Commons:Deletion requests/File:New-Map-Francophone World.PNG

Factually inaccurate and heavily misleading for common Wikipedia readers. France does not control a chink of the Antarctica, it only claims it's suzerainity, which no other major power has recognized. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I am opposed to this deletion. Indeed the Antarctic Treaty provides that states do not practice practices of colonization and economic but only authorizes scientific actions. There are several French research bases in the French space, so the language is French. However, since it is not a territorial space like the others, it would be necessary to colorify the color by creating for example a more adapted color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejesga06 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Also keep, good map, a lot less "misleading" than the all the English-language maps, for instance. 95.92.196.163 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We must add a blue color to the Vatican because French is one of the official languages. There is a large Francophone community in: Portugal, Greece, Romania, Poland--Jejesga06 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Or, you could correct that “factually inaccurate and heavily misleading” information on the map. Plainly deleting the whole map is both disproportionate and counterproductive, considering both the amount of information it otherwise has and the number of pages in which it is included. Please wait for a consensus, then possibly submit a patch without the controversial blue slice. Personally I don’t care, but — whether you recognize France’s sovereignty over w:en:Adélie Land or not — I believe the assertion of French being the “main language” in this land to be true, since the French w:en:Dumont d'Urville Station accounts for the only permanent settlement in it (see w:en:Research stations in Antarctica). Yet perhaps a blue circle around the station would be more “accurate” and less controversial. Maëlan (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: This file is heavily used across Wikimedia projects. Under COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV, Commons should not delete files that are in use on other projects simply because they're inaccurate. If you think this map is inaccurate you can:

• discuss the matter at File talk:New-Map-Francophone World.PNG
• upload a new version under the same name, but only if no-one objects (see COM:OVERWRITE)
• request renaming of the file if you think the name is obviously erroneous (see COM:FR)
• note on the file page that there is a dispute over the accuracy of the map (e.g. using {{Disputed map}})
• upload a new map under a different name and then update other projects to use that one instead

--bjh21 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I fait to see any valid reason why this very useful map should be deleted. It is a linguistic map, not one of territories under French sovereignty. Whatever inaccuracies it may contain ought to be corrected (as indicated just above). --Elnon (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Ahead of the Antartica Status, this territory is administrated by France, and the oficial language of this jurisdiction is the french. And, User:Jejesga06, sorry but french is not official language in the Vatican City at any level-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 23:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fobos92: "Official Italian language Note: French is the diplomatic language of the Vatican; Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church and the legal language of the Vatican; German is the language of the Vatican Army, the Swiss Guard."^[1][2]--Jejesga06 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jejesga06: Ok then, so? French is NOT oficial in the Vatican City. All of this I know it, German is the lenguage of the Swiss Guard because, you know,the Swessness. Don take the debate to other issues.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 02:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fobos92: I do not speak of officiality in the legal sense of the term. I speak that the language is official in diplomatic usages, it has no unofficial characters. Here we are talking about the Francophonie and not the countries where the language is official from a legal point of view ...--Jejesga06 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you check you will notice that there has been 33 versions and reverts of this quaint, self-created map since 2007. Obviously there must be a problem. In 2015 I posted a modified version, eliminating Syria and explaining in detail why: French is completely gone in Syria where just about the only spoken language aside from Arabic is English; French has disappeared from Vietnam, Cambodia Laos. And why those blue squares for London, New York and Cairo? Why not blue squares for Buenos Aires or Mumbai or Sydney or Beijing or Tokyo or Quito? I'm sure there are also communities of French-speaking expats there. The whole thing is capricious and based on personal viewpoints. My version was reverted and there there must have been a dozen other versions and reverts after that...... Someone above states his/conditions for changing this map, including "upload a new version under the same name, but only if no-one objects". Obviously he/she wants this inaccurate map to remain unchanged for eternity. The argument that this map should be kept because it's used on many pages is not very convincing. It is precisely because that map is used on many pages that it should not be misleading. At the moment, it's just a high school essay.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One additional reason why this map should be deleted is the fact that very word "francophone", as in the title of this map, is a problem in itself and is controversial. For the Organisation internationale de la francophonie (OIF), a francophone is "someone who can speak French". By deduction, an Englishman who can still speak high-school French as well as a smattering of Spanish and Portuguese following a few years spent in South America would be 1) an anglophone, b) a francophone, c) a hispanophone, d) a lusophone. That ridiculous definition of francophone is rejected in Canada where a "francophone" is an individual whose first language learned at home was French, and who can still speak the language. The very lo0se definition of "francophone" by the OIT is simply to make it appear that the "francophone word" is huge. In fact in all African countries where French is the official language, only a minority of the inhabitants can speak the language, and the majority of "francophone" Africans do not speak French at home. They speak their native tongue.--Lubiesque (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubiesque: "That ridiculous definition of francophone is rejected in Canada where a "francophone" is an individual whose first language learned at home was French, and who can still speak the language." I call this a personal point of view... In Syria English is mainly the language of the populace, one that learns a people thinking that it will give him economic assets ... but it remains primarily an English "airport" ... true bilinguals are rare ... It is unfortunate that individuals choose the English language while French offers wider connections with other languages. Currently English has an interest, but it will quickly take its time.--Jejesga06 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubiesque: @Jejesga06: Why, instead deleting the file, dont you propose alternatives and use references for changing the map? If you have any problem with the green squares just use sources and edit the file. Same with Syria issue, or with the proper name! It's very easy deleting a file, destroying the work of many, many users. But will be any of you two the one who will create a new and better map and restore the new file in all the articles where is used now and in all the wikipedias? Because it will be a problem for many articles if we just simply destroy the file for issues easily editables.-- Fobos | ¿algo que decirme? 10:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubiesque: “The argument that this map should be kept because it's used on many pages is not very convincing. It is precisely because that map is used on many pages that it should not be misleading.” Sure, that’s why we should improve it. Not obliterate it in anger. As for the word “francophone”, you’ll notice that it is not used in legends, so that its ambiguity is a non-problem. You raise a valid point however, which is that the current map gives no reference whatsoever (except on quibblings about Belgium, in the English description). There is no easy way to know the reasons behind the choices that were made (what the green square on London exactly means and so on), and we have no guarantee that these choices remained consistent. So I believe that, if we were granted infinite time, the ideal solution would be to rebase this work on safer grounds entirely. First, we should agree on what the map should represent: official languages and/or actual usage? Then, all legends should be defined precisely (in the current English description, “main language” seems rather vague, for example). After that, filling the map, with due references, should be less controversial. I don’t have that much time myself, I’ll admit. Maëlan (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Totally in scope and useful (per discussion). Vandalisms should just be reverted. Ruthven (msg) 21:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]