Talk:World map

World map

The World Map is from 2004 and needs updating - but I don't know the source for the larger (1.8 MB image). Seccon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seccon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction picture isn't an accurate "Map of the World" as claimed. I tried to fix the definition but it seems that I've been blocked. Apparently someone thinks that an incomplete and unauthentic old map would supposedly add "depth" to the article. 83.228.36.247 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “unauthentic”, but yes, the title could at least be informative. I’ll make it informative. Strebe (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Upside down map

If someone could find australian world map (upside down) and japanese/chinese world map (cut in the atlantic instead of the pacific) I think that would make this article much more interesting!!! Yeh it would!!!!!

(I'm french I dont write much on the english wikipedia)

ZeroJanvier 21:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's one at ja:??:WorldMap_jaII.png and one at ja:??:WorldMap_jaII.png, I don't know what they're licenced under though. -- Joolz 13:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, those links didn't work, but you can find them by going to the japanese version of this article (linked) -- Joolz 13:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also at Reversed map

(1) start graphics program

(2) load world map

(3) hit 'rotate' button twice

(4) and there is your upside down map. Kransky (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Map of the World - the Book

"Map of the World" should not redirect to this, as there is a very well known novel by that title. Pacian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it have an article here? --Astrokey44 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a Projection as this?:

What about another projection, what I call a "Azimuthal Skirt Projection"; taking a view from either the north or south pole like an Azimuthal, though continuing to the opposite pole.

Are you sure you're not thinking of a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection? It seems pretty close to what you're talking about, unless I'm missing the point completely.

☭ Zippanova 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

MiddleForkMaps

06 December 2006 WorldMapServer.net continues to strive to provide useful map resources and search tools. It would like to have itself reconsidered for inclusion in the Wikipedia resources associated with 'World Map.' Middleforkmaps 03:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ok sure, ill put it in and see what happens. Im particularly impressed with the country subdivisions which mostly arent on google maps --Astrokey44 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been informed that my inclusion of an external link to worldmapserver.net violated the 'sites-you-own' Wikipedia policy. I am thus inviting the maintainer of this page to either remove the worldmapserver link or affirm its inclusion. Thank you for your forebearance.

(later) I have noted that the worldmapserver link has been deleted. I accept this based upon the 'sites-you-own' policy, which I admittedly (though innocently) violated. Middleforkmaps 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

World map with different projections

Is there an (external/internal) link showing world maps created with different kind of map projections so that one can compare them visually. Vjdchauhan 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

map projection would be a good place to start. ¦ Reisio 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Variations

I have taken out the unsubstantiated claim that Australia and New Zealand use a reversed world map. Please provide evidence / references for this claim if you wish to include this statement. I am New Zealand born and educated and my wife is Australian born and educated and this article is the first time we have heard of a reversed map. --HдLϋcń8 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

„Different from the world map used in Western Hemisphere, in East Asian countries, such as China, Japan and Korea, along with in Australia and New Zealand, another map is used which places American continents on the right, Europe and Africa on the left, and Asia-Pacific countries roughly on the centre.“

Please please provide an example. (grafic/picture) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.73.33 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

history

This page is in serious need of a "history" section (unless one exists elsewhere on wikipedia?). I wouldn't know where to start with one, but I'd love to read one. --Dtcdthingy 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, but I'm in the same boat. I'd love to see how different cultures interpreted the world through maps at different times in their histories.

☭ Zippanova 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There was recently a big deal about who made the first complete world map. It was long assumed that it was some European in the 1500s, but it looks like the Chinese had some maps that showed each side of every continent before even Columbus set out. If someone knows more about that it should defiantly go in the article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody explain

Why when i use this map, the black copy, on paint, the only colors i get are white, black, and grey? --Jakezing (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Replacement which was replaced

Does anyone knowthe name of the file/image of the exact same world map with blue water & the actual ground tan? Or if anyone knows of a map with a more "accurate" Mediterranean area that would be greatly appreciated. Kostantino888Z (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Blank Copy of the map

Ok, lets face something, the colors are not all the same, If i remember its the northern two pixels of Luxembourg, a small section of Saudi Arabia near UAE and a pixel in Manchuria. Small issues but they've been there for a long time. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing sea...

In the first map of the first gallery (the map subtitled Mercator projection in the gallery titled Projections) the Caspian Sea... is missing! Can anybody work on the image and restore in it the Caspian Sea? I personally don't know how to do it... Kintaro-san (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the WORLD MAPS

World Maps Welcome to the WORLD MAPS

World Maps is the web where you search for any world map for any part of the world. World Maps has tried to cover the world in various groupings, travel maps showing various destinations within a particular country; and many more map themes. Also you have the possibility to view the FLAGS of the world in our section "World Flags" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.251.244 (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacific-centric map

I added a thumbnail of a blank Pacific-centric map to the article. This Japanese map would be a better example, but unfortunately its license status is unclear. --Keith111 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization consistency

Which is it?

• Is it a World map and a map of the World?
• Or is it a world map and a map of the world?

Although the Earth is normally capitalized, the former nevertheless looks kind of funky to me. I'm inclined to think that the latter is correct: world government rather than World government - but I'm not 100% certain. Or maybe neither is wrong, like color versus colour. --Keith111 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style (look here and here) suggests that earth should be capitalized in an astronomical context, but doesn't specifically address world. --Keith111 (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Link spam

Esperanto41 has restored the following links, none of which meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for inclusion. I have deleted them again, and will continue to. These quotes are from External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and other guidelines on that page. Note also that Long lists of links are not acceptable.

• http://www.artlib.ru/index.php?id=11&idp=0&fp=2&uid=532&idg=0&user_serie=1667

This link may qualify, but not on the English edition of Wikipedia.

• http://www.atlapedia.com/online/mapresources.htm

This link is not information about world maps. It is just a commercial site offering a few low resolution world maps for free, plus some advertising. There are thousands of such sites. It fails WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE.

• http://www.genekeyes.com/CAHILL_GALLERY/Cahill_Gallery_Thumb_Index.html

Off topic. The site is about map projections, not world maps, and it is about only a tiny subset of map projections. For both reasons, it’s not relevant to an article about world maps. We cannot have links to sites dedicated to each different map projection for world maps; that would violate Long lists of links are not acceptable. The site is already linked to from more relevant articles.

• http://www.odtmaps.com/

This link is nothing but an advertisement for a commercial site. Strictly forbidden. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

• http://ancientworldmaps.blogspot.com/ Ancient World Maps

Blog not written by notable authority. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Strebe (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Esoteric Map Deleted?

My esoteric map was deleted, here is proof of its land formation. Why was it deleted but not the fisher price blob of a kids toy water map laurentia. That map looks like it would be pretty impossible. Sorry i live on earth not dream land.

Here is my map:

« deleted »

Here is proof of the geological formation from google earth:

« deleted »

Here is a close up of the formation of Antarctica

« deleted »

Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:NOTABLE. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In defense of worthwhile links

I grew up with the National Geographic whose motto speaks of the 'increase and diffusion of knowledge'. It is sad to see a mindset in Wikipedia which tends toward the decrease and restriction of knowledge: in this instance, worthwhile links being deleted in a manner contrary to spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia. I concurred with omitting the Times Atlas link, which was only advertising. But ODT, which is indeed a commercial site, specializes in unusual world maps that might not be seen elsewhere in one Internet locale. ODT deserves to stay. The Russian site captions are bilingual, with English, and need not be excluded on such a narrow criterion. (Even if it was all Cyrillic, there is such a thing as Google Translate. It is unseemly, on a "world" map page, to put up language fences.) And deleting the "ancientworldmaps" seems an especially egregious instance of elitism, using the phrase "notable authority" as a shibboleth. Is there a comparable website with a comparable set of such ancient world maps? If so, it should be linked. If not, let us keep this notable link. Esperanto41 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The deletions accord with both spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy as stated in WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. Links meeting those criteria are the only kinds of external links that may be included. None of the deleted links meets those criteria. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist so that editors don’t have to waste time on these sorts of subjective, irreconcilable, and therefore pointless debates.

In the case of links, one of the reasons for the policies is that a big pile of links is worse than useless: It dilutes and therefore obscures links to the material most relevant to the article.

The appeal for ODT’s link is particularly indefensible. It should be obvious there is no fair metric by which commercial sites could be allowed or prohibited.

The Russian site’s captions are in English but the maps themselves are in Russian. Google Translate does nothing to help that. Combined with the fact that it’s a blog site, it is not dedicated solely to world maps, and that there are hundreds of other sites that could claim inclusion on similar tenuous grounds, it just has no case for being included in the list of links.

Can we please not waste time on rubbish like “…worthwhile links being deleted in a manner contrary to spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia…” and “…using the phrase "notable authority" as a shibboleth.” This sort of sophistry is neither clever nor persuasive. It is only disingenuous. The deletions are exactly what Wikipedia intends by their guidelines, as is abundantly clear to anyone who reads them. I’ve used the phrase notable authority exactly as it was intended as is also abundantly clear from the same text: “…as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.” Minimum standard does not mean disregard this if you want, and always does not mean sometimes and in particular it does not mean only when it suits User:Esperanto41.

Strebe (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The question remains: what is so un-notable about the "ancientworldmaps" link? And is there a preferable page? We are not discussing a long list of links; this is a very short list. As for citing an "authority", it is well known that such a term is subject to endless abuse and elasticity, whether the field is jurisprudence, economics, or academe in general. I have my own complaints about the "ancientworldmaps" site -- its lack of source notes, and its black background -- but lack of notableness is not one of them. It provides large images of world maps from a large span of centuries. What's wrong with that? To call it "spam" is mis-use of the word, both as to the intent and content of such a page. Esperanto41 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and follow the link describing “Wikipedia's notability criteria for people”. You and I have no information about the “notability” of the ancientworldmaps site or the reliability of its content. It doesn’t matter how nice it looks. Alternatives are the academic institute collections already linked to. As for “long”, please read the guidlines on the same page, which specifically state the list of links should be SHORT. Particularly for an article the size and shallowness of this one, even what is left is too much. Strebe (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Clickable world map

User:Northamerica1000 keeps adding Template:Clickable world map to the top of the page. It already exists in the World_map#See_also section. Furthermore the map is broken in any number of ways depending on which browser you use. Nor is it a particularly useful piece of cartography. There is no consistency in type size and choice, making the map worse than useless in many cases. For example, Sahara shows in the same typeface, color, and size as names of nations. This insistence on injecting the link at the top of the page seems like a promotional effort for the map than like an effort to improve the article. Strebe (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sygad1's map

I have added a link to the external links section and it has been removed without any notification as to why it was considered inappropriate.

I have read the external links guidelines and believe I do not fall foul of those guidelines, I have asked for no money, no registration, no plugins and the page I created has no advertising, it is a genuine effort to offer free and useful tools to people like myself who design and build web pages that contain world maps, if this free giving of effort and information is not in the spirit of wikipedia then I am lost for words what the external links section is for if not to expand on the subject matter.

I am going to reinstate the link, please be polite enough to contact me if you choose to remove this link, I would like to know the reasoning.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sygad1 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please add a new section when adding a new topic on Talk pages.

Why I deleted your link:

• Your material does not contribute information to the article or provide any citations or fundamentally novel reference material; rather, it is a resource for people needing a graphical world map. Wikipedia is not a repository of of links, images, or media files. Wikimedia Commons is a more appropriate venue for your link.
• It is impossible to discern from your Web page what the license for use is.
• Your edit replaced, within minutes, some other link that appears to be spam or at best useless, so its intent and origin was confusing. (Useless because it was just a copy of the CIA Factbook map but stripped of outer boundary so that the projection became undiscernible and even misleading.)
• The maps you provide have some use for some people in the graphic design world, but they are not suited to cartographic work because they do not provide the graticule, do not give any information about the projection, have unknown provenance and accuracy, lack a boundary and polar regions, and are not equal-area and therefore are not suited to thematic mapping.

Strebe (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@Strebe,

Thankyou for taking the time to reply about the removal of my link.

I do however, wish to clarify and ask a few further questions if you have the time to help.

Point 1 I appreciate wikipedia is not a repository of links, this is why I specifically added my link to the external links section.

Point 2 I have no license in place for my content, could I bother you for some guidance on this issue, this is very new to me and I defer to your knowledge and experience.

Point 3 I apologise if I accidentally removed any functionality, I did indeed copy and edit a link.

Point 4 The other external links that have been accepted, I do not feel satisfy the conditions outlined in this point, the pan and zoom, is effectively a variation of what I have offered, in as much it is a web pages with map information, it shows only 1 polar region and I couldn't see any information regarding cartographic accuracy or license references, this is in essence, a map which can be zoomed and nothing else.

The World maps in PDF format link goes to page which doesn't even have a map on it, again, I could't see any reference to cartographic accuracy of license information.

Appreciating the spirit of "ignore all rules" mantra of wikipedia and having also believed I fulfilled the criteria for suitable inclusion in the external links section, might I ask you reconsider my inclusion back to this section.

When searching wikipedia for maps of the world, it is often people like me and my colleagues who are looking for a map that we can use in web pages, I have, I provided an additional level of value to this page by adding a free resource.

As you can see on my page, there is a wealth of information regarding maps, the Illustrator file has every country named on each layer, a file I have searched a considerable amount of time for and resorted to making my own, to which my only request is that I be allowed to share the fruits of my hard work.

I look forward to hearing from you and moving this topic forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sygad1 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It does not matter where in the article you had put the link. In fact External Links is the only place you could put it even if it contributed well to the article; external links are not allowable in the body of an article.
2. Please see this page. Pick the license that best expresses your intent.
3. You happened to have replaced a link that was not acceptable in any case.
4. Several other links are probably not acceptable either, but in any case the reason I have not deleted the interactive map, for example, is because it is a functioning web page, not a download for someone to build their own website.
5. Ignore all the rules means do what’s necessary to improve an article. It’s the question of “improvement” that is at issue here. The guidelines do not agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide links to Web-site creation resources.

Again, please see Wikimedia Commons. That is a much more appropriate venue for your material. The article World map is supposed to be an encyclopædia article about the practice and history of world mapping, not a repository of stuff related to world maps. It is a very poor article by Wikipedia standards. Adding links to non-scholarly stuff does not improve it. Strebe (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sygad, you might find that the digital cartography tutorials (mostly from Yug at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps) might be of interest. And (not having explored the link) you might find some place in map workshops or similar where access to your link would be more value.

The table above has links to various tutorials and resources which can help in the creation of Wikipedia maps from digital georeferenced data (GIS).

File:World Map 1689.JPG to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:World Map 1689.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on September 18, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-09-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A world map entitled Nova totius terrarum orbis tabula Amstelodami, created in 1689 by Gerard van Schagen. This map, created in Amsterdam, measures 48.3 by 56.0 centimetres (19.0 by 22.0 in) in size and was made using copper engraving.Map: Gerard van Schagen

Thanks for the notice, Crisco 1492. I am confused about this. I fixed the erroneous date in the blurb, but mostly I don’t understand why the image was added to this article. It’s a pretty image, but the article wasn’t supposed to be a collection of random map images. Antique map images are limitless. The one already in the article is of much greater historical importance. Should we be adding an image just because it is slated for Picture of the Day even if it doesn’t really contribute to the article’s purpose? Strebe (talk)

• I readded (this was in the article for a good while; check the history) the image only until the POTD has run. Otherwise, we'd have to try and create a blurb around another article this map is used in, either the cartographer (barely anything known about him) or history of world navigation (where the relevance is not clear); this is because pictures of the day must be in the article which is bolded. If you and/or the other main editors of this article disagree with a temporary usage of the map (i.e. until after the 18th), then I will structure the blurb around another article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that’s fine, and thanks for the information. If the image needs a host article, this is a reasonable fit. Strebe (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. No worries about removing after this article's been on the main page, if you so desire. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Formatting and content edits

Concerning these edits:

• The van Schagen map should not be the lede image; it is not a map of great historical importance. The Ortelius map is.
• The edits made to the Winkel tripel description are incoherent. It has nothing to do with Mollweide.
• The 249 px setting for the larger images is arbitrary.
• The “countries by skin color” map is not representative of any theme common in the literature and has problems in description and context.
• Moving the Ortelius map to the Historical Maps section resulted in orphaning the word “Anaximander” because of a faulty edit.

I have moved the Schagen map to Historical Maps for now, since it needs a home for awhile, and reverted most of the rest of the edits. Moving the Pacific-centric map to the Projections section is reasonable, but was also reasonable where it was in the Thematic section. Strebe (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am inclined to favor the Van Schagen map on this issue, because as the sectin above this one states, it was a featured image; both methods used the same map, it's inherently related, however, maybe to keep both separated is the best option, this is, moving the largest tumbnail back to the heading section so it looks less messy; the issue with the tumbnail size is absolutely trivial, and it's about how the images fit better without invading the space of other sections, that's all. as for the maps you removed, please explain what part you found particulary confusing so i can expand it or focus on it, bot just remove it. It also would be good if you explain which is the particular reason of the template being up, i don't see any problem with the sources currently in use. Czixhc (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Czixhc, you know very well that the consenus at RSN is that your skin colour map can't be verified by a reliable source[1]. You agreed to accept this consensus when your behaviour was raised at ANI[2]. I have removed your map from this article, please don't put it up again or I will be forced to reopen the ANI case. Tobus2 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tobus, you've clearly misunderstood and need to catch up with the resolution of the ANI discussion. First i already accepted my mystake and i'm not insisting on using it on migration topics [3], however as that same diff states, the map was found to be very situable for topics regarding cartography (for it's creator having multiple publications and installations on the field of cartography [4]). That was the conclusion of the discussion at ANI [5]. If i were trying to put it up on migration articles, then i would be breaking my own word, but this isn't the case, what i am doing here is to use it where it is completely situable and nothing else. I hope this is enough to clear up all your doubts. Have a nice day, all of you. Czixhc (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

replied at User_talk:Tobus2#This_time.2C_you_are_the_one_who_have_misunderstood_the_situation Tobus2 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the myriad problems already dealt with by the RSN discussion, there is the further problem of WP:UNDUE. This map is not a normal topic for thematic maps. It’s marginal and possibly unique. Placing it in the article takes space that properly belongs to maps that are more representative of the topic. Strebe (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And he's back at WP:RSN saying that the issue is whether Hagos is an expert on cartography and that Hagos's personal web page at Oxford Brookes which Hagos has written shows that his university considers him an expert in - I'm not sure what this time. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Czixhc's copy of the Hagos map is not RS for anything. Hagos himself makes it entirely clear that it is a work of art, not science (the 'data' has no cited source other than Hagos's imagination - and no credible scientist would publish data without citing sources, describing the methodology etc). As such, the map has no place in any Wikipedia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First image

Why an old, outdated, image is used as the first most important picture of the article? If you go to an article of a flag of a country for example, not an old and outdated flag is shown, (of course, because it's outdated). And so is this picture. Of course this picture should be used in the article for the history of the world map, but I don't think it's the best image reflecting world map. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ortelius map has greater historical significance than any other map on the page. The article is not about the present state of the world presented in map form. It is as about world maps as a topic. Strebe (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Collage of countries in their actual shapes and proportions

Include such "map" in the article - if there is such "map" at all. (Word 'map' in quotes because it would just be a collection of all the countries in their correct proportions, shapes and sizes (for comparison) on a blank surface roughly mimicking their relative positions as on standard rectangular maps - surely with huge gaps between countries - especially around very large countries such as Russia etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.100.27 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a cartogram. Strebe (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Day/night map

I used to have a screen saver (on a 1990s PC) of a map of the world (Mercator projection) which showed day and night and was updated every minute. I have also seen mechanical version of this but I can find no reference to this kind of map. Can anyone help with a name or reference for this type of map, please?

Such a map is called a “day/night terminator map”. You can find a bazillion hits on the Internet by searching on day-night map. Strebe (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Modern map

Maybe I have missed something, but is there a reason why there isn't any modern map with the name of the countries on it? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems I did miss something, it was hidden in the thematic section. I guess a map of 16th century is more relevant on the introduction of the article. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

World map URL from CIA's world factbook changed

The current one 404s, but this page is protected. New address is: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/maps/world-regional/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:910:103A:0:76D4:35FF:FE8D:C659 (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the link. There doesn’t seem to be the equivalent world map anymore. Strebe (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)