Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Disputed areas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning: A first draft version is under construction by Edward and Yug. Thanks to let us some time.
Edward, let's work together. 1. I start a convention page where I/we put the first wave of rational (needs). 2. Make a graphic suggestion. 3. Ask feedbacks from the community. 4. "Validate" the convention. Below is the draft I'm currently editing. Yug (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This page provide is a plugin convention for the wikipedia's location maps which include disputed areas.

Introduction (60%)[edit]

Disputed areas (introduction, generalities and purpose) are a frequent cartographic items as well as highly troublesome subjects within the wikipedian community. This convention is proposed to avoid time-consuming edition wars and pointless time wasting discussions on the form of maps displaying disputed areas. This convention is proposed with a cartographic perpective: borders are artificial, temporary, and not really important and are thus to downplay.

Usage (where & how): First, this convention is usually used to complete location maps. In this case, we DOWNPLAY these disputed areas, simply noticing their existence with some soft symbologic differences (symbology: see #Convention just below). As for the location maps, we keep neighbourg countries.

The second case is for encyclopedic articles whose title is clearly ABOUT these disputed areas/borders, a country's territorial claims, or a conflict because of these claims. In this case and this case only, we ENLIGHTEN these disputed areas, and we notice clearly in the article that these claims are unilateral claims different from any factual control or internationally recognized situation.

Lands [rational]

Given we are focusing on a country A, there are 2 types of disputed areas:

  • controled by A but claimed by other(s), or
  • controled by other(s) but claimed by A.

If A thus have diplomatic conflict with several entities, [lines connecting the claimed area(s) to the claimer(s)] can be used.

Maritime areas and islands [rational]


Disputed toponyms

First, it is important to state that toponyms doesn't imply possession. The Indian ocean is NOT the property of the India, but simply "the Sea we cross to get to India", similarly, the English channel simply mean it's the channel sailors cross to get to England. Indeed, territories always has different names from different observers, with many name changes across time, based on which associated items sounded the most relevant to travelers. Thus, we have Yellow river, the Pacific, the Mediterranea (medi: middle + terran : land = the sea between the lands), the English channel, the Indian ocean,... Also, Wikipedia being a centralized encyclopedia with various points of view, we simply use the google test to see which term is the most used online for modern English language. Simply. When the google test say that the Sea of Japan is more frequent in English language than East Sea, then we use the first. This Sea is NOT the possession of Japan, but simply semantically associated to the Japanese archipel.

Where (to find): these maps can be found on commons, in the category Location_maps_(2008_standard).


[graphic convention to recreate (there the location map convention)]
Convention for location maps.
Subject Colorimetry (RGB/hex)
Toponymes (names)
R:0 V:0 B:0
Border. Labels (country/state/province's name)
R:100 V:100 B:100
Subject's area (country, province)
R:254 V:254 B:233
Other areas part of the same political unity
R:246 V:225 B:185
Outside area
R:224 V:224 B:224
Lake's coast, rivers, sea coasts, hydronyms
R:9 V:120 B:171
Ocean, sea, lake
R:198 V:236 B:255

Naming (upload):

  • File:{Country name in English} location map.svg
  • File:{Country name in English} {Sub-division name in English} location map.svg

and so on, but please focus your energy on countries first.

Further needs:
Legend: not need.

SVG template: if you need some labels & icons, please use Image:Maps_template-en.svg which provide further label conventions.


This disputed areas convention focus on ...

History and current work[edit]

[to complete: many past endless wikipedian conflicts about China, Taiwan, India, Korean Sea, Mali, etc. maps depictions]
Interesting innovations
[to rewrite]

Traditionally borders, especially international ones, are represented by bold lines, while neighbor countries' territories may suddenly be whitened on the map. Following a talk, a consensus encouraged to rather use doted lines for borders such —–—–— or ––– (ex: Portugal_administrative_map-fr.svg), the rational being that borders are not walls, people always crossed them, and as an NGO and international community of volunteers, we have not to support such national view that space stop at the country's border. Also, as a second consensus, the neigbor countries or territories should NOT be “wiped off the map”, that's considered as rude, and don't make sense geographically.

Leading place

[Here, Edward and Yug]


Toolbox (to create the proposal)
First working Examples

[to complete]

Basic usages

[to complete if need]

See also[edit]

1st Round : Eadward-Yug talk for the draft proposal[edit]

Hello Edward,
I saw you wish to suggest a guideline for disputed territories, both
  • controled by A but claimed by other(s), or
  • controled by other(s) but claimed by A.
That's a good thing to attack this issue. To keep aligned with current usages, may you base your suggestion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Location_maps ? I also suggest you to derivate your tests from File:China_edcp_location_map.svg for testing. This map follow a suggestion from the German team, with doted (— — — —) lines File:Positionskartenerstellung_-_Signaturvorlage.svg for disputed areas, but its not clear enough (the area is claimed or controled ? or is this lack of clarity wished : the status of this area is unknow?) and conflict with the Image:Maps template-en.svg doted ( — - — - —) international boundaries. A phylosophy of the Maps template is to keep doted international boundaries and to not wipe out neighbourg countries to show that boundaries are not STONE walls, boundaries are artificials, not on the ground. Also, the disputed area should not be given too much importance (no red color), but kept as peripheric childish diplomatic games (soft gey, not more visible than controled areas). How to do, too, with disputed island and sea/maritime areas ?
Last, the Conventions/Location_maps contain some user names you may wish to contact to understand their rational. We may start Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Disputed areas, state it's a draft proposal waiting input, discuss on the talk page while creating the convention page.
I hope these inputs will help your documentation ! Cheer ! Yug (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, seems we will have to propose a upgrated convention (different from Map template and from Positionskartenerstellung_-_Signaturvorlage.svg). Yug (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I try to help as I can. --Yug (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Validate the German convention is also a possibility. --Yug (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2nd Round : community's comments (not yet opened)[edit]

Please wait the draft proposal before commenting