File talk:Transnistria-map-3.png

Please, do not revert to incorrect maps. Thank you. :Dc76\^talk 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outlined sections

What is the distinction between the solid-colored red areas and the areas outlined in red? --Jfruh (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red areas are Transnistria itself. The areas outlined in read are the buffer/demilitarized zone, where some localities are controlled by Tiraspol, and some by Chisinau. However, please note that the map now is being reworked (see below). Please join, whoever is interested to participate. Dc76\^talk 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is some confusion. Some of the red lines appear to be where the Dniester river extends into Moldovan territory apart from the recognized Transnistrian border, whereas other areas, as stated above seem to be indicating disputed zones. If this map is being reworked, it would be best if the river line were indicated with a fine blue line in the same blue color as the sea and the disputed areas marked with red/yellow hashing. c.f.: Detailed Transnistria map cited later in the article. Donperk (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The red boundary indicates where the Transnistrian government considers its borders to be: The river in most places, the Bender metropolitan areas in others (or so I judge looking at other maps). Solid red is what they actually control. I'd suggest that the legend reflect that; one color (e.g., red) for disputed land controlled by Tiraspol (i.e., de facto Transnitria) and another (e.g., pink or hashed) for disputed land controlled by Chisinau. (Given the small width of many of the disputed areas, I'd recommend pink rather than hashing.) The legend needs to reflect this. As it is, the map is terribly confusing and deceptive, making it look as though Tiraspol controls the river alone in some places, rather than unsuccessfully claiming land up to the river. Calbaer (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is it wrong to display legends in maps?

When I read the article about Transnistria a couple of days ago, the map included in it wasn't informative at all. There were no legends showing where Transnistria and Moldova were, the other borderlines weren't clear and the red region looked like a lake to me. Looking in the image's history I noticed that there was a more informative version of the map, but everytime someone tries to pick this version, user Dc76 reverts to the uninformative version. He argues that the map with legends is politically tendencious, but I fail to see how. We need one or more neutral opinions to establish a consensus on this matter. Capmo (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about me, I take no personal offense. On the contrary, I am very glad we can have this discussion. Here is what I have to say specifically on the topic:

1. This is an excellent map, it is present in the article, and frankly speaking I only wish all geographical entities on WP would have such good maps. I understand that we need a more simplified version of it now.

2. I do not have software capable of creating maps. But I would be very willing to help with anything I can. I have no preference about colors, and I would definitively like an inset within the map of Europe, if possible.

3. Whenever I reverted was because of the principle "better a less informative map than an incorrect one". A map conveys a lot of information, in a more specific fashion than plain text. It is very difficult to correct a map. A simple map can become more detailed, can be improved. But if we leave a wrong map to stay, people will work from a wrong starting point.

4. IMHO, the map has to show Transnistria, and with a separate color or shading, the buffer zone. I don't believe it is correct to lump together the two. See for example how it is done on the detailed map - they are not lumped together. In the buffer zone, some of those localities are controlled by Tiraspol, and some by Chisinau, and they have a different situation (political, legal, military, etc.) from Transnistria itself. Dc76\^talk 14:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How about this map ? :) Dc76\^talk 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dc76, I see your point. I was working on a new version of this map trying to find a compromise, when I saw your suggestion of File:TransnistrianRegionMap.png, which is a nice map too. The new version I just uploaded is here, but unfortunately it was replaced a few minutes later by a new version uploaded by Olahus. I just wrote him to ask if he won't mind to leave the more detailed version I uploaded, but I won't object either if you decide for the File:TransnistrianRegionMap.png version. Capmo (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Olahus is reading this thread as well. Let me make a few remarks: 1) whether the color is red or brown should be irrelevant for us (I for one would accept any color), 2) I like more Campo's way of writting the text on the map than Olahus', but it's just a matter of personal taste, it seems to me to be a little more clear. Maybe a combination of the two for a compromize? 3) I don't mind improving this map rather than using the other one. The latter was just a posibility I found afterwards, a suggestion, with some minor pluses and some minor minuses. 4) I do not have any power to take decisions here, nor I want one. We should find a version with which all three of us (or more if someone else becomes interested) can agree. I strongly believe that is possible.

In making a good map, I see three stages:

start with a good background map (no text), showing state borders, main rivers, sea shore, etc
add specific infomarion (in our case, the lines that limit Transnistria and the buffer zone)
add/chose/change some colors if necessary, and add text

I like the way Campo does the third step. But I have small observations in step 2. So I suggest this: could someone of you, please upload a good step 1 version we can work from. Then, allow me please to try to do step 2. Then could you both adjust step 2 if necessary. Then let Campo do step 3. Dc76\^talk 10:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dc, the most details-rich map I could find was the one I uploaded... if you want, I can edit it to remove all text and cities and leave it clean for you to work on it including the buffer zone (though I think it will be hard to show it in details in this map; perhaps it would be better to only display the buffer zone in the map of Transnistria itself). What do you think? --Capmo (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]