Jump to content

Talk:Netherlands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quizimodo (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 18 June 2007 (→Suggestion for conflict regarding maps: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of November 2, 2024
A map showing classes of articles in WikiProject Countries.
  Featured article
  Good article
  B-Class article
  C-Class article
  Start-Class article

What's new?

Articles for deletion

  • 17 May 2025 – Islamic Emirate of Rafah (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Chipmunkdavis (t · c); see discussion (6 participants; relisted)
  • 14 May 2025 – Third Republic of Vietnam (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Yue (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)
  • 12 May 2025 – Republic of Balochistan (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by MSLQr (t · c) was closed as delete by Asilvering (t · c) on 20 May 2025; see discussion (51 participants)

Proposed deletions

  • 19 May 2025 – Namudag Raj (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Gommeh (t · c): {{User|SinisterLucifer}} tried to request this page's deletion but I'm not exactly sure if they knew how to file a request. I'm not sure why they want this article deleted, but I'm filing it on their behalf to ...

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada or Japan)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

checkY Sweden,[a] formally the Kingdom of Sweden,[b] is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
☒N Sweden (Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ), formally the Kingdom of Sweden (Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ), is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail, duplication and tangible information
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

Example:

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada promotes its domestically shared values through participation in multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of gross domestic product in nominal and PPP-adjusted terms, as well as their respective world ranking. Include both total and per capita amounts.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Prose should provide clear, relevant information and links to relevant sub-articles about the country, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

checkY Corruption in Liberia is endemic at every level of society, making it one of the most politically corrupt nations.
☒N Liberia scored a 3.3 on a scale from 10 (highly clean) to 0 (highly corrupt) on the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index.


Comparison table of section sizes in country articles as a percentage of article size. Click image for latest data.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Graphic showing article quality, size, contentiousness, protection, and vital level. Click for live data.
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually 250 to 400 words as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged - (unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made) - as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and might cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Clusters of images may cause images to appear too late or too early for associated prose text, see MOS:SECTIONLOC for general recommendations. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Notes

  1. ^ Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. ^ Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

WikiProject iconNetherlands B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
See also Wikipedia:Netherlands for information on Wikipedia activities related to the Netherlands.

For previous discussions see:

Drente - Emmen or Assen

There has been some repeated discussion whether Assen or Emmen is the largest city of Drente. As far as I know it comes down to this:

  • The municipality of Emmen has both more inhabitants and has a larger area compared to Assen
  • The city proper of Assen is larger compared to the city proper of Emmen.

The issue. Which of the two to use??? (I am open to both, but think this requires some discussion). Arnoutf 17:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The municipality of Emmen has both more inhabitants and has a larger area compared to Assen. I agree.
  • The city proper of Assen is larger compared to the city proper of Emmen. I don't agree, see www.emmen.nl and www.assen.nl. The facts & figures on these sites leave little room for disagreement, in my opinion.

82.95.250.63 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about the city propers. From www.Emmen.nl (and similar figures onhttp://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmen) I conclude Emmen city proper has about 57,000 inhabitants. The other villages making up for another (about) 50,000; making up for a total pop of slightly over 100,000
The figures for Assen are less clear; the municipality has about 64,000 inhabs. However no separation between the city and other villages is given on www.assen.nl (but I may have overlooked something). Having a look at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assen shows that the difference between muninicipality and city is only a few hundreds to thousands. Dutch wiki gives Assen city proper as 62,000
Following these numbers Assen city is larger than Emmen city. (We agree on municipality).Arnoutf 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmen: 56,876, see: http://www.emmen.nl/md/1023/tabel2.xls?sid=145a75951109d52054d056462c5f618f

Assen: 64,413, see: http://www.assen.nl/Docs/internet_nl/Stadsinformatie/Statistische%20informatie%202006/Bevolkingnaarleeftijd2006.pdf

The Emmen statistics are Emmen city proper, the Assen statistics include surrounding villages. Therefore the 2 figures aren't conclusive.

82.95.250.63 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is basically what I found as well. The Dutch wiki article states that the other villages in the Assen municipality only add up to about 2,500; and that Assen is about 62,000. But I have not seen the numbers. Indeed not conclusive. Arnoutf 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A municipality is not a city, so you 're not right. Emmen is a very large municipality, but the city itself only has about 57000 inhabitants. Assen proper has about 64000 inhabitants, and the surrounding villages just add a couple of hundreds of inhabitants. It's as simple as that. Evil1980 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Assen source does not specify the villages explicitly; that's why I said non-conclusive, but I agree with you that Assen city proper is larger than Emmen city proper.Arnoutf 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and Fauna

Sorry Krator did not like my note on the algae of The Netherlands. I had hoped it would inspire others to add a section on the Wildlife! Ok then as you wish.Osborne 10:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algae are indeed a subject notable to the Netherlands, but not sufficiently so to warrant a whole paragraph in the main article. If you want to add information, what about adding it to Geography of the Netherlands? That article is too short as is, and information on algae would be a welcome addition. --User:Krator (t c) 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

I quote: "Courses in Spanish, Arabic, Ancient Greek, and Latin are offered in schools as well."
In the Netherlands Russian and Turkish courses are offered in schools as well. 83.117.225.78 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UserBox

FYI

This user lives in The Netherlands

-Catneven 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming issues paragraph

  • Version one: The Netherlands is often called Holland. This is incorrect as the provinces of North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces (for more on this and other naming issues see Netherlands terminology).
  • Version two: The Netherlands are commonly mislabeled as Holland, as North and South Holland are only two of The Netherlands' twelve provinces.

As nicely put by Krator in his edit summary, Note that the two versions under dispute here are conveying -exactly- the same message, but [version one] has an extra helpful see also link. While the logic behind the second version isn't incorrect (though the grammar isn't so hot), it skips half the information, and as a result it isn't as clear. It also doesn't offer the link for further explanation that the first version does. -Bbik 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed reverted the wrong version. Apologies. --User:Krator (t c) 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy infobox

Hi all, I have been annoyed by the lengthy infobox on this (and many other country articles) for some time now. I think there is a lot of detail in there that is not essential. How would you think about trimming the infobox to this:

Netherlands
Nederland
Motto: "Je maintiendrai"  (French) 1
Anthem: "Het Wilhelmus"
the Netherlands (dark orange); Legend
the Netherlands (dark orange); Legend
Capital
and largest city
Amsterdam2
Official languagesDutch3
Ethnic groups
80.9% Dutch4
GovernmentParliamentary democracy
Constitutional monarchy
• Monarch
Queen Beatrix
Jan Peter Balkenende
Independence 
(Dutch Revolt)
• Declared
July 26 1581
• Recognised
January 30 16486
• Water (%)
18.41
Population
• 2007 estimate
16,570,613 (59th)
GDP (PPP)2006 5 estimate
• Total
$541,513 billion (23rd)
• Per capita
$35,078 (10th)
CurrencyEuro (€)7 (EUR)
Time zoneUTC+1 (CET)
• Summer (DST)
UTC+2 (CEST)
Calling code31
ISO 3166 codeNL
Internet TLD.nl8
  1. Official Motto in French; translation into Dutch "Ik zal handhaven"; English: "I shall stand fast" The literal translation of the motto would be "I will maintain". Here "maintain" is taken to mean to stand fast or to hold ground.
  2. The Hague is the seat of the government.
  3. Frisian is also an official language in the Netherlands, although only spoken in Friesland; Low Saxon and Limburgish are officially recognised as regional languages.
  4. For other ethnic groups see section demographics
  5. For other socio-economic indicators see economy of the Netherlands
  6. Peace of Westphalia.
  7. Prior to 2002: Dutch guilder.
  8. The .eu domain is also used, as it is shared with other European Union member states.

Location Map

Copied from User talk:Quizimodo

Map update on Netherlands

Would you mind if I reverted your edit to Netherlands? I find the new map you introduced inferior to the old one.

  • The colours are less clear and pronounced. In the thumbnail, it is hard to discern the borders between EU countries because of the colour used. The difference between Europe and Asia/Africa is almost unnoticeable. Water is white, instead of blue.
  • The map itself omits several identifying details of the Netherlands. The West Frisian Islands are absent in the new map, and and the islands of Zeeland seem disconnected and distorted. Also, upper and lower Limburg seem disconnected, the IJselmeer is disproportionally large, and a whole province (Flevoland) is omitted. This decreases the value of the map for the purposes of illustrating the article the Netherlands. These areas are important, and a never omitted part when drawing a schematic map of the Netherlands. If a drawing shows the islands of Zeeland, the West Frisian Islands, and Limburg, it will be recognised throughout the world as the Netherlands. This is comparable to how Florida is instrumental in recognising the shape of the USA, or the Baja California peninsula to recognising the shape of Mexico.
  • Some detail is omitted. This makes the map less pleasing to look at, and decreases function. Blue water, a slightly more 'brown' colour in mountainous areas, and major rivers make a map seem more natural, and allow easier orientation for a reader unfamiliar with the political situation.
  • The relocation of the world map to the upper left corner means that a reader will look at that first, while the focal point of the map should be the location of the country in question: the Netherlands. Also, the addition of a few circles denoting very small countries is not helpful here. This map is to show the location of the Netherlands. Those small circles are usually used for colouring small countries in coloured statistical maps, like Image:GDP nominal 2006 world map.PNG. They have no function here, and just distort the overall picture.
  • The map is on a larger scale. While I would agree with, for example, showing more of the Middle East, the addition of more water, more Greenland, and Svalbard to the Northeast serves no function. The larger scale decreases the size of the Netherlands, and also enables less detail on the map.
  • Purely aesthetic, the new map is just drawn worse than the old map. If this were a vector graphics image, I could understand, but it is not. The coastline is "spiky" in a lot of places, and the Finnish lakes appear to have changed in appearance overnight and are certainly not an endorheic sea the size of Belgium. Denmark appears to be an island. Greek islands have disappeared, and finding light green Malta on a white background takes a microscope.
  • Besides all the negative points above, I could find only a single positive item: the change in projection of the world map. However, I do not think this is worth all of the above.

Overall, I feel the new map is inferior to the old one, and therefore would like to revert your edit. I will await your response before doing so. --User:Krator (t c) 13:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and regarding the Netherlands locator map

Hello, and thanks for your feedback. Yes: I do mind:

  • The colours are clear and provide adequate contrast, and are yet consistent with the majority of maps used for most other countries: throughout locator maps in Wikipedia, water is white, and land is green. I may consider recolouring; e.g., water to blue.
  • These are locator maps: neither these maps nor the prior maps are meant to (or need to) possess excessive details. The prior maps are far too busy and excessively complex. I can add the Frisian Islands; I can also add Ijsselmeer, but they yield nothing new about where the Netherlands are located -- as well, the colour and encircling on the world maps do that. Speaking of which ...
  • The movement of the world map to the upper left is intentional: countries are a global phenomenon, not merely a European one. As well, the current map depicts the EU in relation to the world, while the predecessor does not. In the former, the rather minimal world map in the lower right occludes part of Western Asia, where territories are wholly unclear (e.g., Cyprus); also see the next point.
  • The major function of the 'larger scale' is to include territories commonly reckoned in Europe (not just the EU), per the United Nations scheme of countries and regions -- by many accounts, Svalbard is a part of Europe, and Greenland (though generally considered a part of North America) is politically married to Denmark. Nonetheless, this is partially why Greenland is conveniently overlaid by the world map and, thus, taking advantage of the space. As well, those territories tangentially place Europe and its constituents, something lacking in the prior maps. In addition, the basic map will be provided, which can be used for other EU/Europe articles in Wikipedia.
  • I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the circles, and may yet remove them; however, I hardly see how they distort the overall picture when they may aid in identifying smaller territories amidst larger ones.
  • As above, such maps do not need to depict, say, Santorini; yet, you can't clearly identify Malta on even the preceding locator map or (only after how many insets?) its own locator map (which will be updated) and is irrelevant to the issue of where the Netherlands are. As for its size, the more agreeable map uses an azimuthal equidistant projection, so the Netherlands (and other countries depicted) is no larger than it needs to be. In addition, I can generate maps in SVG format, but decided not to due to simplicity.

I boldly decided to create maps anew and, as you can see, I disagree with you on most points and consider the prior maps inferior. So far, you are the only one who has objected to this new map, which was created to rectify some of the inadequacies of predecessors. One of the fundamental qualities of a locator map is to answer the question, "Where is this country?" -- and the prior maps often failed to deal with this, and thus ... Anyhow, I am open to enhancements, so please do not hesitate to contact me with added feedback or questions. Thanks! Quizimodo 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Original map
New map

Copied from my talk page to keep discussion from becoming fragmented. This was a response to my first note on this section. Indents are my comments. --User:Krator (t c) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The colours are clear and provide adequate contrast, and are yet consistent with the majority of maps used for most other countries: throughout locator maps in Wikipedia, water is white, and land is green. I may consider recolouring; e.g., water to blue.
I disagree with your assertion that the colours are clear. Consistency with the majority of maps used for other countries is not a reason to change the current ones without providing arguments why green is better than the other colours. I do not think green is awful, or a bad colour - the older map was just better.
Place the two maps side by side (as I did when creating the newer maps), and tell me which one exhibits the Netherlands more clearly. In the prior maps, the Netherlands is lost amidst a sea of red/orange and unnecessary (almost superfluous) geographic detail. In my maps, only the basic shape of countries is depicted -- which is appropriate given the function of the map; in it, the Netherlands appears rather clearly. Perhaps I'll create a map variant with exactly the same colour scheme as in the prior maps. In addition, your assertion that consistency shouldn't be a criterion for the change rather defeats the purpose of a wikiproject which is devoted to developing standards for this sort of stuff: the prior locator maps significantly differ from most other locator maps, for reasons that remain unclear. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the two side by side quite freqently, and found the Netherlands better depicted in the older one, because:
  • The Netherlands is depicted larger in that map.
  • That map includes several details used to identify the shape of the Netherlands.
  • The newer map has a world map in a place that distracts from the Netherlands.
  • The brown and orange used in the older map are more natural and pleasing colours.
--User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with above and below. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are locator maps: neither these maps nor the prior maps are meant to (or need to) possess excessive details. The prior maps are far too busy and excessively complex. I can add the Frisian Islands; I can also add Ijsselmeer, but they yield nothing new about where the Netherlands are located -- as well, the colour and encircling on the world maps do that. Speaking of which ...
Excessive details are are indeed bad. That is why the map does not show cities, roads, and railways. However, the shape of the country should be preserved, and a country should have its recognisable shape. This is not the case with the new map. Furthermore, the existence of the old map shows that it is possible to have a map with the same resolution, including more detail. It depicts the earth in a better way.
See above -- I remain unconvinced that the shape of the country is unrecognisable or should appear as you have indicated. The selective use of colour and contrast, coupled with the use of circles, somewhat obviates this argument. In any event, I can easily add those details to the map. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look forward to additions to the map. However, I kindly request that you leave the older map in place as long as these additions are not made yet. It would be bad to have an inferior 'beta' version of the map here. Twenty articles about countries are not a testing ground. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, everything is 'beta.' I kindly request that you refrain from initiating an edit war when there is no consensus in support of it. You first ask me if you can revert; upon my reply, you do it anyway -- am I to assume that if I didn't reply, you wouldn't have done anything? Your end result is the same. Assumptions of good faith aside, it seems you have an unknown point to prove -- on no other page has such resistance been mounted to these maps; in fact, relatively little resistance has been expressed (none, in almost all cases) on the other pages where the maps have yet been placed. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The movement of the world map to the upper left is intentional: countries are a global phenomenon, not merely a European one. As well, the current map depicts the EU in relation to the world, while the predecessor does not. In the former, the rather minimal world map in the lower right occludes part of Western Asia, where territories are wholly unclear (e.g., Cyprus); also see the next point.
With the older map, the world map was very functional: it showed the location of the larger area depicted, without distracting from the location of the Netherlands. The current one does. I do not deny that countries are a global phenomenon. I think that the older map was better at depicting this.
Actually, the prior world maps were rather dysfunctional, merely consuming space and appearing a collage of black that was of little informative value. They are too small, and one cannot resolve countries in them. In the newer maps, the topical focus is clear: one may first view the world map in the top left to find the country's overall location, and also readily see it in the larger map of Europe below. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In thumbnail size, both world maps do not differ much in detail. Borders (except the US-canada border...) are neigh invisible in both. Only the location of the world map is different, and I find it obstructing the place of the Netherlands as focal point of the image. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the prior map, the world map is little more than an affectation, with the oddly sized Scandinavian countries and excessive details contributing to an overall lack of focus. The world map is far more informative in the latter map and not obstructing -- not only are the Netherlands far easier to locate on the world map (with instances of dark green throughout providing the focal point), but its placement represents a better use of available space on the map. And I can produce PNGs of higher resolution and or SVG maps, both of which will reveal complete country borders. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if you made the country borders dark green, or green-grey or something? It would resemble the other map a bit more then (perhaps solving some of the "aesthetic" problems), and it makes the lines stick out better (which, while aesthetic, is also important, far more so than which color is used). -- I agree that they're all but impossible to see currently, even aside from the fact that having borders and water be the same color is typically a bad idea. The whole map wouldn't hurt for having more contrast, either. Whether the water remains white or turns blue, I don't much care, but if it remains white, the light green needs to be made darker, as do the two shades of grey. If it turns blue, perhaps that would solve some of hte contrast issues, but I would still strongly recommend making it darker. There's the whole scale from white to black, use it, rather than limiting it to mid-grey (or mid-green). -Bbik★ 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the world map, I also prefered it to the right, because it is distracting in the top left corner (One would like to assume that people at least know where Europe is, if not the countries specifically, such that they wouldn't even need to see the world map...), but I can see how it does perhaps "fit" better there. -Bbik★ 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major function of the 'larger scale' is to include territories commonly reckoned in Europe (not only the EU), per the United Nations scheme of countries and regions -- by many accounts, Svalbard is a part of Europe, and Greenland (though generally considered a part of North America) is politically married to Denmark. Nonetheless, this is partially why Greenland is conveniently overlaid by the world map and, thus, taking advantage of the space. As well, those territories tangentially place Europe and its constituents, something lacking in the prior maps. In addition, the basic map will be provided, which can be used for other EU/Europe articles in Wikipedia.
When showing the location of a country, political correctness should not be necessary. No one will need Svalbard and Greenland to orientate themselves, though they are indeed part of Europe. Depicting them on the map is not necessary, and takes up valuable space. The article is about the Netherlands, and that country should be the focal point of the map. The old map shows this in a better way.
The inclusion of other European territories is not political but geographical correctness. The prior maps place undue weight on the concept of the EU (and you're referring to my argument as one routed in political correctness?), despite the concept of Europe dating back centuries. I disagree that an editor would not need other territories to place a country in Europe, and counterarguments for excluding peripheral territories don't hold. The Netherlands is squarely the focus of the newer locator map, while misshapen countries and unclear renditions are the focus of its predecessor. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Svalbard is as important to Europe as French Guyana and the Canary Islands. Both are not depicted. I do not see how showing an insignificant island is necessary on the location map of the Netherlands. I would even argue for excluding Russia and Iceland, but I think that would be a lost cause. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to equate Europe with the EU. Svalbard may be part of the former, but it (and Norway) are not part of the latter. Physically, French Guiana is not part of Europe and the Canary Islands are closest to Africa (though are included on the locator map for Spain), while both are EU territory (by virtue of their parent countries); regardless, both of these are highlighted on the newer locator maps (on the world maps). Again, the basis of this map is Europe and the individual countries in it, with the EU as a secondary focus. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the circles, and may yet remove them; however, I hardly see how they distort the overall picture when they may aid in identifying smaller territories amidst larger ones.
They are unnecessary detail. Why include a circle for the Bahamas but do not include the West Frisian Islands, to show the location of the Netherlands?
I will remove the circles; I admit they are unnecessary in the current maps -- however, note that the Bahamas and similarly circled territories (microstates?) are sovereign entities or somehow unique politically, while the Frisian Islands are not. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. As above, I eagerly await a new version. However, I kindly ask that the older map stays in place until you have finalized the map. I will provide comments and criticism if you want. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome feedback, but I see little reason to forego progress until then -- also considering that revised maps may change little from the 'beta' version. However, I will probably retain the circles for the France locator, since Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion (parts of France and the EU, but not of Europe) would be difficult to identify otherwise. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, such maps do not need to depict, say, Santorini; yet, you can't clearly identify Malta on even the preceding locator map or (only after how many insets?) its own locator map (which will be updated) and is irrelevant to the issue of where the Netherlands are. As for its size, the more agreeable map uses an azimuthal equidistant projection, so the Netherlands (and other countries depicted) is no larger than it needs to be. In addition, I can generate maps in SVG format, but decided not to due to simplicity.
Malta was an example of how the new map was drawn in a worse manner. The other examples, which you did not address, let alone refute, still stand.
I'm unsure of the other points being made, so I cannot respond to them. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Purely aesthetic, the new map is just drawn worse than the old map. If this were a vector graphics image, I could understand, but it is not. The coastline is "spiky" in a lot of places, and the Finnish lakes appear to have changed in appearance overnight and are certainly not an endorheic sea the size of Belgium. Denmark appears to be an island. Greek islands have disappeared, and finding light green Malta on a white background takes a microscope." Malta was the last one.--User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics are a matter of style -- for example, the prior map includes an abundance of rivers which seem rather oddly placed or are non-existent in reality. Scandinavian countries are unnecessarily elongated. The Finnish lakes have not changed between any of my map editions (to my recollection) but, in totality, the country does have more fresh water surface area (33,672 km2) than Belgium (30 528 km2) -- even the CIA map for Finland highlights Saimaa (the major Finnish lake). Country borders are white, but Jutland hardly looks like an island. Major Greek islands are depicted and its unnecessary to depcit the entire archipelago , and Malta will be difficult to depict on any map (but willbe especially highlighted on its locator). I can't qualify your opinion of the map being spiky: if anything, this is a characteristic of the European coastline. At its base, this line of argument is baseless -- would your reaction be different if I uploaded an SVG map? The same details would be evident. Again, this is/should be a locator map -- not one with over-excessive details. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarized, I am not convinced the new map is an improvement over the old one. It is of good quality, but the old one was simply better. And that is why I reintroduced the old map on the Netherlands article. Also, please do not try to justify reckless actions and unsupported edits by citing WP:IAR. As you cited being bold, I will cite another thingy starting with WP here: WP:BRD.

I'm all for collaborating, but a reminder that IAR is policy, while BRD is not. As well, noting throughout that something is better does not necessarily make it so and seems an over-compensation -- in my opinion, it's debatable that you have demonstrated this through your reasoning and most of the above is based merely on style. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any arguments starting with "IAR is policy" are horribly paradoxical. Follow the spirit, and not the letter of the rule. That is, improve the encyclopaedia, but if someone disagrees, try to discuss before pressing your edit through. (Like you have done twice now, by reverting my revert) I am quite reasonable, and a new version of your map sounds promising. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Life is often paradoxical -- your behaviour (as indicated above) is affirmation of that. Is there a reason to not follow both the letter and spirit of ... Wiki-encyclopedism? One other editor below prefers the older inferior map, and another prefers the newer unpretentious one. You alone have stridently opposed this map, and perhaps that's part of the problem. I'm all for enhancements, but until others are forthcoming or unless there is systemic opposition to this map -- which is not yet the case -- there's little reason to stop the wheels of progress. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of mass reverting changes to other countries - I am only concerned with the Netherlands article. Feel free to copy and cite parts of my reasoning in discussions on the same issue concerning other countries. Do wikilink my username when doing so.

--User:Krator (t c) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised, I feel the current maps are innovations on the preceding maps; however, there is room for improvement, and I look forward to working with other editors (here and on the country project pages) to help enhance the locator maps. One thing is clear: the status quo does not seem to be a viable option. Thanks. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And both of you: It's not going to kill anything to leave one version of the map (whichever version) for a few days while this gets worked out. Once something is agreed, then go reverting and all, but until then please stop with the edit warring -- that's more disruptive than either map. -Bbik★ 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I prefer Image:EU location NED.png a great. It's of higher quality, and it's easier to figure out what is land and what is water for those who live in other continents and don't know the exact shape of Europe without. It's pretty standard for water to be blue in maps. This map also shows the rivers very well. I say definitely keep using Image:EU location NED.png, although the other one is a good map, it's not great, as is the more colorful one.  hmwith  talk 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree the (orange) maps is great. Ok the water is blue, but the addition of rivers seems fairly random (many rivers in Sweden of about the size of the Dommel are shown, while the Maas is not. Also the used Mercator projection horribly distorts Scandinavia in the version. Althoug the colourful map looks nice and detailed it gives a false idea of detail which is not there in reality. I think both maps are ok, but both leave room for improvement. I would go for the less pretentious map (which is the new suggestion). This map also fits closer with the municipality style maps used (see e.g. Amsterdam) and also can be converted into SVG (preffered graphical format) much more easily. Arnoutf 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to WP:WPC

It seems we are not going to achieve consensus here, though I might support a new map if my major issues with the 'green maps' are dealt with. Take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and try to achieve consensus there with broad input from the community via WP:RFC.

I kindly request you leave the old map in place as long as discussion is ongoing - it is the last version with consensus. Determining whether that consensus no longer exists will take the aforementioned broad input. --User:Krator (t c) 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we will not achieve consensus here, and that is also to say it may not exist elsewhere either, but that is no reason to stop the wheels of progress and edit war regarding this (and you have reverted this article four times in the last 24 hours). I will seek broader input when I get a moment; in the meantime, I suggest you refrain from reverting. Quizimodo 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is twisting the intention of Wikipedia's rules. I could make an awful map myself and revert three times, concluding that it is "progress". The burden of proof is one the one making the change, and you have provided no such evidence that your change is an improvement. It is disputed, and therefore you should be able to bring up the courtesy to leave the old one in place. --User:Krator (t c) 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How? Your pre-emptive and compulsive reversions are rather discourteous and have done more to fly in the face of Wikipedia's 'rules' than anything I've done. You have provided little evidence to support the prior state, and have resorted to edit warring when you cannot or choose not to persuade. The prior map was also disputed by many editors, for which a clear consensus has not been clearly shown, so we can always restore the original map. This is not going away. Quizimodo 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion: The map is not the territory

Why is this particular map here? It seems to me that the map is being used to show where in Europe the Netherlands is located for those who are either unaware or unclear. If that is assumed, and unless it is expected that someone will be using the map for navigation, then ultra-strict accuracy is probably not going to be the primary consideration. If someone needs to know where the Netherlands is, he or she is probably not going to care or even notice if the Maas has gone missing. For the rest of us, the map is simply window-dressing.

Keeping the primary audience for that map in mind, we should look at how someone unfamiliar with European geography will see the two alternatives offered. The two choices, which I will call the Orange Map and the Green Map, differ most to the non-finely-tuned eye in the level of visual contrast between landmasses, oceans and waterways, borders, and other more or less important details. At my particular screen resolution and color depth, I can see the most important details of the Orange Map, even when thumbnailed, with much more ease than I can discern important details like national borders in the Green Map -- even when it is enlarged. What use is a more accurate depiction of Malta when I can hardly make out where France ends and Germany begins? This concern probably goes double or triple for the visually impaired. As it stands, I think the Orange Map has a clearly superior visual presentation for its purpose, and if the Green Map wants to compete, it will need major changes in how it presents its ostensibly more accurate data. --Dynaflow babble 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial questions are ones which I asked upon creating the 'green' locator maps: what is the map's purpose, and what is the primary audience? The former 'orange' map places undue emphasis on the EU -- and, hence, I bounce back your quotation from Korzybski -- and its other distortions (e.g., projection) detract from its primary function: to enable a visitor to locate the country of note. These were also jerry-rigged to exhibit non-EU countries (like Norway). If the EU wasn't such a big deal, ideal locator maps might very well be even more focused -- i.e., for the Netherlands, showing the Benelux and surrounding lands, without even have to exhibit far away lands like Malta (unnecessary in the current argument). And if exhibiting the EU wasn't the primary intent of the prior maps, which is perhaps a matter of making a point, they are badly designed to begin with: I have a 1680 x 1050 monitor, and the orange (supposedly its focus) gets lost amid the camel. Consult, say an almanac, and you will note that locator maps more closely resemble the simpler 'green' maps in their design than the 'orange' ones. The world locator on the 'orange' map is totally unclear. In addition, any locator map that needs a legend/caption to clarify its contents is one that needs improvement. So, for the visually impaired (not to mention for those not in the know), a wealth of details in the 'orange' maps may do more to confuse topic matter than anything in the simpler 'green' maps.
The 'green' maps carry over the best of the 'orange' maps (retaining the scheme for identifying EU countries, as needed, and more accurately exhibiting its namesake) while standardising with other locator maps used almost everywhere else and have other innovations. In the 'green' maps, the focus is quite clear -- with the Netherlands contrasting well with surrounding lands -- and the colour grades and general arrangement is simpler (so, a legend for the 'green' maps may not be required, but is provided in the image detail). The world map clearly indicates where the Netherlands are. As well, I disagree that there is difficulty in discerning France from Germany in the 'green' maps, particularly if enlarged; anyhow, is it not an aim of the EU to eliminate borders among its members? ;)
Anyhow, I am working on modifying the maps. However, given the commentary expressed here and little to no opposition expressed elsewhere, I see little reason to forego worthwhile changes in the 'green' maps. After all, Wikipedia isn't static, and (definitely) the 'orange' maps are not the territory. Quizimodo 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to point out that I made essentially the same comments as Dynaflow in #Response, since I have a suspicion that edit got lost in all these others made right around the same time.

And actually, adding to it all, what if along with darker colors, the non-EU European countries were made the light shade of green, such that all of Europe is a single color, with EU being darker, and the specific country (Netherlands, here) the darkest, and leaving the grey to non-Europe? Because I'd have to say that (if we're going to assume lack of knownledge about the general shape of the continents in this world) it's actually not all that clear (in either map) that the completely differently colored area is still supposed to be part of the same area as the obviously colored EU, and even less so because the non-EU color in both is closer to the non-Europe color than the EU color. -Bbik★ 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in the 'green' maps (R,G,B): dark green (country) = 0,128,0; light green (rest of EU) = 192,255,192; dark grey (rest of Europe) = 192,192,192; light grey (other lands) = 208,208,208. In my opinion, what you suggest would probably dilute the colouring scheme too much and make the map rather unfocused: after all, the point of these maps is more to highlight the country, not necessarily the EU or Europe. (For non-EU country locators, I was envisioning green as before, the rest of Europe as dark grey, and all other land as light grey.) As with the 'orange' maps, the current maps are trying to cover off on all of these points but I feel they exhibit and deal with these differences better: the focus of the 'green' map is unquestionably the country, though it 'centres' on Europe. I think matters regarding over continental shape and placement are clarified by consulting the world map in the top left. Quizimodo 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When doing graphic-design work, especially where computers (and their monitors) are involved, it is important to consider who will be viewing your work and through what media they will do it. People read Wikipedia on huge plasma screens, small CRT monitors, handheld devices, and everything in between. People who are colorblind and otherwise visually impaired read Wikipedia articles. You must accommodate these users, because they will not be able to accommodate you.
The truth is, even to well-sighted readers with fair-to-middling monitors, pale teal the dominates your current version of the map does not stand out from white well enough to make the whole thing work together. You overall intention is good in stripping away unessential detail; you have just done it so far (and this goes for your other EU maps too) in a way that makes the important details you have chosen to leave in extremely hard to see for those of us without good monitors or good eyes. --Dynaflow babble 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try this experiment: Adjust your screen resolution and color depth to a variety of different settings to view your thumbnailed maps, and then try doing the same thing with whatever other monitors are handy. You will probably start to see why resistance to these maps, as they are, is so high. --Dynaflow babble 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tried that early on: I hardly see how or why the 'green' maps are more problematic when the 'orange' ones are far more complex for not what -- the latter definitely do not conform to any sort of KISS mentality in terms of graphic or cartographic design. The truth is: even well-sighted readers may have difficulty wondering why the pretentious 'orange' maps are designed so badly. We can do better than that, the 'green' maps are a first step, and I am working on suggested variations. And, across more than a dozen articles (to being with), I must point out that the only appreciable resistance yet expressed has been by a few editors on this page ... but there appears to be little else to justify retaining the inferior 'orange' maps and the reversions by Krator. Quizimodo 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the orange maps are indeed overly complex, the unnecessary depth of ocean and height of mountains as well as the (random selection of) rivers makes the map not easy to read. There are some problems with the green map as well. The placement of the globe makes it hard to read, also there appear to be some dots in the worldview. The colour scheme of the green map may use some harder contrast to make distinction easier; on the upside, the creator may want to keep improving the maps, while the creator of the orange map explicitly stated that he will not make anymore adjustments. Arnoutf 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- the points regarding worldview map placement and dots are dealt with above, but I acknowledge there is always room for improvement. Anyhow, I will relent for now but have only one thing to say: stay tuned for more/improved maps. :) And, seeing as how this is contentious here almost solely, I will do so for the Netherlands first. Quizimodo 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for conflict regarding maps

It seems that users Quizimodo and Krator have engaged in a conflict in relation to the map depicted on this page. I would ask both of you not to change the map for two weeks whatever happens (i.e. until July second) as step 2 in conflict resolution suggests. Note that this would be a voluntary agreement for both of you, but it might diffuse the issue. It means that Quizimodo will not change the orange map to the green one, but it also means that Krator will not change the green map to the orange one if anyone (other than Quizimodo) sets up the green map. Of course both of you are welcome to discuss the issue here, or elsewhere, I only ask you to stay away from the edit war. Please mention whether you agree with this suggestion. Thanks. Arnoutf 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable, but I do reserve the right to change the map to another, newer variant. Quizimodo 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that both of you will stay away for the map for two weeks from now. You are free to design a new map, post and discuss it on this talk page and try to get consensys for it, but please stay away from the map on the wiki article (main space). Arnoutf 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood but be advised that, failing anything else, the current 'orange' map will be replaced with something after that period. Quizimodo 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Personally I am just waiting for 'Modo to seek input on WP:WPC. This proposed break also conincides partially with a period of reduced computer access by myself. Judging from the intentions above, it seems that the happy revert warring will continue after the break, though. "Be advised that it will be replaced" does not read like an editor prepared to concede his point when confronted with consensus. --User:Krator (t c) 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will seek more input, but having to deal with your somewhat disingenuous compulsive edit warring is time consuming as it is. Present me with a clear consensus and I'll adhere to it -- until then, assume the good faith and other wikipolicies you liberally invoke or don't bother commenting. Quizimodo 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netherlands&oldid=139074067"