Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps/Archive1

Discussion from "Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Thai provinces"
I'd like to have the maps on WP to be more standardized. As all countries have a standard location map, and the provinces of Vietnam use the same colors as in the country maps, I did create a new template for the Thai province locator maps. I'd like to hear of comments which one would be the preferred one. For comparison see the following two:



andy 19:02, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Andy, Of the two samples, I prefer the second, but I haven't inspected it in several browsers. You might take a look at the maps on the Maryland article, which are representative of the U.S. States maps. I'll also warn you that your two-tone bronze maps might be a problem to some forms of color blindness. That's why the U.S. locator map is clear, with only one color.

P.S. Thai provinces is making excellent contributions to Wikipedia, Thanks. Lou I 17:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no particular preference with the colours. When I made the Vietnam maps, I just used the same colours as I used for the country locator maps (the ones in the sidebar of each country article). I think I took those colours from a pre-existing locator map for the USA. Either colour is fine, from my perspective, although some sort of standard would be nice. However, if you use the grey one, maybe the image should be "sharpened" - the white lines tend to come out blurred, otherwise. I generally have to sharpen the Vietnam maps. As a brief experiment:



-- Vardion 01:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Too many formats
Standardization would be a big problem as we already have a lot of formats. Most of the locator maps were created by Ahoerstemeier (Brazil, Germany, China [PRC], Mexico, etc.). I myself have my own two formats. Here are a sampling of various locator maps and these are just the ones I've seen. There are probably lots of others.

All of these maps except mine are similar in that they are label-less. I prefer labelled ones (at the expense of internationalization) because they're more informative. In the future, there should be automatically-generated maps with labels, but right now, I make my maps labelled.

--seav 07:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some standardization of maps would be great. Automatically-generated ones have been discussed but the consensus a few months back seemed to me that implementing them is probably a long way off.

The maps I've contributed have mostly been for showing location only, hence the otherwise boring color scheme and bright red highlight (since it's very visible). For maps showing more than just a country/province/county location, I think something more subdued would be good - I like the samples of Morwen's maps below. It'd be nice if we could come up with a wiki-standard color set for maps, and encourage map-makers to stick to specific colors for specific purposes.

My broad preference would be this: black for primary outlines of territories - country borders if a country map is shown, state borders if the map is for a single state, etc.; a grey or other lighter color for secondary outlines such as provinces or counties; a neutral color for surrounding territories that are not of immediate interest (such as the grey Canada and Mexico in my maps, and the grey surrounding areas in Andy's first map above - showing surrounding territory I think gives a better sense of context than showing the map against a sea of white - I broke this rule with my maps of U.S. counties, to keep the maps relatively small and because context with other states was not that important, though on reflection they probably should have had that context); a pastel shade of blue for water (any of the chosen water colors used so far would be good).

Another color scheme that isn't really used at all right now is the one used in the Texas mockup that never really received acceptance (specifically, the yellow state map showing the capital) Again, it would probably be better with neighboring territories shown, and might also benefit from the addition of rivers, lakes, etc.)

As for labels, I do think that some labelling is good to have in most cases. There are situations where it would just be redundant (such as the aforementioned U.S. county maps). Where labeling is used, though, I think we should strongly encourage map authors to upload a non-labelled version, so anyone interested in reusing the map for non-English versions can more easily do so.

Should we make a WikiProject out of this? At the very least it'd be helpful to provide some coloring and labelling guidelines to those interested in making maps. -- Wapcaplet 17:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, you'd have my full support to create a general project "Country Subdivision", or alternatively a project "Map making". I am not happy with the current coloring chaos, but of course a wildly colored map is better than no map, but an attempt to unify should come soon or it'd be too much work to convert it all into the accepted scheme. These maps are also not limited to country subdivisions - for example once I find a good source with the boundaries of the National Parks I plan to use the base map to create a locator for the park. Or for the many lifeforms a map showing the distribution geographically would be nice - so far we have just two such maps, including one I made as a test for Fire Salamander. andy 18:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have created WikiProject Maps. Please check it out! Discussion about coloring and styles has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. -- Wapcaplet 19:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Texas, US
by Wapcaplet

Amazonas, Brazil
by Ahoerstemeier



Hiroshima, Japan
by Synthetik (same style as Ahoerstemeier's)



Rizal, Philippines
by seav



Cainta, Rizal, Philippines
by seav



East of England (England, UK)
by Morwen



Ontario, Canada
by User:Montrealais, modified by Wapcaplet



Basse-Normandie (France)
by Snoyes



Calvados (France)
by Snoyes



Covasna, Romania
by Bogdangiusca


 * The different colouring of Moldova here is inappropriate. --Wik 18:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that Moldava (and even Ukraine) should have the same color as Bulgaria and Hungary. I actually like the colors here as it is subtle. --seav 20:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Queensland, Australia
by User:Tim Starling



Aceh, Indonesia
by Morwen



Northwest province, South Africa
by Morwen



Andhra Pradesh, India
by Kaysov
 * This one should show all the boundaries. --Wik 18:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Caprivi, Namibia
by Snoyes


 * This style should be the standard. It's already the most prevalent. --Wik 18:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. First, the shades of green are too similar. The highlighted area color should be contrasting. Second, I prefer that there should be surrounding context (seas, adjacent land territories) rather than a sea of white (such as the one done on Aceh, Indonesia; Covasna, Romania; Texas, US; and Cainta, Rizal, Philippines. --seav 20:34, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you take the 150 german districts into account? Those use the yellow-brown colorization as well. And I don't think we should define the standard just by what is now most common - we should define it by what looks best to the majority, has no problems for color-blind people, can display the information most clearly. Of course the work to change existing maps should be considerated - but as long as it is just changing colors it is IMHO not the main factor. (and after the edit conflict) And as Seav said the sorrounding territories are also nice, unless it is a complete island country. andy 20:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)