Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Valley of Mexico c. 1519

Valley of Mexico on the eve of the Spanish conquest of Mexico


I am self-nominating this map as a featured picture of the day. This is a high-quality map, in relatively high resolution, that shows the major towns listed in the Aztec article, along with the outline of the five ancient lakes that formerly existed within the Valley.

Additional information includes the brackish/fresh water composition of the lakes, the chinampa beds (critical for an Aztec article), and the causeways constructed by the indigenous inhabitants. And all this is presented in a non-cluttered, easy-to-interpret, easy-on-the-eyes map that can actually be understood within the article itself (i.e. without having to click on the map &/or haul out the magnifying glass).

P.S. The colors are taken from the WikiProject Maps list of suggested colors..


 * Nominate and support. - Madman 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It's almost too simple to illustrate the concept (I don't mind clicking on a picture to see it full-sized), and I'd like to see more of where it's located i.e. surrounding areas/borders. Otherwise it's a nice size and not too complicated. -- Tewy  01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Dschwen (below) brings up a good point I didn't notice before about the PNG/SVG problem. I would much prefer the image be in SVG. -- Tewy  02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Uploading a pic like this as png is a waste of time. Sorry for the blunt words, but I'm starting to get rather annoyed by the ignorance toward SVG. update so that my vote doen't seem to be based on only the fileformat: looking at the map in full size it looks very blocky. I suspect it was drawn at even lower res and only upscaled before adding the text. --Dschwen 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the criteria says nothing about the SVG JPG PNG format, but it does say something about not flaming the newbies. Jeez, guys, gimme a break. Madman 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my comment was offending. I'm pretty sure the main reason SVG is preferred is because you can make larger prints without pixelating the image. That's also a reason for the size requirements. And if partially basing my vote on the file type of the image isn't a valid reason, I'll gladly change my vote back to the original weak support. -- Tewy 
 * Thanks, Tewy. I am just not a format guru.  I think I've only ever uploaded one photo to Wikipedia, and that was JPG, which (AFAIK) is the typical Internet format.  Most of my uploads have been copies of 400 year old codices and the like, which are almost always JPG as well.  This map was saved as a PNG 'cause a coworker said that it scaled better than JPG.  I guess I'll have to look up SVG.  Thanks, Madman 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JPEG should only be used for photographs and other images with smooth color gradients. It's not the "typical Internet format". —Keenan Pepper 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * relatively high resolution is always lower than the infinite resolution you'll get with SVG, a vectoe based format. Madman, which program did you use to create the map? You might want to check out Inkscape. Another stron point for SVG are easy translations. There are Wikipedias in who knows how many languages. An SVG file can be loaded into a text editor and all strings can be replaced. This has all been said many times before, so sorry, but it gets really frustrating when people are on a weekly basis presenting drawings as PNG or worse JPG files. Anyways let's just put it in the FPS rules as well. Although I believe there already is an official policy page smoewhere... --Dschwen 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. I'd support an SVG version. —Keenan Pepper 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If SVG format is to be preferred in such cases, then the instructional procedures definitely need to give explicit indication of this, or at least point to some place where such a consensus was arrived at. There's nary a mention here or at WP:WIAFP or its talk page; there is a mention at WP:IUP but that is not linked to from here. Re the map/image itself, I think it's very well executed, but have a couple of suggestions. Firstly the map's focus is more on the lake itself rather than the entire valley, so the map's title could perhaps reflect this. Secondly there are some other localities in the region which could also be indicated. A third minor point, the legend boxes (for marshland and chinampas) should have the same background (A "North" pointer wouldn't go astray either, even if it is implied).--cjllw | TALK  08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they do not definitely need to give explicit indication of this! This is not something particular about FPC nor is it anything to debate about! It is a simple technical fact that SVG is the superior format for vector and line drawings. Full stop. And it is stated in the image upload instructions. --Dschwen 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Uploading Instructions cited state what the "preferred" format is. However, I just looked thru the 3 programs I used to create this map and none of them support SVG.  I really don't understand why this is such a big deal and why it engenders such emotion.


 * In any case, CJLL has been kind enough to transform the present map into SVG here. and I'm sure that I can find someone somewhere to transform the final PNG file once I implement some of the changes suggested.


 * And speaking of that, I would like to respond to CJLL's suggestions:
 * Yes, the visual focus is more on the lakes and I originally named the file Lake Texcoco, but I was thinking that most casual readers would understand "Valley of Mexico" better than "Lake Texcoco". Titles such as "Ancient Lake System of the Valley of Mexico" or "Aztec Environs" seemed too much.  I am definitely open to suggestions.
 * (This addresses Tewy's suggestion as well) I considered adding other important locales of the period, but I did want to limit the locales to those listed in the Aztec article (since this map was made just for the Aztec article and, too often in Wikipedia IMO, the maps are rather disconnected from the articles themselves). I see that Chapultepec is mentioned in the article, so I could/should add that to the next release.
 * You are correct here, the backgrounds of those two Legend boxes are different. Good catch.  And I can add a North arrow too.
 * Anyone else have any suggestions?? Madman 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "Lake Texcoco - Valley of Mexico (c.1519)", though this might be a bit much to fit into the map's title panel. It's just that for a map entitled "Valley of Mexico" It'd be good to have some indication of the terrain (as well as showing a larger area as the valley itself extends further than shown), whereas all non-settlement features indicated here are for the lake system.
 * As for the towns, without crowding it too much you could add also Coyoacan, Tlatelolco, Ayotzingo, and Atzacoalco; I think also that Teotihuacan should somehow be indicated differently, as by this period it had long been primarily a ceremonial rather than fully residential centre.
 * As for the format preferences, making mention here of what these may be is not to debate the point, but to clarify. Perhaps one of the main reasons that "people are on a weekly basis presenting drawings as PNG" is the lack of such a guideline here, whatever the upload instructions say. If appropriateness of file format is a criterion by which nominations are considered and judged, then it would seem reasonable to say so outright, just like for any other criteria.--cjllw | TALK  00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets make this more constructive. Which program have you been using to create the map? Which 3 programs did you try to generate SVG. Your I'm sure that I can find someone somewhere to transform the final PNG shows some confusion. The PNG->SVG conversion is a non trivial step, involving an insane amount of manual work. Work that can be avoided if you work with a vector based drawing program like Inkscape from the start. Please understand that the difference between a PNG file and an SVG file is very fundamental. PNG means lots of pixels, SVG means lines,circles,text etc. --Dschwen 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just interested in creating nice, useful, pretty maps and not into the finer points of formats or into heavy graphics software. My software is MS Paint, MS Picture-it, and the Lexmark photo editor.  I'm almost embarrased to admit how low-tech this is.  And I'm tickled if you'd thought I used something more high-powered.  I now understand the advantages of SVG and I'll look into Inkscape when I draw my next map.  So, enough about formatting.  I'll get an SVG if that's what's necessary.  Over and out, Madman 04:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions, and welcome to wikistress! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-09 15:23


 * Support either this or the SVG version if it is uploaded. It currently meets the resolution requirements; easy translation, though nice, is really only necessary for Commons FP. This is the English project. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-09 15:24


 * Oppose confusing more than anything else. EamonnPKeane 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to elaborate please which aspects of the image you find confusing? It would be difficult to address your concern without further information. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose i don't see anything particularly special about this map--Vircabutar 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I found the map provides a good look not available form other sources. Nanahuatzin 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment maybe so, but is the map so amazingly encyclopedic or beautiful that it's worth to be a FP. I mean there are thousands of maps in wikipedia; why is this one so special?
 * Question -- Who actually counts the votes here?  I see that User:Joniscool98 posted the "not promoted" message below.  Does he make the final "thumbs up/thumbs down" determination??  Curiously yours, Madman 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mikeo 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)