Template talk:POV map

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Piotrus in topic Inline version

The whole ideaEdit

Wow, nice idea here! Some very interesting discussions can be made about any maps point of view. I really do like this idea and think it will help bring attention to maps that tend to be POV skewed in a given article. Just as a question, have you noticed pages where this is needed right now? Lsjzl 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I should have clicked on "what links here" before I asked that question at the end. It seems though that the tag is still showing up? Lsjzl 18:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the word article does not fit in {{POV}}, I've gone ahead and created a new one to deal with maps. Yes, I'll be adding it to quite a number of maps. My initial target is India, China and Pakistan based ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing biasEdit

Most maps often show one country's claim to a region and often try and embed the region inside its borders. Since WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, here are ways to achieve NPOV maps. (In the following example, we're looking from Country A's point of view.)

Border styles
  • Undisputed boundary should be a thick line
  • Boundary of area claimed by A (but not administered): Dotted
  • Boundary of area claimed by other country B: Another dotted style
  • De-facto boundary between the two in the disputed area: dashed
  • Undisputed territory of A: (Colour CA)
  • Undisputed territory of B: (Colour CB)
  • Area claimed by A, but administered by B: A neutral colour between CA and CB, but closer to CA
  • Area claimed by B, but administered by A: A neutral colour between CA and CB, but closer to CB

For reference see Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inline versionEdit

This map is presumably intended for map pages. What about inline version for captions? Also, shouldn't this template have a counterpart on Commons? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]