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 contents of the Wikipedia:Distribution maps page were merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Area maps. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Merge
[edit]I 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
[edit]Does 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
[edit]The 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)
