Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens

Which map is better to use in the article - outdated png version (1) or new svg version (2)?
1)
2)
--g. balaxaZe★ 18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask some questions. Why you didn't convert PNG map to SVG format? Why do you use other map of the world with other circuits? Will you change more than 400 visa maps because you think that these contours better? --Norvikk (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the initial file. If change of the image will be approved on the page of discussion, then editing will be correct. Do you agree? --Norvikk (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When there is another blank world map with the same projection and etc why one should start drawing a new map based on the wrong shaped PNG map? My map is better and updated in everything but simply you do not want to admit it.--g. balaxaZe★ 09:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Summoned by bot - Apart from the blue on the right and grey at the bottom I'm not seeing any difference between both images?, That said tho I believe SVG is the common format for maps but don't quote me on that, personally I'd go with SVG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 04:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 I am saying the same the maps are almost identical and besides that SVG map is updated and more correct.--g. balaxaZe★ 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that explains the blue & grey parts, I also wasn't aware of the edit warring either - Not sure why anyone would edit war over an updated map but hey ho anyway Support SVG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably. "I don't understand about what a dispute. But I will express the opinion". Bravo Davey2010.
I want a SVG format too. But for the first map.
Dispute not about a format. A dispute on what is represented on the map. --Norvikk (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the png format. First of all the base map is used in hundreds of articles in the series which means this one would stand out for no reason. I also find the png map easier to edit when something needs to be changed on the base map. Also the thumbnails of svg maps on Wikipedia don't look so nice, the edges are too sharp (for example on the above maps look at Switzerland). Also the visa maps are not about geography, countries with many islands are simplified for better readability, on SVG map with such detailed geographic features you can't see Singapore or Hong Kong properly but you surely can see Antarctica which is useless for these maps.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable point of view. Professional opinion. --Norvikk (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) Antarctica will be removed and in SVG you can see Singapore or other small countries with dots. Example about "Hundreds of articles" is not convenient, there were no SVG maps for such articles and that's why png where used. SVG maps are preferable. Professional opinions about wiki standards say SVG.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PNG map has extra low quality it is not about simplicity every geographic unit has catastrophic shape (countries, islands, seas and etc.). Those templates commons:Template:Vector version available & commons:Template:Convert to SVG in Commons are not for no reason.--g. balaxaZe★ 14:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is about simplicity, you didn't provide any argument to explain why would we need a geographically correct map with all islands of Canada and Indonesia and Greece there for articles that are geopolitical? And I still need to see an explanation for the superior svg showing only half of the Swiss border on thumbnail - [1].--Twofortnights (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG it is just mind-blowing how one can ask why we need a "correct map". Read here what means a map The International Cartographic Association has developed the following definition of geographic maps: “A map is a symbolised image of geographical reality, representing selected features or characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author’s execution of choices, and is designed for use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance.” [2]. A map has to represent reality (as better as possible) and when there is such work, no doubt that it is superior than any other low quality work. How can you say that let's for visa use bad maps but for geopolitics good maps, a map's idea is one everywhere and when you use map it must be the best as possible (already existing). Also the SVG map shows Liechtenstein in its real location and not in Austria like in your PNG map. If you start talking about borders first of all I see on the PNG map not Switzerland but a POTATO in the heart of Europe. Potato and tomato to the right of it (also not showing half of the "potato").--g. balaxaZe★ 12:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly in that quote you see the reason why we should use not bad maps but maps with simplified coastlines - primary relevance here is not to show every single island out there as the map is showing visa policies. That is why it doesn't need to show every single island as it makes it less readable. If you want to use the map that is the closest to geographic features then your map is off as well. Then we need to show islets and rock and all of the fjords. For what purpose? To make it even less readable? As for the potatoes, I am afraid this didn't answer my question - why is the superior svg map not showing half of the Swiss border?--Twofortnights (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my the last response to you or to Norvik, you both fail to understand why wiki uses SVG and you also fail to understand why maps are needed. If you use the world map it must be a world map but not an imitation of the map. Islands, peninsulas or etc. are part of the countries where one wishes to go and they are part of the world. You are talking about those islands because you can't argue about anything else, since PNG is worse in everything in quality, in shapes, in accuracy, in editing, has nonsense connectors, is outdated, is wrong and so forth. Readable is the map when you can clearly define that you are looking at the country shapes and geographic features and not at an imitation of a map where one can see a grocery than map.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question on Swiss borders.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I fail to understand for what purpose are those connectors in PNG between islands and countries, in one example we see exclave Kaliningrad Oblast connected with Russia but in other examples it connects Greenland with Iceland and then both to Norway?! Are we in a primary school painting class or aim to write online encyclopedia? --g. balaxaZe★ 15:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simplified map that can be painted by a primary school student as well in one click.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand we have good quality map that can be painted even faster and easier (and is more correct cartographically).--g. balaxaZe★ 12:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who will paint the "thousand" island on the coast of Norway or Indonesia or Canada? There are hundreds of maps. One-click or one-hundred clicks is a significant difference. You've come to "the visa community" a week ago, I'm here for a few years. You do not simplify the content of all articles visa articles. SVG will complicate editing. Not enough time to maintain articles with a svg version map. I want that visa articles contained right information and were easy for editing. --Norvikk (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to user Twofortnights. He does 95% of changes on visa maps. --Norvikk (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Twofornights and Norvikk, and personally do not see why we can't keep using .png "imitation maps" (not gonna refer it to a "map" as per Giorgi's comments above) as the .png pics can be easily modified. Keep in mind that visa policies change frequently nowadays in light of many ongoing spats between different countries, so our focus should be to update the "maps" with the most accurate information as early as possible. Switching to .svg format prevents many contributors from updating the maps with the latest information (for example, Malaysia's very recent visa requirement for DPRK citizens), as not that many of us have comprehensive CSS knowledge. So if someone with experience on .svg maps can commit to monitor visa information around the world and update over 400 maps, then the switch is necessary. Otherwise it would not be justified. (I am fully aware what Wiki's guidelines on maps are.)C-GAUN (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C-GAUN I am not saying to change all 400 maps we are talking about Georgia and be sure I can updated the svg map in seconds when it will be needed. Lack of comprehensive knowledge prevents many thing and many one but it doesn't mean that we should stop improvement --g. balaxaZe★ 09:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are striving to have a uniform style through all of the articles, working hard on that and you suggest we should have a special case for this article, why?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And who decided that uniform style is our goal? Was there a discussion about that issue? Was there a consensus? Is it written somewhere that all visa articles must have uniform style? There is no special case there is a natural development of the content, this article now has better map in SVG but you are against because of conservationism. --g. balaxaZe★ 14:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is our goal, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link directly that part where is talking about Visas and the same .png maps everywhere? (and please do not play with words I'm asking about "uniform style of visa maps")--g. balaxaZe★ 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was invited to this discussion by the initiator. I find "which is better?" to be an imprecise and unhelpful question, particularly since at least one of the maps appears to hae been altered during the discussion. I'm not sure what we are being asked to consider:
  • File format: One is SVG and the other is PNG. Both seem to be acceptable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#File formats to use. It even suggests editing in SVG then uploading a PNG variant as well.
  • Content: Australia is obviously a different colour in the second one, and so are some small islnad nations.
  • Connection lines: The first one seems to have some straight lines of colour drawn across some ocean spaces, which are distracting and serve no obvious purpose.
  • Projection: I can't quickly find projection information for either of them. Flicking from one to the other sugggests there is more horizontal stretch in the first one.
  • Precision: There are more fiddly bits in the coastlines of the second one, and also more Pacific islands. Some of the islands are in different locations, too.

It seems to me that it would be better to work together to improve one map, rather than adopt an adversarial position. Is there a reason this is not possible? --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScottDavis my map is based on this blank map File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg and it is suggested here Wikipedia:Blank_maps#World. But only the God knows how .png map is made and what locations or projection it uses. Regarding content my map is updated according to the list and yes it is definitely more correct. Also I've already made compromises 1) removed circle around the map, 2) removed Antarctica 3) made the map 99% identical but nothing from the other side. --g. balaxaZe★ 09:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not true is it. There are now three editors who tirelessly edit visa requirements and visa policy maps giving strong arguments in favor of the png maps yet you avoid even answering questions regarding the serious flaws of the svg map. This is not the right way to engage in a constructive discussion I think.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is written above, what is true or not easy to find out, also I do not see any strong argument regarding why the png is useful than svg, if you can't edit svg do not touch it, others will do. But because of lack of knowledge in editing putting wrong maps and saying that it's good for me because I know how to edit it isn't strong argument for me. --g. balaxaZe★ 13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, I've raised some very technical concerns casting serious doubt on your claim that the svg is superior and you didn't have an answer to that.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Switzerland? There is Liechtenstein to the east (and its dot) that is why you can't see all lines, is it so hard to understand? But please now about technical concerns of .png, where is Switzerland on your map? I do not see it there at all, is that Hungary there? --g. balaxaZe★ 22:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: If we are not updating png files to svg then what is a purpose of this template saying File:Visa requirements for Georgia citizens.svg is a vector version of this file. It should be used in place of this raster image when not inferior.? ►[3] --g. balaxaZe★ 09:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are situations where one thing or another is more appropriate.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi, your opinion sounds quite elitist to me. You need to understand that not all persons editing Wikipedia have a degree in CS, and I don't believe that you will be committed to editing visa-related topics for the long run. My argument still stands: transforming to .svg will hinder the editors' abilities to update the maps in a timely manner, so if you are committed to the project, great. If not, then I don't see why we can't keep using the .png file. Simply saying that the .svg is "an improvement" is not convincing anyone here. C-GAUN (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C-GAUN I don't know why you think that I will not update the .svg map, my map is already more correct and updated than PNG showing everything in its real face. And changing of few colors will not be a problem for me. The article is in my watchlist and every sourced change will be represented in SVG simultaneously.--g. balaxaZe★ 23:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I was invited here through the RfC process. There is a lack of clarity in the initial question. Initially, I wonder if it is the png or svg that is outdated, or is the information depicted by the map outdated? Or is it both? Sorting through the information, it seems to me that the answer is that the information needs updating and the two formats are both in use across many Wikipedia articles; however, there is a question about altering the format, too. When I compare the two maps, it is difficult for me to see any major difference except for the colors. I do agree that a map with updated information is necessary and encourage that it be done. That a map is correct becomes a concept I believe we should address within the context of the article. This article regards Georgia, and with that perspective, either format serves the article correctly, well. I have not edited -- nor do I anticipate ever editing -- maps in either png or svg formats, so my opinions about the formats are based on the information I see in this discussion. The comments imply that one format is more easily edited than the other. If that is correct, I propose we use the easier edited format. This encourages information that is updated but also timely by increasing the number of editors who have the skill to edit the format. If I have misunderstood the question, please let me know so I may consider the answer with a proper perspective.Horst59 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A note to clarify. The straight lines of color mentioned by ScottDavis should be removed. While small, obscure, and not immediately noticed, they do serve no useful purpose.Horst59 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this issue. It is much appreciated. Just a small clarification on lines of color, they are pixels connecting the same visa policy areas so that they can be painted in one click and without unintentionally leaving any territories out.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Twofortnights. While uncertain, I suspected this was digital problem, and not one of geographical ignorance. Either way, it is odd and should be repaired — the map updated — as a matter of quality control.Horst59 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horst59 Svg file is updated and correct (unlike png) it has no any technical problems, it has better map quality, and its blank map is suggested by Wikipedia. It shows Australia (in png grey instead of blue), Samoa (in png light green instead of green) and Marshall Islands (in png grey instead of light green) according to the list (Compare here ► [4]), locations of island countries are more correct, and what is more important it is not sacrifices its visualization to technical issues. --g. balaxaZe★ 20:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an excellent map. It depicts all the information in a updated manner as it should -- at least as far as I know and I trust the information is correct. That aspect of the map is what I believe it should be. I also believe, as I stated and for the reason I stated, that the excellent, updated depictions should be in the format that is most accessible to Wikipedia editors. I believe the notion of accessibility does foster quality, especially in the timeliness of the information. Thank you for all the care you've put into this page and the thoughtfulness and courtesy you proceed in the discussion.Horst59 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a question I have, Giorgi Balakhadze, is this: Can the png format include the updated information that the newer svg map depicts? In the comments written by Twofortnights and C-GAUN, it seems that this is the case. They did not, of course, explicitly express this, but that is the inference I am making. If my inference is correct, I support the outstanding information on the new map in the simpler png format. Horst59 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horst59 yes it can but it is not so easy do update it, also it is hard to determine island countries, in PNG they see only circles and their locations but no more information, but in SVG every circle (and shape) has its own country code so it is a matter of few seconds to determine what country represents any circle in Oceania for example (this is important for future editing and for not making mistakes). About accessibility SVG is the simplest one, there are many programs that read vector maps, Illustrator, Inkscape and etc. and Wiki has an army of svg map makers.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we go back to the earlier question are you willing to keep some 300+ visa maps updated if we switch them to svg or not? And also about the superiority of svg, I can only repeat for the nth time that it is not superior as seen here [5].--Twofortnights (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this [6] we are not using such sizes in wiki so it is irrelevant. Also I opened the discussion here about Georgia not about all other pages, I edit mainly around Georgian topic and I try to make topic connected maps the best.--g. balaxaZe★ 13:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you see is a crop of the image to be used in the article in the resolution to be used, the format is inferior and you can't address it but you insist on it to the annoyance of other editors who don't understand the point. As for the second question, thank you for giving us a straight answer. I disagree with creating any different articles, if 300+ articles are in one format then we should keep it that way, uniform style is the best option by far.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are relevant and outstanding points made by all. Perhaps it is time to invite further RfC encouraging png and svg capable editors to respond. The information does need up-dating, and the errors corrected in this map. Ultimately, I hesitate to switch formats in that it would limit the number of editors in this article, especially in that this article has a high importance rating. I appreciate everyone's comments.Horst59 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Horst59, but Twofortnights your attitude towards editing is unacceptable in wiki, what you say means that you are blocking all 300+ articles from other editors if they are not changing all 300+, that is nonsense. --g. balaxaZe★ 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in all we can say that we both want to develop wiki, but you prefer png because it's easy for you to edit it (unlike svg) but I prefer svg because it has better quality, easier to update or modify and has better visualization (shapes).--g. balaxaZe★ 21:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style was created in order to block something? I don't think so and specifically because nothing stops you from editing this article in such fashion that it remains in line with other 300+ articles. If you want to add something new, that is fine, but if that makes this article stand out then I think it's normal to ask you to bring all the other articles in line with this one. Finally apart from this general discussion that could take place in any talk page, here the issue of quality remains unaddressed.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style says nothing about our issue. It's your requirement. --g. balaxaZe★ 15:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are going in circles here. We've already discussed this. The Visa requirements article is not covered by the MoS, we are talking about uniformity. And I wouldn't have so much against the svg if the format wasn't technically inferior in this particular situation.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]