Shetland is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Shetland at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
In the section Shetland#History there is a map showing the Shetland islands in a box between two other land masses. I guess it's a topographical map. However, there is no labeling on the land masses to show someone who is not familiar with that geography what the land masses are, and no hint in the caption, either. One needs to click on the image and read the fine print in the image file to learn the names of the two land masses either side of the Shetland islands, but even that does not tell which is which. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the average reader trying to learn about the Shetland islands if there were a map with the nearby land masses clearly labeled? CorinneSD (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It is the GEOLOGICAL map. No GEOGRAPHIC map. This map was made for who want to know more about the geology of the Shetland. The geograpphic maps there are many.
I agree. An editor made an attempt to make the map more understandable by adding information to the caption, but I think a geographic map, with land masses labeled, and possibly also the north-south-east-west compass points indicated, would be better. If the topographic map (showing elevations) is also desirable, perhaps it can be included in the section on geology. CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There may well be something more useful on Commons but I don't think the current set up is too bad. You have a map at the top showing the archipelago in relation to Scotland, the geology map and then the topo map in the History section - where arguably this information is most relevant. If it were to remain there and have landmasses identified it would, in that context, ideally show the historical information rather than the present day. I would love to be able to create good quality maps but sadly I have not yet learned how to do that. BenMacDui 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Qexigator, I think the map you added is too similar to the map at the top of the page. There is no map in the article that has the neighboring land masses labeled (not just the seas). For readers who do not instantly recognize the shape of Scotland, the map at the top of the article does not help to locate the Shetland islands. CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
1_too similar, but it locates the places, which the others do not, so that helps the reader without resorting to the other articles; and I feel it can be retained as a useful part of the article.
Beschreibung: Ausschnittskarte der Shetlandinseln
2_readers who do not instantly recognize the shape of Scotland: but they can read the adjacent first sentence- "...the Shetland Islands, is a subarctic archipelago of Scotland that lies north-east of mainland Britain". Is that not clear enough for anyone? But it is strange that none of the available images (in English) include a label for Scotland or Britain. Perhaps it's not a real problem. This one in German would not be suitable. The open sea between German Bight and Scapa Flow!
User:Qexigator I understand your desire to have a map that indicates the towns and cities, but isn't there another map that doesn't have those big red and black dots? Those dots are so big that they are distracting. I've seen geographical maps (indicating towns and cities) that look a little more visually attractive. As for the other issue -- the other type of map -- I like the German map itself very much. It really locates the Shetland islands relative to the surrounding land masses. I wonder if there were a way to substitute English labels for the German labels, and if there were, whether we'd be allowed to use it. CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Could be, but it's a question of what is available, is it not, as well as what looks best on the page. Adapting the German image for use here goes beyond the user-skill limits of ... Qexigator (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Re "I think the map you added is too similar to the map at the top of the page." - I agree. I have moved it down to the Econs section where there is room and so that it is just above Transport, where various places indicated on it are mentioned. We are not (yet) blessed with a cornucopia of maps - but bear in mind that if someone wants to know where Scotland is they just have to click a link. BenMacDui 08:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this thread is slightly missing the point. The map in question is in the history section of the article, and its purpose is to enhance understanding of the Shetland's history - not to locate them. The map is that should locate the subject is the infobox map. With that in mind a few thoughts:
The infobox map - should be a locator - so this not this. In general, infobox maps are plain without labels (cf Sicily, Germany, Isle of Wight). More detailed maps throughout the article are good, and current setup is fine on that eg one in economy showing the towns, one in geography/geology showing geology etc.
The map in the history section is inadequate - it tells you nothing about Vikings. IMO most suitable map style would be a labelled, political map, of a given date. For example, File:Europe, 1700 - 1714.png and File:Europe 1812 map en.png show Europe at the start of 18th and 19th C. A sequence of maps (dated to eg c 700, 1000, 1300 and 1600) would be most valuable, as that can show the changes more effectively than a single image. If a single image is used, one showing Shetland as part of Norway (so c. 1000) would be most valuable.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The people at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop may be able to help if you can agree exactly what is needed: at least a list of dates, each with a list of which region should be which colour. Certes (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yogh generally shows or sounds as as "gy-," "g-" or "y-" e.g. Menzies-Mingus yett-gate. It's close, but hardly "almost identical" to "hj."
Also, if memory serves (Yeah, I know, it often doesn't.) the misapprehension of the Yogh as Zed happened early enough among English speakers to have influenced the current "Sh" pronunciation. Anmccaff (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to ask how the SH pronunciation came about. SH is a unique pronuciation of yogh, it seems. I'd be surprised if Z became SH, but I could be wrong. Also, SH is so late that maybe it's misleading to speak of it as a pronunciation of yogh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)