Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/India-locator-map-blank

India-locator-map-blank


This image is not remarkable as a FP should be, and the map in and of itself tells you very little about India (no provinces or whatever, landmarks, or even the capital city). In that case, I don't think it's either a political or physical map. If a map is going to be an FP, it needs to have something distinguishing about it. If this map is a featured picture, literally any map that has been well done technically (i.e. no bad jpeg artifacts, large enough, etc.) could be an FP.

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Peta 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and Delist. per above. The one thing for it is that it is a template for many other maps of India--but that in and of itself doesn't make it an FP--a template isn't amazing--what it becomes is amazing.Joniscool98 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. I agree; when I saw this as a featured picture I was surprised.  It's just a map, and not a particularly special one compared to the many map images on wiki. --DinkY2K 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Exactly the same thing I thought when I saw it on the front page. Duran 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This graphic is exceptional for being a highly researched and detailed representation of political boundaries, done in a graphics format (SVG) that allows it to serve admirably for many uses. Maybe it didn't need to be on the front page, because it's not an eyecatcher, but there are other ways that an image can be feature-worthy in the context of an encyclopedia. The work that went into this graphic representation is substantial and it suits an encyclopedia perfectly. Thus, featured. I might change my vote if someone can show that every country has a nice SVG detailed political boundary map.  Outriggr 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep –
 * 1) This map was never intended to be on the main page as an eyecatcher.
 * 2) The map is not about the physical or geographical features of India, it is a locator map as the title of the image states. Secondly the map does display the states (it's not called provinces) of India, as opposed to what is claimed in the nomination above.
 * 3) Next, a picture does not have to be a photo.
 * 4) It statisfies most of the criteria in WP:WIAFP. #8 does not really apply, and the #7 may not be exactly the best colours, but they are the ones recommended by Wikiproject Maps.
 * 5) I'm also surprised about the listing by a user who has not more than 50 contributions to his name.
 * Comment First off, I understand that the map is well done as a template (I've done editing of a similar nature, so I do have an idea of the work that goes into it). However, to respond to your points, first off, the first thing it says on the wikipedia FP page is the following: "This page highlights images that we find beautiful, shocking, impressive, and informative." While well-done, I don't consider this image beautiful (at least not in the traditional sense) and certainly not shocking. As for impressive, that's a little more debatable perhaps, but most people aren't "impressed" when they see a (relatively) blank map. Finally, as for infomative, it gives national and state borders (sorry about province, I wasn't sure, to be quite honest, and I should have checked--my fault), and shows disputed areas. However, when I look at a map, I want to see names of the states, at least a capital city, perhaps major physical features, etc. This map doesn't show that. Secondly, there's the issue of it being a locator map. I realize that it's a well-done template, but a template isn't amazing in and of itself--it's what goes in it that makes it amazing (for an analogy, think of a block of marble--it's in the size and general dimensions of say a statue--by itself it perhaps is nice looking, being marble, but not something you would put in a museum--unless it was part of some ancient building or something. However, when a talented sculpter works on it, he or she is able to make it into something magnificent--something that is museum quality. If that analogy doesn't work for you, whatever--I'm just trying to make a point). Also, when I said it didn't show provinces (when I should have said states, of course), what I meant was that it didn't have the names of any of the states. Thirdly, I realize an FP doesn't have to be a photo--I didn't single this out because it wasn't a photo, but because of the criteria that I've previously mentioned. And lastly, you kind of attacked me personally (based on your perception of my relative inexperience) for wanting to delist this picture. I don't really appreciate that, as the issue at stake is not who is nominating, but what in the picture makes it worthy or unworthy. Joniscool98 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To reply to the above comments, the map does satisfy the required criteria of WP:WIAFP. Featured content on wikipedia represents what's best wikipedia has to offer, not necessarily the "shock" value. I agree that this is a sort of template map, but that's the macro perspective, without going into why it was featured. While nominating the image for FPC, I requested the evaluators not to look at it from the asthetic viewpoint (for which I have kept it strictly according to the WikiProject Maps guidelines), but for the utility viewpoint: NPOV, SVG, high-native resolution, unique to wikipedia, and accuracy. (See subpoint of #7 ..or the rarer or more significant its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be...). I'm also puzzled with the block of marble analogy you've mentioned above. In my perspective, a rare piece of marble can be kept in a geological museum, solely for it's rare properties. I guess that would be the same here. The map is also drawn to scale, which means by just entering the coordinates of any city, a locator dot is plotted over the location (See diverse locations such as Mumbai, Darjeeling, Kanyakumari, and Srinagar). This is what has been done for Wikiproject Indian cities. Lastly, the last point was not intended to be a personal attack. I apologise if you read it that way. I was expressing surprise that a newbie had put this up for deletion. Experience on wikipedia tells us that newbies usually put up material for deletion in bad faith without fully understanding policies. Again, I apologise if you read it as a personal attack. Regards,  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is the best country map created for wikipedia (that I know of).--
 * Strong Delist Absolutely agree with joniscool98! --Vircabutar 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Outriggr and Nichalp. All locator maps should strive to reach the standards of this one. CheekyMonkey 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Nichalp and Outriggr. Also not that the image is totally NPOV, shows disputed areas, and is overall, one of the best country locator maps available. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This map never intended to show landmarks, provinces, etc. As the name of the image clearly states, it is a locator map. The locator map should be plain, and clean enough so that anything that is highlighted by a locator dot clearly stands out. I am unable to understand why the nominator wants a locator map to have landmarks and other features, which will only make things difficult. This map is a FP, and any other map which is as comprehensive and unique like this one (this the most comprehensive and neutral Indian map on the internet) should be featured. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Excellent locator map, well researched treatment of a complex topic. -- Avenue 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as i know, this is the only Indian map on the entire www that is NPOV. Simple and accurate, just how a locator map should be. Plane Mad 13:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per others.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep of course. Just look at the number of pages that link to this image to get a perspective of the word informative -- Lost(talk) 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mistake "useful" for informative. In all these linkages, information was added to this image to make the image informative.  MapMaster 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been used as a base map. Infact its ability to be informative is what makes it so useful. I have added the original discussion of the FPC to the talk page. Please also go through that to get a better idea why this image was featured -- Lost(talk) 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per others. The image is a locator map, and hence many of the points raised are invalid. There indeed are several distinguising factors about the map, as others have already pointed out. It is well researched and displays all the disputed territories neutrally. It is perhaps the only accurate and precise map of India online, and hence qualifies as wikipedia's best work. And as pointed out above, see how much it adds to the value of the thousands of articles on which it is displayed.-- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist I have no idea how this ever got through FPC in the first place. The reasons people gave above are all reasons it might be useful for some niche purposes on Wikipedia, not good reasons to feature it. -- Moondigger 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. This is no information on this map, pure and simple, except maybe to those who already know a great deal about India, but not to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. It is a drawing pure and simple, but no more beautiful than many other maps (although there are, sadly, a lot of bad maps in Wikipedia).  While it is very useful, this qualifies it perhaps as Featured Tool, but not Featured Picture.  MapMaster 04:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * user's first edit -- Lost(talk) 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Outriggr HighInBC 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist &mdash; While the map is informative and useful, it is not featured picture material. The map on its own is absolutely useless, hence why it is used in a template. There are other featured maps which actually do serve a purpose on their own. ♠ SG →Talk 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The image on its own is very informative as a locator map.  It's a fine example of the genre. --M @ r ē ino 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Retained as Featured Picture. Raven4x4x 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)