Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. 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 6

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.

RE: Subdivisions and names

It would be better to have the section titled as "Administrative Divisions" for each and every country, rather than the title as the name of the respective division/subdivision - only for the main page. Corresponding pages could then be the name of the appropriate division/subdivision. Would you agree? I only speak from the standpoint of standardization... with a small input from working with the UN. Rarelibra 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better if you had discussed it here before making mass changes to the pages? This apart from the minor MoS violation of having "Division" in upper case. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that I DIDN'T KNOW until now, but the changes have been happening. As stated, the wiki project isn't an "end all, be all" of things - and for standardization ease, it would make more sense to call it "Administrative Divisions". As for the "minor MoS violation" you mention - again, it isn't an "end all, be all". I can definitely show you in an official MoS that it is proper to title as such, not to leave a lower case name in the title. So two things - one, this discussion comes at a time when the wiki project has been pointed out to me, and two, same with the "MoS" you mention. Be careful with assumptions, as your "wouldn't it have been better..." statement suggests. I work with this type of data on a daily basis, thus, I think it qualifies for me to have at least an input. Rarelibra 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of a Wikiproject is to standardise related topics. Considering the magnitude of the change, consensus must be sought to effect the changes; that's part and parcel of wikipedia functioning. (See Wikipedia:Consensus) Secondly, I don't believe that I have mentioned anywhere above that it is an "end all, be all" as you have put it. Neither have I denied your right to post proposals. Your contributions (Uzbekistan, Greece, Ethopia, Bulgaria, India) suggest that you have made unilateral changes before waiting for more input from the community.

Correct, however - when one is working with Wiki on a daily basis - as I have for over a year now, and making additions or changes, etc. without the knowledge of such projects, well, you can't point a finger of 'blame and shame'. Fact is, I have helped a lot in having to touch almost every country page as I go, and helping to alphabetize, add wiki links, correct spelling, correct format... the list goes on and on. In the meantime, you accuse me of a blanket-style effort like my only motive is to visit these pages just to change this. As far as the "magnitude" of the change - remember, Wiki is a living and breathing environment, full of constant change. Be very careful as to take personally my edits of standardization as I work with the pages on a daily basis (and it makes sense for the user to find the information quickly, as is one of the reasons I need such). A user may not know right away the name of the division of a country, and it is quite easy to find as an "administrative division". Give me credit, please. A good example of this, too, is the fact that I wasn't aware of such a wiki project until now (this week). Other users of the 'community' you speak of may also not know. Just FYI - your verbage of "unilateral changes" and "waiting for more input" etc DO speak of "end all, be all" solutions. Rarelibra 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the Manual of Style, please see this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wording: Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations". Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for your benefit, I will go ahead and get you the proper reference of rules of style in regards to headings and such. I worked as an editor for several years for US Government publications, so again - I know a little bit about style. 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So here you go:

3.49. In matter set in caps and small caps or caps and lowercase, capitalize all principal words, including parts of compounds which would be capitalized standing alone. The articles a, an, and the; the prepositions at, by, for, in, of, on, to, and up; the conjunctions and, as, but, if, or, and nor; and the second element of a compound numeral are not capitalized. (See also rule 8.129.)
8.129. To enclose titles of addresses, articles, awards, books, captions, editorials, essays, headings, subheadings, headlines, hearings, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), operas, papers, short poems, reports, songs, studies, subjects, and themes. All principal words are to be capitalized.
3.51. In a heading set in caps and lowercase or in caps and small caps, a normally lowercased last word, if it is the only lowercased word in the heading, should also be capitalized.

As you can see, the CORRECT MoS is to capitalize ALL in a heading or subheading. The Wiki MoS is INCORRECT, according to proper references. Rarelibra 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And one other thing for you to READ and REMEMBER - this is directly from the Wiki MoS - "Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.". This also goes for Wiki projects - "Remember that everything below are guidelines. Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way. However, having the same "look & feel" for the country articles would be great." So please - stop sharpshooting me, and concentrate on those people out there who exist only to ruin and vandalize our joint efforts to make Wiki a great place. Rarelibra 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like this idea that all country articles shoudl have a standardised "Administrative divisions" heading. It is much better to have a heading specific to the country. This attempt at standardisation seems to have been done without consensus, and so changes to the project guidelines shoudl be reverted. JPD (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear and "user friendly" to use the country-specific heading, as it is easier and clear when looking at the administrative division/subdivision of each country, whereby there is a definition of what it is called, how many, and background information, etc. Just FYI read above - "Remember that everything below are guidelines. Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way. However, having the same "look & feel" for the country articles would be great." Also reference the statement "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." Rarelibra 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two points here - firstly that I disagree with your unilateral change to the guideline here. It may only be a guidleine, but it does purport to represent some sort of community view and so should not be changed without consensus. I find it more user-friendly to use the country-specific heading, at the very least where the names of the subdivisions are English words. Secondly, despite the statements that you draw my attention to, you are trying to enforce your idea of a standard against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Please stop. JPD (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support JPD's position.--cj | talk 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Words like 'unilateral' are funny, really. I mean, I was working on the titles for a while and then suddenly there was this 'consensus' and my work started to be changed around - so who was or is right and who was or is wrong? And by what authority? Think about the common user going to a country page - it is easiest to access the information by finding it in a common place. YOU may find it 'more user friendly' to be country-specific, but can you tell me what the administrative division name is for Seychelles or Mongolia, for example? See the point. I am not trying to 'enforce' anything, I am trying (like many others) to standardize. And please don't 'order' people around, thank you. Rarelibra 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You made some changes which were intended to be helpful, and some of them were reverted because others did not agree. There is nothing wrong with any of that, and it is a matter of opinion, so there is no point talking about right and wrong. Changing the guideline is another matter. The guideline is only a guideline, so noone should be enforcing either version of it (note that standardising according to a guideline and enforcing a guideline are exactly the same thing). The guideline should, however, reflect a close to consensus view, rather than one person's opinion of what is right. Otherwise, there is no point to having any guidelines at all. Yes, I do think it is more user-friendly that way, and I find the Seychelles page better than the Mongolia page for that reason, even though I didn't know what the divisions were called before looking at them. I am not claiming to be right, or even to have a consensus, simply disagreeing with your changing and pointing out that you are not indisputably right and do not have a consensus for your change. JPD (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Territorial limits

Hello, I had a question regarding the territorial limits of countries as operationally defined on Wikipedia. With respect to Wikipedia categories that categorize things by if they are "in" a country, are the territorial limits of countries either a) Its land borders, not extending to sea, b) Limited by its furthest internal waters as defined in the article territorial waters, or c) something else? I believe b, but I sought confirmation. Any assistance with answering this question of what constitues a country's ultimate territorial limits would be greatly appreciated. Kurieeto 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes

I have applied {{Navigation Template}} to some of the navigational templates (mostly continental ones). I think other such templates would benefit from this format.

I haven't invented anything, this format was used for templates for europe asia etc, I just collected the elements into a single generic template for easier use (so as to evade the usage of a number of easy to break <div>s).

--Cat out 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland peer review

Hi, I've just listed Scotland for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland - your comments on improving this coutry article are welcomed. Thanks/wangi 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

In want to join this wikiproject and it said leave a comment on the talk page, well here it is! Jamie|C 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass content adding to small Wikipedias

Hi, I am starting again to work on the project m:Mass content adding. One of the points of the project is to use templates from bigger Wikipedias (in general, from English Wikipedia), to localize them and to make bot-commiting to the small Wikipedias. For that purpose, I think that countries should be the first pilot-project. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the developed situation I think that parts of that project should be leaded by projects like this. I.e., if you make some changes to the structure of template and/or data, you should commit that changes into multilingual project, too. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Mass content adding is not developed yet and I would like to hear your input, at least. There are a number of open questions related to organization of localization. Also, I am sure that some communities from bigger Wikipedias want to cooperate, too. For example, this would mean that all Wikipedias which participate in such project would have one, central organized templates for countries and data inside of that templates; etc. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to get some help from some of you related to the countries because I am sure that you are much better introduced into this field then me. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me via my talk page or, better, here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One more information (I was a long time out of this project and I forgot that I made some text about countires there): look at m:Mass content adding/Countries of the world. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add me

Hi, as an active participant in Malta article and in various geographical articles, I would like to join the wikiproject countries. Please add me to the members list. Also advise whether a userbox to this respect is available. Maltesedog 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I just wanted to say hello to everyone in the wikiproject. I just joined the project and will be adding mostly to 3 countries. These countries are Cyprus, Switzerland and my favorite Thailand (Needs a lot of work!). If I can ever be of assistance just contact me on my discuss page and I will respond hopefully within 24 hours unless you post on the weekend. Felixboy 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Location Maps for European countries

A few days ago, I added a newly created series of maps to wikipedia, showing the location of European countries. The new maps are of higher quality than the old ones and I am of the opinion that they should replace the old location maps in the country infoboxes. The maps are available for all EU states and will soon be available for every other European state. The maps are already in use on the German wikipedia.

Examples

(Old Maps):

(New Maps):

But the new wikipedia user User:Cogito ergo sumo seems to be of an other opinion and reverted the implementation of the maps with the following comment: (revert: while new maps look nicer, restoring locator maps that are consistent among all country infoboxes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Article_template)

As a consequence of that the below shown discussion started. I would ask the other members of this project here to state their opinions to that and I'd be grateful to have a final decision on the subject whether those maps also shall be used in the English wikipedia - or not. --David Liuzzo 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied Discussion

______________________

(revert: while new maps look nicer, restoring locator maps that are consistent among all country infoboxes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Article_template)

Of course the new maps are not consistent to the old location maps, since they are nicer and more exact than their predecessors. The only thing you achieve by reverting those changes is preventing innovation and improvement in wikipedia. If all users thought that way, wikipedia would have to use the same old and bad pictures and materials for the next two decades, just because of their consistency among each other. Your argument of consistency among all infoboxes is already a very weak one for a revert, and becomes even weaker considering that those new maps with their common style are consistent to each other. Further they are available for all 25 EU states and they will soon be available for the whole continent. --David Liuzzo 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your note; I'm sorry to have reverted your contributions, but your argument is not wholly compelling. While your maps are potential improvements on the preceding locator maps, they are not necessarily innovations. As with any publication, standards are in place to ensure a degree of consistency for users when perusing Wp: the country wikiproject prescribes a certain layout for all country infoboxes (with consistent locator maps); this is no different than an almanac or other compendium. I see little reason to treat EU constituents differently; if so, perhaps it would be better to use the maps or variants already available. I also note that at least one other Wikipedian reverted your map change (at least for the UK); being bold notwithstanding, perhaps you should join the wikiproject, propose and discuss a new map style/change before going ahead and implementing wholesale changes that may not be agreeable and reverted again.

If you require assistance, please feel free to ask. I hope this helps. Cogito ergo sumo 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well those new maps do not only include the EU countries but all European states (for examples see:File:Europe location CH.png). And I don't think that I'll require assistance. As far as I could see, you are quite new to wikipedia, so I should ask you that question. furter I should point out that reverting articles in that number without dicussing the topic before may be regarded as great impoliteness and as sort of vandalism. --David Liuzzo 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I'm fairly new but have joined the country wikiproject. That being said, I was equally bold and restored the status quo for reasons stated (and apologise for not discussing it beforehand): your maps are not agreeable to not only me but at least one other editor, so I'm not totally off base here. Through prior discussion, you may get buy-in and suggestions for improvement. Locator maps are not just to exhibit countries in and outside Europe/the EU (noted) but to exhibit territories in relation to others around them -- yours are too Eurocentric; for example, some of your maps exhibit territories less clearly than do the other maps, particularly for smaller territories (e.g., Luxembourg) or those on the periphery of Europe (e.g., Greece, Malta). They are also quite large and (IMO unnecessarily) detailed for locator maps and can be compressed. And I have provided sufficient edit summaries and discussion regarding this, so accusations of impoliteness and vandalism are non-starters. Cogito ergo sumo 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

__________________________
--David Liuzzo 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer I do think it is about time that the country locator maps were replaced, they are many years old and of low quality. Nonetheless, any change to 200 extremely high profile articles needs some discussion before it is introduced. We need better maps, but if we are going to change them let us ensure they are the best possible. I do have a couple problems with the orange ones. The grey outline of the continent follows a weird mix of geographical and political boundaries, and will lead to yet another round of the "what is Europe" debate. It would also be better if the maps did not have the distortion caused by a mercator like projection. The map is also quite inadequate for smaller countries like Luxembourg and Malta. - SimonP 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's a little error in the grey outline, Cyprus lies of course in asia and should be white on the generic map, I'll correct that issue. If considered absolutely necessary I could create special maps for the English Wikipedia without that grey outline and outline of the EU in locations maps of EU states. The main goal is to get rid of those ugly old and grey maps. Regarding those tiny states it would be possible to create special enlarged versions with a small cut-out box containing the europe-map, similar to old maps like File:LocationGermany.png which show an enlarged section of the continent and the world map in a small box. --David Liuzzo 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If considered absolutely necessary I could create special maps for the English Wikipedia without that grey outline and outline of the EU in locations maps of EU states. What? Surely it would be best to remove such supranational boundaries (such as the EU and different continents), and have land as one colour, sea as another and the specific country highlighted. These maps should be uniform across the whole of wikipedia!! Rob.derosa 10:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one support David Liuzzo in his effort to get rid of those ugly old and grey maps. Since maps are available for all EU member states why dont we start with those. I also agree with the idea of creating special enlarged versions with a small cut-out box containing the europe-map for the tiny states. Aristovoul0s 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should make a decision. Here a last brief overview on all the maps which would replace the old ones:

Non-EU states

Basic Map
Albania
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Belarus
Switzerland
Croatia
Iceland
Moldova
Macedonia
Montenegro
Norway
Serbia
Ukraine

EU states

European Union
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Spain
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Sweden
United Kingdom

Small states

Andorra
Liechtenstein
Monaco

--David Liuzzo 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Location Maps for European countries-- discussion continues

So shall they be used in the English wikipedia (as it is already the case in the German and French wiki) or not?

As there seems to be (after waiting almost 2 weeks) no objection against the implementation of the new maps and due to the fact that the user "Cogito Ergo Sumo" who prevented the implementitions with his contraproductive reverts has been banned because of malicious actions and socket-puppetery I'll just implement them now. --David Liuzzo 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a new map of Uruguay available? Wesborland 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Uruguay is not part of Europe and the new maps just deal with the location of European states there is no new map available. --David Liuzzo 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like the new maps, I have just some concerns regarding the small countries: The orange magnification (If you see what I mean) is confusing. But I don't know how to make it better to be honest -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am of the other opinion in that I feel the green on grey of the other maps give a great contrast if you know what I mean. Also I don't understand why the EU is highlighted if your new images become the norm will you also highlight NAFTA or the African Union in the case of Africa? Fabhcún 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

mmm you got a point... Being European that didn't shock me. I don't know... But the European Union is a strong entity in Europe so that makes sense having it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I echo the concerns of Fabhcún: Why do you need to hightlight the EU? Keep it simple and just hightlight the country that the article is about. New maps would be nice but I don't think that only Europe should get new maps I hope that you are working on other countries and can convert them over quickly after a concensus is reached. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New location maps I just stumbled upon this after editing a couple of Europe maps. I'm opposed to the new maps for a few reasons: they are inconsistent with other location maps (not just of countries), they arbitrarily include the EU (why not EFTA?), and they are simply visually less appealing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth has the EU been highlighted in all of the European maps? The map is going to be a locator map of that particular country within the world, not within the EU. The EU highlighting should be removed (who decided if it should be the EU or NATO etc that should be highlighted - it would just be easier without). And I must say I prefered the old ones, the orange and blue doesnt look particularly attractive. Also should continental-distinctions be present on these maps also? It just seems like your trying to pack too much information onto one little map, when all it is there for is the location of that particular country. 203.114.140.222 09:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) [This was by me Rob.derosa 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ]

I completely agree with the above sceptical comments. These maps look extremely uggly and doesn't fit at all with the light-colored Monobook scheme. What we need are high-res SVG versions of the older maps. I also agree that the EU highlighting is not neutral. /Slarre 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully disagree, and think that the new maps are a significant improvement. The European Union presumably has been highlighted to demonstrate in which jurisdictions the common European Union law applies. The old maps are an inferior substitute and look very unprofessional.--Tekleni 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps were much better, the nation in the article should be proudly placed in the center of the map--Hamparzoum 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps were ugly. These new ones look very professional and are much better. Call a vote or something...--Eupator 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the country. A small edit dispute at Belarus is going on now due to the map issue; I say that the current map of Belarus (as displayed above) is plenty big for the article infobox. It's big enough to stand out. But, for small states like the ones displayed here, the old maps should be used until we get some kind of zoom function in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree that the grey/orange/blue colours are as ugly as sin, I much prefer the white/grey/green. Also, it's kind of hard to see some of the smaller countries with these maps. I've got no problem with new maps, I just don't like these ones. Lankiveil 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

I prefer the old maps, don't see a reason to highlight Europe or the EU. We should try to convey the information "where on Earth is that country located" with as little distraction by other information as possible. Kusma (討論) 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps would clearly benefit from being recreated with greater detail. But the emphasis is on <recreation>. Each individual nation state should be identified alone within a global (or, arguably, continential) context. Membership or otherwise of regional blocs by other nation states in the proximity of the state in question should not be included for the summary maps we're talking about. There is no justification for doing so, not least as this would produce a non-standard practice across all Wikipedia country entries (quite aside from the NPOV considerations).

Me, I'm open to individual countries being shown in a continential context (i.e. Nigeria with Africa, Mexico within North America) though the present standard is to use a global context. Please also be aware that the discussion on this page is largely invisible to editors of and contrubutors to country pages; we should not assume that agreements reached on this page have the wider acceptance necessary to make any other than cosmetic changes to the maps. JamesAVD 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to any change in the EU-countries maps that will not show EU as a whole. EU is a political/economic/cultural entity, and membership is permanent (i.e. there are no clauses for EU's possible dissolution or withdrawal of any member). Removing the relative location of these countries in EU can be compared to showing the states of the US independently. See Oregon, Montana, Louisiana etc. •NikoSilver• 14:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with showing the whole EU is that it is so large compared to its member countries, and also that the maps with the EU show too much detail (rivers and stuff). I think our maps should only show the location information with as little distraction as possible. The maps with the green countries and without the EU do that better than our maps that include the EU. Kusma (討論) 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For exmaple at Slovenia, the non-EU map is clearly superior at any small size. Kusma (討論) 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree it is much clearer, and even if it were, (as in the case of Cyprus) then we would definitely be able to do that:

In any case, I propose this situation garners full consensus. There have to be notifications to all portals and country talk pages before any so drastic change. •NikoSilver• 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Always a good idea. I have invited many country talk pages to this discussion as an answer to JamesAVD's comments. I think that the new maps-with-EU need to be displayed larger than they currently are to make much sense, which would necessitate changes to Template:Infobox Country. Note that de:Slowenien has a larger map, which looks better already. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to coloring the EU nations in the maps. Why should we do this? Systematic bias? Will we painting other blocs? CARICOM, CSN, NAFTA, NATO? I have no objections to the new maps if the coloring scheme is changed but they should be implemented across Wikipedia, not exclusively to European countries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelr31 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with •NikoSilver• that there should be (or should have been) a consensus on this issue. However, to draw comparison between a U.S. state and a country that is in the EU is a poor example. First of all, while the countries in the EU have given up some sovereignty, they are still independent countries. I don't remember the UK or Poland asking the EU's permission to go war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Does anyone know if Maryland or Oregon has gone to war with anyone lately? Me neither. Secondly, the current Template:Infobox Country has field called Accession to EU which is wiki-linked the EU article. I feel that to have the EU highlighted in the map only complicates things —keep it simple. The article is about the individual country and not about the EU. If the reader wants to know more about the EU, they can click on one of the wiki-links to the EU. —MJCdetroit 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct note, but full military cooperation and external policy is just one of the criteria for such an issue, and I only stated my pro-EU biased opinion on this. :-) In any case, you must admit that the EU is the greatest attempt of unity of different nations in the world, as it includes sovereignity/economy/currency/culture and many more I am bored to list. I admit the map is debatable, though. Possibly we could have a poll as soon as we list all options? •NikoSilver• 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike JamesAVD, who seems to want everything EU stripped from the infobox, I think the point of contention is the highlighted maps. I made my position clear on the highlighting of the EU above —the keep it simple argument. However, I may not have made as clear that I think new maps would be nice, but for all countries (and territories). I would consider myself one of the main editors over at Template:Infobox Country and we worked very hard over there to standardize all countries to use one infobox that has a similar look from country to country. The infobox editors probably should have been included a little sooner in the decision to start changing the look of some of the infoboxes. —MJCdetroit 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me first make it clear that I was kidding about my pro-EU-pov bias (not that I oppose it, but it certainly doesn't govern my behavior). I appreciate your work in the infobox, and everybody elses with all those tedious maps. KISS is nice too. This change came way too WP:BOLD for most of us, and that probably justifies my disproportionate reaction in the first place. Indeed, this is an odd place for a political debate and indeed EU is not as consolidated as the US (obviously). If others too feel that EU is not necessary in the map, I'll go along. •NikoSilver• 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen in relation to the discussion here. It is my belief that the root problem is that none or few of the editors of the country pages were even aware that this discussion was taking place. The result has been that David Liuzzo decided to implement his superbly-crafted and graphically much-improved maps across the pages of countries which are members of the EU without (in my view) sufficient debate. I've been reviewing the UK page for quite a time but had only recently noticed the change. Finding no discussion on the UK talk pages I chose to revert the map (which I think is misleading - I'll expand on this below) on this and all other pages. I've also started a discussion on each of the talk pages; Kusma and others have made us all aware of the discussion (or lack of discussion before the chahges) which have occured (out of view) here. Editors may seek to contribute here or on the country talk pages; we need to allow for this.

It remains my opinion that for an infobox map of Poland (for instance) to also identify several other members of a particular regional grouping (of whatever constintutional form) is a) non-standard and b) potentially putting over a particular point of view. Both of these latter problems should be avoided in Wikipedia. Clearly we need a standard approach for each country, this being an encyclopedia. Clearly also we should avoid potentially POV statements: there is (it goes without saying) much dispute as to the constitutional status of the EU; until there is a consensus on that status we should avoid including elements (such as other EU members on maps, or EU accession dates prominent in the infobox) which give the impression that the debate has been resolved one way or the other.

This is not to say that the EU is either good or bad or inbetween. The goal is not to present something as a fact or give it undue prominence until we know it to be a fact.

Nor is this to say that we should therefore accept the old and less attractive maps which are Wikipedia standard. We should ideally have much better drawn maps (much like David Liuzzo's superb examples) which identify nation states alone and not other members of one regional group or another, which show either a state in a global context, or in a regional context where necessary, perhaps with a separate cut-out for the global picture as happens on some country pages. Clearly smaller countries need more attention paid to how to best identify them. This is a separate debate to whether or not regional blocs should also be shown. Thoughts? JamesAVD 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, on the EU, why the EU, what about all the other organizations, unions, etc. Since the member countries share a constitution, laws, have reciprocal agreements on everything from taxation to pensions, etc., it can be argued that the EU is a "super-country" and it makes sense to reflect that in a map. Second, however, I cannot support the current maps as proposed because of readability issues. Generally speaking, the map needs to be bigger so as to not shrink countries into unrecognizeable blips. More importantly, the detail needs to be absolutely crisp... when engineering for a small scale, things like aliasing which are used to make big items look smooth now make small things unintelligible. I cut and enlarged the map of Latvia (my main area of interest/expertise/contributions) to get a better look and it's all a blurry mush. The map has do be drawn at its intended scale, not done on a large scale and resized down. It simply doesn't work that way. (I've done a lot of text and image web work, so this is the voice of the school of hard knocks.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Peters: 'It can be argued', but of course it can be argued either way and to promote the EU as a super country when it might not be is promoting potentially incorrect material in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Taking one view point or the other might also cause offence, so we should avoid the potential misleading or POV statement and aim for standardisation, NPOV and good graphics. Can't comment on your sizng points, I quite like the look of the proposed maps in general. JamesAVD 17:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, David, I like your map of Europe, and I hope that the problems Pēters mentions can be fixed without too much work. I have no problem with a continental context and to me, this kind of map looks a lot more professional than the old white/green maps. However, since the EU is not a nation as such but an association of independent nations, I would personally feel better if the EU was not included. But comparing e.g. the two images for Norway, the new one is a definite improvement. The maps including the EU shouldn't be deleted as such, they would make great illustrations in articles about a nation's relations with the EU. Similar types of maps could be made for e.g. articles about EFTA or the OECD. I also agree with the sentiment that all countries should use a similar type of map, so if the location maps for Europe are to be replaced, the same should apply for the other continents (needless to say, this process can be done in stages starting with the European material). Except for the EU bit, I like the new images. Just my thoughts. And btw, Nikosilver this place might be a bit odd for a political debate about the EU or its future, but "permanent" is a word rarely used in politics - for good reason. In this case, the Supreme Court of Denmark was asked a few years ago by Parliament what would happen should Denmark one day wish to leave the EU. The Court stated that at the end of the day, the national constitution applies over the EU constitution and that such a scenario was hypothetically possible. (It would probably be a bad idea, but that's another story). When Danish politicians informed members of the EP and the Commission that this issue had become a topic in our national debate, everybody they talked to agreed that member states have this right. A right to leave the EU was also included in the (non-ratified) EU constitution (Article I-60) [1]. The constitution also mentioned the possibility of leaving the military cooperation (Article III-312) [2]. Sorry if the last bit bored anybody, but this issue became very dominant in our last national EU debate. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the new maps, but wish that the subject country could be even easier to distinguish from the EU member countries colour. Jkelly 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The only observation I have is that, whichever maps are used, the colors on the map should be distinguishable by those who are colorblind. --Badger151 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A question. Is it the intention that the new-style location map with EU boundaries shown should should be used for all European countries? or just for those within the EU? —Ian Spackman 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's completely POV to highlight the countries of the European Union and the borders of Europe, furthermore it's also completely useless. The majority of users viewing the page about a country won't be from the European Union, so the difference will be lost upon them. The old maps could be bettered by a non-POV map with a better and more detailed view, however, this map is too POV to do that. nl.wikipedia has already (for the moment) decided not to use them on grounds of POV and being too "Mercator". Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

EU placement is reasonable choice, but if the map will be cropped, then showing particular region, (i.e. one of the Baltic States, so probably could be good idea to zoom a bit to this particular state and do not showing some of, lets say, Western Mediterranean and/or Africa line) so in this case we can loose whole picture of EU, which is probably not welcome. Second point how we going to inform readers that the additional color means? M.K. 10:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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, Asterion^talk 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Any massive scale implementation like this should be consensuated and agreed beforehand. This is not the way.

UK centric comment - In the case of the United kingdom article, a map demonstrating the borders of individual countries within the UK gives far more relevant information, and is a better summary than a map of the UK's geographical position within the EU. This alone should be reason enough not to use these maps in the UK article in preference of a map of the UK itself, as it would better conform to WP:LEDE - it may be an image in an infobox, but it's still a part of the lede section. Crimsone 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why Turkey has not been included in Europe? Turkey is an official candidate for European Union membership, and will likely become a member in the next decade or so. These new maps - whilst an improvement on the previous versions - must include Turkey as a European country. Ouip 20.22, 5th November 2006 (GMT).

A few comments from someone who is European...

These maps are much better looking than the old maps and should become the new standard.
Where is the map of San Marino and Vatican City? (update SomeHuman March 1, 2007: both available & applied)
The previous editor Ouip, brought up an interesting point, currently Turkey is correctly shaded, the 3% of Turkey that is actually in Europe is shaded and the rest of Turkey should not be shaded, if and when Turkey joins the EU we can pick up the discussion then, Turkey still has a very long way to go.
Cyprus is not in Europe but a member of the EU, It should be shaded with a different color.

However, upon more inspection of the Belarus map, I wish there was a more defined way we can look at the borders. I can see the lines, but not very well (Im using a 1024x768 LCD monitor from dell). While File:LocationBelarus.png looks drawn in MS Paint, I could see the lines well, and Belarus a bit better and not have to see the African continent below. What I am getting at is this: Can we, at each article's descretion, use the map of our choice and perhaps crop the new map to suit our needs? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth us separating the graphical from the political question here? On the graphical side, there seems to be some support for the maps proposed above (in terms of format) but also a certain movement to perhaps more focus on specific smaller areas or better defined borders and so on. Do we like the idea of a similar quality of picture but greater depth? Is anyone formly of the opinion that we should only have global or continental-scale maps? JamesAVD 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The maps are wonderful. I fully support their introduction into each European country's map on the main article. One criticism is correct though. Smaller EU countries like Slovenia are hard to see. The orange highlighted area blend with regards to the EU's already-shaded orange. Maybe if it were a different colour scheme? Regardless, I really like it.

My vote, for what it's worth, is strongly in favor of the new maps over the old. Showing fewer rivers would probably help visually, and I think there should be more close-up boxes to bring smaller countries (even Slovenia-sized countries) into better focus.

Regarding the EU, if it is an exclusive gathering of countries (in that its members cannot be members of some other equivalent merger of national interests), and if it is more than just a trade pact (like NAFTA), then I believe it is useful as a supranational entity. I am not European, but my understanding of the EU is that of a group of nations choosing to see themselves as part of a "family" (I cannot think of a better term at the moment). And they choose identification and political association with that family. To the contrary, NAFTA members do not think of their bond in the same way at all.

If there are other equivalent entities in the world, they should be shown as well. I think it's very useful to place a country within this larger context. Saraalan 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The maps are graphically a bit nicer than the old maps. But I think for consistency a lot of issues have to be solved:

For consistency all maps of all countries need to be changed to the new format
For consistency maps of all provinces and/or regions have to become available for countries sporting the new format (as they are for the old format)
For consistency maps of all communicties regions have to become available for countries sporting the new format (as they are for the old format)

Until at least a major consensus is reached that the new formats will be expanded to cover all these three issues I am strongly opposed to instating new maps. Arnoutf 14:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer the old maps. The colour usage is vastly better, and the EU representation is unneccessary. I am also persuaded by the consistency argument. Noisy | Talk 15:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps have been restored to make wikipedia uniform once again, if a new style were to be implemented, an agreemebt should be reached here, and all countries should be changed, not just Europe. Rob.derosa 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. The new maps are better, and uniformity does not mean we should use the same rule for the whole world.--Panarjedde 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you like the new maps better you decide they should be put back up right? Er and uniformitiy means the same style of map for each country, which makes sense - you wouldn't see Encylcopedia Britannica using one map style for Europe and another for the rest of the world would you? Until a decision is reached on which maps should be used the status quo should be restored. Rob.derosa 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any of your posts complaining when people wrote "I much prefer the old maps". Uniformity can be achieved even using the same kind of map for every EU country. And yes, I would not complain if Britannica adopted this style. Note also that until a decision is achieved, you are not allowed to change the maps at your will.--Panarjedde 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But it would not conform with the maps for the other countries of the world would it. And you make the point that wikipedia is not a democracy below.. who is to make that decision then? It will be us, the people who edit and maintain the pages, and if enough of us want to see the old maps restored then that is what will happen. I would be content with new maps (maybe altered for smaller countries); provided similar attention was paid to the other continents of the world (because I agree that these current maps are lacking in detail), and if mentions of supra-national entities were removed, as they are not relavant. There should not be a haphazard slow move to a new standard, it should be quick and occour for most conuntries at the same time. Rob.derosa 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) Take a look at Chicago and Paris: the first uses the "Infobox City" template, which is the generic city template, while Paris uses the "French commune" template, which is specific for French cities. The end result is that there is uniformity, but it is within French cities and the rest of the world. (2) This is not a democracy (WP:DEMOCRACY) means that a vote is not enough to settle the matter, as you meant. And yes, it would require a lot of work, but you were very eager and quick to revert the maps, weren't you?--Panarjedde 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And likewise you were very eager to change them back again weren't you. Why not at least see what the opinion is, and go from there? (In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes.) Rob.derosa 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, because I know very well the "trick" you used: change to your version, then issue a poll, so that in case of tie the situation can't be changed.--Panarjedde 16:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In case of tie nothing will happen, and some pages will use the new maps, and some pages will use the old maps. At least this way might force one particular version or not. And it is no trick, I genuinely want to see what other people think; don't you? Rob.derosa 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The new maps look better for some large countries and are a lot worse for small countries. The new maps show all European countries in the context of the whole European continent, which means that some small countries become almost invisible blobs of red on a large orange background. The old maps present the right amount of context, and are uniform across all continents. While the new maps look nicer, they are simply less useful for the task they are intended to perform - show at a quick glance where a country is located. The old maps are not as pretty, but get the point across more efficiently. So the old maps are better, and we get uniformity. Kusma (討論) 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Vote

Please vote here, no discussion, on which style of maps should be adopted for the European countries (either Old or New). Then maybe we can resolve this once and for all Rob.derosa 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Panarjedde 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It may not be, then call it an opinion poll. It is good to know how opinions are divided anyway Arnoutf 14:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I (MJCdetroit) think it is a little more complex than old vs. new. The original protest was also over the hightlighting of the EU. I am going to change the vote parameters to three options:

OLD,

NEW (EU highlighted & for Europe only), or

NEW (No EU highlighting and implement for all countries)

OLD Style

Old - To ensure wikipedia uses a consistent style for all countries. The proposed new style is also inneffective for smaller countries, and does not offer (as other users have stated) the simplicity of the old design. I would be in favour of updating the locator maps, just not using the ones proposed (this was updated by Rob.derosa 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)) Rob.derosa 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The new map style (full continental map for all countries regardless of size) doesn't work well with small countries, and we don't have these maps for continents other than Europe yet. I don't quite see the point in voting for a nonexistent option. Kusma (討論) 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Old - much clearer; the simplicity makes it easier to see the location of the country, especially for the smallest countries. This outweighs the higher resolution of the new images. Eugène van der Pijll 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The old style is far clearer. Noisy | Talk 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
weak support allthough the resolution and colour contrast of the old images are less appealing, I prefer them over the new ones. The basic information is: How does this country looks like? Where to find this country on the globe? I would support the old images with the resolution and colour scheme of the new ones.--Donar Reiskoffer 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Old style was far clearer and NPOV. Asterion^talk 23:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
OLD Style is far clearer. Mercator projection and trying to include all of Europe makes small southern countries look tiny and the northern countries look huge.-MarsRover 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Old style - While the new maps are nice, and I may be able to support the change if the maps were available for all the world, and the shading of the European Union was removed, I think the biggest problem with the images are the use of the Mercator projection. -- Jeff3000 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
former 9. of Dec 4 2006 scratched: voted again on Jan 13 2007 Old Style for reasons stated above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Holy Roman Emperor (talk • contribs).
Old style -- strong support As above: the old maps (though of lesser detail) are clearer and consistent. The new maps, however, exhibit a gawd-awful colour scheme, are unnecessarily large, use a horrid Mercator projection, are unnecessarily EUrocentric, are inconsistent with other locator maps, and it is difficult to resolve any number of states. I would support an effort to replicate the current locator maps (or another agreeable standard) to higher-resolution SVGs, though ... but not the new ones proposed. Psychlopaedist 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Old! It's become Wikipedia's signature style, and it just looks a lot better than the Skittles-colored new maps. If resolution is an issue, it shouldn't be too difficult to remake the old-style maps in high resolution. — BrianSmithson 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Old: not only should locator maps be consistent across Wikipedia, there is the issue that nobody's mentioned so far: the new maps require attribution to the copyright holder and commercial use requires prior notice to the copyright holder. This is a significantly more restrictive license than the one for the old maps (public domain) and require that David Liuzzo be informed for any derivative works or commercial redistributions of the maps. The improvement to usability are marginal but the rights restrictions are onerous: bad idea. Kelvinc 07:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Very good point by Kelvinc. For the new map system to workable it has to be flexibly adaptable (e.g. for regions, historical articles etc etc). The current license seriously limits the possibility to adapt the maps (eg reference to corporate design). There are IMHO two solutions for this: 1) David Liuzzo has to provide a map for every Wikipedians whim on very short notice; and that for as long as the new maps would be standard (this is of course not realistic) or 2) David Liuzzo has to choose a much less stringent copyright license (practically putting his baby in the public domain). Without these conditions (IMHO) the new maps cannot be introduced for practical/legal reasons Arnoutf 08:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Old, as above. Quizimodo 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Old per Psychlopaedist and Kelvinc. heqs 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Old, for the reasons previously mentioned. The Holy Roman Emperor 21:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Old - why does the geographical position of, say, Iceland matter to the article about Cyprus, when the geographical positions of Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc. are far more relevant. Matthew 01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Old, while I do like the greater detail of the new maps and think they are certainly prettier, there are however three big turnoffs. A map showing the geographical location of country should rather be centered on the country in question, this is especially the case for countries on the peripheries of the European map, e.g. Cyprus and Iceland. It is far more important to display the western neighbors of Iceland like Greenland and Canada on a location map than countries like Bulgaria and Albania, Cyprus' case is similar. The projection also bugs me severely (although on the behalf of Iceland, I feel flattered that it appears to be about the same size as Spain on this map), it could be forgiven if this was a global map but there is no reason to have it like this on a map that focuses on Europe. The licensing is also an issue, these maps should be GDFL or freer, I don't think there is much room for debate there. --Bjarki 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
OLD Style Much easier to see the country that, let's face it, the article it is in is actually about Dave 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OLD style, primarily because of the issues mentioned above on licensing. When a freer alternative is available, it should be used. Keeping it simple is also important - these maps are not there to describe political entities or territorial elevation - they should be flat, and simple. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NEW Euro only style

Support Most people outside Europe consider French, Germans etc; as "European". The free trade agreement, the common passports - oh sod it I'm not going into it... you're all blindly patriotic; I'm never going to talk you round and its useless trying... haha.. I don't think everyone's ready for this... yet.... but the fact we're debating it is interesting enough. I'll persuade you next time this issue comes around. Which it will. :P Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I support using the new maps with Europe shaded, and expanding that to other parts of the world as such maps are available and such shading is applicable. Showing fewer rivers would help visually, and there should be more close-up boxes to bring smaller countries into better focus. Identifying a country's place within the EU is useful, and if there are other equivalent entities in the world, they should be shown as well. I think it's very helpful to place a country within this larger context. Saraalan 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Support my first choice; second would be NEW Style for ALL M.K. 11:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Support -- Petri Krohn 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Support -- EU is important enough to show it on the maps of member states Frigo 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Support -- --Ssolbergj 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Mihai -^talk 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Support -- The EU is the main source of law nowadays for the EU members. Its importance on the everyday life of Europeans is indisputable. Luis rib 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Support But us was given a false choice: New maps are to be used for all countries, showing EU countries located in EU (they decided so), non-EU countries without showing the EU borders: NPOV and informative. Keep major rivers and mountain ranges as they are on the new maps: the extra readily availabe info supersedes the minutely more clarity by simpler maps. — SomeHuman 19 Jan 2007 22:57 (UTC)
Support -- New style is far better than current & EU is a major political entity that cannot be ignored if you approve of it or not. Cannot compare it to trading bloc and it is intergral to the member states. We are dealing with facts, not national pride. 161.76.99.156 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Old maps are really horrible. What I don't understand is why is the vote for new style divided into two categories I think that's a totally undemocratic measure! We should have new style vs old style vote and then decide on tweaks on the new style if it wins. -- AdrianTM 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - The EU is a community -and maybe more than it-: it's neither a federation of States (like USA), nor an international organisation (like UN), but it is a sui generis organisation. In fact in the CIA World Factbook there's an entry of the EU because it "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". "The EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded." For these reasons I think it's a right thing to use the map of the relative Country with the EU highlighted. 151.57.197.243-talk-contribs 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (was not signed, not dated)

NEW Style for ALL countries without the EU highlighting

New for all countries. If we are going to change, then we should change every country to ensure consistent style. Keep it simple—no special highlighting. —MJCdetroit 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. This will give simple and pretty maps. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak support. New style also needs to be applied to subcountry (province, municipalities) level Arnoutf 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. The new maps are not perfect, but they are certainly better than the very low quality old ones. - SimonP 15:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
--cj | talk 09:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Support, for the reasons above -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
conditional support for new maps with an inset added for position in the world. --Astrokey44 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support The old maps are just very bad. en:File:LocationFinland.png, just doesn't look like Finland much, compare to the new map. In my opinion the EU highlightning is bit pointless and it makes it look too colourful. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - the articles aren't about the country and its position in the EU so the map shouldn't show it eg Sweden in the Eu, etc. I like the new version though :) Rocket71048576 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Support These are much better maps.UberCryxic 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - The new maps look better. We should change every country. Page Up 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Baristarim 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Support – when David Liuzzo chooses a less strict copyright license --Van helsing 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Support for either new style What I don't understand is why is the vote for new style divided into two categories I think that's a totally undemocratic measure! We should have new style vs old style vote and then decide on tweaks on the new style if it wins. -- AdrianTM 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a fair tallying of the votes will note that most voters approve (as I am writing) the new maps, since you need to take the sum of the votes "with" EU and those "without" EU to compare the new vs. the old style. Luis rib 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I only hope so, but as I've already seen in Talk:Greece#Map that's already used to say that there are more supporters for old style maps. -- AdrianTM 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/Unsure

The older images' appeal is their more straightforward schematic look, while the newer alternatives may be more accurate and/or more informative but therefore less straightforward (more feature-laden, perhaps too feature-laden...?). So, I'm unsure... However, as these images are meant to serve as no more than locator maps rather than reference maps (for which I'd first look in the "See also" and/or "External links" sections of a country's article) then perhaps I slightly favo/ur the older, more schematic look. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neither neutral, nor unsure! But I do think that on the one hand that the new style of map is much more stylish (and should be followed), but also that the scale should in each case be appropriate to locating the country—San Marino has different needs to France. And I don’t think I would want to highlight the borders either of the EU or of Europe. —Ian Spackman 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I support the Rei-artur maps. They look nicer than both the old ones and than the ones by David Liuzzo. They are better licensed than Liuzzo's. They doesn't make the northernmost part so totally out of scale like Liuzzo's Mercator projection. They are in SVG. --Boivie 11:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Results of map poll

(gathered and presented by Arnoutf and SomeHuman)

The poll was open from November 16, 2006 untill January 31, 2007 19:00 UTC.

46 (unique) votes were cast:

18 votes (39%) to keep the old style maps (including 1 'red' user name; 1 duplicate vote was removed from this count)
25 votes (54%) to go for David Liuzzo style maps for which
- 12 votes (26% of total) supported "Euro only style" (including 1 'red' user name and 2 'red' user IPs)
- 13 votes (28% of total) supported "Style for ALL countries without the EU highlighting" (excluding 1 vote as second choice after 'with EU highlighting' at which that user's vote is counted)
03 votes (07%) were neutral.

The plurality of voters prefer the old maps (39%) The majority of voters prefer one of the new maps (54% : 26%+28%)

Caveat: January 1 2007 Davil Liuzzo uploaded a new version of his maps, 25 out of 46 (54%) were cast after January 1. This implicitly changed the obect of the poll, and we should be careful that this does confuse interpretation of the outcomes.

The balance pro/contra new maps is (25 + 3/2) / (18 + 3/2) = 26.5 : 19.5 which is a ratio of 1.36 : 1 — or 57.6% 'new' versus 42.4% 'old'

Summary of arguments

Please note that this is a summary of the comments made by all sides. The number of arguments listed here has not relation whatsoever to the tally of the votes, and is merely provided to give an overview of the differences in opinion voiced with the votes.

New maps or old

Obviously all supporters of the new maps, support a change of map style. It should however be noted that many of the supporters of the old style or the neutral option would support new maps with a higher level of detail. Those editors tended to disagree with several of the choices made in the development of the David Liuzzo maps, which maps were the specific focus of the poll. These opponents indicated they might support new maps if (some) adjustments were made.

Conceptual

Several supporters of the EU-highlighted maps argumented for the visibly identifiable EU status, in particular for its members; several voters from the three other sections expressed disagreement.
Opponents mention that while the European continent centricity may work for most countries, a few boundary countries are not presented with a good reference to their region (e.g. the map of Greece, shows the close neighbours of Cyprus not as well depicted as far off Iceland). (This also addresses usability)

Aesthetic

Many supporters of the new format dislike the plain grey-green; several supporters of the old format dislike the new color scheme.

Usability

Several supporters of the new maps mention the higher level of detail is an improvement, several opponents agree a better detail level is an improvement, although some opponents mention that the level of detail in the David Liuzzo maps is too specific for the function of the maps, and makes location actually more difficult. The schematic approach of the old maps is favoured by some opponents
Opponents comment that in the new maps, small countries are difficult to find, and a world locator is not present. (Note: This is adjusted in the second version of the maps - editorial remark by Arnoutf)

Wiki consistency

Opponents argue that the old maps have become typical of Wiki style and should not be changed.
Opponents argue that consistency all over Wikipedia is that important, we should only change after maps for each country of the world would be available. (Note: This is not to be expected in a near future - editorial remark by SomeHuman)
Supporters state both the arguments above would interfere with any innovation in any wiki.

Technical issues

The current copyright with which the maps were uploaded is not a full release to the public domain. There seems to be agreement that this needs to be changed before the new maps can be adopted. (Note: The maps not highlighting the EU have a new copyright licence since February 2. Licence open for discussion - editorial remark by SomeHuman)
A few opponents mention that the new maps are in PNG (bitmap) format, while for this type of type of graphics the SVG (vector) format is preferable. (Note that the current locator maps are also in PNG format - editorial comment Arnoutf)
A few opponents state that the new maps are drawn using the Mercator projection which distorts northern countries (Iceland, Finland etc.).

Alternatives

One of the neutral voters remarked that there is another alternative, which does not have most of the problems mentioned by the opponents, these are the so called Rei-artur maps.

I hope I have managed to give a fair summary of the arguments given, and that this will help to take the discussion forward. Of course feel free to read the original comments given in the closed poll above for a more detailed account, and the discussion of some topics that are mere mentioned in this summary. Arnoutf 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion after 2007-01-31 closing of maps poll

There were no four options given (as Arnoutf said as edit comment to copy/edit towards his former presentation, after my modifications). The 'neutral' votes just appeared, and only two options were given on November 16, 2007 and it was changed to three on that same day, giving improper choices (as several users pointed out but such is not reflected in the summary, see also near the end of this comment). Obviously the primary goal of the poll was to decide between old or new style maps. The change was intended to meanwhile have an answer on precisely which new maps. The poll never showed a supporter of one new style to find the other style of new maps useless. Thus the result should show the main goal/result and secondary goal/result. The mentioning of supporter's votes having a 'red' user and an anon IP user are appropiate, and I just added the opposer's votes having a 'red' user as well; but mentioning 1 unsigned vote is unfair (it was a 'red' IP user as the history shows, who made lots of edits to countries, and forgetting to sign is normally corrected, not blamed, such might perhaps have occured for others but this voter just came last - and offered a comprehensive and informative justification); also biased is the mentioning of 3 'weak or conditional' supports: some of the supporters of 'old' admitted to like aspects of the 'new' maps as well: such detailed considerations must be read in context and not emphasized in the main result summary. The EU highlighting options were dubiously phrased (e.g. after seeing "Euro only style" did a vote for "ALL countries without the EU highlighting" mean "New maps (though I like EU countries having the EU highlighted) not only for the EU countries, but rather new maps for ALL countries (even if it means the EU countries not to be highlighted)" or does it mean "I like the new maps but I certainly do not want to support the EU, never"); therefore the display of results cannot make an interpretation and needs to take the literal phrase under which people voted. — SomeHuman 1 Feb 2007 00:37 (UTC)

Proposal to close this poll

The poll has been open for a few months now. I propose to close it per february 1; tally the votes, summarise the argument and afterwards start a discussion what next. Arnoutf 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And what's the conclusion? BTW, the poll was screwed up from the beginning from deviding the option for the new style in two choices. -- AdrianTM 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have n't closed or tallied yet; my proposal was to wait untill feb 1. I think the conclusion is that there is no consensus at the moment. I will try to summarise the different arguments as well; as these may give a way to the future (but have not done that). Arnoutf 08:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As there has to be one kind of map anyway, at 25 in favor of the new and 17 in favor of the old style maps, the new style is the democratic choice.

It is no more than fair and democratic for the 17 opponents and 3 neutral voters also to have their say in how to apply the new style, as for all others — especially because the new maps have been further improved during the survey. Moreover, as several contributors pointed out, the poll was uncarefully formulated as it did not allow to figure out how the new style is to be brought in practice: there are more than just two possibilities:

I. New map for any country for which the new style map is or becomes available:

I.a. but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;
I.b.1.but only for a country at the European continent (including Greenland, Iceland, Turkey) showing the European Union highlighted;
I.b.2.and even for a country not at the European continent, if a (part of) the EU is in the picture, showing the European Union highlighted;
I.c. but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way.

II. New map for any country at the European continent (including Greenland, Iceland, Turkey), but maintaining older maps for other continents (pending separate discussions later on):

II.a. but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;
II.b. and even for a non-member of the European Union, if a (part of) the EU is in the picture, showing the European Union highlighted';
II.c. but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way.

The votes for the first group can easily be added into the second if the latter becomes more strongly supported, and vice versa, to show a decision on which countries might have the European Union highlighted or not. All votes including remarks like 'weak', 'strongest' etc are of equal weight. The suboptions a/b/c of the final minority group (I or II) will be counted together with the corresponding a/b/c of the final majority group (II or I); in case the outcome would thus happen to be group I, II.b is split 50% to I.b.1 and 50% to I.b.2. In any case, I.b.1 and I.b.2 are counted together to decide between a/b/c. In case group I option b would thus prevail, all votes for a (I.a and II.a) will be added to b.1 and all votes for c (I.c and II.c) to b.2 to finally determine which of these two. In case c would have more votes than either a or b, then the votes of b are transfered to a [because b wants most general EU highlighting, b can more easily live with the limited EU highlighting of a than with no EU highlighting at all of c; while b cannot prevail for having less votes than c]. In case b would have more votes than either a or c, than the votes of c are transfered to a [because b wants the EU most generally highlighted, but c wants none highlighted thus can more easily live with the limited usage of EU highlighting of a; while c cannot prevail for having less votes than b]. In case a would have more votes than either b or c, a is the determined preference [as the middle position between b and c, b and c cannot support one another versus their compromise a].

If someone knows a better way of formulating these options, or thinks another option to be appropriate, let him/her do so before February 1; from then onwards the survey on how to apply the new maps can run for 15 days (long enough since a sufficient number of people are by now aware of the situation and arguments have been presented, short enough compared with the duration so far and its relatively inconclusive result). By February 16, the decision will at least be clear and democratically undisputable. — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 09:39-10:02 (UTC)

I would also suggest the introduction to my above suggested poll to include the phrase: "In a democracy, a minority is not forced to behave as if it is part of a majority; this may apply for other continents towards Europe, as well as for European Union towards non-EU. Respect for others' choices is expected either way." This could be leading, though I think it to be correctly democratic and relevant as we wish to come to a democratric decision. Else, please offer an argumented opposition against that phrase before February 1. — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 10:17 (UTC)

Note that as mentioned above, wikipedia is not a democracy; the aim is to achieve consensus. 18(actually 17 as was found out later, 18 had originally been mentioned in my own comment - SomeHuman.) against 25 is not concensus (aguably a very large majority e.g. 6 against 25 would count as minor consensus). I agree that after February 1st a new survey on how to take it from here sounds like a good idea. To complicate matters further, since the start of this poll; another set of maps has been proposed (see below....) Arnoutf 10:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY: The purpose of the poll is not to enforce a majority's will upon a minority (unfortunately some people simplify 'democracy' as such, though it comes closer to the theoretical basis of 'fascism'): Wikipedia strongly suggests attempting to convince others by proper arguments instead of quickly voting according to one's hunch of the moment, which might be biased and uninformed. Thus the poll fortunately has in fact been more of a survey so as to allow bringing arguments in the hope of reaching a consensus, and arguments were indeed brought forward. But not everyone became quite convinced for the outcome to show a clear consensus. Since nobody suggested to get rid of the maps altogether, and there are no suggestions to let each article have whatever map one or more editors of that article appear to prefer (which would violate WP:NOT#ANARCHY), we cannot avoid making a choice between either all old maps or all new maps. There is no WP guideline that states "whatever exists must stay until everyone agrees to change it", WP is not that specifically conservative. Therefore, the consensus that has been shown so far is the only option left, especially as the 25:18 ratio appears unlikely to become reversed in a near future by keeping the poll open. For now, the new maps will thus be introduced — we only have to find a consensus on how exactly: This was not at all established because 1) the poll did not provide one of the clear options, and 2) the new maps were modified during the poll according to its valid arguments that appeared. In case finally applying the maps causes reactions from readers/contributors who did not as yet took part in the discussion, and such would after a month or so show that the new maps are not appreciated, one may still have to revert to the old maps if that would then prove to be the general consensus. — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 11:04-11:22 (UTC)

Formulated like that I agree, I just worried the 'democracy' of 18(actually 17 as was found out later, 18 had originally been mentioned in my own comment - SomeHuman.) to 25 would supersede the content given in the explanation with the votes and impose a structure on the minority; but that is clearly not your intention. Actually I think we have to compile the arguments with the 'votes' and take account of the multiple instances of weak or conditional supports. My suggestion to close and summarise was just to give an overview where we are, as the current poll is not giving more insights but merely more votes and more repetition of arguments; and as such seems to be in the way of any progress while it stays open. Arnoutf 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can assume the 'new maps' not to be the Rei Artur maps, but rather the most recent maps by David Liuzzo, samples of which are shown in the section "Creator's comment..." further down. But your first reply makes that as a good point, this is best stated clearly in the lead of the to-be-conducted further survey.
Note: I urged David Liuzzo to make a clear commitment about the proper license for his maps, without such a further survey or discussion is pointless. — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 12:06-12:29 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest a slightly different structure comparing two options at a time. That would be something like; so we get majorities:

The old maps suffice / The old maps need to be replaced with different ones
Please comment what properties new maps should have that the old ones don't
- If new maps adopted - New maps should be applied to all countries in the world (and should be made availalbe soon) / New maps should be applied to certain subgroups of countries
  - Certain co-operations should be highlighted on the map (the EU) / the map should focus only on the country.

In my opinion if we do a stepwise poll like I suggest above, we have a much clearer decision at every turning point. (Of course the question are still open for suggestion).Arnoutf 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Arnoutf, your suggestion cannot work properly for three reasons:

By your first query, you are going to do the previous survey over again, but it is already clear that a large consensus will not appear unless people are completely fed up voting for the same thing; we simply accept the current outcome as it is.
There is no point in putting the clearly impossible demand of having maps available for all countries in the world: the creator appears to be working at the Middle East but clearly states that other areas may have to wait a really long time, and unless you volunteer to create those in a gippy... That's why I let people be aware that maps can only be used as far as these are/become available. Those who prefer the maps for any continent besides Europe only in case all that continent's countries have a map, will vote for 'European continent only' (my group II).
I do not see how anyone would only want to apply new maps for subgroups other than the one group available (European continent) since a more narrow selection (e.g. only European Union) is not suggested and does not make sense: I think everyone wants to see Switzerland and Austria in a similar style of map, be it that only some will prefer the map of Austria to highlight the European Union. I do not see which other cooperation than the EU could become practically used because most countries, including those of the European Union, are members of many cooperations (e.g. Belgium is member of the EU, the Schengen Agreement, the SIS, the NATO, the Francophonie, the Nederlandse Taalunie, the Benelux, etc). Only the EU has a government, parlement, makes laws, has means to enforce these upon members, etc comparable with what makes a country; it is more comparable with the United States or with the former Soviet Union. The US is a country and for the SU, well, we don't have to worry about our maps any more.

In other words, we would only keep discussions going and running in circles, and no decision would ever be made.

The advantage of my suggestion is bifold:

Independant of future availability or the speed of becoming available: no need to lose time discussing fictional what ifs.
In case there clearly appear to be more votes in group II, we have only have to establish whether and if so for which countries the EU is to be highlighted. The votes from suboptions a/b/c of group I can directly be counted into matching a/b/c suboptions of that group II. And the other way around if the sum of votes in each group establishes group I to obtain the more general consensus. As my proposal is now formulated with the few sentenses underneath the options, not the least further interpretation is required to determine the final decision (unless some deus ex machina would come with an entirely new idea).

In other words, a decision has been in the pipeline long enough, we must move on and by February 16th, all is clear.

— SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 16:54-17:48 (UTC)

Fair points. I will do the tally and summaries Wednesday. In the summaries think we should focus on conceptual issues (attitudes etc) and technical issues (ease of use, correctness of maps etc). Let's see what comes out of that. Arnoutf 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(We had another edit conflict while saving my modifications of my suggestion and final phrase in my last comment, intended to make everything clear from start so that no later discussion as how to interpret voting should be required.)

When starting the final survey, best create a subsection "Suggestion for technical improvements of maps" but clearly stating in the lead of the final survey, that improvements will not be awaited as suggestions can only be passed towards the creator of the maps, mostly at his discretion and of the other language Wikipedias using the maps; as for our concern, we can only vote for the style that we know to exist (that shown in the section "Creator's comment..." further down).

Also, when the final survey starts on Wednesday after 23:30 UTC, I think it is best to wait till Friday after 23:30 UTC (allowing hopefully minor modifications in presentation etc) before dropping a clear invitation on the talk page of every participant. — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 18:09-18:17 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by conceptual issues or attitudes. I hope it not to mean changing the phrasing of options: there has been a survey open for concepts to be explained and those were compared, points of view have been presented and discussed. It is now the moment for concrete decisions, which require a closed-options survey as I suggest. Even minor changes in text or visual rendering of the 7 options, or major additions or omissions for the final survey, should be agreed upon before starting it. — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 21:00 (UTC)

Mind you I am talking about the summary of the above; not about the new survey. Examples: Conceptual-I think EU is important / Attitude - I don't like the colours / Technical - License. The 7 options were compiled by you; I am not sure whether I agree and whether it is workable. Besides that I disagree with your argument that putting the question do the old maps suffice would be replication - as you state yourself; polls are for opinion formation, and people may have changed their opinion after all the debate. Let me think about it, summarise the current survey on wednesday and then design the new survey. Arnoutf 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that since you don't like the results of the above survey, you propose to do a new survey "in case people changed their minds after the discussion"? And will you continue to do new surveys until one of them yields the result you want? Luis rib 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For now all I want is to close the survey and summarise the results; because if we don't do that we will never get further. How to interpret the results may be discussed later on, but as it is now there were 3 options put to the vote and neither had a majority (although it there is support for a new map format). If you don't agree with my (future) summary you are free to respond Arnoutf 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of results? 25 (14+12 but one put a vote in each as the choice was not clear) against 17 spoke in favor of new maps; if people would have changed their mind, it could only be towards even further support of new maps because these have been improved in order to meet objections that had been made by opponents.
We do not need a summary; all is clear. Except that for new maps 12:14 (of the 12, voters 3., 9. and 11 explicitly expressed dismay for having been given incorrect choices, and of the 14 the 14th is identical to the 11th of the former 12) cannot give any valid answer on which of 7 (see my suggestion) possibilities instead of so far offered 2 options would be preferred. And the 17 other voters will have a say in that choice just as well. But we do not want another round that may not allow to go ahaed or that would make a final choice arbitrary or made by a few closing contributors.
My suggestion does not have any loose ends (any more, see my latest detailed stating of how votes are going to be taken into account). Each voter will know from start how his/her vote is going to influence the outcome. I will create the final survey presentation while declaring it not open before February 1 (thus allowing criticism and according improvement before voting starts), OK? — SomeHuman 29 Jan 2007 23:26 (UTC)

Well, as it cannot harm, I already created the "Final survey" but stated clearly it not yet to be open. This makes it easier to see what I mean and possibly to present accurate criticism in time. — SomeHuman 30 Jan 2007 01:57 (UTC)

Criticism on ongoing new survey

(Please first read the above, and also section #Stop forcing map change and in particular its subsection) SomeHuman February 5, 2007 00:10 (UTC).

Though this place was and is linked in the green box at top of the 'Final survey', several users dispersed criticism along several sections on this talk page. I'll try to give a few anwers:

There was little discussion about the Rei-artur maps and those maps appear not to have been properly criticized at all on the Project Countries talk page (though see Middle East Maps and subsequent Solution? and Technical). I just commented on those on another user's talk page, it will probably interest you. Without discussion comparable with what has been brought forward on the David Liuzzo maps, it was not proper to put the Rei-artur maps as an option in the survey (and for several reasons, see θ, it would not have been possible to get a desired one-round survey). I doubt if these could stand a chance if people would start discussing them, they look very nice for some countries but a closer look at those that actually are available for countries around the world, shows their qualities to be very uneven and disputable. Anyway, it would take much more time than what is given to the "Final" survey and one should first have a look at a proper projection as that Patagonia map I had linked on forementioned user's talk page — I'm not talking about its detail or about the size of the area (just a part of Argentina), just about the technical projection — and I hope some day we will see someone presenting such minimum distortion maps but in Scalable Vector Graphics and adapted for country location purposes. It will not be this month, I guess...
Several issues regarding the current survey had been discussed, and unlike the first poll that was misconstrued by dividing 25 supporters in two blocks while keeping opposers in a single one, this survey had been timely presented in detail and was open for criticism and suggestions. We all know that 18 voters did not favor the David Liuzzo maps, though after being open for a few days, some put up a motion to strike — how different from that first poll: though several David Liuzzo map supporters had expressed concern about the more than dubious presentation of options, they contributed to the poll. There was not even a clear plurality (see Result summary of the first poll on 'plurality' and 'majority'): 'Euro only style' votes #3,#9,#10,#11 explicitly prefer new above old style independent from EU issues, which already gives (13+4) 17 people surely preferring the other 'new' maps option above 'old' maps and I do not think anyone can be seriously suggesting that none of the other 8 'Euro only style' voters would have that second choice as well.
I waited a few days to allow people that were recently following this talk page to act upon the presented 'Final survey' and to further allow criticsm, before calling in the troops. The next were then notified on their talk pages (the obviously missing ones being the three that had by then already voted and three of the earlier poll's 'red' voters that have no talk page):

Amjra, Aristovoul0s, Asterion, Astrokey44, Badger151, Baristarim, Biekko, Boivie, BrianSmithson, Christopher Parham, Corticopia, Crimsone, Cyberjunkie, Donarreiskoffer, Eugene van der Pijll, Eupator, Fabhcún, Felixboy, Flakeloaf, Frigo, Grcampbell, Hamparzoum, Heqs, Ian Spackman, Internazionale, Jamie C, Jeff3000, Jkelly, Jobjörn, Joelr31, Kelvinc, Koavf, Kurieeto, Kusma, Lankiveil, Lucasbfr, Luis rib, M.K, Majabl, Maltesedog, MarsRover, MJCdetroit, NielsF, NikoSilver, Noisy, Orioane, Ouip, Page Up, Panarjedde, Petri Krohn, Psychlopaedist, Pudeo, Quizimodo, Rob.derosa, Rocket71048576, SimonP, Slarre, Ssolbergj, Tekleni, The Holy Roman Emperor, Thulium, ThuranX, Trip the Light Fantastic, UberCryxic, Valentinian, Van helsing, Vecrumba, Yellowmellow45, Zscout370.

Only a few hours ago, I made more explicitly clear that it was not a mere report on the former poll, but an invitation and I put in a direct link to the 'Final survey' (I would rather have had people scrolling down the earlier discussions and seeing what had changed since they contributed to this talk page, before being tempted to vote — but such appears a bit too tedious for some who are naturally curious to see the new event presented before doing some reading-up).

— SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 02:34-03:26 (UTC)

On 19 Feb 2007 before 00:53, I put a similar invitation on the talk pages of the territories and regions listed under population of European countries.
On the talk page of France, I answered on a question about such short notice:

The outcome of the survey cannot offer a perfect solution, which is why it is given a short run-time. The reason for a very short notice here is more complex: the maps are available for Europe and as such it concerns mainly European countries, but also readers from other countries have some interest as the questions ask what to do if maps for those might become available and some prefer an identical style for all countries; notifying all countries of the world would be rather time-consuming and might not be fair towards the question on indicating the European Union (not their concern and thus not very likely to be considered or supported). Thus the survey was given sufficient time after calling in people that had been involved in the previous poll and discussions. But as the number of votes remained under what some may consider a decent treshold for drawing conclusions, addressing the population of European countries including several at Europe's periphery, may deliver a sufficient number of varied responses: the larger part of reactions usually follows shortly after people being called. — SomeHuman 19 Feb 2007 22:40 (UTC)

— SomeHuman 20 Feb 2007 23:25 (UTC)

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

Final survey

This presentation is made according to earlier discussion in section Proposal to close this poll.
Please make suggestions or formulate criticism about this ongoing final survey in its subsection.
Voting was open till February 20, 2007 23:59:59 (UTC)
The survey is closed.
Less restricted licencing by David Liuzzo e.g. Italy, EU not highlighted, Italy, EU highlighted, no longer appears or jeopardize the continued availability of the new maps on Wikimedia Commons, allowing this survey to start. The survey has a section for comments on this new licence.

Explanation

As there has to be one kind of map for European countries anyway, and as only for new maps other options could become relevant, it must first of all be determined whether old or new maps are prefered. The former poll at 25 (12 + 14 but one person voted in each new map section as the choice was unclear) in favor of the new and 18 in favor of the old style maps, determined the new style as the democratic choice.
It is no more than fair and democratic for the 18 opponents and 3 neutral voters also to have their say in how to apply the new style, as well as all others — especially because the new maps have been further improved during the survey. Moreover, as several contributors pointed out, the poll was uncarefully formulated as it did not allow to figure out how the new style is to be brought in practice: there are more than just two possibilities that had been offered.
From February 5, 2007 till the end of February 20, 2007 this final closed-options type survey will ensure a precise determination for which countries which of the most recent David Liuzzo maps (samples at this section) will become in use, while voters will from the start be aware how exactly their vote will be determining the outcome.

Presentation

As points of view and argumentations have been presented and discussed before, and the most likely participants of the final survey are aware of such, this survey will mainly be a vote count. Newcomers are invited to read the discussions and the former poll before making up their mind and introducing their vote accordingly.
Here is an overview of all seven possibilities — (Only choices I.a, I.c, II.a and II.c have maps of all European countries already available):

I. New map for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available:

I.a. but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;
I.b.1.but only for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Cyprus, Turkey) showing the European Union highlighted;
I.b.2.and even for a country not at the European continent, if a (part of) the EU is in the picture, showing the European Union highlighted;
I.c. but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way.

II. New map for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Turkey, and Cyprus), but maintaining older maps for other continents (pending separate discussions later on):

II.a. but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;
II.b. and even for a non-member of the European Union, if a (part of) the EU is in the picture, showing the European Union highlighted';
II.c. but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way.

The votes for the first group will be added into the second if the latter becomes more strongly supported, and vice versa, to show a decision on which countries might have the European Union highlighted or not. No vote recorded in the history after 23:59:59 (UTC) of the 16th full 24-hour day following the 'Voting is open' declaration in the announcement box at top of the 'Final survey' section, or before that declaration, is accepted. All votes including remarks like 'weak', 'strongest' etc are of equal weight. The suboptions a/b/c of the final minority group (I or II) will be counted together with the corresponding a/b/c of the final majority group (II or I); in case the outcome would thus happen to be group I, II.b is split 50% to I.b.1 and 50% to I.b.2. In any case, I.b.1 and I.b.2 are counted together to decide between a/b/c. In case group I option b would thus prevail, all votes for a (I.a and II.a) will be added to b.1 and all votes for c (I.c and II.c) to b.2 to finally determine which of these two. In case c would have more votes than either a or b, then the votes of b are transfered to a [because b wants most general EU highlighting, b can more easily live with the limited EU highlighting of a than with no EU highlighting at all of c; while b cannot prevail for having less votes than c]. In case b would have more votes than either a or c, than the votes of c are transfered to a [because b wants the EU most generally highlighted, but c wants none highlighted thus can more easily live with the limited usage of EU highlighting of a; while c cannot prevail for having less votes than b]. In case a would have more votes than either b or c, a is the determined preference [as the middle position between b and c, b and c cannot support one another versus their compromise a]. In the unlikely event of such delivering an exact tie, the chronologically very last vote that weights in the final outcome is nulled, and all others recalculated. This does not leave any loose ends: exact preference gets fully determined, provided voting can be opened (just) before the 5th 00:00, as of February 21, 2007 00:00 (UTC).

Note: You may express in subsection "New suggestions for technical improvements of maps" relevant concerns that have not yet been addressed. For applying the outcome of the final survey, improvements will not be awaited as suggestions can only be passed towards the creator of the maps, mostly at his discretion and of the other language Wikipedias using the maps; as for our concern, we can only vote for the style that we know to exist (samples of which are shown in the section "Creator's comment... New maps with and without EU-marking" further down).

Your vote under only one of the seven options:

Please read the discussions and the former poll, and study the above overview, before making up your mind and introducing one vote accordingly signed with four tildes ~~~~.
Please keep in mind: In a democracy, a minority is not forced to behave as if it is part of a majority; this may apply for other continents towards Europe, as well as for European Union towards non-EU. Respect for others' choices is equally expected in both directions. — Only choices I.a, I.c, II.a and II.c have maps of all European countries already available

I.a. for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available
I.a. but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;

Sounds best to me. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Nowadays, many laws are decided at the EU level and member countries have to apply them, almost like in federal states. Therefore, I am inclined to see the EU highlighted in the background for member state only. --Huygens 25 09:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - 50 years of european integration has made EU an object much closer to a country than any other supra-national organisation.Jmnil 10:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - agreed EU should be presented. M.K. 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I.b.1.for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available
I.b.1.but only for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Cyprus, Turkey) showing the European Union highlighted;

...

I.b.2.for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available
I.b.2.and even for a country not at the European continent, if a (part of) the EU is in the picture, showing the European Union highlighted;

...

I.c. for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available
I.c. but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way.

Weak support I think the proposed maps are an improvement, but too minor an improvement to implement right now. I would like completely new maps where: Direct neighbours should be visible (Cyprus issue); and for future continents Turkey and Russia may have the same problem, Mercator projection should not be used, and the maps are in vector (SVG format). I also have some problems with the level of detail (sea depth and mountain ranges and in my opinion most importantly rivers, that seem to be included at a random whim of the creator - e.g. why is Guadalquivir 650km/165cubic metres in and the larger Meuse River 920km/230 cubic metres not?). I can live with I.a as well, but think I.b is not a good idea (those option would also be an argument to highlight e.g. the US for the locator map of Cuba; the question is why another geopolitical entity would be important for a country that is not part of that enityt). For consistentcy of Wiki, I would prefer all maps to be changed at the same time, however, starting with Europe and working from there (as both David Liuzzo and Rei Artur seem to be doing right now) may be a reasonable strategy for a slow change throughout Wiki, this should however always be the endpoint of this exercise: a new style for all of Wiki. I think a one-by-one addition of those countries coming availabe would be preferable (under the condition that the EU maps are accepted).

Summarised: I think new maps are in order and would agree starting from Europe and developing outwards, but I seriously doubt whether the DavidLiuzzo maps are a step forward or more of a step sidewards, because of the reasons above. Arnoutf 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Support, though I would much rather see the Rei-artur maps used over those by David Liuzzo. The Holy Roman Emperor 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. No special highlighting. Highlight only the country that the article is about and keep it simple stupid. —MJCdetroit 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support, we should wait until after the approval of a EU Constitutional Treaty to use the maps with all EU member-states highlighted.Page Up 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support I tend to agree with the other sentiments Dave 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support this one + reasoning of Arnout above. --Van helsing 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Keep it simple. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Support pretty much, the focus of the maps should be on the country, not some super-union that some countries cannot be a part of, like Belarus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support but concur with The Holy Roman Emperor that the Rei-artur maps are generally better than the ones we're talking about right now. (Had I been here, I'd have voted "keep the old maps" in the previous survey, per the reasons presented by Kusma.) K issL (via Talk:Hungary) 10:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

II.a. for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Turkey, and Cyprus), but maintaining older maps for other continents ^[*]
II.a. but only for a member of the European Union with EU highlighted; other country (incl. a candidate or from future date to become EU member) EU area in no way indicated;

My preference. Difficulties in gaining any consensus for European countries prevent suggesting new maps for other continents without even seeing such presented.
All normally expected questions on the location of any European country, references its location in Europe (Northwestern Europe, Eastern Europe, etc) but only for European Union members one likes to see where it is in that entity. Just like we only see the relevant country (strongly) highlighted, the EU should only be highlighted if the country made it relevant.
For EU members, we respect their decision to definitively pass authority to the supranational level, as we do not contest largely authonomous regions to be part of a country either. The only NPOV attitude: even the clearly not Europe-centric CIA World Factbook mentions besides 'normal' countries, in particular the EU —no other supranational and no international organization. According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself" and provided an explicit reasoning. — SomeHuman 5 Feb 2007 00:56 (UTC)

Support. I agree with the point made above, it might be too difficult to gain consensus for other continents too. As for EU region it makes sense to be highlighted for countries that belong to it. -- AdrianTM 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the amount of crap that goes on this page is amazing, I will cease to watch it. How do you expect that any decision that is taken here to be bindign for other pages? -- AdrianTM 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — Replied on voter's talk page by SomeHuman 2007-02-08 19:24 (UTC)

Support Mihai -^talk 08:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support SPUJ 20:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC) - Banned user. Lexicon (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

II.b. for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Turkey, and Cyprus), but maintaining older maps for other continents ^[*]
II.b. and even for a non-member of the European Union, if a (part of) the EU is in the picture, showing the European Union highlighted';

...

II.c. for any country at the European continent (including Iceland, Ireland, GB, Turkey, and Cyprus), but maintaining older maps for other continents ^[*]
II.c. but even for a member of the European Union without indicating the EU in any way.

...

^[*] As noted in the presentation overview, votes for II.a., II.b., II.c. do not permanently forbid later usage of David Liuzzo style maps for other continents, but do forbid to automatically apply these as soon as some maps become available: their possible usage should depend on discussion(s) at the appropriate time(s).

Results of this 'final survey'

There were 4 votes for I.a, 9 votes for I.c and 4 votes for II.a ; other options obtained no votes.
Strictly following the instructions stipulated in the presentation of the now closed survey:
Group II was clearly less supported than group I:
New (David Liuzzo style) map for any country for which the new style map is or (with equally appropriate licence) becomes available.
I.a + II.a delivered 8 votes in favour of EU highlighting for the members of the European Union only; I.c delivered 9 votes against EU highlighting on any map.
Strictly according to the set-up of this survey, this would allow replacing all location maps with EU highlighting by the David Liuzzo version without such highlighting. Whether it would be wise to do so solely based on this survey's minute 9 versus 8 majority for 25 out of 27 member states of the EU by now having adopted the EU highlighting without awaiting the outcome of this survey (only Sweden has the other version of David Liuzzo map, Spain does not show the other David Liuzzo map either)... that is more than the total number of voters (17) of this survey.
— SomeHuman 21 Feb 2007 00:19-00:46 (UTC)

New suggestions for technical improvements of maps

For suggestions that have not been made earlier; these can only be passed towards the creator of the maps, mostly at his discretion and of the other language Wikipedias using the maps. — (Currently identified technical issues are/were the license, the Mercator projection, and the use of bitmap (PNG) rather than vector (SVG) image format. [editorial comment by Arnoutf 22:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)])

Think of an objective criterion to include rivers; this seems arbitrary as it is now. Perhaps parameters such as length; or number of cubic metres per second; and then add all rivers that make that level (and none that don't). Arnoutf 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Another one I picked up elsewhere. The Spain talk page demands that the Canary Islands are depicted on the map of Spain; the David Liuzzo maps don't (both the old and the Rei Artur ones do); actually this demand of editor committee goes beyond mere discretion, and if we decide to go on with the D-L maps, someone should make sure the Canaries are included. Arnoutf 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias" is one of many overseas territories. Requiring such depicted for other countries, would make their location map the size of the whole world. — SomeHuman 12 Feb 2007 14:49 (UTC)

The Canary Islands are generally considered a part of Spain (see Autonomous communities of Spain), and are not so far from the Spanish mainland. I guess their status would be comparable to that of Hawaii in the US. --Boivie 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not an overseas territory but an autonomous community of Spain as any other. --Asterion^talk 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be a limit to POV... The Canaries were conquered during the 15th century, the days of the Spanish Armada, and its natives were enslaved. Morocco still disputes the Spanish claims, which is not the case for most of the autonomous communities. The people of the Canaries even have their own nationality. Hence your totally ignoring of highly particular facts illustrates that choosing a map for Spain with islands off the West coast of Africa highlighted appears rather nationalistically motivated. I'm not disputing the Spanish claims, but to any plain language standard the Canaries are overseas territories; it's not quite like the Island of Tura aka Leila aka Perejil immediately to the North of the Spanish enclave Ceuta at the Moroccan coast that is just a bit closer to Gibraltar than to the Spanish coast. Geographically, Isla Perejil is to Spain like Jersey and Guernsey to the United Kingdom; as it belongs to the European continent, Gibraltar happens to be on the David Liuzzo maps but I don't think one would actually demand such for a location map of the UK.
One can consider the David Liuzzo maps as a diplomatic NPOV because logically cutting off under Europe and thus leaving the Canaries just out of the depicted area, avoids disputes whether on the map of Spain the Canaries should be shown highlighted like Spain or not; and then perhaps Gibraltar highlighted on the UK map, etc. Note that Jersey and Guernsey cannot be seen on the Liuzzo maps and the UK map has no highlighted tip of Gibraltar either; the maps were clearly discussed on the UK talk page and neither island or rock was mentioned. — SomeHuman 23 Feb 2007 00:33-01:19 (UTC)

It's difficult to compare British crown dependencies with Spanish autonomous communities, since the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom, while the Canary islands are a part of Spain in every technical and political aspect. About nationalities, I believe the people of Andalusia, Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia have a stronger strong nationalist or regionalist tradition than the Canarians. Also Scotland and Wales have their own nationalities, but they still belong to the United Kingdom. Anyway, the location maps should show the readers where a country is, and there exist location maps that show the location of entire Spain. Why not use one of them? --Boivie 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the comments about Cyprus you will realize that the DavidLiuzzo maps are Central-European POV (nothing wrong with that for certain applications but not truly neutral, Cypriotan editor would never have made the maps this way - hence a non neutral POV) Arnoutf 10:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Arnoutf, keep your inexhaustibly varied POV against Liuzzo maps relevant to a discussion. A map of any area is bound to put the centre of that area in the middle... and that's all Liuzzo does. The most convincingly large majority of countries adopted the Liuzzo maps, EU members and non-members alike: they are aware of people there living in Europe and finding it logical to be located therein. By the way, would your hypothetical Cypriot be one that claims Cyprus to be European or to be Asian?
Now Boivie, I'm trying to find out whether the Spanish demand on showing the Canaries is rather nationalistic or a for the English Wikipedia sufficiently important reason to deflect from the map style other European countries have adopted; and whether the contributors at 'Spain' realize and accept that such deflection might give the impression as if Spain finds promoting the Canary Islands more important than being seen as a part of Europe (not to mention the EU) - hence I put a link in the 'Spain' talk page to the discussion here. In case one can convince us that showing the Canaries is a must for WP:NPOV, we might also convince David Liuzzo to rebuild his maps (at least for Spain) with just a tiny bit larger part of Africa in the picture. — SomeHuman 25 Feb 2007 04:08 (UTC)

What I'm trying to explain, is: e.g. the UK might have a policy to easily allow a part of what has been conquered or otherwise came into the possession of the Crown, to be distinguished from the actual nation-state formally named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and call it a "possession of the The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", as opposed to "overseas territories of the United Kingdom" or "colonies of the United Kingdom", and of course as opposed to the UK proper's regions as Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. Another nation e.g. Spain might be inclined to state all possessions to be of equal and identical status, hence "autonomous regions". As far as the international community and diplomacy respects the formal status, whenever and for whatever reason as elsewhere given in 2002, e.g. Moroccan soldiers would set foot on a Canary island, Spain —being a EU and NATO member— can be sure such soldiers to get their a•• out on the double or Morocco would find itself in deep sh••. Thus areas that in the eyes of the world have a very similar or even identical history and political relation with what in the eyes of the world is the mother-nation state —especially in regard of its geographical location— could formally have a very different status. It is not evident that the English language Wikipedia would follow formal thought for a location map. — SomeHuman 25 Feb 2007 06:03-06:23 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly the Cyprus issue. What should be the Cyprus area - Cyprus + its neighbours OR Europe. The choice of centering on Europe as the area for all the countries is just as much a POV decision as would be centering on the country itself.

What you are proposing in your comments Boivie sounds a lot like original research to me Arnoutf 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What do the Falklands or Kamchatka or Cyprus have in common? Could it be that none is strictly in Europe? Could it be that there is no 'Europe location' David Liuzzo map for these areas? Stop fishing behind the net, David Liuzzo realized on this talk page that Cyprus is in Asia on the 4th of September. In case you did not spot that, nor NikoSilver's work-around mentioned on the 2nd of November and another contributor's comment in that section three days later, nor the later withdrawal of the map by its own comment, nor my edit with edit comment at the maps's link in this talk page naming it '(obsolete map)' and there later the black image instead of a map, or my hint on your hypothetical Cypriot in my comment here above (at least you could have started reading the article on Cyprus that holds it mainly as a transcontinental island between Europe [mainly culturally], Asia [closest] and Africa); there only remains the 'EU location' Liuzzo map that of course must depict Cyprus with the EU which is rather hard to do with the island in a more central position. You create havoc and dozens of sections and numerous comments but appear to forget to read the answers for information that does not immediately strengthen your preset viewpoint, while continously repeating the identical criticism regardless what remains of it after discussions and argumentations, of whatever had seemed to fit that viewpoint.
Perhaps that's in line with your last paragraph (assumedly not directed to Boivie's comment but on my comment on his), your paragraph reads as "do not start to gather information on something, do not read-up on a topic, that's original research". To present an insight that is new to the world, in an article: yes ; to learn more on a topic so as to speak sensibly on a talk page: no ; to look for sources on what the world thinks and knows about a topic: never. To find out what Wikipedians think about a Wikipedia matter: that's seeking for a consensus. — SomeHuman 25 Feb 2007 14:05-16:27 (UTC)

If Cyprus is not in Europe, then I agree the issue is indeed irrelevant. However, if this is the case the Cyprus article should not have a Europe or EU locator map but an Asian one (which it does not have).

About answers, if you look how you treat with immediate problems listed with your arguments that is a nice example of the pot calling the kettle black. Many of my questions and arguments have just not been answered (or if answered with statements like - 'that's just the new status quo').

Sorry, I may have misread your intention about the Canary Islands issues; I thought you would only be looking for sources allowing you to exclude the canaries from the map (which seems your current position); apparently you have a much more open outlook on the issue. You are welcome to read into the relevant issues, but please be careful to use only good quality sources and not opinion articles in the formation of your opinion. Arnoutf 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can come out of the corner rather harshly at times, please understand that this long series of discussions etc eats me alive — but still kicking I'm afraid ;-) — especially since a solution to bring the matter at rest for a while appears possible, which after your findings of 'stalemate', 'anarchy' etc is the best we can obtain for now.
About Cyprus, as it is a EU member it should follow the map style of other member states so as not to make an incorrect suggestion, but in this most exceptional island (in many respects: geographically as a transcontinental location and as a rock emerged upside-down from the seabed [simply put], politically towards Greece and Turkye and as a not quite European EU member), there might better be two location maps, the other depicting it in the centre of a smaller area. Best would probably be a hybrid redesigned map of the Liuzzo style with an 'inset' of an area that would extend out of what the other Liuzzo maps depict. Food for thought. — SomeHuman 25 Feb 2007 17:45 (UTC)

Comments on the February 2007 new licence for David Liuzzo maps

For comments that have not been made earlier, in particular on the validity of the new licence as currently found at Commons - Template:Europe location and Commons - Template:EU location.

...

Comments following the 'final survey' that was closed before February 21, 2007

Moved comment by Arnoutf into this appropriate subsection
- A while ago I checked the discussion pages of these countries. In hardly any of them this adoption was made after discussion. It often just came down to supporter of the DavodLiuzzo maps with high-lighting being more active in reinstating their preference. Hardly adoption I would call this (personally I allowed the map of the Netherlands to be replaced awaiting this outcome; but I will not let it stand as is).
- Note that there was only a relatively minor majority to carry on with any version of the D-L maps to start with (see previous survey); so there is no clear consensus that, and even less clear consensus which version of the maps should be used.
- Over this talk page there has been critisism on the setup of above survey (too complex, not democratic as you can basically vote in favour of the D-L or in favour of the D-L maps)
- Spain does not use the DavidLiuzzo maps because the canaries (part of Spain) are not on the map. This is one of several problems with the maps by David Liuzzo (neighbours of Cyprus, Mercator projection for Scandinavia, bitmap instead of vector etc.)

With these caveats my only conclusion at this stage can be that every country article is free to decide on its own after due discussion on its own talk page. Arnoutf 08:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We are both well aware of reverts and edit-wars with respect to the location maps, both the earlier poll and the just closed survey were intended to offer some outcome.

I resent the continued questioning of the choice between two kinds of Liuzzo maps: the first poll had shown a 25 versus 18 preference between the maps that were known at that poll's start time. It makes little sense to have polls if one does not want to respect the outcome, for matters upon which everyone largely agrees one does not set-up polls. It was already shown that recent Rei-artur maps have very serious flaws and were welcomed by a too limited number of contributors to simply assume a consensus on using those to have been within reach. Tomorrow one can create yet another map, one cannot stop and start polling over again and again without at least offering a solution for the present.
By now most articles appear to be rather stable for quite a while and 26 EU member states have a David Liuzzo map of which 25 with EU highlighted and Sweden's talk page showing people to await the outcome of the survey. As only 17 votes came in at the latter and had the least possible difference: 9 against versus 8 in favour of EU-highlighting, the survey has no special authority and cannot overthrow what could be a disputed though mild consensus at the article pages, as it appears that in general people can live with the current de facto situation.
Of articles on EU member states, only Spain uses a non-Liuzzo and non-Artur-rei map that shows the Canary Islands clearly in strong red as simply Spain. Though the Canarians have their own nationality, and the geographical position of the Canaries West of Africa make the islands overseas territories - not disputing those to be Spanish territory of course, but Greenland is undisputed territory of Danmark, yet not coloured on the map for Danmark and we do not want the UK location map showing the Falklands; the map for the Canaries shows their position properly, such is not what I would expect for a location map of Spain, but I might be wrong here - I'm not a specialist but seeing overwhealmingly essential differences might be a rather nationalistic viewpoint. It couldn't hurt if a David Liuzzo style map would be made that shows just a little notch more southwardly. (PS — SomeHuman 23 Feb 2007 02:15 (UTC): Perhaps it could hurt, see my comment in another subsection)
The survey showed two things: 1) Nobody considered indicating the EU for maps of non-members. 2) In case European countries obtain a Liuzzo map, a 12 versus 4 majority (including several people who do not like Liuzzo maps) prefer using Liuzzo style maps for countries outside Europe as well as soon as such maps would become available; this clearly demonstrates what was already seen at the first poll: a uniform style is a major issue.
That of course contradicts your last remark as if each country could choose its map freely: one mustnot have randomly or arbitrarily chosen different map concepts for a similar purpose. It is entirely unacceptable for some EU member states to show the EU and others that don't, precisely as if those would not be EU member states: such is highly misleading and utterly unencyclopaedic. The countries have chosen to be EU members, dissatisfied people mustnot make Wikipedia appear to contradict that fact, no more than a would-be member's location map could show the EU highlighted as if it already were a member.

— SomeHuman 21 Feb 2007 22:30 (UTC)

I considered you poll ill-informed but nevertheless in good faith. However, now that the results vote against you (yes by a small margin, but that was no reason to reject the first poll for you); you go to a completely new argument. Just give in; your option did not come out on top in this poll; hence accept it should not be implemented. Arnoutf 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are acting from unbelievably bad faith and unilaterally revert-warring till even what is normally considered vandalism. Perhaps you did not realize that, but making Wikipedia articles state a clearly and undisputedly false "fact" is generally seen as vandalism. I'll show you what I mean...
The poll intended to find consensus, but there were only 17 votes, being 9 versus 8 as most minute difference as the outcome. Meanwhile 25 (twenty-five) of the 27 EU countries had effectively obtained the map supported by the 8 voters at the survey. (And the only 2 other EU members did not use the same type of map). I can conduct a survey, but that is all: The survey and its outcome has no special superpower above the editors of the articles. Because on most articles, the map appears well received without big fuss, and the EU-highlighted map appeared stable in use, the de facto consensus cannot be disputed. I did not put the EU map or any other map on any article before today: reverting your map change and one on Malta, because there simply is no other solution:

1. David Liuzzo maps obtained a majority of 25 against 18 + these became used and remained in nearly all the articles; that means there is a poll's and a de facto consensus for David Liuzzo maps.

2. The survey did show clearly than no-one wants a EU-highlighted map for any non-EU member country, to my knowledge such map was not brought on a non_EU country article either.

3. 9 against 8 in the survey but 1 against 25 in the EU countries' articles make a very clear majority for at least 25 (assuming the 8 belong to the 25) against 10 (9 + 1 assuming the one is not even in the nine) on which type of Liuzzo map is to be used for what countries. (The 27th EU country had a non-Liuzzo map, which is in conflict with point 1.) - I agree with you that not all 25 choices would have been made by all entirely different people, but clearly there were several people inserting the Liuzzo EU-highlighted maps and most importantly at nearly all articles these became accepted (sometimes easily, sometimes after discussion or even edit-warring, but it finally remained), just like any other edit to an article appears accepted if regular contributors do not keep reverting it. That is what 'consensus' is all about in daily practice.

4. It is thus unavoidable to have most EU member states with a EU-highlighted map, all non-EU members with an identical map except for the EU not being highlighted.

5. From 4 it is very clear that normal readers must assume that a country showing the EU highlighted is a EU member, a country without EU highlighted is not a EU member. Therefore, introducing a map without EU-highlighting for a EU member state, is definitely a false statement, totally unencyclopaedic. That is why I state such to be considered vandalism, just a much as one would knowingly write the lie in so many words into the article text. I think you might not have realized the consequences of your actions at the Netherlands, but you should realize it now.

6. Note that there is only one solution that respects the above points (at least untill a new consensus would be shown, but it appears very clear that such is not likely to happen in the near future. Theoretically one could also decide to remove all maps, but there is absolutely no indication that such could find even a little support.

7. That one solution is also in line with another outcome from both the poll and the survey: regardless the map one personally preferred, many contributors pointed out that a consequent usage of maps for all countries (at least within one large area, better world-wide) is a major issue. That also does not allow countries picking whatever map the 'local' contributors happen to prefer.

Thus your accusation is utterly false, there simply is no choice for European countries; just one logical possibility. It does happen to be close to my preference (though not quite, I lost big on keeping the Liuzzo maps limited to countries at the European continent, 12 versus 4 say one is free to use Liuzzo style maps that would become available for other countries without awaiting a discussion. And that is where you won. I'll accept that of course.

— SomeHuman 23 Feb 2007 22:46 (UTC)

Ie the first poll showed some majority but not consensus. This whole polling exercise was meant to make an informed decision which maps should be used after the original grey-green ones. That some editors have put up new maps while the issue was being discussed is of no relevance.

I agree it has not been you, but neither have I reverted them; which would have been my right according to Wikipolicies since the issue was still being discussed. If I had used that rigt and called any reinstatements vandalism (again, within the letter of WP for issues under debate); your conclusion after te poll could not have been anything else than: All EU countries stay with the old Grey-Green map. Therefore I say that the new argument (almost all have not protested against the change [which is how I interpret you acceptance]) is invalid in this discussion. Arnoutf 09:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If just before closing the survey, one person would have run along all countries' articles to put the personally preferenced location map in each one like your dear friend Corticopia did today (except where you already had made a switch), I would not have considered the maps to show any consensus. But as the maps were (at least on the for each article's last occasion) often put in at different times by a number of different people and did not become reverted for quite a while and such for 25 out of 27 EU countries and 1 other awaiting the end of the survey [and it then too decided to put the proper Liuzzo map in], than those originally bold edits have proven to cause or confirm a de facto consensus.
Arnoutf and Corticopia appear the only people that actively disturb that still fragile consensus, not just by POV edits in nearly every relevant section of this and other talk pages and by putting all blame on me and the second survey and by continuously rejecting the 25 against 18 outcome of the first poll which I had not organized, but now even by highly disruptive editing:

Arnoutf at the 'Netherlands' article by instating first a Rei-artur map (that not merely had some flaws, but was not available when the first polling started and was never properly discussed and is even today not available for some in the English-language Wikipedia obviously minor countries such as the United Kingdom; then after my revert by enforcing the absolutely inacceptable Liuzzo map design for non-EU members while 24 (of all 27 EU countries minus Spain [Rei-artur for depicting the Canaries], minus the UK [changed by above-mentioned User:The Proffessor who had never attributed to that article, shortly before an unrelated protection had made reverting by regular contributors impossible] minus then your Netherlands edit) had the Liuzzo version visually stating "this country is a member the EU" which should cause any normal reader to assume this one of the six founding fathers to have left the EU. And Arnoutf knows very well from both the first poll and the survey that a major concern of voters had been a certain uniformity for location maps.
Corticopia by inserting the "old Grey-Green" map for which weeks ago was clearly shown support by a minority group of 18 individuals' and on top of that completely disregarding the fact of the much higher number of forementioned 24 EU countries plus all the non-EU countries that had just as well adopted the for those countries appropriate Liuzzo maps in articles (each continuously edited and supervised by numerous regulars who improve or revert improper edits such as an inappropriate map).

All because these two continue to find support from each other. And it couldn't be vandalism after I've spent two months talking to Arnoutf trying to explain and demonstrate every detail by argumentations, after which for days now since the survey ended, I've seen only highly disruptive edits and incorrect suggestions and false accusations on my address and on David Liuzzo's efforts to present and on request improve maps, on other article's talk pages and on this one in just about every far related section; each time knowing that accusations and criticism have been rebutted, repeating them in other sections or pages; after having seen so much done to destroy the only chance for a solution to a problem at which on this talk page nearly a hundred, and on countries' talk pages many more contributors had been working, because two people refuse, either to believe in that decent chance (while both continue to cry everywhere that there is no consensus and that we've landed in total anarchy - wishfull thinking can be made true if one sets oneself such low goals), or to accept that this chance does not happen to be their personal preference.
Can anyone see a proper logical argumentation that shows flaws in my 7-point logical rebuttal here above? (or more to the top of this section?) Arnoutf calls the undisputable facts irrelevant, most points are entirely disregarded; that allows for many, relatively short comments, and one can continue pretending as one wishes, and finally to act as one wishes.
And I'm surely misunderstanding all this just as the WP:personal attacks in the section 'No outcome, stay with old maps' will be figments of my wild imagination. And I should keep assuming even more good faith after seeing their actions on articles to mismatch what they suggest in that section.
— SomeHuman 25 Feb 2007 10:39-10:54 (UTC)

You can say what you want; but the facts are:

There is no consensus (18-24 is not consensus);
All protests against the democratic level of your poll; and whether a poll could be used to force any decision were disregarded by you
After the poll you used an apparent status-quo as new argument, where you prior to your poll said nothing about this

@ Personale attacks, as soon as I made a justified revert of a German legend on the Netherlands page that was re-reverted with the edit summary - 'Bad faith edit - beware of 3RR rule' - accusing me of bad faith is getting close to a personal attack. Ok I may have overreacted (which I acknowledge in the section below); but also look at yourself; you have taken up the role of supreme guardian of the David Liuzzo maps with a mandate based on arguments chosen only to support your POV. Arnoutf 11:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is the Wikipedia tenet of ignoring all rules -- numerous editors have commented on the morass of the polls, and a clear consensus has not materialized from them despite your contraindications, SH. Fundamentally, editors are not required to agree with you. You continue to frame the last poll as final -- anything but, particularly without consensus -- after all, Wikipedia is dynamic. And your interpretation of the polls and conduct of the latter remains in dispute. Have you given thought that noone else cares to respond because of excessive chat and perceived intransigence? NikoSilver alluded to this -- we all have other things to do. I'm sorry to say. And I was being bold when adding the R-A maps elsewhere (since they are innovations, though imperfect ones, which the polls curiously preclude), just as you have been in trying to devise a poll. There is also the adage: if it ain't broke, don't fix it ... which just about describes the situation before the David Liuzzo maps came along. A Wikiproject for ALL countries (including the contents of their infoboxes) is moot if editors can't agree on standards for them, which the DL maps have done and which has been exacerbated by (mis)interpretation of the flawed polls. Pull out any reputable publication listing/depicting countries and you will likely note a consistency in maps/style throughout; this WikiProject, with the current hodge-podge of infobox maps (unlike before), bucks that. That is not to say that change isn't good, but change for the better obviously isn't. Otherwise, I fall back to my prior comments and recommend an independent review of the situation. Until then, the poll contents herein (IMO) cannot be authoritative. (Note though: that the 'evil' comments etc. below allow for a degree of introspection/self-application, and shouldn't be taken personally.) :) Corticopia 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Creator's comment on the whole long lasting discussion/New maps with and without EU-marking available

Im writing this bold so that you won't overlook it: Instead of discussing my maps to death it would have been nice if ANYBODY informed me, the Creator of that new maps about this...well extremely long discussion which developed here Nevertheless: With the beginning of 2007 there are two series available: Europe location XXX and EU location XXX. The new EU location series still contains the EU marking, the other one doesn't. So every Wikipedia may make its own choice between the two. Further there is finally a world map on both and the issue of the slightly wrong border around the Ural River area has been corrected.

Europe location series
EU location series
Europe loc for small states
EU loc for small states.

It is interesting to see that these maps

are really welcomed on wikipedias which are written in languages of the newer EU countries;
generally acceppted on wikipedias in languages of older EU members (which were founders of the EC) with a more-or less positive attitude towards Europe and the EU

and

completely rejected and discussed to death on more international wikis such as the Spanish or well...my favorite...the english wikipedia. (But at top of that the english wikipedia reminds me of that lovely Great Britain, with its negative attitude towards Europe; not taking part in the Euro, people strictly separating GB and 'the continent' in conversations...)

It's also very funny to read that demands for the creation of corresponding maps for the rest of the world completely ignoring that I did that damn Europe thing voluntarily spending my personal free time on it and I wanted to see my continent represented in an optical better form than before. Further it was also interesting that there were many varities of misuse in combination with that maps. Some users created maps violating the common design of the series. (The first Europe location TUR.png showed Tukey and the European Union which (if you followed the logic of the other ~20-25 EU images) implied Tukey belonging to Europe and the EU - oO - which is of course just wrong.) Seems that some people want to have Turkey as part of Europe and the EU at all costs. Another user even made a socket puppet "DLiuzzo" on commons pretending to be me to cause some problems on the maps other users had created for the caucasian countries. (btw. a very good solution to delete the grey Europe marking on that the maps for caucasian countries since their status in unclear). That traitor even misused my insignia and damaged my reputation with that "DLiuzzo" socket puppet.

So before I quit any further activity regarding maps on the English wikipedia you are requested to either take that maps or to leave it. But don't mix anything up. My next bigger Europe series and the coming North-Africa/Asia (East Mediterranean) will not be published on commons anymore, but on the wikipedias that want to use and appreciate them. Perhaps I'll come over from time to time to see that good old grey/green pixelthingies. I must admit that they have really some kind of nostalgic charm. --David Liuzzo 18:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Best Regards de:User:David Liuzzo

It's rather strange that we would have to warn you about a discussion that you yourself started. -- Eugène van der Pijll 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See below for some serious effort to get away from this stalemate. Arnoutf 11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a "Country"?

Some "country" articles are about geographical regions. According to our NPOV rules this means that the history must give appropriate weight to all the people who have lived in the region.

Other "country" articles are about contemporary Nation States which are dominated by a particular racial group. Their history sections are the history of the dominant race. The history of other races ("aboriginals") is relegated to a subsidiary article.

In the latter case, how does our template treat the non-dominant race? Fourtildas 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A country is defined by its government, not its race. --Golbez 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And when it's dominant race, whether majority or minority, defines its government? Think apartheid... Rarelibra 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on South Africa is about South Africa - its government, its people, etc. I don't understand what anyone is getting at here. Should the article on South Africa have (before Apartheid ended) focused only on the whites, with a separate article for the blacks? Or what? Establish what you and fourtildas are talking about, please. --Golbez 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am responding merely in defense of Fourtildas said compared to your response. How can you possibly state such a thing... "a country is defined by its government". So you are stating that, since I am American, that I am defined by my GOVERNMENT? That the US is defined by a bunch of cowboys throwing the war machine around everywhere? I THINK NOT. Nor did the South African government - especially when they were all white - ever 'define' the country. Unless you think that apartheid was a 'fair definition'. Trouble is, statements like yours lead to only a few things... prejudice, racism, and conflict. I think Fourtildas is merely trying to open up the articles to a broader spectrum of definition and understanding. So along the lines of your 'definition', do you think that if, say, the Hutus were to eliminate all of the Tutsis, that the new Hutu government would 'define' the country? Or hey - even better - do you think a puppet government in Iraq will now 'define' the country? I HOPE not. I don't wish to continue this - it seems illogical to even discuss. Rarelibra 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A government is the single defining aspect of a country, yes. If there were two distinct but equal governments in a region... then there would be two countries. --Golbez 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A) one American isn't America (or rather the USA) and such isn't defined by his government. B) the members of the currently acting administration aren't the government of a country. Lars T. 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And what provision has been made for new yet still unrecognised countries that have de-facto statehood and are awaiting international recognition and/or the sovreignty is under dispute, countries such as abkhazia or south ossetia and transnistria. Buffadren 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the Netherlands

History of the Netherlands is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Native name/long name of the Netherlands

Shouldn't the infobox here say "Nederland/The Netherlands" and not "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'm just wondering because Netherlands (nl:Nederland) is not the same as the Kingdom of the Netherlands (nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden), it is only the European part. —MC 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Belgium

Hi,

just wanted to inform you that this project has a new (actually, ressurected) child, i.e. WikiProject Belgium!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Major code cleanup request

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Major code cleanup request _?AzaToth 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Europe#This and similar templates' names

Currently this discussion pertaining to the kinds of templates found at the foot of articles on countries only has three voices – please add some more so any semblance of a consensus might emerge. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

A short note of introduction; I recently found this effort which corresponds well with my interests and academic/professional backgrounds. I look forward to contibuting to the project's efforts - I have an extensive background on European topics with knowledge of the Americas and Southeast Asia as well. Look forward to working with you and joining the debates below. Internazionale 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (was created at top of this talk page: "below" referred to the now here above and possibly to what could be expected to arrive further below)

Wesborland here

Hi everyone. I joined this project because I'm interested in improving all Uruguay-related articles.Wesborland 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

GDP nominal

Hi, why is only GDP PPP added in the country templates. There is good reason to omit nominal GDP figures. Thus I have taken the liberty of adding the nominal figures to the country templates. I will then start adding nominal GDP figures. Please do, however, check my edits and let me know any suggestions you might have. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already implemented the changes for Germany, Japan and the United States. Adding nominal GDP figure is necceassary to provide our reader with the best info possible. Stating that Japan is the world's fith largest economy is misleading as it is also the world's second largest economy. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New maps for Middle East

I have started work on new maps for the Middle East based on the new European ones, and I will post them on here when done... only problem is I don't know whether I should post the Mideast as a whole or make a separate, smaller map for GCC countries considering the small size of Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait and how they would be clearer if we had a separate one... Thoughts? --Amjra 10:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You should hold off (on posting them) until the Europe maps debate is settled above. Ideally we would like to have similar looking maps for every country in the world. MJCdetroit 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing and hard to find information in the infobox

This may have come up before and if so my apologies. I was looking at the Australia article to find the legal weights & measures used in the country, are they metric or imperial? After looking at a few others, Canada, US, and the UK, I found that it is not included in any of these. I did check the CIA Factbook but couldn't see it there either. Surely the information could be included in the infobox with the use of a single line.

The hard to find information concerns the GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal). It lists them in $ but finding out what sort is not the easiest thing. First you need to click on the ranking to go to "List of countries by GDP" to find out that PPP is in "internaltional dollars" but of course "nominal" is in "US dollars". Would it not be a better idea to use the <ref> tag to show what is what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Measurement Institute of the Austrilian government, 1988 was the last year of legal general use of imperial units . However, I am sure that just like the US, UK, and Canada, in everyday life there is probably somewhat of a metric/imperial mix used. You may find this article helpful: Metrication in Australia. I don't really think that measurement systems should be included in the infobox. As all but three countries require "legal" use of the metric system anyway and it's difficult to know/measure how much the imperial system is used in the metric countries. Hope that helps with the measurement part of your question. —MJCdetroit 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that did help. And while while the information probably shouldn't go in the infobox should there not be something in the article about a country (and not just Australia) that indicates if they are metric. I don't think that the series "Metrication in country" is linked to from the country articles. At the same time I must admit that I'm not that excited about the subject to try and do it myself. The question has to do with what figures are used first in the infoboxes for airports because a lot of metric based countries use feet to measure elevations at airports. By the way, besides the US what are the other two countries that are still Imperial? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Burma and Liberia. MJCdetroit 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Taiwan

How come there are two separated articles about Taiwan(Republic of China), while there is only one article about South Korea(Republic of Korea)?--68.98.154.196 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is an island. The Republic of China controls several other, smaller islands as well, and besides that they officially claim mainland China too. Rain74 09:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article bounty

Thought I'd draw your attention to this open bounty of $25 for any country article elevated to FA status. If anyone wants to add to my offer, feel free. Equally if anyone wants to claim said bounty for Wikipedia, get to it! Might want to let me know when it happens, too. Soo 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I put up Belarus on peer review a few days ago, see how that goes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template Boom

The last few weeks I noticed a boom in templates added at the back of articles. For example in the Netherlands article the following were added: Geographic Location (8-way); Countries of Europe; North Sea; EU countries; NATO; Germanic Europe. Although some of them maybe usefull I think wwe should not overdo this. (Especially the Geographic Location template is an ugly space consuming thing). Perhaps we should discuss here (in a more or less neutral and centralised place) what kind of templates we would like to see for every country (as few as possible). If this is added to the countries (with a decent remark at the talk page) I think the editors of the countries themselves should decide whether they want to add additional templates. Arnoutf 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

CfDs hopefully of interest

Hi all,

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 25#Category:Countries and its subcategories

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 25#Category:Countries by international organization

Hopefully either or both these of interest – please contribute! Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bordering/Neighbouring

The Wikiproject countries states "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like."

Is it necessary that only bordering countries is used and can neighbouring countries be also used. Is there any restriction in using neighbouring countries(The nations that are so close but did not border it) . Chanakyathegreat 08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Neighbours like Canada through the US is with Mexico?? Or do you mean more like UK-France through the Canal; or even something like France-Netherlands through a smalle country Belgium? Anyway I think the "the like" gives plenty of room. Arnoutf 10:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Like India and Afghanistan, where the border between them is disputed and the close proximity of these two nations. Chanakyathegreat 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is fairly rare case; to specific to make generic rules about, so I guess it would fall under the the like clause... Arnoutf 08:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

articles' scope

On Talk:Turkey, the problem was brought up that for some articles on sovereign states, there is perpetual confusion with historical or geographical notions referred to by the same term. This is true for some articles, like Germany, France, Italy, India, Japan, but not for others. The unsatisfactory bit is that its distribution is determined by what a country is called in colloquial usage. There are three stages:

a) overlapping geographical notion: Italy, India, Australia, Cyprus, Iceland, Maldives, New Zealand
- already addressed: Korea, Congo, China, Macedonia, Ireland
b) predecessor states referred to with the same term: Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Spain, Russia, ...
c) no ambiguity: USA, UK, Belgium, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan

Note the exceptions we make for China, Korea, Congo and Macedonia already, for political reasons. India is another candidate, and I would strongly recommend a China solution for India, since the term as in Indian subcontinent includes Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, as opposed to the term as in Republic of India. This leads to confusion and outraged comments again and again. My approach is that all these articles should be about the sovereign state, with any treatment of predecessor states confined to the "History" section. In case (a) only, "China solutions" may be useful (India disambiguating Republic of India and Indian subcontinent; Cyprus split into Cyprus (island) and Republic of Cyprus and ; maybe Italy dab'ing Italian Peninsula and Italian Republic). dab (𒁳) 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words it's unacceptable to claim that the formation of a modern nation-state took place in an old Empires. Articles such as Republic of Turkey and Germany, based on nothing but POV, state dubious claims within their infoboxes. Miskin 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

of course modern states weren't formed in ancient times, that's tautological. Articles on countries still contain information on the country's history, which may reach back into ancient times. The infobox problem is, well, an infobox problem. People generally tend to cram too much into them. That's not 'pov', that's just bad editing and article layout. No need to summarize a country's ancient history in a country infobox. dab (𒁳) 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree; the "China solution" is the only way to maintain any semblance of NPOV for the states in (a). I added Ireland, if you don't mind. --Xiaopo (Talk) 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Italy: do I understand correctly that the problem is in Vatican and San Marino? The only sense in which those countries are part of Italy is geographical. However, there are hardly any major features of Italian geography in those countries. A minor clarification in the geography section of Italy would be enough. I can't see any sensible reason to disambiguate Italy.

Australia: I actually know a paper encyclopedia that places the country under Commonwealth of Australia and the continent under Australia. May be worth considering, although the current situation is OK too.

Cyprus: a move would be quite a good idea, I think, for NPOV reasons.

Iceland: can't see any real reason for moving. The island and country are as identical as could be.

New Zealand: what's the other New Zealand? It's not even an island, there are separate articles on Nort and South Island. An archipelago? There isn't even a mention in New Zealand (disambiguation), so I doubt a move is in order.

India: doubtful if a move would be neccessary, although I don't know if there have been notable disputes about the status quo.

Maldives: same as New Zealand and Iceland, can't see any reason to move.

Rain74 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue focus on economics

I feel that the country articles place too much weight on economics compared to other aspects of a country.

I suggest that 'health' and 'education' sections be added to each country page, and if this makes the article too big shortening the often lengthy econmoics sections. Damburger 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:55, 29 December 2006 (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.