File talk:Pagania.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I reverted the map, because Imota parish was part of Croatia, not Serbia, which was clearly wrong on the map... --Čeha (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is map from official history atlas for Serbian schools whose authors are 10 prominent Serbian historians: http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8800/910veksrpskezemlje.png Borders of Pagania (and other states) in that map and in this one in Wikimedia are same. Therefore, if you have problem with it you can contact these historians. So, yes, you are correct that Imota was in Croatia, but you can see in the source map that Imota (Имота) is indeed located in Croatia, as well as it is located in this map in wikimedia. You obviously do not know the exact position of Imota, so you wrongly assumed that wikimedia map shows that it was in Serbia, while it does not show that. Areas which are part of Serbia in source map are called Velika (Велика) and Večerić (Вечерић), not Imota. Finally, since I am author of this map, I have right to improve my own work and you are free to upload old versions or your derivative works of this file under different filename, according to Wikimedia rules. PANONIAN (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- And that map is greaterserbian map (from that authors). As you can see;
http://marjan.fesb.hr/~sikora/images/sdz_udzbenik_m.jpg http://free-zg.t-com.hr/Andelko/Slike/DAIzupanije.jpg
- Imota field goes beyond 18.century Venetian border. I would ask you remove that content out of this map because it does not speak very much about Pagania, other than nationalistic propaganda... --Čeha (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- So, some maps from internet of unknown authors are more credible than published history atlas created by prominent historians? I have that atlas in my home in published form with listed names of all its authors, so it is credible source. And please, refrain yourself from using words like "greaterserbian" or "nationalist propaganda" since Yugoslav wars ended long time ago and war-time rhetorics and mentality have no place in this time and space. You have not provided a single evidence that any of authors of that altas is nationalist or supporter of "greaterserbian" (or whatever) ideologies. They are just ordinary historians who made history atlas for schools. I told you: you are free to upload your own map which will depict borders which you like and you are free to use your map in your home Wikipedia. However, you should upload your map under different filename per wikimedia policy which says that in the case of content dispute each user should upload his file under different filename. Since I am original author of this file, you are the one who should upload his file under different name. PANONIAN (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/tomislav.jpg is also published history atlas for the elementary school.
- I asked you one simple thing, to put out borders of Pagania neighbours, since they are controversial at best.
- Ok. I can remove your maps through all of wikis, by myself.
- So? I made map based on Serbian atlas, you can make one based on Croatian atlas and both maps can be in wikimedia commons, according to wikimedia commons policies. This map is certainly not controversial simply because you say that. Even if views of Serbian and Croatian historians are different in some way, both are valid and both views deserve to be presented in maps. However, the question which map will be used in which wikipedia is not a question to discuss in wikimedia commons, but rather on appropriate talk pages in each wikipedia. I can agree that you use your map in "your home wikipedia", but not in "all of wikis". So, if you remove this map from "all of wikis", you might expect that I will revert your edits in most of these wikies. Do you really want to waste your free time on that? However, if you do not want to waste your free time then I can tell you that acceptable solution for me is that both maps (mine and yours) can be used in each wikipedia, so that each of them reflects one of the views. PANONIAN (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neretva9st.png should be compromise solution?
- It does not show border of Pagania neighbours as it is used mostly as focus on Pagania itself.--Čeha (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- That map is esthetically inferior to this one. How map with inferior estheticfs can be compromise solution? You focused your view only on border of Serbia but you failed to see the large amount of aesthetical improvements in this map. Why you made your changes in old map version instead in new one anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, new version. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neretva9st.png ? --Čeha (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is better. When aesthetics is in question, all maps should be in best possible quality. Also, in the case when there are different viewpoints about some subjects, commons can host different files which reflecting different viewpoints. In this case when 9th century borders are in question, there should be maps which reflecting both viewpoints, Croatian and Serbian, as well as "neutral" maps (which would be map which you uploaded). Editors in each wikipedia should then decide are they going to use one or more of these files in their articles. PANONIAN (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Deal. Also this is Croatian https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pagania9st.png --Čeha (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is better. When aesthetics is in question, all maps should be in best possible quality. Also, in the case when there are different viewpoints about some subjects, commons can host different files which reflecting different viewpoints. In this case when 9th century borders are in question, there should be maps which reflecting both viewpoints, Croatian and Serbian, as well as "neutral" maps (which would be map which you uploaded). Editors in each wikipedia should then decide are they going to use one or more of these files in their articles. PANONIAN (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, new version. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neretva9st.png ? --Čeha (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- That map is esthetically inferior to this one. How map with inferior estheticfs can be compromise solution? You focused your view only on border of Serbia but you failed to see the large amount of aesthetical improvements in this map. Why you made your changes in old map version instead in new one anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- So? I made map based on Serbian atlas, you can make one based on Croatian atlas and both maps can be in wikimedia commons, according to wikimedia commons policies. This map is certainly not controversial simply because you say that. Even if views of Serbian and Croatian historians are different in some way, both are valid and both views deserve to be presented in maps. However, the question which map will be used in which wikipedia is not a question to discuss in wikimedia commons, but rather on appropriate talk pages in each wikipedia. I can agree that you use your map in "your home wikipedia", but not in "all of wikis". So, if you remove this map from "all of wikis", you might expect that I will revert your edits in most of these wikies. Do you really want to waste your free time on that? However, if you do not want to waste your free time then I can tell you that acceptable solution for me is that both maps (mine and yours) can be used in each wikipedia, so that each of them reflects one of the views. PANONIAN (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- So, some maps from internet of unknown authors are more credible than published history atlas created by prominent historians? I have that atlas in my home in published form with listed names of all its authors, so it is credible source. And please, refrain yourself from using words like "greaterserbian" or "nationalist propaganda" since Yugoslav wars ended long time ago and war-time rhetorics and mentality have no place in this time and space. You have not provided a single evidence that any of authors of that altas is nationalist or supporter of "greaterserbian" (or whatever) ideologies. They are just ordinary historians who made history atlas for schools. I told you: you are free to upload your own map which will depict borders which you like and you are free to use your map in your home Wikipedia. However, you should upload your map under different filename per wikimedia policy which says that in the case of content dispute each user should upload his file under different filename. Since I am original author of this file, you are the one who should upload his file under different name. PANONIAN (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Imota field goes beyond 18.century Venetian border. I would ask you remove that content out of this map because it does not speak very much about Pagania, other than nationalistic propaganda... --Čeha (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
