It would be great to have a map showing Southern Britain during the early Pleistocene, when south-east Britain was still joined to the European continent, showing the ancient coastlines and rivers overlaid on a modern outline map, so that the location of the recently discovered
Happisburgh footprints can be put in context. The type of map I have in mind is like that shown on the British Museum website
here, and should be fairly easy to create (but beyond my skills). I have been unable to find anything appropriate on Commons, but pleased let me know if such a map already exists there.
BabelStone (
talk)
15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s): Request taken. I've been reading about these footprints in the press and it's a shame that they will soon be destroyed by the sea. Lets immortalise them with a Wikipedia map.
► Philg88 ◄talk16:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
– That's absolutely perfect, and will really improve the article -- many thanks for creating such a great map so quickly (and also thanks for adding the new section to the article).
BabelStone (
talk)
12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hello, I really would like a better quality map of Turkey for these pictures. Also, if there's any way to improve the colors in the photographs that would be great. I would also like the map to be in uniform with one another. Basically, a general improvement in these maps would be great. Thanks so much!!!
Proudbolsahye (
talk)
06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If possible, please strengthen the contrasts at national borders. Until I viewed the map at 2000px resolution, I thought that San Marino had been omitted, because lower resolutions didn't display (at least that I could see) the border between San Marino and Italy. A change like this would presumably also make it a bit easier to see borders between larger countries. --
Nyttend (
talk)
13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):
This looks as if it shouldn't be difficult. But I'm not going to have time to do anything for the next few days. Maybe I'll have a look at it early next week. (This is not a claim that I'm working on it: I'm not.)
Maproom (
talk)
23:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Unlikely to be Tuesday, my schedule has slipped. If anyone else wants to take this on, I shall not be unhappy :-)
Done, but
I have not done this well. The borders are now not all equally thick, because I have failed to find how some of them are controlled. Also, some coastlines are now black and thick, though it would be better if they weren't. I could wish that the svg was more structured, and contained a few comments - I guess Inkscape is responsible. The file is over 10,000 lines long, with no easy way to find which frontier is controlled by which lines of svg.
Maproom (
talk)
23:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Now you can look
at a draft here. I used another base map so there might be some small differences. Give me feedback on it, thanks.
I don't think it's Inkscape fault. When you save as Plain svg this is what happendes. All layers are removed but what was in one layer is grouped together. Sometimes it's better to save it as Inkscape to keep the layers for the next who will work on the file. --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I did what the map provided showed, I have no detail knowledge on this. I go by the material I'm provided with. I have made some changes to it and you
look at a new draft here, maybe you have to relad the page to get the new image.
Goran tek-en Please retain all the names on the map. I would greatly appreciate that. Also, if you can find a more visible color for the burnt districts, I would greatly be appreciative of that as well. Do you think changing the colors would be better? If you don't, leave it as is. Thanks so much.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
It looks great! I wish I knew how to vectorise an image with such good results. What tools do you use? (Both cemeteries, to the north-west, have lost an "e".)
Maproom (
talk)
07:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for correcting my spelling, new version uploaded. I use Inkscape and it's all handmade. You can't use any tracing tool or things like that. I think it's more about being accurate and consistent in your work. --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
10:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
EtienneDolet I like when maps/illustrations are, to me harmonic and beautiful, and I think grey fits more in in the overall picture. Then on the other hand it has to work for it's purpose also so have a look at
this with black and tell me which you want? --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
10:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Goran tek-en I think with the black font it will be more legible. Which is I think most important. I do agree however that the grey creates more harmony. But to me I would like it to be black so that people can read it at first sight. If you can please upload the black fonts that would be great. Thanks so much.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I've been modifying the Neighborhoods of Boston article and would really appreciate an updated map of the neighborhoods based on the City of Boston's
current map. The gallery above has both the GIF used in the article and an SVG that appears to be the source for the GIF; I put both because I'm not sure which is easier to work with. The map in the article is missing Bay Village, West End, and Mid Dorchester; has Allston & Brighton as one combined neighborhood rather than two separate ones; and has mislabeled Fenway Kenmore as Fenway. Thanks in advance for your help!
Nadhika99 (
talk)
08:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Goran tek-en: That looks good! "North End" is misspelled though. Is it possible to remove the red lines? A reader who's not familiar with Boston might think those are the neighborhood boundaries and get confused by them. Here's the info you requested -
Name: Boston ONS Neighborhoods (it's a new file)
Description: Map depicting the neighborhoods of Boston as defined by the City of Boston's Office of Neighborhood Services
Category/ies: Maps of Boston; Maps of Neighborhoods; Neighborhoods in Boston
Comment: This is a potentially difficult task from an
NPOV aspect - according to the
Golan Heights article there are different definitions of what is included in the area. The map lab doesn't make decisions on matters like that - do you have a
consensus for the change? Best,
► Philg88 ◄talk21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
This is about political borders. The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel. There is a consensus about that, which the article and maps show.
Here is another map (BBC).
File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg is another one by CIA.
Closing per a request at WP:ANRFC. Consensus was that the different color, hatched version (i.e. File:Syria location map3.svg) should be used in light of events related to the occupation of this particular region of Syria. However, Huon's comments regarding context are worth careful consideration. Articles not closely related these events may not require a map version with a different color. It is, therefore, worthwhile to discuss usage of File:Syria location map3.svg on a case-by-case basis if there is any significant objection to its relevance on Syria-related articles. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: OK, that's good news. The bad news is that the
original source map from NASA has these lines and because it is in jpg format there is no way to remove them without making a mess of the map. Is there an alternative (unmarked) topographic map that you know of over which the borders from Syria location map3.svg can be overlaid? Best,
► Philg88 ◄talk12:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be possible to emphasize the lines on the original map as done before but using dotted lines on the Golan Heights and then overlay the missing ones? Then it wouldn't matter that the original lines are not removed because they are barely visible and are going to be overwritten. --
IRISZOOM (
talk)
20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Please see the draft image above. This is made using the borders of [Syria location map3.svg] shown above and the original topographic map from the NASA website. I have marked the Golan Heights but I'm not clear as to what the areas marked in blue, green and yellow on either side are - from some cursory research I think the blue one on the left is something to do with the UN and the other two on the right are something to do with Syria - you know the area better than I do so please advise. All other comments are, of course, welcome. Best,
► Philg88 ◄talk22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I am wondering about those boxes with colours. Are they just temporary? Otherwise the map looks weird. And could you use black instead of red?
File:GolanHistoricalBorders.svg is a good map for that. However, no description is needed here, just the lines. Dotted lines (space between) would be ideal. The ones for the West Bank and Gaza Strip too. But the important thing is too not show occupied territorries as a part of the occupying country so the current version is good.
You are confusing me now, do you want a map without lines since you say that
File:MiddleEast A2003031 0820 250m without lines.jpg is great? The map I made is a draft - the boxes with the colours are temporary and so are the red lines for the borders - they are so you know what I mean when I ask questions. Please confirm whether you want to keep the demilitarised zone and the cease fire lines around the Golan Heights - if they are not labelled or referenced in a legend it is going to confuse people as to what they are - It may be best to delete them altogether.
► Philg88 ◄talk08:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I am saying that it was great to find this one but one with borders gives another alternative.
It would be great to have a map showing Southern Britain during the early Pleistocene, when south-east Britain was still joined to the European continent, showing the ancient coastlines and rivers overlaid on a modern outline map, so that the location of the recently discovered
Happisburgh footprints can be put in context. The type of map I have in mind is like that shown on the British Museum website
here, and should be fairly easy to create (but beyond my skills). I have been unable to find anything appropriate on Commons, but pleased let me know if such a map already exists there.
BabelStone (
talk)
15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s): Request taken. I've been reading about these footprints in the press and it's a shame that they will soon be destroyed by the sea. Lets immortalise them with a Wikipedia map.
► Philg88 ◄talk16:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
– That's absolutely perfect, and will really improve the article -- many thanks for creating such a great map so quickly (and also thanks for adding the new section to the article).
BabelStone (
talk)
12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Hello, I really would like a better quality map of Turkey for these pictures. Also, if there's any way to improve the colors in the photographs that would be great. I would also like the map to be in uniform with one another. Basically, a general improvement in these maps would be great. Thanks so much!!!
Proudbolsahye (
talk)
06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If possible, please strengthen the contrasts at national borders. Until I viewed the map at 2000px resolution, I thought that San Marino had been omitted, because lower resolutions didn't display (at least that I could see) the border between San Marino and Italy. A change like this would presumably also make it a bit easier to see borders between larger countries. --
Nyttend (
talk)
13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):
This looks as if it shouldn't be difficult. But I'm not going to have time to do anything for the next few days. Maybe I'll have a look at it early next week. (This is not a claim that I'm working on it: I'm not.)
Maproom (
talk)
23:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Unlikely to be Tuesday, my schedule has slipped. If anyone else wants to take this on, I shall not be unhappy :-)
Done, but
I have not done this well. The borders are now not all equally thick, because I have failed to find how some of them are controlled. Also, some coastlines are now black and thick, though it would be better if they weren't. I could wish that the svg was more structured, and contained a few comments - I guess Inkscape is responsible. The file is over 10,000 lines long, with no easy way to find which frontier is controlled by which lines of svg.
Maproom (
talk)
23:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Now you can look
at a draft here. I used another base map so there might be some small differences. Give me feedback on it, thanks.
I don't think it's Inkscape fault. When you save as Plain svg this is what happendes. All layers are removed but what was in one layer is grouped together. Sometimes it's better to save it as Inkscape to keep the layers for the next who will work on the file. --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I did what the map provided showed, I have no detail knowledge on this. I go by the material I'm provided with. I have made some changes to it and you
look at a new draft here, maybe you have to relad the page to get the new image.
Goran tek-en Please retain all the names on the map. I would greatly appreciate that. Also, if you can find a more visible color for the burnt districts, I would greatly be appreciative of that as well. Do you think changing the colors would be better? If you don't, leave it as is. Thanks so much.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
It looks great! I wish I knew how to vectorise an image with such good results. What tools do you use? (Both cemeteries, to the north-west, have lost an "e".)
Maproom (
talk)
07:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for correcting my spelling, new version uploaded. I use Inkscape and it's all handmade. You can't use any tracing tool or things like that. I think it's more about being accurate and consistent in your work. --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
10:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
EtienneDolet I like when maps/illustrations are, to me harmonic and beautiful, and I think grey fits more in in the overall picture. Then on the other hand it has to work for it's purpose also so have a look at
this with black and tell me which you want? --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
10:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Goran tek-en I think with the black font it will be more legible. Which is I think most important. I do agree however that the grey creates more harmony. But to me I would like it to be black so that people can read it at first sight. If you can please upload the black fonts that would be great. Thanks so much.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I've been modifying the Neighborhoods of Boston article and would really appreciate an updated map of the neighborhoods based on the City of Boston's
current map. The gallery above has both the GIF used in the article and an SVG that appears to be the source for the GIF; I put both because I'm not sure which is easier to work with. The map in the article is missing Bay Village, West End, and Mid Dorchester; has Allston & Brighton as one combined neighborhood rather than two separate ones; and has mislabeled Fenway Kenmore as Fenway. Thanks in advance for your help!
Nadhika99 (
talk)
08:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Goran tek-en: That looks good! "North End" is misspelled though. Is it possible to remove the red lines? A reader who's not familiar with Boston might think those are the neighborhood boundaries and get confused by them. Here's the info you requested -
Name: Boston ONS Neighborhoods (it's a new file)
Description: Map depicting the neighborhoods of Boston as defined by the City of Boston's Office of Neighborhood Services
Category/ies: Maps of Boston; Maps of Neighborhoods; Neighborhoods in Boston
Comment: This is a potentially difficult task from an
NPOV aspect - according to the
Golan Heights article there are different definitions of what is included in the area. The map lab doesn't make decisions on matters like that - do you have a
consensus for the change? Best,
► Philg88 ◄talk21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
This is about political borders. The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel. There is a consensus about that, which the article and maps show.
Here is another map (BBC).
File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg is another one by CIA.
Closing per a request at WP:ANRFC. Consensus was that the different color, hatched version (i.e. File:Syria location map3.svg) should be used in light of events related to the occupation of this particular region of Syria. However, Huon's comments regarding context are worth careful consideration. Articles not closely related these events may not require a map version with a different color. It is, therefore, worthwhile to discuss usage of File:Syria location map3.svg on a case-by-case basis if there is any significant objection to its relevance on Syria-related articles. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: OK, that's good news. The bad news is that the
original source map from NASA has these lines and because it is in jpg format there is no way to remove them without making a mess of the map. Is there an alternative (unmarked) topographic map that you know of over which the borders from Syria location map3.svg can be overlaid? Best,
► Philg88 ◄talk12:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be possible to emphasize the lines on the original map as done before but using dotted lines on the Golan Heights and then overlay the missing ones? Then it wouldn't matter that the original lines are not removed because they are barely visible and are going to be overwritten. --
IRISZOOM (
talk)
20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Please see the draft image above. This is made using the borders of [Syria location map3.svg] shown above and the original topographic map from the NASA website. I have marked the Golan Heights but I'm not clear as to what the areas marked in blue, green and yellow on either side are - from some cursory research I think the blue one on the left is something to do with the UN and the other two on the right are something to do with Syria - you know the area better than I do so please advise. All other comments are, of course, welcome. Best,
► Philg88 ◄talk22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I am wondering about those boxes with colours. Are they just temporary? Otherwise the map looks weird. And could you use black instead of red?
File:GolanHistoricalBorders.svg is a good map for that. However, no description is needed here, just the lines. Dotted lines (space between) would be ideal. The ones for the West Bank and Gaza Strip too. But the important thing is too not show occupied territorries as a part of the occupying country so the current version is good.
You are confusing me now, do you want a map without lines since you say that
File:MiddleEast A2003031 0820 250m without lines.jpg is great? The map I made is a draft - the boxes with the colours are temporary and so are the red lines for the borders - they are so you know what I mean when I ask questions. Please confirm whether you want to keep the demilitarised zone and the cease fire lines around the Golan Heights - if they are not labelled or referenced in a legend it is going to confuse people as to what they are - It may be best to delete them altogether.
► Philg88 ◄talk08:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I am saying that it was great to find this one but one with borders gives another alternative.