (UTC)

If you read above, you will note that the line issue has been acknowledged (with Ssolbergj deferring somewhat, pending additional map variations). None of the maps I've created (i.e., on the right) exhibit latitude or longitude lines and I do not currently intend on adding these in the next release (largely due to more complexity), but there is little reason why they cannot, particularly major lines (e.g., Prime Meridian, Arctic Circle). Other variations on that include adding the lines and/or a compass, doing so for hydrographic features only, or merely adding ticks on the map periphery. Lines notwithstanding, a by-product of the Mercator projections used in the D L maps is the gross distortion of the relative size of land/water - this false suggestion is not acceptable. (Even a European locator map based on an equidistant cylindrical projection would be more passable.) Moreover, a locator map that needs a caption is perhaps a poor one to begin with; however, the current caption can be truncated (e.g., why indicate 'European continent' when 'Europe' will suffice?), and or a legend can be (and is) provided in the map detail instead. Quizimodo 05:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing the point: Europe comprises roughly 30° from north to south, or one fifth of the 180° seen on a global map. By taking a view on Europe from straight above its middle, instead of from the equator, the distortions will immediately be five times smaller. In fact, the improvement is even much better than that, because remaining smaller distortions are more evenly spread instead of concentrated towards the north. Such map might offer distortions small enough to be unimportant for any practical WP purpose, in which case no lines are needed. This should still be your aim. Any map that crops from a world map however, always shows immense distortions. But the kind of world map projection determines the kind of distortion. It is impossible to get a proper idea of distance distortion and of directional distortion, unless one sees the vertical great circle lines: those tell immediately what will be reliable and what not (distance/size, and/or direction), and give an indication of how large the distortions are. They are no luxury but a necessity, see my remark on relative positions of Portugal - Ireland - Iceland. — SomeHuman 01 Jul 2007 14:37 (UTC)

I agree there is an issue here. Mercator is good at locations on gridlines but distorts more the furhter you get from the equator, this is why Mercator in my opinion is not a good choice for Europe. The Europe-centered image as used in the newly proposed maps does not distort as much; but the longitudes are no longer straight lines on the map. This is no problem perse, either the lines have to be drawn as curves (connecting the same longitudes), or they should be taken out. What, however, never should be done is putting lines is for the lines sake as is the case at the moment. Arnoutf 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SH, your point throughout is quite unclear. My point is that latitude/longitude lines or similar may be included regardless of projection, but we definitely have a choice to use a map with a superior projection (current proposals). Correct me if I'm wroing, but you alone appear to be indicating support for the prior Mercator projection. Yes: definitely do not include lines for their own sake. Quizimodo 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's first try for consensus without voting, voting will always have a loser (unless there is consensus in which case to vote is irrelevant) that will have a bad feeling about it all. In any case we should do a poll prior to any vote (but I think we can stick with discussing for now). A poll is not as formal and allows a poll contributors to rethink and my introduce new arguments. Arnoutf 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No argument.

As well, observe the SVG I uploaded below, and (at least on my monitor) the white borders are rather clear and apparent (as opposed to the PNGs above). Quizimodo 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf and Quizimodo, the distortion of the "current" projection used by Quizimodo is just as large as the Mercator style. The difference is that Mercator distorts distances only (and more as one gets farther from the equator), but no directions (in other words: some place straight above another place is exactly to the north of the latter; while on Quizimodo maps, any two places not precisely on the (imaginary) middle vertical line, are 'somewhere': one cannot see whether a place shown higher on the map than another is to the north, to the north-east, or to the north-west of the latter (and more erroneous as one gets closer to the left or right edge, and as one gets farther from the equator), but the distances between places are (more) correct. There is no 'better' or 'worse' projection, but both David Liuzzo and Quizimodo start from a view straight on the equator, while the area of interest, Europe, is far from the equator. That causes the large distortions of either kind. If one takes a Mercator projection of an area as large as Europe, but centred on the equator (Africa comes close), than it looks much better: far less distortion in east-to-west size of countries. If one uses a map of Africa in Quizimodo style (cropped from the same world map as Q did for Europe), than two places straight above each other will also be almost exactly north/south from each other. If you want to show a map of the world, there is not much of a choice: we're all used to look at it straight on the equator and with the north at top. But for any smaller area, one should look at the area from straight above the centre of that area, and of course keep north on top. There will still be some distortion towards the corners, but much, much less than what we see on any of the so far presented maps of Europe. And for the sake of the most northern partd, it will still be necessary to show longitudinal circles to allow people to see proper direction of 'north', but it will be superior.

If not, the map is never going to be better than David Liuzzo's: whether one puts attention to the size of Sweden being too large compared to Spain (Mercator), or whether one puts attention to Portugal being shown falsely as if more to the west than Iceland (Quizimodo), is a personal taste or interest. But there is no good reason at all why these errors should be so blatant. One might find a 'satelite view' of Europe, or one might by software recalculate and redraw a readily available crop from a world map to appear as if looked at from straight above the centre of the depicted area, either way the errors become so much smaller that it hardly makes a difference whether Mercator or another 3D-to-2D projection is used. You're losing your and everyone else's time unless you start from a view that renders the depicted area with as little distortion as possible, and that is a view taken from straight above the centre of the depicted area: that's not someone's taste but pure geometry. — SomeHuman 02 Jul 2007 00:45 (UTC)

Now, to be more practical, simply install Google's 'Virtual Earth' , or simply look at http://maps.live.com and select 3D, select road. Simply look at the entire globe, turn it left/right till Europe faces you best, turn it up/down till Europe's northernmost and southernmost parts are nicely centered as well. This is the right base map, with as little distortion as possible (though not quite...). All you need to do is to copy the proper rectangle or square from it, modify colours to become more suitable for our purpose (and possibly find a way to map some more country borders onto it). Easier said than done, I admit (in particular because this particular globe and its land surfaces do not quite match: the shown globe is smaller than the size of the continents allows - thus in fact exaggerating distortions), but at least have a look at how the distortions of east-westerly distances and (though still unavoidably present because the north pole happens to be a point) of northern directions can be influenced by choosing the right viewing angle. It is from there that one can choose to redraw towards Mercator style, or to a middle-of-the-road projection that slightly distorts distances and slightly distorts directions, but neither as ostenstatively as Liuzzo's or Quizimodo/Ssolbergj's maps. — SomeHuman 02 Jul 2007 02:35 (UTC)

(RETAKE INDENT) Sorry my fault - Anyway the point remains if directions are distorted longitude lines should follow real longitudes and be distorted as well (rahter than faking some kind of straight lines that have no relevance). Arnoutf 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And on a map of an area as large as Europe, which unavoidably has some distortion, they are needed simply to let people know which, and how much, distortion the map has, and where it is the strongest. — SomeHuman 03 Jul 2007 04:58 (UTC)

More general again

Why do Quizimodo still not understand that everyone but him thinks that Svalbard and other uninhabited northern extremes of Europe shouldn't be included? ("Also note that the same basic map is used by Ss" - that's not true.)
And why is he continuing to work with PNGs? Image:Blank map europe.svg (the one I used) has all the islands linked in SVG groups with the respective countries. (N. Ireland with the rest of the UK for example) To work from scratch with SVG content has tons of benefits(+ it's easier to edit. Just Download Inkscape). Please forget raster formats, Photoshop and eleventh hour easy-conversion to SVG.
The world location map is crucial if this is ment to be a standard for wikipedia. If the colour issue still isn't resolved i think we should vote.

Ssolbergj 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please convert to SVG, this is necessary in any case for the standard to be adopted, better sooner than later.

World location maps are indeed just not good enough, they should be clear at the size in the infoboxes. (same goes for country borders). That is their normal use, that things become clear after zooming in is trivial.

On colour choice, please no voting, we tried that before and it ended in a mess. We could (eventually) do a quick poll under the condition that we only see how far we are from consensus, not to force an outcome Arnoutf 17:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments:

I am not so sure that we've truly nailed things down: I see that at least one other user (BrendelSignature) prefers the map with the green-grey colour scheme and expanded scope (including Svalbard). I have also proposed to change the northern/southern scope of the maps depending on the territory, and (to my knowledge) there is no resistance to that. Also see 3rd reply.
Ss: the basic SVG map I am using is precisely the same one as you are using (pointed out already above): we are simply embellishing them differently. I have added to it by extracting and manipulating details from other maps. I can definitely create SVGs (BTW, I have CorelDraw and Illustrator at my disposal), but it will take me quite a while to upload an SVG as opposed to a PNG using a dial-up connection; once we're set on a standard, I'll gladly change connections and upload SVGs en masse instead. Wrap your head(s) around that, and we'll be fine.
The worldviews may need to be enhanced for all versions. And, yes: I do think that the worldview and colour scheme of these maps may need to be voted on. If we are ultimately deciding on a map format to be used not just for Europe but all countries, we may have to explore the issue further and gain more input. I agree with Arnoutf: prior votes were a mess and any subsequent vote cannot be conducted in a similar manner or (frankly) administered by the same person(s) as previously. Quizimodo 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually (IMHO) that the vote became a mess is an illustration why wiki is not (nor should be) a democracy. We should go for consensus not a majority vote. Arnoutf 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but I believe a clearer outcome would have materialised if the vote(s) were administered differently and interpreted correctly. Good intentions aside, the votes (IMHO) were confusing, contentious, and did not reveal any sort of clear consensus - they were flawed throughout. This time, I think we are moving in the right direction: discuss, narrow down the options to as few as possible, decide, and (if consensus isn't clear) poll if needed. Quizimodo 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that the zoom of europe in Image:Europe Location Test.svg is more popular than what's in your PNG map. Until now, David L's colours have been extremly popular, but frankly I don't really care if green or orange is conensus. The point is that I think you should forget what you have done in these PNG tests and instead focus on and change this test file.(just render a PNG of it if you've got a bad connection) No offense, but from what I've read in this discussion, the version you have made has no advantages, except perhaps the shape of the world map, which we should talk about.Ssolbergj 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your map Ssolberg, can you have a look at the longitude issue raised by SomeHuman, as I think we should have that covered. Arnoutf 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ss, you seem to not be comprehending something: I am working from an scalable vector map (see SVG right), the same basic one as you, but have enhanced it and am able to create any format of that map. I am choosing to generate PNGs for now due to their economy of size and because I have a dial-up connection, but will upload SVGs once this discussion is resolved. Understand?

As for the zoom, let me put it another way: the zoom in your map, while preferable to many, is some way off from setting any sort of renewed standard that should be replicated elsewhere. The maps are far from ideal, and (thus) a number of variants are presented, and assimilating/integrating all the suggestions above is a difficult, time-consuming task. And that, plus the preferred colour scheme, is what I believe needs to be further discussed. Quizimodo 19:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've understood that you are working with an SVG. That's fine.
What has the (as you say, by many preferred) zoom on my map do do with standards for the future? Why not keep it?

I do not believe any of your proposed solutions for the worldview bode well as a renewed standard for all maps. A number of individuals have commented on the need for a flat worldview and not a sphere; while the sphere is the most visually appealing, it is the least functional (since it exhibits only half the world). As well, in your flat worldview, the colour scheme mismatches the main map, varies from west to east, and just seems ... off. Quizimodo 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We have talked alot in depth about the colours. And no matter how many times you say that the issue should be further discussed, I think it's a fact that most people prefer D.L.'s colours.

Yes, but we have not talked about the colours enough: it does need to be discussed further. Glance at the very first poll above, for example, and you will note considerable commentary in support for the original maps and (by extension) that colour scheme. Some commentators above apparently indicated that the D L maps were imposed without clear consensus so, in fact, this may cast doubt on whether those maps or their colours are actually preferred. In this discussion, I believe an insufficient number of editors have commented. Besides, is there a reason why precipitous decisions need to be made? We likely wouldn't be at this juncture if hasty, fallacious decisions were not made the last time around. Quizimodo 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've argumented before: If this map style is ment to be a standard for the future, we simply need a world map for the sake of smaller countries in less recognisable parts of the world.

I disagree with this: the worldview is necessary for almost all countries, and perhaps the worldview and locator should be one and the same for the larger countries (e.g., Canada). Otherwise, the maps would lack a common frame of reference. Perhaps we should consider including two locator maps for countries: one of the region (in this case, Europe), and another with just the worldview immediately below? Quizimodo 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not keep the popular colours, the popular zoom, and the popular "styled"-world map in the test file i uploaded? We've understood that you don't like orange/camel and that you want to show 100%+ of Europe's terretory in addition to Algerie and Greenland despite the loss of detail, but most people disagree.

Popular is a matter of opinion and has been addressed above. I don't dislike orange/camel but (as stated numerous times) a number of individuals prefer other schemes, and a number of options are available. Locator maps must exhibit territories in or around the relevant territory; a map of Europe with limited focus on the mainland doesn't do that. I have conceded to not show all of Europe's territory for the usual map: otherwise, I would insist on including all of Novaya Zemlya and Zemlya Frantsa-Iosifa (as exhibited in the green-grey map highlighting Germany above). The prior D L and your current locator for Cyprus merely demonstrates that it is in the southeast of 'Europe', not clearly that it is in the eastern Mediterranean and also near to the Levant (on mainland Asia, to which it is closest) and Egypt; something similar can be said for Malta. Your maps are good but, no offense, they are far from perfect. You seem content to use one relatively undifferentiated map for all of Europe, and I'm saying that's not good enough. I have proposed flexing the scope of the map depending on the country, and nothing to date has changed that intent. For instance, in my map above, Spain now correctly includes the Canary Islands off of the African coast without having to inset them; this scpe will also be used for Cyprus and Malta. The scope will change though for northerly countries, particularly for Norway and Iceland. We have an opportunity to produce better maps, not merely passable, convenient ones. And, to facilitate decision making, I will upload SVGs of the above PNG map variants soon. Quizimodo 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please call me SSJ, Ssolbergj or S. Solberg J., sounds somewhat better than SS :P - Ssolbergj 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I had already explained, there are only two colours that are intuitively recognizable to depict water surfaces: green or blue. But green can also be used, and is indeed found on some satellite photo's, for land surfaces. That leaves only blue. And the only colour that is culture-independently matching blue, is its opposite colour: yellow. Because pure yellow is a very light colour that is difficult to use in a lighter and a darker shade, it is advisable to go slightly towards reddish. That makes the opposite colour, for water, a bit off blue, towards cyan. The only choice remaining is whether a blue-cyan and orange, or a more pure cyan and red, is to be chosen. The problem with the latter is that a 'light red' (for the EU) is 'pink', and it appears unlikely that many people see that intuitively as 'land surface'. That is nature (the blue, actually nearly cyan sky reflecting on water surfaces) and pure colorimetry (opposite colours matching). Any choices for 'green' were just there because that happened to have been used initially on WP, most likely without discussion, and WP-users had become used to it. Unless we want to discuss 'green', 'purple', 'sepia', or 'pink' land surfaces endlessly, go for the one-and-only choice that has proven to be appreciated by many, which is also the one-and-only choice one can defend by logic. — SomeHuman 02 Jul 2007 01:36 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, one should not only think of maps with a subregion (here the EU) in a lighter shade; one should also think about what a map looks like for a small country that is not part of the EU: In Quizimodo's colour scheme, it would be a very dull grey map... One might thus for maps for most countries of the world prefer to use a very light orangish (approximately camel, as David Liuzzo's maps) for the larger main region (here the European continent) or simply for all land surfaces (if not depicting a particular continent, e.g. Middle America, or the Middle East). — SomeHuman 02 Jul 2007 01:56 (UTC)

National football teams - please vote

I've discovered that the football teams of some subnational entities of Spain, France, Britain, China and a few other countries have been called "national teams" in our encyclopedia. So now we have articles such as Andalucia national football team, Corsica national football team, Cornwall national football team, or even, believe it or not, Cartagena national football team (that's the city of Cartagena, Spain). I think except in those few cases were subnational entities are recognized as "nations" by their parent states (such as is the case with Québec or Scotland), the use of the word "national" is POV, as it implies that these subnational entities are somehow separate nations. I've tried to replace the word "national" with the word "regional" in some of these articles, but I was immediately reverted and I was told that supposedly there exists a consensus to use the word "national". Since I can't find such consensus on the talk pages, I opened a vote to remove the word "national" from these titles. Please take part in the vote, whatever your opinion may be. You can vote here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"national" team for subnational entities?. Godefroy 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be sensitive for some reqions that have nationalistic feelings (e.g. Corsica). For Cartagena, it seems obvious that this is a municipal team and not a national. Nevertheless I think this has to be discussed on an articel by article basis; (IMHO) building a guideline would be using a heavy canon to get rid of a mosquito (to use a Dutch proverb). Arnoutf 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Choosing the wording Regional could be seen as POV too, given the old argument of "Nacionalidades históricas" Vs. standard Spanish regions (i.e. the Spanish word "nacionalidad" in that sense does not equal the English language word "Nationality"). If it is of any help, the official name in Spanish of the team referred above as Andalucia national football team is "Selección Andaluza", which could be translated as "Andalusia [select] team". Personally, I would simply go for All-Andalusia Football Team, All-Corsica Football Team, and so on. Regards, --Asterion^talk 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics vs. Demography in article titles

Following a discussion on the demography article, I'd like to bring the matter up with this WikiProject. The general argument for changing 'demographics' to 'demography' is when an article is no longer a list of statistics, but a study thereof, it should be entitled 'demography'. Naturally, those articles that have not been expanded should remain as they are, with the 'demographics of' prefix. Any thoughts? Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 05.07.07 2300 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.