User talk:TUBS

Crystal Clear app clock-orange+!.svg
I rarely check this page. Please refer to my
MY WIKIPEDIA DISCUSSION PAGE.
Deutsch? Was gibt's? · English? Yeah man. Just do it. · Francais? Oui, Oui, je sais. · Italiano? Nessun problema! · Nederlands...ik denk dat kloppt. · Latina! Cognosco Latinam. Ergo sum? · Platt! Dat kuer ik ook.



File:Canada, administrative divisions - XY - colored.svgEdit

Carte fausse  : Manitoba et Saskatchewan inversés. --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 16:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Merci. Je vais corriger ça. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 19:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Manitoba et Saskatchewan ne sont plus inversés. ✓OK --TUBSMail-closed.svg 09:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

About Chile Location Map and RegionsEdit

What Does the Square means? Well the square means the limit is not defined, since a theathy of 1998 The limit is pending in that part and in maps should be used the square, in official and touristic Chilean Maps it is used, in the original file of the map is just showing the Argentina Claim, that makes not neutral at all and also Chile has it own claim but to be neutral the square needs to be used.

Here is a Wikipedia example of the correct use of the map, in real life Argentina doesn't use the square because they want to show the claim as defined limite, but there is a Theathy that is signed in Buenos Aires, so at least in maps of Chile should be neutral, or in that case, why only Argentina can show their claim in Wikipedia?

Mapa loc Magallanes.svg SRTM-W75.90E72.00S50.00N49.00.PuertoEden.png External Magallanes Region Map [http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/3485/4173/1600/campos%20de%20hielosur.jpg External Map 2] Another example is Google Maps or any other online maps, see the area from Mount Fitz Roy to Murallón Mountain, it is undefined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Patagonian_Ice_Field#Borderline

This is an example how chilean claim would look [1]

In Chile all the maps you'll see the square, in the most, and in few the chilean claim, but the neutral version is tu put that the limit still undefined.

So, can you please fix that in the files? I was fixing them for you, maybe you can fix it with a better way. But how it is now is not neutral, it's the Argentinian position, i've neven seen the chilean position on Wikipedia, but i've seen the neutral squeare that corresponds.

Link to the theathy --Janitoalevic (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your report on this issue. I'm not saying that you are wrong (how could I: I don't know anything about Chile and its borders) or that any of these claims are void from a legal perspective. Thus they could be depicted, I guess. All I'm saying is that locator maps should look like the corresponding location map. Hence, you should talk to the author of the location map first(I.e. NordNordWest). He may overhaul the map for you. Obviously you hadn't talked to him, 'cause NordNordWest wouldn't depict this border issue that way (there are guidelines for location maps he would usually had sticked to). These guidelines treat border disputes differently (dotted lines, different colored shades or hatches, etc.) He also draw File:Chile adm location map.svg, which shows the disputed border while sticking to the map conventions. Maybe you could use this map to create new locator maps? Save them as a new file and keep the old ones. Whatever you decide to do: please make sure that the location map you are going to derive the locator maps from is easy to understand and thus obeys the map conventions. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 08:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I really do not care very much about the old location maps when they are replaced by the new series (with "adm" in the file names). For this reason I didn't react when the Argentina and Chile maps were changed. In other cases I would really like to be informed before a file gets changed, to be honest. To show a disputed border with a white rectangle is a quite strange solution – and a bad one, too, when other information (e.g. lakes) gets invisible. Cartography knows much better ways to show this and that's why my maps show dotted lines, the cartography standard. The Google solution doesn't work here as our maps show different colours for the countries and these polygons need a bordering line, of course. NNW 12:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thanks NNW. Based on what just was said: take File:Chile adm location map.svg as your starting point for "your" new locator maps showing the disputed area. Plz don't overwrite my files (they are best kept to correspond with the "old" location map). Plz use new filenames, like File:xxx in Chile (wo disputed areas).svg or whatever else you find to be a suitable filename. Alternatively, keep your fancy rectangle solution (though NNW and I don't like it cartography-wise) (it's still saved in the revision history) and upload it as a new file (once again: don't overwrite my files if it doesn't comply to the very same location map it was derived from). --TUBSMail-closed.svg 14:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case why in your maps you show how Argentina wants to be the limit? for Chile that was never the limit, so both countries signed a theathy to solve the issue, You're showing Argentina claim, in that case why not show the Chilean claim in Chilean Maps? Or show it as a disputed zone to have a neutral map?

Disputed Claims How would look just Chilean Claim Open Street Map showing the limit --Janitoalevic (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In my first maps I showed the Argentinian border because that's the border which is shown in the free data that I use as a base map and I just didn't know that there is a dispute with Chile. In uploading file:Argentina adm location map.svg and file:Chile adm location map.svg I corrected this and there will be a better version of file:Tierra del Fuego location map.svg, too, as soon as I will have the time to do it. Of course it is my aim to show all countries de facto but I am human and I make mistakes. That's why I am glad if someone tells me that something is wrong. And that's my advice: Please talk to the uploaders first before you upload a new version of a file. Not everyone has a bias in his maps, sometimes he just didn't know better. NNW 09:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I don't wanna pick sides in this legal issue (I hope it's no matter of peace and way). All I'm saying is: a) stick to the map guidelines and b) if you are about to upload a map that shows a totally different perspective on a territorial dispute, please use a different filename. Then users in various language versions of Wikipedia, can choose among a variety of maps. Let them decide what map design they like better: map maker "just" offer viable options.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Well but the thing is that the Border in that part is no neutral in the map and is showed in a lot of articles, this supposed to be the neutral version of the map, so we should show it as a disputes territory, since is still used in a lot of articles and replacement this one with the new in the articles would take forever, and then make one Chile (with Chilean Claims) and Chile (with Argentina Claim) but this one is neutral. I'm very new editing svgs.
So, i don't find fair to show the Argentina Claims, not just as claim, show it as defined limit and in the Chilean maps of Regions and loc.
So then, if this is the neutral version, show the area as disputed.
--Janitoalevic (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't claim that this is the neuter version (whatever this could be - neutral isn't the right term maybe). I just say: the old location map shows one feasible view and obeys the map guidelines, so do the derived locator maps, that correspond perfectly. Plz paint new maps, but leave the old one's. This isn't the place to fight about maps. No matter how long it takes (it will take some time for sure), users in different Wikipedias must make their own choice, rather than being forced to adapt the new map by just replacing them at Commons. Let's end it here: we encourage you to make your own version, but please acknowledge the conventions and respect the variety of maps. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 07:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes i respect variety of maps, but the problem that i had with this one was that a lot of people will belive that's the limit, not everybody will know this story of old and new maps, and if i make a map showing the claims, following the conventions, just few people will able to see it until a lot of years if the people updates the map, and i doubt that in a lot of articles they will change the map because they think that is fully correct, i wanted the solution to replace this one with one showing the disputed area, and not show it as part of Argentina, then put the current map in "Chile location map (old).svg" or something, so if they want to specialy use this file they can use it in that way, most of the users that uses this map, use it not knowing all this story of limits, and they just want to show Chile, and i don't think Chile should be showed in a lot of articles with a map that is not correct in a part, but if they want, (because they don't choose this map because of that part of the limit) there should be that option, i don't think there should be a problem if we follow paramethers, this is not exactly force people, because, they don't really know about this border dispute, and if this is an old file "that should be forgotten" i don't see the problem to convert it into a neutral, if it wasn't.
I respect if you say no again, but the thing that i tried to fix from begin was the neutrality of the map, and we can follow the conventions as you know more about it, as there is a new map, the adm, why not update this one and show the border as the new that shows disputes?
It is old, but it shows how is Chile to the world, and that's important to me, and i know that when you made the file you didn't knew about this story, and the world won't know if we keep the current one.
--Janitoalevic (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Both maps are corrected now. NNW 20:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you very much NordNordWestǃ that's what i wanted to do, but i didn't know too much about loc map conventions, it looks perfectǃ
I also updated this map
Tierra del Fuego location map.svg
I fixed it to the conventions.
Tubs, should i update the regions maps?, or do you want to edit them or leave them like they were?
Also guys, in the future a New Region will be added, so when that will happend i'll ask you before editing any files since now i know that i need to ask you for this edits ;)
--Janitoalevic (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thanks NNW. Now, you may take either File:Chile location map.svg or File:Chile adm location map.svg and derive new locator maps for Chile. I would choose the latter file, cause it's sort of the second gen of location maps. But that's up to you. There's no general rule how to color disputed areas in locator maps. I prefer hatch marks and drawing maps for all feasible point of views though. For inspiration on how to deal with this tricky issue, have a look on the locator maps for Ukraine, Serbia, India or any other country with disputed territories. If you opt for the adm-file please chose a suitable new filename. If you derive the locator maps from the original location map, you can either replace my old locator maps (just make sure that you replace every map, -basically every single map in Category:SVG locator maps of regions in Chile (location map scheme) - so that the map design is unaltered across the whole map series) or choose new file names (thus you initiate your "own" locator map series, which is a good thing because you are not "obliged" to replace every single map in the series). The disadvantage is (to me it's more like an advantage) that the users must apply your new maps actively and willingly. That is maybe the trickiest part, but if your new maps are superior in terms of design and content, the community will switch maps happily. Good luck for making the maps. PS: would be nice to rework the locator maps for Argentina likewise.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, again, i have a question, If i find a little error in one of the current maps or there is a new Region added, can i update them or i need to make a new loc map? Because i'm very new in this, and i would like to fix your maps as you're the experts of the maps, and also try to make mine based in yours, but i need practice, Is there a guide to make the loc maps? Rules? can you give me the link if there are rules?, i'm very new in this, but as i said, i can help fixing your maps of Chile.--Janitoalevic (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
If I found a (visible/real/major) problem with a locator map either because it's outdated (happen all the time) or simply flawed, I'd prefer to inform the creator of the corresponding location map first. The location map should be corrected in first place. (If the creator doesn't answer you have always the chance to ask the English or German map workshops to help you (there's maybe also a Spanish one) or update the map on your own. There's guidelines for the design (@NordNordWest:: which is the one you actually use currently?). After you have fixed the location map, you could update the locator maps. That's sort of the ideal workflow. I've to admit that I don't always stick to this scheme myself.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 09:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Right now there is no file which shows the guidelines for Series N location maps. I have to upload one. NNW 18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Baja_California_in_Mexico.svgEdit

Hi TUBS... Just wanted to let you know that en:Montague Island (Baja California) should be colored red in this map. I tried to correct it myself, but I can't deal with Adobe's weird tags (thumbnails worked fine, but Firefox can't parse the result, apparently). Hoping you could look into it. Thanks! Storkk (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me (today I've learnt where the Colorado ends... Never thought about that). I'll fix the map.--TUBSMail-closed.svg 16:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done--TUBSMail-closed.svg 12:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, TUBSǃ And thanks again for all your wonderful map work, it's really appreciatedǃ Storkk (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

2 səhv xəritəEdit

Salam. Bubu xəritə səhvdir. Bu xəritələrə əsasən Cəbrayıl rayonu bütünlüklə Ermənistan işğalındadır. Amma elə deyil. Belə ki, Cəbrayıl rayonunun Cocuq MərcanlıLələ təpə əraziləri Azərbaycan ordusunun nəzarətindədir.--samral talk 03:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand you. English? Français? Lingua Latina? Deutsch? Nederlands? Español? Italiano? I understand that you doubt that my map shows the correct situation. I know that this region is a mess in terms of disputed boundaries. And there are not many reliable sources that show either the de-facto border nor the subunits set in place by any of the war waging parties. Can't you explain this issue more explicit or show a source which depicts the boundary in a better way? However, have you checked the other maps in the category? I've drawn a fair amount of different maps depicting the region from any political angle that seemed feasible. Maybe you like one of those better? But please keep in mind: I don't want to pick sides and won't judge on the legality of any border. I just like to offer alternative maps for users, so that they can pick the map they like best. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 17:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This and this maps are wrong. According to these maps the whole Jabrail district is under the occupation of Armenia. But it is not true. Because Jojug Marjanli and Lala-tepe - the territories of Jabrail are under the control of Azerbaijan army.--samral talk 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thanks for telling me. As I understand the situation on the ground, this is an ongoing conflict that heated up recently and thus lead to some territorial gains (or losses respectively). I also understand that this very recent border shift only comprises a relative tiny area. I am afraid that my maps are quite inaccurate on that micro level anyway, 'cause it is hard to tell who controls which area exactly. Moreover, it seems to me that due to political reasons both parties constantly claim to be in control of larger areas than what is actually true. Considering both the inherent inaccuracy and the very recent developments that can lead to new area gains/losses anytime soon, I "refuse" to correct my map. It's too much effort to adapt maps to ongoing developments. I suggest waiting for one year or so and see whether the new front may be considered as a valid reason to adapt the map. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 06:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Jojug Marjanli 22 years in Azerbaijani control. Lala-tepe new. This map is correct.--samral talk 00:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
???--samral talk 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to add. I thank you for your input. I'm now aware of the map's flaws and know one source for better maps. However, for the reasons stated, I won't hurry to adapt the maps. --TUBSMail-closed.svg 08:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "TUBS".