**It is a misunderstanding and i still support. When i posted this i was under the impression that this was for the Azawad page, since there is a link on the Azawad talk page that is a bit obscure in what it actually links to as there was some dispute about maps on the Azawad page as well. However there seems to be a standard in place where unrecognized states and disputed uncontrolled territories are shaded light green on the maps of states. Note the maps on the following pages follow the convention: Serbia, Cyprus, Moldova, Georgia, Peoples Republic of China, India, Morocco (though this is in red instead of green), Japan, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Pakistan, Argentina, Chile, . Some notable states with large territorial disputes that do not have maps that follow this convention are as Knowledgekid pointed out Somalia, Azerbajian, Venezuela, Suriname, Estonia, and Syria. Of these the maps are mixed in what they depict. Some maps like that of Azerbajian and Syria depict what is claimed, others like Venezuela and Suriname depict what is controlled. In most other states that have disputes but their map not depicting them, the area disputed is much to small to be shown on the map (as in the United States for instance). My view is that the policy on these maps needs to be brought to a single standard and that the light green shading for areas claimed but not in control of the central state is a good one that is already mostly in place and should be put in place here on the malian page as well. It should be noted that the vast majority of maps for countries pages where there are unrecognized states follow this convention (8 of 10 not including the Azadad case)