File talk:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg

Explanation about my revert:

This image is used on 16 wiki pages about Morocco, on which it is explained that the striped territory is disputed.

Putting an image where the area isn't striped implies that the description on each page should be edited. Otherwise, we'll have the same problem than what I found on the English article: A legend and an explanation that doesn't correspond to the shown map.

That's why I reverted to an older version, which is more neutral. Putting the territory as full-Moroccan or full-non-Moroccan is, in my opinion, a POV.

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I protected the image for a week. Please discuss all future changes on talk page before reuploading. --Jarekt (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Omar-Toons for discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess, this is a misunderstanding, I don't want "my version", I want the official map according to the sources and the orthographic projection project's parameters. Also, the name of this file must be used as the oficial source as the all others names orthographic projections. --Eddo (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara is not part of Morocco

File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg

West Sahara is not part of the territory of Morocco, it's a disputed territory according to the United Nations, but if you want to keep this drawing without borders then you'll have to upload this file with another name as Morocco WS-included, if you insist to revert it then I'm going to report you. --Eddo (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I suggest that you read the description, you will then see that three versions of this file exist on Commons, one with WS fully separated from Morocco, one with WS fully integrated to Morocco and a last one (neutral) showing it stripped, which means that the territory is disputed.

On the other hand, according to the UN, the territory is nor Moroccan nor independent, that's why the neutral version exist.

Regards,

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Omar-Toons, I don't know if I wasn't enough clear with my explanation, File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg must be validated to the source. West Sahara is not a sovereign state and it's not part of the sovereign state of Morocco, and according to the Orthographic Projections Project and United Nations, it's necessary to emphasize the borders between West Sahara and Morocco. This is not about your "neutral" or "integration" designs COM:SCOPE. This file File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg has The West Sahara in light green just because its moroccan administration is partially recognised by the United Nations.

1.- According to the name "Morocco (orthographic projection)", this orthographic projection must be used as the official.

2.- West Sahara and Morocco can't have the same green color because West Sahara is not officially part of Morocco or vice versa.

3.- Borders must be marked because West Sahara and Morocco are not the same state.

4.- West Sahara is showed in light green because is partially recognised by the United Nations.

5.- West Sahara is showed with white lines because is a diputed territory.

If you want to upload your "versions" then please use others names for the file.

I hope this help. Farewell. --Eddo (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this is the kind of discussion that you need, then: These files were stable for many years, and you came, changed everything, uploaded new versions, have been reverted, reverted back and asked people to upload the previously uploaded versions under different names while you upload yours as "new versions" of the existing files, the answer is simple: The one who has to upload his own files under different file names is you.

Thanks for understanding that there is a consensus and that your PoV doesn't match it.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Omar-Toons probably you don't understand how COMMONS works, 10 thousands of year or more, this file can be modify. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. You can't just say "this is my drawing and nobody can't touch it", besides this file is wrong according to the United Nations and also you have to modify it under the orthographic projection project's parameters. --Eddo (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Eddo, You are allowed to change the file but you should re-upload the new file under a different name and than open discussions on Wikipedias using the file to convince them that your version is more valid. Replacing stable files, which different wikipedias chose over other versions, with new versions is in some circles considered vandalism. By the way I am not disputing validity of your arguments, for all I know your version might be much better than the current one. I protected the file for a week to prevent future re-uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess, this is a misunderstanding, I don't want "my version", I want the official map according to the sources and the orthographic projection project's parameters. Also, the name of this file must be used as the oficial source as the all others names orthographic projections: United States (orthographic projection), Canada (orthographic projection), European Union (orthographic projection), etc. First, this map is not correct and second, this user is not respecting the parameters of the project. --Eddo (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not an misunderstanding, I think I counted 9 version changes this month. This is not helping anybody and undermines the project. I do not know who is right or wrong here and whose version is better, but overwriting each other versions is not the way to settle this dispute. Current version created by User:Flad (as far as I can tell) is the version which was chosen by most Wikipedias over alternative versions. It is not job of Commons to delete version they picked and replace it with alternative version. Also I am unfamiliar with those specific maps but I do not think we have official and unofficial filenames. One name should not be more official than other. If you have a better more official version, save it and introduce discussion on en.wikipedia.org to use new version. You should have more people with opinions and knowledge on the subject there. Also can someone tell me what is the difference between the competing versions? I can only see single vertical line that is different. --Jarekt (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, effectively you are unfamiliar with these specific maps but this is simple to explain. (1) As you can see, this file was uploaded with the name "Morocco (orthographic projection)" as another grey-green orthographic projection map, respecting the project's parameters ("Sovereign state/country + (orthographic projection)" and used as the official cartography according to the United Nations). (2) the current version created by User:Flad was chosen by most Wikipedias over alternative versions because of that or by the same user without consensus in each Wikipedia (I didn't check yet the history of the pages) and also because as you said, it's just a single vertical line or better said the missed border between the territories. (3) West Sahara is not part of Morocco according to the UN and must be separated with that vertical line although WS is administered by Morocco, WS is not part of Morocco that's why WS is represented by white lines on green (or better on light-green according to the grey-green project but much better without color), light-green represents "disputed territories". (4) I'm not the only one who says that this map is not correct. (5) I think it is "normal" that an user from Morocco wants WS be part of Morocco but WS is also disputed by other nations. Thank you. --Eddo (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I added Template:Inaccurate-map-disputed to this file and moved the discussion from user talk page here. User:Eddo explanation makes sense to me and it looks like the disputed change to the file was first made by user:Flad on March 28, 2010. However I still think that this file is authored by user:Flad and he can decide what the file looks like, alternative or derived version of the file should be uploaded under new names. We can also start discussion if template:Superseded should be added to this file. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I understand the authorship of this file but doesn't matter if in the description says « 13.- The Secretary-General shared the view of his Personal Envoy that further meetings of the parties would not succeed, and could indeed be counterproductive, unless the Government of Morocco, as administrative power of the Territory, was prepared to offer or support some devolution of authority » "...for all inhabitants and former inhabitants of the Territory that would be genuine, substantive and in keeping with international norms..." [1] and the user missed the solid border between the territories, and maybe this file can be considered as COM:SCOPE. Otherwise I agree if we start to discuss the template:Superseded.--Eddo (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Eddo, Omar-Toons offered to meet half way: "with a dotted line as a border between mainland Morocco and Western Sahara, and a stripped WS while keeping the same color" (see below). Could you respond if this would be an satisfactory resolution? This would be much simpler than having multiple versions. --Jarekt (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a dotted line between the territories is not appropriate, because The Western Sahara is on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories and strongly should be determined by graycolor or in this case, lightgreen color by its administrative power, meanwhile Mauritania had formally claimed The Western Sahara [2] and has minor control over the w:disputed territory. This file does not correspond with the description or any official cartographic source. If the author of this file doesn't accept this solid line border between these separated territories then I suggest template:Superseded. --Eddo (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take this route I suggest first uploading your version under a new name. Than you would have to get consent to add Template:Superseded to this image and protect it from removal). To tell you the truth it is unclear to me how do you do that but I am sure we had similar cases before which can be found. You can also lobby Wikipedia to switch to use your version. --Jarekt (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Thank you. --Eddo (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

As just said Jarekt, the one who first uploaded this file was the user Flad (diff). Since, Flad uploaded two different versions ([3],[4]) to represent the two positions taken by the two claimants over the territory of Western Sahara, while keeping this one as a neutral one.

In my opinion, a more neutral version can be a map with a dotted line as a border between mainland Morocco and Western Sahara, and a stripped WS while keeping the same color [5], but certainly not a full line border AND a different colour scheme, since that means the the two territories are entierely separated/independent.

Regards.

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it is obvious that a neutral version would clearly distinquish between Morocco and Western Sahara and correspond with official cartographic sources. This one does not. If this map called "Morocco" is to include a non-self-governing territory that is not part of Morocco there should certainly be a full line border and there should certainly be a completely different color/shade/pattern or whatever it takes based on the standards to ensure that readers can immediately and unambiguously distinguish between Morocco and not-Morocco. Keeping the same color is not an option in my view. I think File:Morocco WS-excluded (orthographic projection).svg should be renamed Morocco (orthographic projection).svg given that that is a map of Morocco and this file (after it has been updated to distinquish more clearly between the 2 territories) should replace Morocco WS-included (orthographic projection).svg. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's how it should be. Western Sahara is not part of Morocco. This conflict is mostly between Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, also claimed by Mauritania since Spain left the territory in 1976. Western Sahara is not independent. Western Sahara is 80% de facto administered by Morocco and 20% by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic according to the United Nations. This map should respect all the borders because this map is just called "Morocco". --Eddo (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't match the neutrality requirements for WP articles. I don't see, then, any reason to do what you are suggesting.

Your version is not neutral since it recognizes that WS is independent, which is the claim of one of the two sides of the conflict.

I agree that this map can be improved (as I suggested before), but certainly not by representing the claim of one side or the other.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it matchs the neutrality requirements for WP articles. Let us not have any advocacy here. A map of "Morocco" is a map of Morocco and nothing else. These things are so obvious that they should not need to be said and yet on Wikipedia they have to be said again and again so that maps of states that administer territories under the rules of belligerent occupation and other related adminstrative regimes do not misrepresent things. A map of Morocco is just that, a map of Morocco, just like a map of Israel is a map of Israel and not a map of Israel and the Israeli occupied territories. Maps have to represent what they say they represent and not something else. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I will say this though, for practical purposes and to attract a wider range of views I think it would be better to have this discussion on Wikipedia, possibly via an RfC, and cascade the agreed changes and consequences of that discussion to the relevant maps on commons. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding of the difference between commons and the wikipedias. Here at commons, we provide maps. If one person thinks one map is the most educational way of presenting it, and another person thinks a different map would work better, then we provide both, under different file names. It is then up to all the different Wikipedias which map they use in whichever context they wish. When lots and lots of wikipedias are using a particular file, there is no way that it would get changed on commons without a very large unanimous consensus. Because as soon as it gets changed here, it will change what appears on all their pages. So, the answer is simple. Upload any other versions to different filenames, and then if you want them to appear on the Morocco article on English Wikipedia, go there to discuss which should be used. --99of9 (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what happen File:Morocco and Western Sahara (orthographic projection).svg was created which is almost identical to the current file except for a single border line between Morocco and Western Sahara. The difference is not visible at the resolution the images are displayed in Wikipedias. Also instead of one edit war we have now edit wars on dozen wikipedias by contributors who have hardly any other edits on them. That is why I preferred to see if we can resolve the conflict here before spreading to other Wikipedias, especially since two versions of the file are very similar and concessions were made to bring them even closer. --Jarekt (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

the fact is that, instead of going to different WP's and discuss changing the current map by the new one, he juste went changing the current maps without discussion ; it is the same way than what he did on Commons : breaking consensus on which of the 3 previous maps was the most appropriate. Now, he should seek for a new consensus on each WP page.

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Heads up and discussion would be appropriate. I guess the problem is that most people do not speak all those languages to lobby for the change. --Jarekt (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably users in Wikipedia accepted this map without border as valid because the difference is not to much visible at the resolution, I think if users make the consensus on each WP page, it's not gonna be a problem and it will be changed after consensus because users will see the missed border in this File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg and also because they have a new file with the border.--Eddo (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I... didn't understand...

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:SVG locator maps of countries of Africa (globe location map scheme) → Pick one of the varoius versoins that you like best or that is most suitable for the different WP:articles. Keep in mind: Maps may differ cause views on that conflict differ. --TUBS 09:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't "which map to pick", but the fact that, since this map is used on many WP articles, a discussion must be started to seek for a new consensus before replacing it.

Btw, one of your maps is very interesting (imho) since it shows all the information and, as I suggested before, a dotted line for the disputed border. I think that the same map in the green-gray scheme can be appropriated for the WP:articles.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)