Module talk:Location map/data/Georgia

New map

The new map File:Georgia adm location map.svg that I tried to add has a more sensible toned down colour for the rivers as well as the surrounding regions putting more emphasis on Georgia itself. With the colour of the rivers toned down it is also much easier to see the internal divisions. The map also hatches the disputed regions as that makes it much more visible and clear that they are disputed as well as not under the current control of Georgia. Hatching is generally more used for the newer location maps now as it has become a more accepted standard of differentiating disputed areas. Giorgi Balakhadze, what is the problem you have with the map? --Turnless (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I demand your excuse for word such is "hypocrite"! BECAUSE as I told you that map as unacceptable mistake and changing it to correct and better (by quality) map does not need discussion.--g. balaxaZe★ 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay first of all, please stay calm and respect WP:EQ. Second, the map that you are adding removes the disputed borders which is definitely something that needs discussion. You reverted my edit because you said it was too big of a change that required discussion. Your edit is the same, which is why I said you are being a hypocrite. --Turnless (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, making major changes without discussion is not even against Wikipedia policy per WP:BOLD. It does however mean that a revert is likely which is why after you reverted I started a discussion. So the reason you reverted should not have been because I did not start a discussion about this, it should have been because you had clear disagreements with the map. Once again you have also added a major change without discussion so reverting for that reason only is hypocritical. --Turnless (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't you read my comment? I've added new map because previous one had big technical mistake and correction of mistake doesn't need special discussions my edit summery comment was enough for that. But your case is different because you are changing administrative map just because you prefer another map. As for me dashed lines are enough and quite clear to see conflict regions areas. And also you are restoring map with mistakes.--g. balaxaZe★ 06:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Giorgi, I have told you so many times by now that you could easily go to Commons and ask someone to fix the map. It is not difficult and if you noticed the issue I don't understand why you haven't done so at the very start. Replacing that map with one that does not show NPOV by removing dashed disputed borders is not the way out as that is POV pushing. So yes I can read your comment, but I have already numerously told suggested what you can do about it. The new map does make it much easier to see breakaway states (to which you referred to as conflict regions) as well as make it much more clear that they are not under the control of Georgia and are disputed. Hatching is also much more used now on most new location maps. There are other reasons besides hatching though for using this map. Right now, while looking at the old map it can be quite difficult to clearly identify the internal borders because of the vivid outline of the rivers. The enw map retains the rivers but with a toned down colour bringing more emphasis on Georgia and its divisions. --Turnless (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)