File talk:United Nations Members.svg

fehler

taiwan ist kein mitglied 95.208.31.246 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan is not member of the United nations. You could see it as a part of China. But this is quite pointless because it is (de facto) independent for a very long time. According to the map, Palestine is an independent state. And what about Kosovo? Either all these states are shown or none of them. I have no idea how to edit this file but this should be changed. --SuperZebra (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

UN and Taiwan

Begin copy from the Village pump.

There's currently a dispute around File:United Nations Members.svg, with another user continuously making the change of Taiwan to grey instead of blue. Arguments can be seen in the file summaries, but in essence they say that as Taiwan isn't under the control of China, it shouldn't be coloured in. My argument is that the UN recognises the One-China policy (like every country in the world, including China and Taiwan) and recognises the PRC as that China. This is the situation for all similar areas on the map as well, each state is coloured in as much as the UN recognises them to cover, with Somalia including Somliland, Serbia including Kosovo, and Morocco not including the Western Sahara. It's anomalous to just change Taiwan. I took this to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, and was informed it belonged here. Any opinions would be appreciated. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 情報 As a third party, I reverted the picture to the version supported by Chipmunkdavis (トーク · 投稿記録) due to the amount of arguments being brought up for having Taiwan marked in blue — the other party in this edit war seems to be sticking to its mind for emotional reasons only. I have also protected the image against re-uploads, and am awaiting a peaceful ending to this discussion. odder (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, there should be 3 colors in this map: members, non-members, territories considered as part of a member state, but non controlled by it (i.e. Taiwan, Kosovo?). I think 2 different shades of blue would appropriately show the distinction. This seems fair to me. Yann (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

End copy from the Village pump.

I agree with Yann - areas not governed by a UN member state should be a different country color to avoid confusion. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant color, not country. Obviously. --– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I agree that it would be more useful to readers to distinguish territories nominally part of a member state but not under its control, e.g. by showing them as lighter blue. (The linked UN source only provides a link of member states (and dates of admission), not their nominal or controlled territories, so it would be good to add a source for this.) But I think both approaches are internally consistent, so Commons should host both versions, and let the projects and other re-users decide which version they want to use. We shouldn't be deciding this for them here. --Avenue (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This makes more sense, actually. --– Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In general I'm in favour of highlighting controlled territories vs nominal territories on maps of states, but I feel that when dealing with an international organisation going by their opinion, if they have one, is useful. The functional purpose of the map is to show the members of the UN, which colouring in the whole state does. Uncontrolled territories aren't a homogenous category anyway. There's unrecognised states, like Taiwan, established rebel-held territories that still want to be part of the country, like the FARC in Colombia, and there is territory that really just fallen out of control of the government, such as in Somalia or Yemen. Unrecognised states are I suppose a well definable category, and I agree that would be useful to have if we were just looking at a map of the world, and not a map of member states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here for me is that the map description claims that Taiwan is shown as part of China on a UN map, but doesn't cite a source for this claim. (Likewise for other non-members.) I'd be happier about us showing the UN's opinion if I could confirm it really was their opinion (and see what caveats if any they've placed upon it)

I hadn't thought about FARC and similar situations - good point. For unrecognised (or partially recognised) states, we already have File:Limited recognition.png, which divides such states into four groups. That's more detail than would make sense here IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is one map from the UN cartographic department. It of course comes with a wordy disclaimer about not necessarily representing the UNs views etc., but you can see that while it notes the Falkland dispute and has a variety of dotted lines around Kashmir (both topics discussed and inconclusive in the UN), it doesn't mention unrecognised states like Taiwan and Kosovo. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe wo could mark the disputed areas with blue-grey stripes. --Excolis (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

2014 and later

Taiwan should be marked gray for consistency. Why do we mark territories de facto on country maps but territories de jure on the UN map? --Jdh8 (トーク) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan is NOT a UN member but IS a de facto independent state. End of story. Mannix Chan (トーク) 06:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan should be blue-grey striped. --Excolis (トーク) 18:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Bit late to this party, but I think the problem here is that virtually every country in the world de facto recognizes Taiwan as a separate country and treat it as such, and the PRC does not and has not ever controlled Taiwan. At a minimum, places where the central government does not actually control the territory on a map should be marked somehow. Titanium Dragon (トーク) 03:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Taiwan is a one-of-a-kind case and should be specially treated on this map. While it is true that UN sticks with the One China policy, PRC since its founding has never exercise sovereignty over Taiwan. We the residents do not own PRC passports, and Taiwan (ROC) passports cannot be used to access the UNHQ. It's ridiculous to mark Taiwan blue on this map per se. --220.130.164.4 10:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Opinions of people from Taiwan are invalid. It doesn't matter what passports people have. I can create my own passport and believe it to be legitimate. The map depicts the UN's standpoint. The island of Taiwan is part of it as China. --94.134.89.31 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Many many dots

There are a huge number of dots scattered through the world's ocean's in this map, most of them coloured blue. This suggests they are UN members, but most of them are not. File:UN Member Countries World.svg seems to do a better job with these small islands. --Avenue (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be because it is based off a base map that includes all these small islands as dots, while the UN map with dates was based off a different map. I generally like the small dots, but can see how they would be confusing here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 28 July 2016

{{Edit request}} There are dots for three French overseas regions, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion, but not for Mayotte (which is also a very small territory, and became a French overseas region in 2011). I have added a dot for Mayotte and uploaded the file at File:United Nations Members – corrected ommsion of Mayotte.svg as I am unable to overwrite this file (I misspelt "omission"). Could someone able to do so please upload this version?

Apologies if this is the wrong template, I am not sure the correct template for requesting a change to a file.

Thanks,

Rob984 (トーク) 12:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, if possible I would appreciate if you could also delete File:United Nations Members – corrected ommsion of Mayotte.svg afterwards. If not I will nominate for speedy deletion. Rob984 (トーク) 12:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 完了 --Jarekt (トーク) 02:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional Colour for Disputed Territories?

As above, the Republic of China (Taiwan) is no longer a UN member. Is it possible to add an additional colour for member states that are considered part of a UN member state but are actually not? Thanks! ChPenguiN (トーク) 06:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The PRC government says Taiwan is part of China, while until at least 1990 the ROC authorities also said that Taiwan is part of China, and since then have not formally and unequivocally said that Taiwan is not part of China, so Taiwan's status is not really "disputed" in that respect. If Taiwan has never formally declared independence, then it's not the role of Wikimedia Commons to declare independence for it... AnonMoos (トーク) 13:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

not 100% true,taiwan still is an De facto independent country,cuz it has their own gov,land,laws,coins,passports,etc, and also, when the ROC said that they we're part of china?it never happened, the ROC always said they were the true china, and when they didnt say it, they say that they are separate from china, its kinda confusing.189.35.35.204 01:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Morroco occupation in some parts of western saharaa and China's Special Administrative Regions.

{{Edit request}} morocco occupied ALOT of parts from western saharaa,and these parts arent colorized blue till now, in addition, Macau and Hongkong should have a dark green dot on their lands, because they are special administrative regions of china, not oficcially part of china. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.35.35.204 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Western Sahara as a whole is still considered by the United Nations to be a non self-governing territory. Hong Kong and Macau are considered full parts of China under Chinese sovereignty. Chipmunkdavis (トーク) 06:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed:

Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, south Ossetia, Abkhazia and Kosovo should have Grey Dots, because even though they arent recognized by all UN members, some members still recognize it.

in addition, Vatican should be a Blue dot, because it is Represented by the holy see (holy see technically is a un member) Hell - lllio (トーク) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy See is an observer, like Palestine, not a member. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request, 18 June 2021

{{Edit request}} Would like to request to update the file to a more optimized, text-editable format, as with here (File:United Nations Members – updated Base map.svg) based on the code from the latest blank world map template. Also requesting to speedy delete the second file after the update is done (redirect not necessary). Thanks in advance.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 08:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 完了. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove non-members

{{Edit request}} There are numerous territories with dots on the map as if they were small member states, and worse, the list is inconsistent. For example, some French territories are included, but not others; most British territories are included, but not all; same for the US. Some of these are recognized by the UN as colonial possessions that should be decolonized -- that is, they're the opposite of blue, though I could maybe see them as grey. Could the dots of all non-members be removed? Niue and Cook Islands have the option of joining, but they haven't. Until they do, they shouldn't be shown on the map as members. Kwamikagami (トーク) 07:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Antarctica contains unclaimed land which is not represented on the map

Although most of Antarctica is claimed by several UN member states, there is also a significant portion that remains unclaimed by any government/country. The map shows all of Antarctica as blue, implying that the entirety of Antarctica has been claimed by a UN member state. The map should be edited to reflect this reality. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure how to edit an image in that way. Vontheri (トーク) 18:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

None of Antarctica is blue in the map if you click on it, it only shows as blue in the compressed png. Odd. Chipmunkdavis (トーク) 04:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: , who created the latest revision. Chipmunkdavis (トーク) 05:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing on my Edge browser: not-blue in the full image (as well as in the svg source which defines Antarctica's color), but blue in the compressed map icon. So not sure what went wrong. I could try to create a new map, though apparently the image is protected so an admin would have to step in.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

None of Antarctica should be blue, as there is no UN recognition of national territories there. When this is fixed, could the many other spurious UN members be removed from the map, per the previous thread? Kwamikagami (トーク) 03:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I'm not sure what the cause is. Can't see anything in the code, and in inkscape Antarctica is coloured correctly. I would support a change per Kwami's concerns through code to set circle opacity to 0 for the various non-state dots. Chipmunkdavis (トーク) 05:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The SVG is marked as invalid and the difference between the SVG view and the rendered PNG is probably explainable by this issue. The author of the latest version, User:CptViraj, should be notified of this problem. I will leave a note on their talk page in addition to the ping. --Prüm (トーク) 10:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, Vontheri, Newfraferz87, and CptViraj: I requested that this be fixed at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop on WP.en. Kwamikagami (トーク) 01:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested style edits

{{edit requested}}

Please:

• Use UN flag blue (0a94d6) instead of other blue (5B92E5) (five instances)
• Use white (other UN flag color) for observer states
• Color Antarctica grey (it's not a member or observer state...)

New lines 134 to 160:

/* NOTE

* The color defaults to UN blue (0a94d6) for UN members.
* The UN flag is defined as Pantone 2925; hex is 0a94d6.
* UN observers are white, the other color on the flag.
* Non-UN members and uninhabited territories are colored gray.
*
* This map displays the de jure (recognition by law) situation.
* Territories recognized as parts of other UN members are still
* colored blue even if there are rival local governments
* (e.g. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Somaliland, Taiwan).
*
* Territories exclusion list below:
* Holy See (Vatican City) and Palestine: white, observers
* Antarctica, Western Sahara: grey (uninhabited and occupied)
*/

.ps, .va {opacity: 1; fill: #FFFFFF} .aq, .eh {opacity: 1; fill: #c0c0c0}

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

White is already used for oceans and land borders, so I do not consider the proposal regarding observers to be very elegant or useful. --Prüm (トーク) 03:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Which color do you think is better? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think green as suggested below would be more appropriate. Basically any color that's clearly distinguishable from the colors already used would be fine. --Prüm (トーク) 18:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated files

Sorry for the late update, real life caught up to me. Apparently M.Bitton has started a new map at File:United Nations (Member States).svg, so either we can continue the discussion & edits there, or request that edits there be backported and moved here.

Anyway, I found a better and more compact blank world map template here. I applied it (tentatively setting observer states to show as green), though can't be sure if the settings for territorial disputes are all correctly set, so feel free to raise issues.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I'm not sure why you reverted my edit, but I'd like to suggest using the newer map template because it's much more customizable, text-friendly and tidy (in the raw code, perhaps you could look through it); another reason being that the old map template is edit-locked but the new one isn't, so issues with the new template can be directly addressed and fixed on the template page, but those are not possible with the old one.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 18:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I reverted your edit because I don't see any need to change the base map (the one you're proposing is not a better option). Please feel free to join the active discussion on en.wp. M.Bitton (トーク) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: How so? You're saying "is not a better option" without giving quantifiable indicators, so it sounds like just an opinion. By all means the new template can convey the same amount of data with 80% the size, all path-ids are grouped and labelled, and there are switches where representations of territorial disputes can be independently adjusted, thus I feel it is more usable and editable compared to the old template. I can understand and appreciate if you have a bias due to having made edits based on the old template already, but if we want to consider future edits and derivations to the map, I think following the newer template would be more helpful.

(P.S. Hasn't the discussion at WP ended? There seems to be more users discussing the file on this page based on the previous section, so perhaps we could invite the WP guys over?)   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: That's your opinion (I have chosen the most appropriate base map, modified it to suit my needs and will stick to it). Obviously, you're welcome to upload a new file under a different name. M.Bitton (トーク) 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, fine then. I'll adjust my map version and share it here as well, we can let the other users decide how to go from here and which version to port over.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(Updated map at File:United Nations (Member States and Territories).svg, based on customizable template)   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Smaller size is nice, as these are quite large files for those on slow internet connections (i.e. much of the world). I don't know how else they may differ. @M.Bitton: , what are the advantages to your map? I've lived in countries where 1MB would take a long time (and be expensive) to download, so small size (even if it's only a savings of 20%) is worth considering.

@Newfraferz87: There are some things I cleaned up on the other map and that we might want to discuss here. For example, Hawaii is labeled "United States" but Puerto Rico is labeled "Puerto Rico". Both are blue. That makes it look like Puerto Rico is a member state of the UN. Because PR is not considered a colony by the UN (because it's a commonwealth), IMO it should be "United States" like Hawaii. Both are represented in the UN by the USA. Same with the NMI. But USVI, Guam and AS are considered colonies by the UN, so IMO they should retain their names, but also be colored grey (like Western Sahara) so it's clear they're not member states. (No dots, though, since this isn't a map of decolonization.) Similarly, Aruba and Curacao &c should just be "Netherlands" (and remain blue) and Greenland and the Faroes should just be "Denmark". That is, anything blue should be labeled as the state that represents it in the UN, and anything labeled with a non-member name should be grey. Grey should basically be the territories that the UN judges to have inadequate representation, such as the British overseas territories (but not the Channel Isles or Isle of Man). I think that the non-dotted grey would just be territories of the UK, US, France, W.Sahara and Tokelau. Does that make sense? (Yeah, I know the list isn't very consistent, but we're just reflecting the UN here.) Kwamikagami (トーク) 04:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be okay w the entities on the UN list of non-sovereign states getting grey dots, though IMO they should be smaller than the dots of Cook and Niue, which are invitee states and can join the UN at any time they like. Anyway, discussion should maybe be on that talk page. Kwamikagami (トーク) 05:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly the doesn't distinguish between officially non-sovereign territories and simply distant areas (eg. Alaska). However, it does say that CI and Niue are part of NZ, despite their ability to become independent. The 17 official non-sovereign territories are listed here, I agree it makes sense to use that list for the purposes of grey/separate labels on this map. Chipmunkdavis (トーク) 14:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What I find odd about that list is that it doesn't mention Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon or Wallis and Futuna, all of which have the same legal status as French Polynesia. St Pierre was actually a department for a decade, but had that status revoked because of (a legal conflict with NAFTA?). It looks like it was removed from the list and never put back on; St Barts & St Martin separated perhaps after territories were easily added. But that doesn't explain why Wallis & Futuna never made it onto the list. Anyway, as these are equivalent to Fr.Polynesia and the UK overseas colonies, I think for consistency they should be treated the same. Kwamikagami (トーク) 20:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue are part of New Zealand. Quebec also has the ability to become independent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

They're in free association. Quebec is not. They also participate in UN agencies an sovereign states and have a standing invitation to become full UN members.

But the French territories all seem to have a level of autonomy comparable to the US commonwealths, so it's odder that NC and FP are on the list than the others are not. Politics, I guess. Kwamikagami (トーク) 11:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)