Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/India-locator-map-blank.svg

Blank (locator) map of India

Blank map of India

This is an unusal nomination. I'm not nominating it for looks but rather functionality. The colours are standardised as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, so I can't change that. My reasons for nominating are for:

Highest resolution image available, (drawn to scale) on the internet: (1486x1734 px) + SVG
Most comprehensive NPOV map available on the internet. Shows the following disputed areas by way of shading and borders:
- Kashmir: Pakistan-administered (Indian-claimed), Indian-administered (Pakistan claimed), Chinese-administered (Indian-claimed), area ceded to China by Pakistan (Indian claimed).
- Arunachal Pradesh: Claimed by China, administered by India
- Additional Western sector claims/administration by China in the states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttranchal. No India map on the internet has such a level of detail covered.

Note: I've compiled the map from 4 sources. I believe that the map will go a long way as a base for the long standing demand for NPOV India maps. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would you mind putting a list of what the various colored areas mean on the image page? It will make it easier for future reference. Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I completely agree with the nominator. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very well done. Agree entirely on principle raised by nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the four colours are very similar, and it's particularly hard to see the difference between the first pair (India, disputed area 1) and to a lesser extent, the second pair (disputed areas 1 and 2). Consider changing them? Stevage 09:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.... I've used transparencies rather than a different colour to depict the two disputed regions. I wanted the colours to blend from yellow to orange to show the differences. Since the gradient from yellow to orange is not much, it does not contrast too much. To mitigate this problem somewhat I'd used different border styles. Awaiting further suggestions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to modify the colours. Please take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Does the legend still need updating? Stevage 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'd already updated the legend. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with new colours - great map, perfectly appropriate for featured image. Stevage 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Minor issue being that similar colour need to be fixed for clarity in first glance. Map featurable as highly functional and trend-setter in NPOV maps. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant neutral~~ - I'd love to support this as I agree strongly about the importance of NPOV mapping on Wikipedia. At the moment, though, the colours of the disputed regions are far too similar - on this LCD panel (at uni) you can't distinguish between them at all. Also, you mention that the map is compiled from 4 sources - what is the copyright status of these sources and what effect does that have on the resulting status of a compilation map? I'll definitely support if these issues are addressed. --Yummifruitbat 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colours: I'm not sure what to do about the colours. (See my reply to Steveage). I'm trying to think of something that is not to flashy and has a wider gradient. Do you have any suggestions?

Image copyrights: Three of the four sources are PD, the fourth is copyrighted. According to international copyright laws, geographical and political boundaries cannot be copyrighted for obvious reasons. What is copyrighted are the style and creativity. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images and Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy (#1 Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources...) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried this, so just a suggestion, but could you simply make the orange colour a bit darker, and the yellow perhaps slightly lighter, so as to widen the gradient? At the moment the orange particularly seems fairly pale, although I agree about not making it too 'flashy' :) --Yummifruitbat 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to modify the colours. Please take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edited version - much clearer. Thanks for clearing up my concerns about copyright, too :) --Yummifruitbat 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - although I do have a small comment :) I personally think the un-disputed international border would look better if it was a dark black line without dashes. Also there is gap in the border between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be fixing the gap and acceding to your suggestion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gap fixed and international border made standard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- thunderboltz ^(TALK) 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have a minor issue. In its highest resolution, I could see a black mark (shape of 'U') in the space between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. Can that be fixed? - Ganeshk (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely an example of Wikipedia's best work. bcasterline t 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High res, NPOV (!). Nice pic.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. howch e ng {chat} 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Entirely endorse points made by Nichalp. ImpuMozhi 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support not exactly striking... --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately yes, I agree with you. :( I would like to try enhance it while keeping it within the ambit of recommendations made by the Maps wikiproject. Please feel free to make any suggestions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Sorry, but I don't see how this is FP material. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? it conforms to points #1-#6. I can't do anything about #7 since I've modelled it on recommendations made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. #8 does not really apply here. Hope this helps. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me be clear. I don't think it fulfills #5. I don't see how the blank map is useful for the article. Now, a filled-in one might be, but that's not what's being voted on at the moment. I'd have to see a filled-in one to decide if I'd support that one. At an absolute minimum, the legend needs to be on the map, not on the description page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for elaborating. :) We plan to use the map as a locator map for towns and cities in India. We'll be modelling the location based on the work done on Template talk:Infobox protected area. This map will be the base map for all Indian cities, and the location will be superimposed over it. The map will thus be used across a thousand articles. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Eh, fair enough. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, I'm sure you spent alot of time working on it and I commend you for that. But It's just a blank map. I like looking at a featured picture thats vivid or exciting. -- BWF89 03:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. I agree with you. As I've said, I nominated it for its utility value, not looks as it's to be a locator map. I could have jazzed it up, but decided to keep it simple. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Nichalp. FPC is first and foremost meant to encourage people to spend time and effort making pictures for Wikipedia. Out of interest, how many hours did it take you to make? Stevage 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on the exact figure. It took me six days (I do it on weekends and started on 16th April). Rough figure: ~10-12 hrs. I'm not a professional, and I taught myself to draw maps over the past few months. I'd also like to add that shading in SVG maps is kinda' difficult and had to use many layers to get the final output. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Entirely endorse points made by Nichalp. --Gurubrahma 11:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama's Arrow 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a fine map, but not particularly striking or visually interesting. There are many maps on Wikipedia that are just as good or better. Also, it could be more useful. There's no distinctions between the areas claimed by Pakistan and those claimed by China. In fact, there is no indication of where China, Pakistan, and the other neighboring countries are. If you plan on using it for Indian cities articles, readers would want to know if a city is near the border with Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, etc. What about labeling the major cities, or at least the capital? For this map to be useful in any article, it would require major additions. As such it fails criterion #5. --dm ^(talk) 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could spice up the map as per your suggestions, but this is meant to be a locator map and having the detail you mentioned would be an overkill. As I said, this is the recommended format, else I could spice it up like my other featured map: image:Goamap.png. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly agree with BWF89 --Fir0002 www 11:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even though it may be a good map and somewhat useful. I think as an image it is too sparse (especially in the upper part) and not at all visually interesting. Bonus Onus 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on what is sparse, and if I can take care of your objection? =Nichalp «Talk»=
Conditional support The lack of attractiveness concerns me a little. IMO, even images used for informative purposes still need to catch the eye. There a few scientific tables which have good colour combinations and look good. The thing is that when (if) it will we on the main page, it will seem strange. However, I'm confident Nichalp can improve the colours. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I really don't intend or even expect to have it featured on the main page. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom/above. After thinking about it, I realised that it still is beautiful for what the image represents, a blank map! Gizza^Chat ^© 11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, gotta give props to well-made maps. --Golbez 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this FPC nomination has been unduly influenced by Wikipedia:Survey notification and I urge the closer to take this into account. I count nine support votes from usernames I don't recognize as having voted on FPCs before, and I see that notification of this FPC was given at Portal talk:Pakistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics, Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board, Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board, and Portal talk:People's Republic of China. I'm not suggesting that the notification was intended to have any improper effect, and of course new voters are always welcome but I believe that the fact that it has been posted to so many interested talk pages has (unintentionally) caused vote stacking, and that the vote count should be disregarded in closing ~ Veledan • Talk 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I admit being guilty of the aforesaid charge. I wanted it to be reviewed by all concerned parties concerned, not just WP:FPC. However I would like to honestly add that I did not clamour for support votes, people could have also opposed the candidature. I didn't want a scenario to occur later saying "how could this POV map be featured!?" =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It'll be every bit as useful as you say and I applaud you for the excellent job you've done, but I just don't think a blank locator map is the best way to represent any country's topology for FP. To fulfil criterion #7 an FP should be a good representation of the subject in itself — a featured country map ought to show features of interest such as places, or perhaps interesting geographic details. This will be a good locator map, but promoting what is basically a blank template seems a bit bizarre to me ~ Veledan • Talk 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The legend is confusing, as are parts of the border regions. The legend lists two different dash-dot lines (of different thickness), and I can't tell which parts are one and which are the other. And the solid line around most of the country does not appear in the legend; what does it mean?--ragesoss 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the border in the legend. I've replied to your comments here. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've changed the name of this nomination to Blank locator map of India to reflect its intended usage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and fixes. Saravask 05:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice work. Yet, a FP needs to be something special, either by being very descriptive or by being an eye-catching illustration. This one is neither. In addition to that, I also agree with the comment made by Veledan. Mikeo 12:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would the fact that this is the *only* NPOV map available on the internet also qualify for this special status? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the islands of New Moore/South Talpatty/Purbasha? - IMHO there is a dispute with Bangladesh about them. I see no indication in the map about it. (see List_of_territorial_disputes) Mikeo 14:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your feedback. From [1], Talpatty island is a riverine island. These islands would be too tiny to depict on this map. The same applies to Sir Creek and the Indian and Bangladeshi exclaves. For example, the islands of Lakshadweep (a union territory) is almost invisible at lower resolutions because of small area of the islands. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. – ugen64 02:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Perhaps a sentence should be added to the associated details stating something along the lines of "Boundaries correct as of 2006"? CheekyMonkey 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Veledan. --P199 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg (+23 / -8) While I did factor in the vote (74% in favor), due to Veledan's concerns of (unintentional) vote stacking I also considered the arguments of those in favor of promotion and against. "It's just a map" is not really a legitimate objection, nor one which can be addressed; another "oppose" vote was too vague to be addressed; and the concerns of two other "oppose" votes were addressed. Others opposed cited WP:WIAFP criteria #5 and #7. I find its usefulness (#5) as a locator map difficult to dispute. And since the subject of this image is India's profile and regional divisions, not India itself, I don't see that it fails #7.

Ultimately, I'm not convinced that this image falls far short of any of the criteria, if it falls short at all. So, with a significant majority of voters in favor, I'm promoting it. -- bcasterline • talk 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]