File talk:BlankMap-World-Compact.svg

what is the scale of this map?

South Sudan

now that South Sudan is independent we need to match this with File:BlankMap-World6.svg. Currently if you type .sd you will get the former Sudan and I believe there is no input for South Sudan --Gimelthedog (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added South Sudan but, as with the full map, the thumbnails are refusing to update. Smurfy (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not recommended to use

Theoretically, it's not recommended to use the current version (neither the maps that Gunnmap produces). It's a Robinson projection map but lose its outline, making it hard to recognize the projection type for readers. A reader would generally consider it as a Cylindrical projections, so that the shapes of the continents are wrong. And because of that, the derived works that partly uses this map without flatten it, are usually also wrong. For a statistical world map, it's ideal to use Cylindrical projections, especially Equirectangular projection and Miller cylindrical projection. If the Robinson projection is used, the map must be along with its elliptical outline. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote some recommendation here: File talk:BlankMap-World6.svg#Notice. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough to categorically say not to use the map, you are just quibbling over details. Notices like that should be placed after community consultation, not unilaterally. (in other words, state your case, along with your salient points, and see if others agree, Wikimedia Commons is a collaborative effort). Reverting the notice on the parent map. --Canuckguy (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe in something like en:WP:BOLD, en:WP:CYCLE. I saw something like File talk:BlankMap-World6.svg/Documentation#Conclusion and the "Comments" for File talk:BlankMap-World6.svg/Documentation#Utilities which is very personal, so I believe my sincere advice is ok to be there. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm definitely not saying "categorically". Who said that? I said "theoretically", where I mean "technically" or "professionally". If someone's using it unseriously and ordinarily, of cause he uses as he wish. Other thing that I want to say is in File talk:BlankMap-World6.svg#Notice. The doc is not even a policy, why you take it so exclusive? You can see I'm also one of the contributors of the world6 map. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I've change all the words "theoretically" I used to "professionally". So clear now? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)