Talk:Malta

Template:V0.5 Template:Wikipedia CD selection

Eh?

What does "Malta is popular with British medical tourists, pointing Maltese hospitals towards seeking UK-sourced accreditation, such as with the Trent Accreditation Scheme." mean? 86.155.0.191 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to add additional external link regarding history of Malta

Hi, could a link to a book exploring the history of Malta written by the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem? For historical purposes. "Ancient and modern Malta : containing a full and accurate account of the present state of the islands of Malta and Goza. the history of the knights of St. John of Jerusalem. also a narrative of the events which attended the capture of these islands by the French. and their conquest by the English : and an appendix. containing authentic state papers and other documents"

Thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNovak2594 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Location

The location as shown on the map is Sicily!!! I don't know how to correct this. Osborne 14:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps the "ring" around Sicily is correct, in fact the ring runs through Sicily, a little to the north. Malta is so small it does not show! Osborne 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Osborne, I think you are correct because the eye is naturally drawn towards Sicily, even in full image view. The only way to fix this would be to upload a new version with a new ring that surrounds only Malta. I'll have a look at doing this in a day or two. Green Giant (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrible map

I have to agree with this: "I know, you’re probably like, “Malta? Where is Malta?” (I had to look it up and I’m still not exactly sure what I’m looking at.)"

Why is the map centered on Europe instead of Malta? The lower half of the map should be part Africa, the upper half should be part of Europe. Ignoring Africa and centering on Europe is, well, Euro-centric. Why is there an inset locating where Europe is on Earth? This isn't Children's Wikipedia. Everyone knows where Europe is. Why are all these other countries that are not Malta color coded in light gray and dark gray and light green? This isn't a map of which parts of Europe are in the EU. It's about Malta. Finally, we have inset #2 which, at last, is Malta! The country we are interested in, and it's utterly primitive, containing the crudest outline of the islands' coast.

What we need one map showing some detail of Malta, and it's relation to it's neighbors, Siciy, Tunisa, Libya and maybe Greece and Crete, and one inset showing Malta's position in relation to northern Africa and southern Europe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the map is like that because it's part of a series, the SVG locator maps of countries in European Union (green and grey scheme). Which makes a lot more sense for, say France than for Malta. I agree it's a poor map for the reasons you gave. People are going to look at the map to see where it is, not how it relates to the other EU countries. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see any!!! problems with the position of Malta on maps, large circle shows exactly where is Malta. Also, current map show approximate and location on world map on the left side. Furthermore, Wikipedia use standard maps for all European states, we will not create exceptions - especially for Malta. Sorry. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What standard are you referring to? Why does this standard require that the locator map place Malta far off-center so as to crop out Africa? The locator map you prefer is centered on Northern Europe, somewhere around Denmark, as if that is the center of the universe. "We do not create exceptions" you say. Exceptions to what exactly? You call Malta a "European state" but have you read the article? They are just as connected to the Arabic and African world as to Europe.

    A good overview of the problem I'm seeing here is found in Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

    • Center of map? What are you talking about? There is one map for European states. It does not matter whether the state lies in the northern or southern or western or eastern part of Europe. Also, I know - Malta lies near Africa (like Spain or Italy) but it does not matter. Malta lies in Europe (officially and generally and colloquially) and show in standard map of Europe (like as Finland in far north, Portugal in far west or Bulgaria in the east). Besides, maybe you added a lot of work for create new map, but... your map is ugly and does not make anything better. Thanks to your map the article is uglier, the map is less clear and break the standard in articles about European states. Please do not push own graphics to articles. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2) 22:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
      • What standard are you talking about? This is the second time you've referred to a map standard. Is there a map standard? Where is it? May one read it in order to make maps that meet this standard you speak of?

        The next question is, in what world would a map guideline trump Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV? You haven't stated any factual reasons or arguments to ignore Africa in favor of Europe other than "Who cares about Africa?"

        Note that the map I made was quite easy to do and I'm happy to make changes to make it less "ugly". But what is the justification for the map being centered on Europe? What's the principle here? What standard says we must do it that way? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

        • Oh my God! According to your theory you have to center the map of Finland, you must center of Finland in map - between the Arctic and Central Europe?!? (map without Southern Europe because Arctic is major!?!). Your map of Malta show only Southern Europe and Africa, without rest of Europe despite the fact that Malta is European (not African) state - nightmare. Please, stop idiotic ideas. Pushing Malta to the map with Africa is not only breaking the rules of NPOV, but also breaking WP:Verifiability - sources show Malta as European state (not African state and not European-African!!!).
        • Can not you understand that the map is centered in the center of Europe - to show the whole of Europe on map. It does not matter whether the state lies in the northern or southern or western or eastern part of Europe, map show the state.
        • There are standards of Wikipedia, for example - templates (including infobox). We do not use their own graphics and signs, we use templates - although there is no official rule of Wikipedia requiring uses of templates. The same applies to other things, if thirty articles use standardized map for a long time - this is de facto standard map.
        • As I've written earlier, your map is ugly and does not make anything better. Thanks to your map the article is uglier, the map is less clear (and misleading) and also break the standard in articles about European states because European states use standardized map. Subtropical-man talk
          (en-2) 23:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
          • So you've got nothing? Besides name-calling and insults? Please note that calling other editors idiotic is a violation of the Civility policy. How can I tell what the map standard is if you can't show me the standard? I'm going to make my map a little prettier and then put it back. You have not given any logical reasons to keep a Eurocentric map. Please do not revert if you can't cite any known guidelines, policies or style guides. I'm going to rely on WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS unless someone can point out something better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I gave valid arguments above. I repeat in my official version:
            • Your map is of lower quality than the current map.
            • Your map of Malta show only Southern Europe and Africa, without rest of Europe despite the fact that Malta is European (not African) state.
            • Your map with Africa and without rest of Europe is not only breaking the rules of NPOV, but also breaking WP:Verifiability - sources show Malta as European state (not African state and not European-African!!!)
            • The current map is centered in the center of Europe - to show the whole of Europe on map - this is a logical. It does not matter whether the state lies in the northern or southern or western or eastern part of Europe, map is correct and show all states of Europe. Everything is good and logical. But your map is incorrect, show Malta as South European-North African country. And again: Malta is European country (only European), Wikipedia not use maps of Asia, Africa, Australia etc for show European countries.
            • You do not have any arguments for use your map, despite the fact that your map violates the two principles of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
              (en-2) 00:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Shows Malta as an African state? Seriously? How does putting Malta in the center of the locator map make Malta part of Africa? Do you know that 95% of the people of Malta speak Maltese? It is a Semitic language in the Afro-Asiatic language group. Malta also has very strong political ties to the UK, and various other countries. It is in the EU, but it is also closely connected to many other cultures in the region, both north and south. And placing it in the center of the locator map is the easiest way to help readers see where in the world Malta is. This whole thing began with a reader taking one look and not being sure they even knew where the country is located. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
                • Besides the fact that you are breaking two rules: WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, additionally you break WP:OR. Your analysis of "95% of the people of Malta speak Maltese? It is a Semitic language in the Afro-Asiatic language group. Malta also has very strong political ties to the UK, and various other countries. It is in the EU, but it is also closely connected to many other cultures in the region, both north and south" leave at home. There are not important "connected", fact is fact: Malta lies only in Europe. To show Australia use map of Australia, not United Kingdom - no matter that in Australia official language is English and Australia has a English history and Australians are descendants of Englishmen, currently British Elizabeth II is head of state of Australia. You want to show European country on the map with another continent just because it has some historical connection? To show Europe use map of Europe. Simply. If you have a problem with that Wikipedia is not the place for you. Wikipedia is not a blog. Subtropical-man talk
                  (en-2) 00:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
                  • Please do not try to show me the door. You don't have a right to try to bully anyone away from Wikipedia because they don't agree with you. do you say this to every editor who doesn't go along with your opinions? This is a collaborative project. Don't expect anyone to be scared off by bluffing when you fail to cite any policy or facts to support your dubious arguments.

                    The Maltese people are not just EU citizens. They are also closely related to the cultures of North Africa and the Arabic world. And even if they weren't, their close geographic neighbors are as much African as European. You speak of Africa as if it were the same as the empty, unpopulated Arctic Ocean. North of Finland, there is nothing but ice and polar bears. South of Malta, there are people, who just so happen to have given the country its language and much of it's cultural heritage. Besides the articles on systemic bias in Wikipedia, North–South divide shows some of the consequences of this mapping prejudice. The Gall–Peters projection exists to combat this cartographic prejudice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

                    • Again, your text "related to the cultures of North Africa..."... blah, blah. I must you write it with crayons? No matter there are any related/connected. Malta is (only) European country and show on map of Europe. Good God, what a guy - he can not understand basic things. I gave enough arguments. Even I gave you the example - Australia to understand, it did not help. I can see - wasting time. By the way, to change on your map must to be a clear consensus - according to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:CYCLE and also your map may not break any rule of Wikipedia (incuding WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:OR) - which is generally impossible because even your idea of breaking the rules. Subtropical-man talk
                      (en-2) 01:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
                      • If you do not show the sources that Malta is located in northern Africa this topic is closed. Subtropical-man talk
                        (en-2) 01:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
                        • You don't have any authority to close a discussion. See Wikipedia:Closing discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The new map showing Malta at roughly the center of the Mediterranean is accurate geographically and, most important, historically. The map of the European Union is too recent to even be considered: It is certainly, as they say, "Eurocentric" in the most illustrative use of the word. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical outline does not matter, this is map of location of the current country in Europe. All EU/European countries use the same map. Maybe we can use more detailed maps in the section of geography but never in infobox. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Recentism. Wikipedia takes a broad, historical perspective, not only recent events.

I'm not insisting on using only my map at File:Map of Malta with locator.png. I'd welcome any locator map that puts Malta in the center and which treats Europe and Africa roughly equally. If it is SVG format and matches the style of other maps, so much the better. But for the present, I think we should stick with the more neutral one, not the Eurocentric map. Anyone who wants to step up and make a prettier, more consistent map may then do so. I'm working on my own improved version right now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism does not apply to maps in infobox, etc. Possible that you are working for nothing. If you want add new map to section of geography - ok, only need to small consensus. But to change main map in infobox, we need to clear consensus. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So far two other editors agree with my point and zero have agreed with you. Nobody understands your claim that the new map makes Malta look like it's "part of Africa" just because it shows more of Africa than the old map. I think I'm making very good progress so far considering the response I've received to my proposal. Please remember to respect consensus even if you don't agree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The arguments above about Malta being only a European state are pretty silly - the roots of the language and much of the culture is obviously further south. It makes sense for the Malta in the Eurozone map to only show Europe, but not the map in the infobox. Australia is a settler-colony and a red-herring of an argument. Please make the first map less Euro-centric. -- haminoon (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded an improved version, with a larger locator, the popular circle around the tiny island dots, and more detail on the zoomed map, with island names and cities. I realize that many editors prefer an SVG map that has the same look as locator maps on other articles, but until someone makes one like that that doesn't center on Europe at the expense of the southern regions, I think this is an improvement based on the consensus of all but one of the editors in the discussion so far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't care what map is used, but it's incorrect to say there's consensus here. Stop edit warring. Use WP:DRN or start an RfC if needed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a revised map which I hope overcame some of the objections, and then put the new version up to see if it resolved the impasse, per WP:BOLD. That is not edit warring.

    Also @EvergreenFir:, do you think Subtropical Man's arguments make any sense? Does the new map violate WP:NOR or WP:V or any other "rules of Wikipedia"? Does it make Malta appear to be part of Africa, or present any false or misleading or uncited facts? If you or anyone else can present his objections in a way that makes some kind of sense, we might be able to resolve the problem. I can't make heads or tails of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Dennis Bratland: I have nothing against to improve the map number 1, cut a little peak, add 15-20% more Africa (the current map has approximately 10% of Africa) - see example but map number 2 is totally not acceptable. If you correct map number 1 in this way ([1]) - I will support map it. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Which map should we use in main infobox?

Number 1

Number 2

Number 3

Discuss below. We can also opt for "no map" or some other solution. 05:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Number 2 is preferable, as it puts Malta in a geographical and cultural context. Number 1 is too eurocentric. -- haminoon (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Number 3 is okay too. I think people should make it clearer when they update RFCs - the post above has the incorrect time on it. -- haminoon (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Number 1 - only, map "number 2" does not meet any requirement and breaks the standards and break the rules of Wikipedia.

1. "Number 1" (current map) is standard map of Europe, all EU/European countries use map number 1.
2. Number 2 is too large map.
3. Number 2 is poor quality, also as png not svg, second map is unnecessary and also what a dots on the map? chickenpox or acne?
4. There is no EU labeling in map number 2. Area of EU should be merked as green.
5. Number 2 is manipulation - this map not show United Kingdom but Malta has close connected with United Kingdom. From 1800 to 1964/1974 Malta is part of United Kingdom, English is official language in Malta and Malta is member of British Commonwealth of Nations. Malta is not member of Arab League. There are no Arab monuments in Malta. For most of its history Malta was not involved with the Arabs. Spain has more ties with Africa than Malta.
6. If number 2 will be improved, we can consider inserting this new map to a section of geography or article "geography of Malta" but never to main infobox of European country.
7. Number 2 is no logical, nonsense - map of Malta show only Southern Europe and Africa, without rest of Europe despite the fact that Malta is European (not African) state?
8. Number 2 breaking WP:Verifiability - sources show Malta as European state (not African state and not European-African)
9. Number 2 breaking WP:NPOV - author of new map try show Malta as Euro-African country. And also, see Ad.5
10. Number 2 breaking WP:OR - author of new map writes about historical relationship with Africa but this problem perfectly explains problem of Australia: in Australia official language is English and Australia has a English history and Australians are descendants of Englishmen, currently British Elizabeth II is head of state of Australia - but, despite the much greater connected UK and Australia than Malta and Africa, on map of Australia no exist United Kindom. Analyses (including concerning relations with other countries) are prohibited in Wikipedia. No original research! Malta - officially and generally and colloquially - is European country and lies in 100% in Europe, according to all sources. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 09:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why its too big - it looks like a good size to me. Saying the second map implies membership of the Arab league is a pretty extreme and absurd argument, likewise the comparision with the settler-colony of Australia (actually only a third of Australians report English ancestry). I agree with you that a former colonising and non-neighbouring country doesn't need to be in the map, which also means I disagree you with you when you make the opposite argument in the same post. It definitely doesn't break any of the policies you mention. Yes Spain has many ties with North Africa, but it also lies in the continent of Europe and its first language is Latin derived instead of semitic. -- haminoon (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Haminoon, language use in country is too enough to change the maps of the world for show Malta as Arab country. Besides, it is nonsense - in Malta also English is official language and map number 2 remove United Kingdom from map. It is called hypocrisy. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The second map doesn't show Malta as an Arab country - it just shows where it is in the world. You might like to have a look at which don't have the UK in their infobox maps; and perhaps charge them with "hypocrisy" too. -- haminoon (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You did not understand. You argue that in Malta is a Semitic language and that in the map should be Africa but new map remove United Kingdom although English language is official language in Malta. It's hypocrisy. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm making a distinction between an indigenous language and a coloniser's language. -- haminoon (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Malta's membership change just because of the language is pure absurdity. Currently Malta has only one thing related to Arab and Africa - a'la semitic language but even the affiliation of the language is not obvious, see read: "Maltese is a Semitic language descended from Siculo-Arabic.[16] Because of the Sicilian influence on Siculo-Arabic, Maltese has many language contact features and is most commonly described as a language with a large number of loanwords.[17]" "The Maltese language has historically been classified in various ways, with some claiming that the ancient Punic language was the base of the language, instead of Siculo-Arabic,[12][18][19] while others believed the language to be Berber,[12] and under Italy, it was considered a dialect of Italian.[20]" Currently in Malta are architectural sites, English as official language and extra wide British culture. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• 11. in addition - in new map there is too much shown of Africa, 60% Africa, 35% Europe, 5% Asia. Completely wrong proportions. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 09:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have nothing against to improve the map number 1, cut a little peak, add 15-20% more Africa (the current map has approximately 10% of Africa) - see example but map number 2 is totally not acceptable. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 10:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be an improvement on the status quo. -- haminoon (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If user @Dennis Bratland: or other correct map number 1 in this way ([2]) - I will support change. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I wrote to the author of original maps [3], maybe can improve the map to compromise and reach consensus :) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Number 3 is still preferable, or Number 2. I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend Subtropical-man's objections. It's obvious that a locator map of any place should put that place in the center of the map and show the nearby areas. This is not that complicated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Locator and inset map of Malta.png is a new version with some of the proportions adjusted. It doesn't change the fundamental question here, which is whether to keep a Eurocentric map or not. After that, there is always time to make improvements but right now we can decide to have a neutral map. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Simply, your map - File:Locator and inset map of Malta.png - number 2 is too large Africa. Malta lies in Europe and you show on map of Malta: Sudan, Niger, Chad, Mali. You should apply reasonable proportions, for example 66% of Europe, 33% of Africa. Enough that map show Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt. It's enough. Apart from a short period in a very long history of Malta and the language (70% of language) that Malta does not have anything to do with Africa. Your proporcion 50:50 with Africa is totally not acceptable for any European country. Also #2, your map there is no marked boundaries of the EU. Also #3, your map not show whole Europe. Also #4 - your bottom map is a nightmare, streets look hopelessly and dots look like acne or chicken pox. Sorry. You want more Africa on map - ok, but Malta is European country and Europe must to be whole. My proposition is good [4], new map marked boundaries of the EU, Europe is whole, to meet the principles and standards of Wikipedia (like thirty other articles), and also had to more Africa - ideal compromise. User Haminoon and me agreed to this compromise. You can continue to fight but I will never give up. I will fight with your current map even years. Your choice. The compromise is stepping down both sides, not olny one. You accept a compromise or not. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

These made-up percentages have no basis in reality. Why should we organize maps based on arbitrary proportions one single editor made up in his head? Nobody understands what your problem with Africa is. The consensus so far is to put the subject in the center. I don't expect that will change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Current map is protect by the status quo. In Wikipedia, articles about European countries has the same map - map of whole Europe. You are trying to disrupt standard and trying to push map with only half of Europe and... Africa (50:50). But Malta is European country and should be on map of Europe. I tried to create a compromise - different proportions than 50:50. But no, for you is not enough. You do not want a compromise, you want to push only own map? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been told more than once that I would be happy with any other map that put the subject in the center. It doesn't have to be one that I made. Please do not make false accusations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what this is compromise? the two sides have something to give to hammer out agreement. I have nothing against to improve the map number 1, cut a little peak, add 20% more Africa (total about 33% of Africa in map). Malta would be almost in the center of the map but keeping the entire map of Europe because Malta lies in Europe. Besides, my proposition does not break standard among European coutries. Please agree to compromise. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole problem here is treating Africa as being less significant than Europe. I would agree to all sorts of things but the one thing I won't agree to is diminishing Africa without a clear and compelling reason, and a reason which any reader will understand at a glance. The Wikipedia pillar of neutrality is far more important than any precedents about consistency of maps. And we can put up a neutral map today and at some future time make a neutral map that is also consistent in design with others. But neutrality trumps design. I can't speak for the three other editors who also think Malta belongs in the center of the locator map. I don't think their opinions are heavily influenced by what I think. Remember, the whole point of a locator map is to answer the question, "Where in the world is Malta?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Malta lies in Europe according to all sources. This is not neutrality for you? You ask: "Where in the world is Malta?" answer: Malta lies in Europe, simply. This is the crux of the matter. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, any other questions? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed image isn't appropriate. Other countries' articles only have a map to locate the country, not a map of the country itself. This is because it's better to include a larger map in the body of the article, to show the country with much more detail. I don't think anybody can read the labels on the map you propose at 250px. Instead, using an insert to zoom in without labels (like the existing map) is definitely more appropriate. Aside from that, centring the map on Malta goes against a widespread convention for EU countries (and most other European countries). If Malta wasn't an EU country, like Belarus, then I would probably be impartial to centring the map on the country; but since it is part of the EU, I think it should be shown within the union. Rob984 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You can call it a "widespread convention" but centering the map of all these countries in Europe looks an awful lot like ugly old Eurocentrism with a fancy name. Why isn't this convention documented anywhere? Has it ever been discussed? Why center on the EU? Why not NATO? Or the UN? And how is the average person looking at Malta or Greece supposed to know this is the reason that the subject is stuffed off in the corner of the map? To me it looks like someone made a map template they they liked and then cranked out a whole lot of cookie-cutter maps without much thought or discussion. The effect is to create a strong visual slight against the regions bordering Europe, and the motive is not clear to people who just want to see a locator map of where the subject of the article is in the world. It makes Africa and Asia look unimportant and irrelevant. Your other objections are all fixable, but they are less urgent than neutrality, which we can have right now by changing to a map with Malta in the center. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Malta is European country, map of Europe is natural and logical solution and there is no connection with Eurocentrism. You wrote: "Why center on the EU? Why not NATO? Or the UN?" - in the USA they do not teach in schools about the European Union? The European Union operates on the principle of confederation, European Union has own parliament, constitution, borders, citizens, currency etc, de facto not much different from USA. Whereas UN or NATO is just organisation. European Union and UN/NATO are two different things. You wrote "Africa and Asia look unimportant and irrelevant" - Malta lies in Europe, look of Africa or Asia is not relevant. In addition, I proposed compromise - standard map of Europe/UE with more Africa (~35% of the size of map): [5]. I and user Haminoon we could support compromise. You prefer own map which cuts off half of Europe - which Malta is a part. What matters is cooperation and compromise. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rob984 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) This is a blatant case of WP:CANVASSING. Subtropical-man requested Rob984 to come and give his opinion here. It's one thing to advertise a discussion on related project talk pages, but recruiting editors you know are sympathetic to your views not acceptable. The !vote by Rob984 should be ignored. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Wrong. What? "Subtropical-man requested Rob984 to come and give his opinion" - this is lie. See link. This is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [6] on only private talk page, I have not request to opinion or vote in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion! I just wanted his private statements in his or my talk page. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 21:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Number 3 is too deep. We don't need to show much more than the top part of Africa and the bottom part of Europe. I still prefer Number 2. Malta is in the Mediterranean, and we should simply show the borders of that big sea, with maybe a bit more beyond. As for this nation being part of the EU, well, it is also a part of the United Nations and many other international organizations. Malta is still an independent country, last I looked. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead

Re: George Cross, Malta Independence Act, etc... this is way way way too much detail for the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kendall-K1. Thanks for your message here, and your question on my Talk page asking why I thought the lead should be expanded. Absolutely not too much detail! Please just take a look at the length of introductions on the Wikipedia pages for the small nation states of Cyprus and Singapore, by means of comparison. Malta's introduction remains smaller than either. It's necessary to include such brief details at the outset, as long as the introduction doesn't become appreciably larger, but in my next edit of the page, I'll certainly try to compress that information a little, and perhaps other parts of the introduction, too. I do accept that an enormous introduction, stretching over innumerable paragraphs, is in nobody's interest - but fortunately, it isn't anywhere near that point yet. You may be relieved to hear that I've already decided not to add a wealth of other brief details, in order to keep the introduction to a reasonable length, in line with those of comparable countries. Thanks again. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not the length I object to, it's the level of detail. Cyprus has a long lead because it has had a convoluted recent history. The entire third paragraph is about the partition, and no such event has happened on Cyprus recently. Singapore also has too much detail and I wouldn't use it as an example. The part about its credit rating certainly doesn't belong in the lead. The lead does not need to talk about awards, the flag, what years Queen Elizabeth was known as Queen of Malta, or the name of the Act granting independence. The WWII Siege was a significant event, I would mention that instead of the the Cross that was awarded afterwards. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, thanks for your reply. I do take your point about the level of detail in the lead, and will reduce it. I referred to the lead's overall length in order to answer your question on my personal Talk page asking why I thought the lead needed to be expanded. I do agree with you that Malta's recent history is not convoluted in the same way as that of Cyprus, but it does nevertheless have a complicated and unusual recent history, the details of which needs to be briefly alluded to within the lead. Therefore, as already stated, I shall reduce the level of detail in the description. Incidentally, when you state that "no such event has happened on Cyprus recently", I think you meant to state that it hadn't happened in Malta. I do very strongly agree with you that the Siege of Malta during the Second World War needs to be referred to. The award of the George Cross, granted to Malta for its bravery during the Siege was highly significant as it was granted in 1942, when Malta was still at war against the Axis powers and when a further Siege remained a distinct possibility. Similarly, the appearance of the George Cross in Malta's modern-day flag, as a recognition of the country's sacrifice and its refusal to surrender, needs to be at least briefly referred to. Incidentally, you may be interested, perhaps surprised, to hear that both the Maltese Government, and individual Maltese in conversation with tourists, have pointed out that the award of the George Cross to a whole country, rather than to an individual or institution, remains a unique event.

Thank you again. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)