File talk:European political map (chopped).png

Spelling mistakes -- "continious", "Geographicaly", "european", "becouse". AnonMoos 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

L'Europe du Sud correspond aux trois péninsules méditeranéennes. La Roumanie n'est pas dans la péninsule balkanique mais dans les Carpates Pour les "pays Baltes", seule l'Estonie est de langue fennique (comme la finlande) les deux autres sont des pays de langue balte, proche des slaves et sont tirent leur culture particulière à la République des Deux Nations.--62.241.126.199 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars

Since this map was victim of several edit wars already, this here is the discussion place. Deliver sources why a country belongs to a special part of Europe or not, but don't use it for petty conflicts. This is not a "my opinion"-map. If you don't like that your home country belongs to a special part, that's not the problem of the map. It's the "fault" of plate tectonics. And before stating your personal beliefs without any source to confirm it, remember: this is geography, you can't change it with wars. Your country will still be at the same place in several thousand years. -- Cecil 11:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: problems, as far as I can see, concern Rumania, Switzerland and the three Baltic states and which colour these five countries should get. The other problem is if the border of a few countries belong on the map at all (Kosovo). For those problems we should find a solution that show neutrality and not political conflicts. -- Cecil 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the situation with Rumania and Switzerland, but Kosovo ought not to be its own state, at least not for now, as its future situation is unsure and not recognized internationally. If the situation remains precarious after a few years, we might draw something else; we also might try drawing a pseudo-border (i.e., dotted line), like maps often do with Gaza/West Bank. Macedonia certainly should be a state, as I believe it's nearly universally recognized (or at least far more so than Kosovo). Patstuart (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. This edit war was very slowly moving, and we are discussing this issue both here and elsewhere. I am not sure that protection was the way to go, and if it is unprotected, I believe we will behave (you can police and mete out warnings elsewise). Patstuart (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that slow-going and I definitely can't see a discussion here (or anywhere else). All the people here did was calling the other side vandalist and immediately upload their version again. So lets see if they can discuss now like civilized people or not. If I see any good will the remove the protection earlier. -- Cecil 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk is here: Image_talk:BlankMap-World-v6.png#As_stated_in_reversion. Additionally, two edits warriors were blocked for 3 days each, and have been much more cordial about the affair since (yes, the edit warring has essentially stopped: [1]) Patstuart (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as if Olahus and MaCRoEco are doing any discussion at all. They just waited until the protection of this page was gone and started their edit-war again. -- Cecil 13:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cecil, in the actual way, the map is an ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Romania isn't more Eastern European than other couuntries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary or Bulgaria. If those countries are not listened as Eastern European, why should Romania be listened there? Another problem: why are Latvia and Lithuania put to Eastern Europe, while Estonia to Northern Europe? Besides, the version of the user MaCRoEco is not the original version of the file. So please explain me why did you revert the map to MaCRoEco 's version instead of the original one?--Olahus (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to Image:European regions.png, an other version which does not have Romania as part of Eastern Europe. The editors of the various wikimediaprojects will have to decide which division of Europe is more relevant to their view of the world. Saying that Romania is part of Eastern Europe isn't very original, and we're certainly not going to revert this map to the other wrong version because of a claim to Original Research. This map remains as it is as far as I'm concerned, and we'll probably have to keep it protected eternally. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see which source was used to edit the actual version of the file. --Olahus (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want an official source claiming Romania is a country in the southeast, than take the CIA factbook: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Black Sea, between Bulgaria and Ukraine. Alinor used the Wikipedia articles about the countries to sort them, and the first versions of the country articles back in 2001 were based on that source. -- Cecil (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but the CIA source also claims that Estonia is located in Eastern Europe (while the actual map locates the country in Northern Europe). Besides, regarding Romania, you have shown me a source that locates the country in Southeastern Europe, not in Eastern Europe. --Olahus (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Description

Please, can someone add the italian translation to the description? Here there is:

Legenda:

 

Europa centrale

 

Europa dell'est

 

Europa del nord

 

Europa dell'ovest (versione ristretta)

 

Europa del sud

 

paesi asiatici con territorio in Europa

Here there is the english version:

Legend:

 

Central Europe

 

Eastern Europe

 

Northern Europe

 

Western Europe (vision restreinte)

 

Southern Europe

 

Asiatic countries with European territory

Thank you!
Vale maio (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Captions

I've modified the image since many captions were written in bad English language. Here it is my version; however I was not able to upload it because the page is protected.--Carnby (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)