File talk:G20.svg

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

Earlier topics (2007–2016)[edit]

Why are there two Germanies? 72.228.86.15 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is Nakhchivan and the Nagorno Karabagh? ZoRCoCuK (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purple is a mistake for Senegal, Malaysia, Armenia (I trought) and Zimbawe. Spain must be in pale blue. --Pierre73 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done All these are resolved / not relevant by 2019. Cherkash (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea, Cyprus[edit]

The annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation is not recognized by the vast majority of the states. It is a politically quite sensitive. I have edited the svg code so to show Crimeas as part of Ukraine. Any other suggestions? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing too sensitive about it: there are plenty other disputed territories in the world, and the usual practice is to show their de facto status. Same goes for the Cyprus edit that was recently made: showing the whole island as one entity simply ignores the reality of there being two separate parts to the island. Cherkash (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the recent revisions to the file[edit]

Because of the recent edit warring I have protected the file. Please try to establish consensus for what to present in this map. You might also want to upload a separate version showing a number of disputed territories, but edit warring at this file is neither constructive nor helpful to the readers of any related Wikipedia articles. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my revert to the version as of 01:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC) was to the version last uploaded by Alex Bakharev. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: The last substantial update to this image was done by me on 11 February 2019 (based on 2018 data). Since you were trying to revert the results of the recent edit-warring, this is the version that should be chosen as stable. The version uploaded by Alex Bakharev was part of the recent drive-by edit warring performed by several users (including Alex Bakharev). So please revert to that 11 Feb 2019 version for consistency. Cherkash (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but since you took part in the most recent edit warring here, I'm not going to revert to your version. What you call drive-by edit warring was in fact no edit warring except on your part. You were reverted twice, first by Dim Grits and then by Alex Bakharev. So it is on you to seek consensus for your version. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: Here's the actual sequence of events:
  • Dim Grits did what was essentially a counter-productive edit – reverting back to the pre-2018 version. No comment given by the user. Reverted by me as an obvious borderline vandalism.
  • Alex Bakharev did the pretty much the same (a series of 3 edits on July 4, starting with a reversion to the Dim Grits's edit just mentioned above, and then 2 more edits that cancelled each other out). So my actions were to restore the most recent 2018 updates again, and to revert what essentially was also vandalism.
  • Then finally there was a most recent update by Alex Bakharev, and an immediately following it update by Geom10, both of which were the subject of the discussion thread immediately above this one on this Talk page: my explanation above for depicting the territories as they de facto are did not result in any further discussion – so this issue was effectively settled and closed.
  • And then, finally, the user Saemperson (which is clearly an SPA, and also potentially a sock-puppet account) came along and did 4 reverts. So again, my action was simply to restore the status quo version of the image. And in this latest example, I've additionally reported the Saemperson user on the Administrators' noticeboard.
So why is that instead of acting on a specific narrowly-focused complaint about inappropriate behavior of Saemperson, there was absolutely no action taken for Saemperson – not even a warning from you on their talk page, etc.? And instead you chose to interfere in the editing of the image, where you seem to take sides in the discussion that seemed pretty much settled by the time you arrived? Cherkash (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: To be clear, my last paragraph basically calls on you to separate two things:
  • If you disagree with any aspects of the image itself, feel free to discuss as any other user would. No reason to misuse what essentially is an admin tool reserved for cases of vandalism, etc.: i.e. choosing a specific version of the file and then protecting it.
  • If on the other hand, you feel that it's an admin issue, then I've explained above why your logic of choosing a version, and also importantly, ignoring a valid user-behavior complaint about Saemperson, doesn't seem coherent with the sequence of events and the specific complaint I've raised on the noticeboard. In fact, it seems you are effectively taking a certain stand on the contents of the image. In which case, using your admin powers to push your POV is not the right behavior IMHO. Cherkash (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't favour any side in this conflict, so in order to stop the edit warring I chose to revert to a version with a valid upload summary. Your reverts, however, were not explained other than "drive by editing" which in this context is insufficient, and could likewise be interpreted as your point of view. As to Saemperson, he had not been active any more since the file got locked, so you may be right about the SPA. Anyhow, it would have been up to you to notify them about the Admin board thead, and I did forget to address him, so kudos to Ricky81682 for notifying him about this issue. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: There was no conflict really. And both most recent times I've reverted the casual edits by other users (Saemperson and Alex Bakharev) – I've clearly justified my reverts (on 2 Aug and 30 Aug) in the edit summaries with the short note mentioning "de facto" status of the territories (related to Russia/Crimea, Cyprus/North Cyprus); in addition, it was discussed and explained (without being further contested) in the thread immediately above. That's why your actions seemed biased to me, since instead of the last substantially updated version, you chose to "stabilize" at one of the drive-by reverts. So please restore to the 11 February revision as this was the latest meaningful update as already explained. Cherkash (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: Yes, Crimea and Cyprus seemed to be the points on contention for "drive-by" updates/reverts, some of which had also screwed up the structure of the human-editable SVG file to an extent. And no, the extent of my changes in February was not those territories, but to overhaul the whole image based on the most recent G20 summit in 2018. The Crimea and Cyprus were simply shown with their "de facto" status as part of that 2018 update – as already explained above and in the relevant edit summaries. There was no further contention as evidenced in a simple discussion in the thread immediately above. Cherkash (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: Before I'll start, you will find it hilarious, but Russian news sites literally wrote news about this, "Wikipedia admitted that Crimea is Russian":

All these stealth and tiny edits are just ways for Russian propagandists to justify illegal annexation of Crimea. This topic is not new for Wikipedia and UN status of Crimea is known for everyone of you. Also, this is not the map of the states, not some statistics for the separate territories etc. An international community with overwhelming majority of voices considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine. This mental gymnastics from Cherkash about the topic that already was discussed in Wikipedia multiple times has only one point: to push Russian propaganda and nothing more. Saemperson (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest substantial revision of the map I've made back in February, simply showed various territories (incl. disputed ones like Crimea, unrecognized or partially recognized ones like Cyprus, etc.) with their de facto status. It was not intended as a political statement but simply reflected the reality on the ground. So unlike the later edits (incl. by Saemperson), the revisions I've made back in February were substantial – and the coloring of the various territories was simply incidental to the major revamp based on the then-most recent G20 summit data. This is why I referred to these later edits (e.g. by Saemperson) as "drive-by edits" – they simply pushed a particular political agenda, and contributed nothing else to Wikipedia.
What the user Saemperson is essentially doing, is engaging in an act of lobbying and in a promotion of a political agenda. They politicized the matter unnecessarily. In fact, this user has created what is known on Wikipedia as a "single-purpose account" and has made no productive contribution to Wikipedia whatsoever: his/her only contributions were the pushing of certain singular agenda about Crimea status (hence, an SPA designation). There is a good reason SPAs are discouraged on Wikipedia, and at the face value this user's actions are simply a form of vandalism and disruptive behavior. Cherkash (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally the one here who is pushing Russian propaganda with your map edits, are you getting punished at your factory for my reverts or something? Btw, have you seen that your supreme leader and god Putin wants to forbid Wikipedia in Russia? 😥 Saemperson (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: Can we stop this nonsense coming from the SPA (single-purpose account) "Saemperson"? He/she uses baseless accusations here – and also keeps reverting the file itself to older & outdated versions, while completely ignoring substantial updates based on the most recent data. Cherkash (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are Russian who is pushing Russian propaganda, that's the main factor here. Crimea is a part of Ukraine, check the statements and voting of the UN. You can do everything in your echo chambers, but don't touch international Wikimedia with your cheap Kremlin lies. This is the map about countries, not territories. Ukraine is not a member of G20, that's why Crimea as a part of Ukraine is gray. Saemperson (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new round of hate speech, baseless accusations, and inappropriate behavior. And all of these is coming from an account that contributed objectively nothing to the Commons except for reverts, disruptions, and lobbying for a single issue. @De728631: can we stop this disruptive behavior? (I'm not against reaching a consensus and discussing the issues on merits – but I'm specifically asking here about stopping the disruptive behavior.) Cherkash (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saemperson and Cherkash: Alright. Both of you, have been engaged in edit warring on this map for weeks and blaming each other of lobbying and propaganda. So this is my last warning to both of you: Should any of you revert this file during the time of the poll, he'll get blocked. Let other users do what needs to be done, but stay away from the map yourselves and take a break instead. De728631 (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now asked for additional uninvolved input at the Village Pump because this discussion and the poll need some more participants with an outsider's perspective. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

The poll shows that users prefer to depict Crimea with a dashed grid using both grey (not G20) and purple (as for Russia, G20 member). Any single colour depicting Crimea as part of either single nation shall no longer be used for this particular map until consensus changes. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I agree that this nonsense has to stop, but apparently you guys are not able to find consensus on a single version of the map. While it is not an official guideline, I found reading COM:Disputed territories very inspirational. I would therefore like to suggest two alternatives of how to go on.

  1. Special colour mark: We do not colour Crimea in a single hue (either grey or purple) but use a dashed grid of grey and purple to mark the "disputed" status.
  2. Split maps: We fork off the latest version by Cherkash to a different file File:G20 Crimea-RU.svg and leave File:G20.svg at the status of 15:59, 8 November 2019 where Crimea is shown as part of the Ukraine. Both these versions will then have to be maintained separately.

Please cast your votes below. This poll shall run for 7 days ending on Saturday, 15 November at 21:00 UTC. 21:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind #1 (using either a separate color or a dashed grid). I think splitting is silly, as the branches like this eventually tend to divert much farther than the original differences for which the splitting occurs, whereas there's usually no good reason for such deviation – and so it's best to avoid that. Cherkash (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The option 2 is fine. But can we keep the map without Russian propaganda while we are discussing this? Cherkash keeps vandalizing the map. Saemperson (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not that easy like it looks. Because then we would also need a map where Taiwan belongs to China and a map where Tibet does not. With all combinations that would make seven different map Versions and I think there are more disputed areas. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We needn't invoke hypothetical slippery slopes; there has been no edit war on this map over such other issues. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But if we create one map for this case we need to do this for other cases too. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about similar problems before: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/04#locator_maps_of_countries_with_controversial_territorial_claims. One suggestion is to have all versions available and leave it for users to decide. I think that's best we can do.--Roy17 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would end in a very huge amount of versions, if you look at en:List of territorial disputes with all possible combinations. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's allowing different versions, if someone uploads them, to be hosted. It's not mandating every single possible combination be created.--Roy17 (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. The various wikis can then provide their explanation/summary from that. As noted above, the same individuals are fighting at File:G20countries (IN).png. I hope they follow the consensus from this poll or else we can have a poll there about whether to follow this poll as that is just a raster version of the same image. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Update[edit]

The straw poll has shown that a bicoloured grid is preferred to depict the disputed status of Crimea. I have prepared an adequate version of the map which I can upload if nobody else volunteers to update the file. De728631 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody objected or provided a new map, I went ahead and uploaded the version I had announced before. Please feel free to improve the grid style if you like. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and improved the grid style like you suggested. I've also applied the striped coloring to other two affected territories with dual claims: Northern Cyprus and Taiwan. Cherkash (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

de jure OR de facto[edit]

Is this map about the "de jure" status or the "de facto" status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geom10 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently a mix of both at this point: see the section right above. Cherkash (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. But it should be one way or another. This map is used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20. So, which status of the two is the most relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geom10 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 October 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
And why does it have to be that way? (And please also sign/date your messages when you post: four tildes at the end do the trick.) Cherkash (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Geom10 (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't get what I mean, there are many disputed areas in the world (e.g. List_of_states_with_limited_recognition, Halayib_Triangle, Golan_Heights, Kashmir) but you chose to show only these 3 specific areas. Geom10 (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, English Wikipedia policies or guidelines don't apply to the Commons: specifically, NPOV is not maintained here, as different points of view can be simultaneously represented on Commons and is in fact this is specifically allowed and encouraged. So please don't confuse individual Wikis' policies with the Commons policies – they are fundamentally different in some ways.
Secondly, to answer why only these 3 specific areas shown as striped: it's not because they are in some way specially "chosen" (nor is it because NPOV is explicitly not respected), but because for the purposes of this map the coloring of only these 3 territories depends on which country you attribute a territory to. Cherkash (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this map was created for the purpose to be shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20. That's why I confuse the policies.
Secondly, for the purposes of this map the coloring of Halayib_Triangle and Kashmir too, depends on which country you attribute a territory to. Geom10 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have either Halayib Triangle or Kashmir striped as well, please update the BlankMap-World.svg (which is the base map for this image) to have those regions properly marked up in the SVG source code. Then it will be a trivial change to update this image (as it's just a CSS markup on top of the base image). See File talk:BlankMap-World.svg/Documentation#Territorial_disputes for more details and a TODO list that you can update. Cherkash (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mis à jours[edit]

Depuis ce matin lunion africaine est membre du G20 ( source : france info ,france 24,liberation ect...) Il doit être colorer comme ue Ganceclem (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:G20.svg&oldid=800065291"