File talk:Mali (orthographic projection).svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Azawad[edit]

It would appear it's time to color Azawad in light green, as it has now been formally declared independent with Bamako disputing its secession. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done, with an attempt to match the map on [1]. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
declared but not recognized. You've got to remember that this is desert war so large territorial gains could well be reversed. Give it a week or so to see what the fallout is.Geni (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The defacto argument doesn't really work since bits of that area have been de-facto independent for some time and we didn't change the map then. Give it time to settle.Geni (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't claimed as independent though, which is a key difference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People claim independence from time to time. Lets see if they can maintain territorial integrity for a reasonable length of time.Geni (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare to have a claim which is backed up by the removal of control by the controlling state. We have an area devoid of Malian law and control. We have a declaration of independence. Who are we to define a reasonable length of time? We should keep the map updated in real time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amen chipmunk I fully agree, the map needs to stay current, if anything changes it can always be modified as it happens,the Malian army and government is in such disarray that the defacto control could easily remain for weeks before the malians have the chance to strike back and attempt reconquest. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keeping it updated in real time suggests we have far more grasp of what is going on on the ground than we actually do.Geni (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Azawad is a disputed territory, disputed lands go in light green, we have done so with the maps of other countries with breakaway territories, examples here, here, here doing so does not question the de jure status of the parent country, but rather makes note of there current lack of control over the region, I'll come out with it that I do not support azawad, I would love to see a return of malian sovereignty to the region and a capture of the terrorist rebels whom lead the coup, but opinions dont matter here, the Tuarag rebels have expelled malian forces from the region and the azawad flag flies high from the rooftops in Gao and timbuktu and that is a fact. a shade of light green is a neutral way to say it is de jure part of mali, but defacto not. I dont feel we should even be arguing about this. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
given the length of time the area has now been held I tend to agree.Geni (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea[edit]

The map omits the border of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Tbhotch™ 02:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common problem on our maps. I collected a list here a few years ago. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Mali_(orthographic_projection).svg&oldid=656777752"