Image talk:BHMunicipalities.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This map is from 1991! Municipalities borders changed in the meantime due to Bosnian war and Dayton agreement. --Ante.

Can you show how exactly they changed --Dado 13:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also this map is 95% accurate. There are few areas that were modified since the war but I could not find a good resolution map to represent these changes nor to incorporate it in this one. If you have the information please provide and I can make a correction. Thanks --Dado 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of these should be used as a base mor making blank map:

We could delete the ethnic colors and maybe paint the entities differently.

More maps here

BTW, thanks for your effort to make better loking maps. If we can fix maps here, ?i'll be glad to change maps on croatain wiki. --Ante Perkovic 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just found another one on OHR's website in PDF. I should be able to clean it up or merge it. It may take some time however. Thanks anyway. Bottom line we need a better resolution map and as simple as possible. --Dado 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Municipality maps

Discussion moved from user talk:Ante Perkovic#Municipality maps:

The map is not incorrect. --Dado 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As you wrote below, maps are 95% correct. To me, that mean incorrect. --Ante Perkovic 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is based on the same map showing ethnic composition per municipalities from 1991. The municipalities of Bosnia is one level of political division. They have been established more than 50 years ago (with minor modifications since) much before entities were established and per Bosnian constitution of 1991 they are the only constitutional subdivisions of Bosnia and Herzegovnia. --Dado 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Modifications were mayor prior to 1995, but Dayton divided almost every municipality on the IEBL (inter-entity border line?). --Ante Perkovic 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the reality that IEBL is not a border and one generally does not know the difference when crossing from one entity into another I see no reason why do we need to push this division and it serves no use on the ground. There are separate maps showing administrative division between entities.--Dado 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Recognising the border in the field is irelevant. Also, I don't see why maps shouldn't include IEBL. It certainly doesn't clutter the map. --Ante Perkovic 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The map is used to show general location of municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in 95% of cases it is very accurate. For exeptions that you are talking about we can create smaller municipal level maps to show more detailed division. --Dado 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not have 100% correct map? It shouldn't be so hard to make. I hate incostistency too. Let's have the same blank map for all the municipalities. Your idea looks like unnecessary complication. --Ante Perkovic 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous map beside the fact that did not show municipalities accurately also was too small and unusable while this one is in line with some other municipality maps that are used for other countries.--Dado 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that exisiting map is crappy because it is to small. I suggest that we use your map, drawn few more lines representing new municipalities borders (there are quite a few of them!) and make separate colors for each entity. Just like we have now, but with bigger base map (exisitring one is small and crapy). --Ante Perkovic 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the PDF that I found turned out to be a high resolution, 4 color, layered and unlocked file, an absolute gem for editing so it took me far less time than I expected. I have completed a new map and uploaded a master to the commons (Image:Municipality Location in BH.png). It is fairly large file and subsequent maps showing municipalities probably don't need to be as big.

While IEBL is shown on this map and namely it divides several municipalities I disagree that we need to further color codify entities. While we are specifically speaking of municipalities I am trying to simplify the already complicated map situation and the current color scheme follows the convention of some other maps such as this one Image:EnglandCountiesCere.png.

If you are still interested we should discuss what would be a usefull naming convention for subsequent municipality locator maps and exactly what size is preferable. (perhaps for example "Sarajevo Municipality Location in BH.png")

I don't think the original map that I uploaded should be deleted as it is not incorect. It shows the municipalities as of 1991 and may be a good comparison. Plus I spent a lot of time creating it. Maybe we can rename it to note it is a 1991 map to avoid confusion.

Let me know if you can help.--Dado 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything except colors. Not that I care, but many people will object and we will waste a lot of time in edit wars nad reverting between old and new maps. I believe it would be the best to make two entities in different color and noone will complain (... i mirna Bosna, što bi se reklo). BTW, 100 000 people died in conflict that ended by drawing that borders .That certainly makes them relevant.

So, let's just make municipalities in 2 colors and then we can organise creation of separate maps for each municipality. After we agree on colors, we can talk about file names, sizes etc.

I envite other people to join discussion also! --Ante Perkovic 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We have already made some progress regarding these maps on Bosnian Wikipedia (see [1] and http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor_sa_korisnikom:Mhare#Mape ) as they will primarily be used there.

I humbly disagree regarding the two colors specifically because this map format is used for other countries as well and while they also may have their internal political conflicts all municipalities are represented equally. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Bangladesh or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Iran or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Croatia

It is realy frustrating to yet again create a different standard for BiH. It is polemical why 100000 people were killed and a line in a sand may be least worth for such toll. Invoking yet again war consequences and need to allow this separation into this only enboldens those who see Wikipedia as their political bench. After all they can choose not to use these maps.--Dado 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding colors - all those examples are states with great number of sub-entities and it would be clumsy to use 20 or 30 colors on the map. Here, we are talkin about 2 colors. I really really don't understanf why you insist on ignoring entities! --Ante Perkovic
FWIW, I even included district (okrug) (!) colors in commons:Category:Maps of Serbian municipalities, and there are some 20 districts. They're not currently used, except in Template:Infobox Serbia but they're about to be. Duja 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Besides, I don't really see what were you had in mind when posting those links. Can you please give me a link to a specific image, not to category. I couldn't find any image that could serve as a presedan for your idea. --Ante Perkovic 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok let take look at examples that I believe you are well familiar with. Split county is part of Dalmatia region yet the same color is used for both Split county as it is for, let's say Zagreb County which is not part of Dalmatia region. Another example of how higher level political divisions are disregarded is Districts of Serbia where no attempt is made to color code autonomous regions of Vojvodina or Kosovo. --Dado 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Dalmatia is geographical region without clear borders, not political entitiy.
Second, this is really slightly getting on my nervs. I have a strong feeling that your political preferences stand on the way here. Will your hand fell off if we use 2 colors? Does it hurts? Sorry for being rude, but your behaviour more and more looks like WP:POINT. I think we need a Third opinion here, since we are getting nowhere. --Ante Perkovic 23:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Third, Image:Districts of Serbia.gif is made by Serbian user, who obviously don't have much interest in writing borders of Kosovo on the maps of Serbia. The map is not even used!. Moreover, there is a map Image:SerbiaPoliticalDivision.png with different colors for each entity in Serbia.

Whatever, I'm tyred of this and I really think we need WP:3O. --Ante Perkovic 23:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a modification on a master file and boldened the IEBL to give more emphasis on entities. For sake of consistancy I think the colors should remain the same. I think that is a fair compromise. --Dado 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see a compromise? In the fact that you agreed to draw the IEBL on the map at all??? --Ante Perkovic 12:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about ticker border. I don't see need for different colors as the image is used for show LOCATION of municipality. But, Dado and I don't want to end with hours of wasted time just that somebody doesent like colors, and does not show blue and instead red color of municipality. We need to find some compromise adn give GREEN light for editing picture (I wont stard before we settle). If not, I recommend then that anybody else do the job
For me, color is usless in this picture, we need only to determine geographical location of municipality, and the political ones are described in article very well that map does not need any coloring. IEBL is showing border very clearly now. --HarisM 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 2

Ante whom are you trying to satisfy? You said that this will arouse disputes:... "but many people will object and we will waste a lot of time in edit wars nad reverting between old and new maps. I believe it would be the best to make two entities in different color and noone will complain (... i mirna Bosna, što bi se reklo)." Anyone living in Bosnia is Bosnian (Whether they are Bosniak, Serbian, or Croatian). I really do not want the Serbian or Croatian communities getting into this if they have nothing to do with Bosnia. All we are trying to show is the location of the municipalities. What do you gain from showing the entity lines? (Is it self satisfaction or not? Please explain.) Now you are trying to get Serbian people, most not even living in Bosnia, to join your side in order to make Bosnia even more divided. Your goal is a wrong one, my friend. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia which anyone can edit. However, anyone who has no direct connection with/to Bosnia should not get involved, this is a Bosnian issue. (This statement is not directed towards you, general statement). Thanks, Kseferovic 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Herzegovinian Croat (not that it should really matter). Anyways, the comment "However, anyone who has no direct connection with/to Bosnia should not get involved, this is a Bosnian issue" is very wrong. In fact, a neutral point-of-view can only be gained if there is a plurality of contributors who have an open mind about the subject, not just those who feel most connected to the subject.
Well, I think Kseferovic can claim his right to stand in defense; and we have to respect the ropes with which he is bound to Bosnia. But no, a priori excluding the rest of us with no idea how we conduct ourselves...No fire has been traded; the discussion has been civil. Let's wait before we start fights. --VKokielov 03:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would rather have the map without colour-coding. However, it would be wrong and misleading to do so, in my opinion. Some of the Bosniak users are worried other users are trying to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina up even further. Unfortunately, Bosnia and Herzegovina is already divided significantly. Whatever your feelings are about this, you cannot deny that the Federation and the Republika are two very different entities which should be coloured differently.
(If it makes you feel any better, we may get a new map of BiH in a few years without any IEBL or entities. But for now this is not the case.) Thanks. --Thewanderer 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see need for different colors as the image is used for show geographical LOCATION of municipality. --HarisM 18:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is...
This map shows location within B-H and I suggest to make maps that shows location
a) within B-H and
b) location within entity.
You just seams to accept a) as something desirable and at the same time see b) as something completely unacceptable. How can a) be usefull and b) not at the same time?
--Ante Perkovic 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that I'm willing to help here. I feel personaly involved because I made quite a lot contributions to Bosnian articles at Croatian wiki (mostly geography, not war- or politics- related) and even some here (last one). I'm really unsatisifed with crapy maps copied from en. wiki and I'm really looking forward to making new maps. That's why I want them to be as good as possible. --Ante Perkovic 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ante I think you are exagerating a bit. IEBL is noticable in this map and differentiated in width from municipal lines so we are not rejecting entity division. The norm that we are proposing here is not radical but in line with what has been done on Wikipedia for years (ie one background color and one accenting color and in this situation pink and red). The purpose of the map is primarily to show geographical locations of these municipalities and not to play to the tune of political rethoric. I hope you will see this. --Dado 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Since IEBL is not visible at all, I suggest removing it from the map and just using color code. I will make a few example maps. --Ante Perkovic 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have one question. Is there a municipality that's in both entities? I can't figure that out from the maps... Is there amunicipality which is split in two by the IEBL? --Dijxtra 14:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't.
Divied municipalities
Divied municipalities
Are you sure? What about those I highlighted on the map on the right? All of those are independent municipalities? BTW, I'm not inflamatory, I just don't know anything about municipalities in BiH, so I'm asking... --Dijxtra 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are. One of those municipalities (RS part of Drvar municipallity) has less than 200 people!
Few months ago, few of us spent 2 weeks writing and translating articles on BH municipalities on croatian wikipedia. Thanks to this coordinated action, [:hr:|Croatian wikiepdia]]) has better organised articles on BH-municipalities that either this or bosniak wikipedia. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. --Ante Perkovic 17:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I think that there's no need for colouring of the municipalities. I think that we should use the same colour for all of the municipalities and emphasize the IEBL, not just by bolding it but by drawing it using another colour. Something like fluorescente green, something that is clearly visible. Because IEBL is used as municipality border anyway, so we have it drawn on the map already, I don't think there's a need for colouring. --Dijxtra 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
But, according to Dado's map (and mind too, I copied the borders), there is no Brčko District at all. Instead, there is old municipality of Brčko (same territory as today's district) with battleline from 1995 disecting the district. That's why all the maps should be fixed and that's why I stoped making new maps, unlike Dado and HarisM who changed some articles just this morning ignoring warnings about false maps. --Ante Perkovic 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, don't worry, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anyone can edit ;-) If we reach different concensus, it's their problem they spent time for nothing... --Dijxtra 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps are not wrong. Srebrenica municipality is also divided into three section but it is one municipality so one can highlight all three parts. With your color coding scheme you are showing Brcko divided between RS and FBiH which is wrong. Brcko should be handled as a special case similar to City of Sarajevo that consists of 4 municipalities (shown on this map combined [2])--Dado 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is lack of information about Brcko district. Brcko district is composed of two municipalities wich form that district. Dado explained rest. There is no problem with map as it show only municipalities, and is recent. I think only problem is with coloring, and if Ante want to color again maps he can, but i think that existing maps do the job quite well as they show municipalities, and Brcko District is another topic, as I allready said it is made of two municipalities wich are drawn on map correct, Brcko district article should have idenpendent map as it has allready. --HarisM 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2-color maps



Please, comment those maps here: Image talk:BH municipality location.gif. --Ante Perkovic 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I am not so well-versed in Bosnian administrative geography as most of you. Still, regarding the issue of whether ethnic lines should be marked, I could not help noticing that CIA's map, routinely used as reference in Wikipedia, has those lines marked. So yes, they should be marked with different colors in the municipality maps, but as small nuances of the standard purple. Secondly, I suggest to redirect the talk from Ante's image page and insert it, together with Ante's proposal above this post, in its right chronological place on this page. That way, you will avoid the current confusion with two talk pages. --Zmaj 07:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/h/m/Image_talk%7EBHMunicipalities.png_2f7e.html"