This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This map is an unnormalized choropleth map. It is therefore poor quality from a cartographic perspective, as it ignores cartographic norms, and beyond Not educationally useful, as "Failure to employ proper normalization will lead to an inappropriate and potentially misleading map in almost all cases." GeogSage (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commnent: A misleading map that fails to follow the most basic of cartographic conventions used on dozens of wikis is an absolute disaster. This should not be an argument for keeping it, any more then if a false or misleading statement was on multiple pages. Instead, being used on dozens of wikis demonstrates exactly why it needs to be deleted, people without knowledge of maps but looking for one that fits the theme of their page will continue to embed this unnormalized map throughout the project as long as it is kept. The image is not salvageable, and from a cartographic perspective, the only ethical thing that can be done is delete it. I'm speaking both as a Wikipedia editor, and cartographer/GIS instructor.
On the page human, where I originally encountered this, I replaced it with two images (see below) that I lifted from the pages "cartogram" and "population density". Please see them attached. I'd recommend replacing all instances of this map on any Wiki project page with these two, or similar products, and then deleting this. I'm not sure how best to go about replacing all of the related images at once, but the idea that because a bad map is in widespread use it should be kept is how infodemics spread. This is the opposite of educationally useful, it is literally spreading false perceptions.
Mosaic cartogram showing the distribution of the global population based on 2018 UN data. Each of the 15,266 pixels represents the home country of 500,000 people – cartogram by Max Roser for Our World in Data
Keep. I don't even agree that the lack of normalization is a problem. Some maps show population density, and some show absolute population; this is not one of the former. If every map had to be "normalized", then WC and WP would only have maps showing intensity-related statistics and nothing else. The page on normalization clearly outlines that normalization is not meaningful in all cases, and this is clearly not one of those cases. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the case of a choropleth map, it is absolutely a problem. The the appropriate use of choropleth maps is not really a question we need to debate, this map is misleading, inappropriate, and should be removed. If you know of other maps on WC and WP that are using choropleths to show absolute data, please nominate them for deletion. If you want sources on the importance of normalizing a choropleth map, the page for choropleth maps section on normalization has several sources, but if you need more I can get them. The rare cases that a choropleth could be used to display absolute data generally are so obscure that they don't warrant discussion, and in those strange situations, an alternative thematic map type can and should be used interchangeably to avoid confusion. If you want to show absolute population, you can use a different thematic map type, like the cartogram I've included as an example, proportional symbol maps, or dot density maps. Each one has advantages and weaknesses, appropriate and inappropriate use cases. This has been discussed at great length within the peer reviewed literature and cartographic texts. GeogSage (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opignon, what should be done is to provide an up-to-date population density map on Common, translated in all the languages using the actual map, and replace it where the population density is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thym (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is not an appropriate use for a choropleth map showing total populations. I have attached two alternative thematic maps, one showing population density in a choropleth, and another using a cartogram. There is absolutely no need for a low quality low effort choropleth showing total population when there are plenty of maps that are not failing to follow basic cartographic conventions. GeogSage (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly, with a caveat. As I said on the WikiProject Maps discussion, I agree that this is a bad map that should not be used. However, after some consideration I don't think it's bad enough to warrant deleting it while many wikis are still using it. While it does invite incorrect interpretation, I think most readers will interpret it correctly. It's poorly-designed, but it's not false, and I think only something false would warrant a disruptive deletion.
That said, we can and should replace unnormalized chloropleths wherever we can. While M.Bitton is right that we shouldn't unilaterally make decisions for other wikis, everyone is free to edit any wikipedia. I'm going to go through some of these usages, starting with higher-profile wikipedias where I can somewhat communicate, and replace this with heatmaps or bubble plots. Most smaller wikipedias draw content from larger ones anyway, so I don't think it's true that editors will continue to embed this map if it is kept; I think it will fade away naturally. Justinkunimune (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that the lack of normalization is a problem, this image is COM:INUSE on dozens of wikis. Consider improving it instead of nominating it for deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
.png)
