Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Area maps
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The content of Wikipedia:Distribution maps was merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Area maps. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that ___location, see its talk page. |
Merge
editI concur that Wikipedia:Distribution maps should be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Area maps. The merge proposal has been up for four years now; it's time to do something. If there are no objections I'll merge them. JamesDouch (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merged. JamesDouch (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Distribution map illustrator
editDoes anyone know of a contributor who specialises in illustrating distribution maps of species, or produces them on request? I can create my own, but I'm under the impression there's a shortage of this, in contrast to other areas such as prehistoric animal illustration. JamesDouch (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
4 colors
editThe choice of four colors for 4-color maps seems weird. Can I see an example of this color scheme actually used somewhere? Hellerick (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- This color set have never been implemented, it was a proposal to improve, but never get improved. Yug (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, user:Hellerick is right and I've been thinking about this for a year or two. Time to push forward. I wiped out the unused colors, and pushed forward something more relevant, backed up by academic expertise in the field of color theory and accessibility. This should be good for now. A color-blindness check may be need in the futur to tinker the relative darkness of the various colors, but I can't do more right now. Yug (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Uhm, aren't those colors are too dark? I guess the colors are supposed to be used for backgrounds, so that a black or a blue (for links) text would look okay upon it. I thought rather about something like this. Hellerick (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you apparently meant them to be used with 40% opacity. I'll see how good they can be. Hellerick (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think 40% -already frequently used and giving elegant results- would be a good choice to encourage. Could be used at opacity:100%, that also give some nice striking maps, but then it will be excessive and words may have difficulties to show up. Would need further tests, but 40% (light), 70% (strong), and 20% (very light) may create a good set. Yug (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- The 20/40/70% toolkit would also be nice for historical maps, since it match the "Leading power / submitted allies / friendly allies powers", which is a frequently found pattern for wars and alliances. Yug (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, user:Hellerick is right and I've been thinking about this for a year or two. Time to push forward. I wiped out the unused colors, and pushed forward something more relevant, backed up by academic expertise in the field of color theory and accessibility. This should be good for now. A color-blindness check may be need in the futur to tinker the relative darkness of the various colors, but I can't do more right now. Yug (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
