Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Diagrams and maps

Map legend

This page has a legend which I have used for my own maps (both uploaded to Wikipedia and elsewhere) and is compiled from other maps I have found on Wikipedia. It may be helpful.

Wikiproject Chemistry

Wikiproject Chemistry has a style guide for drawing atomic structures which can be found here. Just thought this might be relevant and/or useful. Best, shoy (^words _words) 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language-free diagrams

Secondary to making good maps and diagrams for english-language Wikipedia, one should consider whether the same image can be useful in non-english versions. Europeans, for example, are well acustomed to pictographic road signs without text. A diagram without text can be placed in a "thumb" box with explanatory text below which allows straightforward translation; in contrast a diagram containing text cannot be translated without redrawing work.Cuddlyable3 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal

I was asked to have a look at this and I would like to add some points I think that are important:

Illustrative vs informative

When talking about images in the articles they can be divided in 2 main groups, each group responds to different needs and I think should have different rules to apply to it.

Illustrativeimages are complementary to the article without offering more details to it. They respond to specific parts of the text and usually can not "stand alone" meaning they are not informative without an explanation. Good examples from this are pictures of characters, animals or objects, historical images, and so on.

Informative images are more complex images that try to add information or detail to that which is offered in the article, this includes maps and diagrams, where many of them are able to "stand alone".

I believe this difference is important because there are rules that apply to one and might not necessarily apply to the other.

Small vs detailed

Illustrative images should be seen together with the article, there for they should be planed to be shown with a size between 150 and 300 pixels wide. Of course this doesn't mean the file should be this small, but the image composition and contrast should be enough to be understood at this size. Informative images on the other hand can hardly be really useful in this size and usually end being thumbs (click to see), still the image should be clear enough to give a hint of its content at this size.

Titles and empty space

A good diagram should be done without the title included in the image, the title is given in the article and also in the image name so having the title in the image isn't necessary. The same goes for big areas of empty, not informative space, both inside and around the image.

Text and labels

This is a big discussion I have with many people here. I personally prefer diagrams that are labeled. SVG is a great format that allows translation at any time, and having labels allows the image to stand alone. Otherwise the "user" would have to be going back and forward between the article and the diagram, and if the diagram is a "thumb" that means to be moving between windows in the computer.

Still independently whether it is a numbered (language neutral) or labeled diagram there are important points to make. All text should have the same font, the more different fonts a diagram has the less homogenous it is. The same goes for sizes, changes in sizes should have a meaning either ranking in importance or difference between two layers of terms. Text should be big enough to be read in full screen without problems, and it shouldn't be so big that it "covers" important information of the diagram. When placing text above the diagram the contrast of both colors should be taken in count. The lines of the diagram shouldn't affect in reading the words.

Maps' scale

Maps should have a graphic scale {like this one} it is not only simple to read but it is also the only kind of scale that remains true and can work with the different scaling of a computer. All other scale methods are useless for the propose of Wikipedia since they have more to do with printed media.

Well that is what I would add so far, still I will give it a thought and see whether something else is needed , you can beside about it-LadyofHats (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spell checked and made minor corrections to this section to improve readability. These suggestions are great and should prove very helpful. :) vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Lady of Hats. I completely agree. MapMaster (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) (refactored from Text and labels)[reply]

LadyofHats you state your personal preference for having text on diagrams based on wanting the image to stand alone, in that case alone in english language Wikipedia. I wonder how you view the points I made above under Language-free diagrams. Making extra translated versions of diagrams is more not less work than simply translating text. Translating text on diagrams can only be done by those equipped with an image editor for making a new file whereas "anyone" can edit text in articles and thumbnails. Problems arise on diagrams when the length of a text changes on translation whereas that problem is nonexistent with pure text. The SVG format does not eliminate these problems and nor is it a suitable format for every diagram. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (refactored from Text and labels)[reply]

Thumb images seem to be problematic for you but I don't see why. It is easy to translate the text under a thumb image by typing in the normal Wikipedia edit window, and I cannot see how using instead an image editor for this is any easier; one will always be moving between windows in the computer. Thumbs are often (but don't have to be) used to reduce the displayed size of images, which reduces legibility of any text that is embedded in the image. I agree that text should be big enough to read without problems. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (refactored from Text and labels)[reply]

Cuddlyable3, I cannot see how the the map on the right could work without labels within the map itself. To me, they are essential for understanding.

Yes, it is more work to translate text within a map, but it is not all that difficult. Inkscape is free and relatively easy to use. Let's not compromise our work because we work in a multi-language environment. MapMaster (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my take that while not necessary in thumbnails, all maps should include a legend/key if anything is not readily understandable when just looking at that file by itself. Simply put, if the images are going to have value outside of the article context, then an explanation is necessary so that an image viewer can understand what the map is trying to communicate.

I realize this may create problems related to the issue of "language-free" so it seems maybe there needs to be a higher level discussion on what is more important - an image which is completely understandable by itself so people can use it contexts outside of encyclopedia or creating maps that can be universally (ignoring language). In my mind, and I look at probably a hundred maps a week, if the image doesn't tell me all I need to know, then it's almost useless.

Here's a new take on "language-free" -- how should I map the river that separates Texas from Mexico? In the English speaking world it is called the "Rio Grande" but in Mexico and some other Spanish speaking areas it's called "Rio Bravo" (and I have Mexican maps that document this fact)? I would argue the best solution is create a map with both labels on it. Otherwise I guess I'm going to have to create two files with no text on them but one with the English label, the other Spanish. And if the map matters that much to Japanese WikiUsers, then I figure they will draw their own map or update the English map by replacing the Latin characters with Kana labels.

Needless to say, this is something I care a great deal about seeing added to the Manual of Style for Maps. Additionally, I would love to be able to tag image files for lacking a legend/key to ask cartographers to add this in the next update. Xianjiro (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that graphs in particular should have their units labeled. Also, I think a representation should be chosen where the units/parameters are mapped to an axis (either x, y and/or z in the cartesian coordinate system; or, something else in another coordinate system). SharkD (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

I've just restructured the whole thing to be less redundant. It cannot be simultaneously structured by categorical topic (fonts, formats, etc.) and by a diagram vs. map divide; needs one or the other. I tried it by that divide in a draft, and the amount of redundancy was even worse, so I went with by categorical topic, discussing generalities first, diagram-specific points second, and map-specific points third. I think this will work best, and will be scalable and stable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Moot

Page needs to move to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (diagrams and maps), per MOS subpage conventions (cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), etc.) After the move, a number of shortcuts will need to be updated to not double-redir (see "what links here" from both the project and talk page after the move). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind this, of course. We instead settled on a "/" instead of "(...)" convention for all MoS-related pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Inactdis}} ({{Historical}}) tag?

It appears this project page was tagged with the {{Inactdis}} tag some time ago, implying that the discussion was inactive and that no consensus regarding its content had been reached or seemed likely to be reached. Yet as I read the page and go over the talk page, I do not get this sense. Moreover, it seems clear to me that Wikipedia should (really, really should) have at least a basic set of guidelines that people can follow in creating maps and diagrams. I can't believe that no consensus on such a thing could be reached or seemed reachable. Is this true?? How come an explanation of same is nowhere to be seen here on the talk page? Where can I go for more information with regard to guidelines for creating maps and diagrams? Thanks. KDS4444^Talk 01:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish hi. Do you know what happened to this MOS page? I don't see any discussion in this talk page backing the tag of historical, inactive, or lack of consensus. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb and Yug: Thinker78 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: I can find no discussion of this in the WT:MOS archives, nor at Village Pump. Digging around in page history, I see that it was totally inactive for many years, but getting back into the active period, it originally had {{Proposal}} on it [1]. It was common in that era to just name pages part of the MoS then develop and WP:PROPOSAL them later (or sometimes even just declare them guidelines without a proposal; things were faster and looser in the 2000s). As something of a noob, I ended up putting what is now {{Failed proposal}} (then vaguely named {{No-consensus}}) on it [2], with the edit summary 'Pretty obvious that this has stalled. There is "fix me" language in this that I wrote myself more than 3 months ago.' That was very impatient of me, and that was also the wrong tag, and it should have been {{Historical}}, or just left alone. The {{Draft proposal}} tag did not then exist (I ended up creating it several months later the same year, but did not think to apply it here). I continued to at least minorly work on the content anyway; someone else also edited it, aside from brief vandalism. Kaldari sensibly put it back to later the same year (2008) [3]. In early 2009, MBisanz also arguably reasonably changed that to what is now {{Historical}} (then weirdly named {{Inactdis}}) [4]. More tweaking was done through 2011, but development pretty much ceased after that.

So, what's happened here is some folks developed a page, discussion and development went stale, and no one did the WP:PROPOSAL process in any form. I would agree that us having some guidance on this would be good, but this material is mostly very old, so it likely needs revision. I would suggest working it over, then proposing that it be made a {{Guideline}} at WP:VPPOL with notice at WP:VPPRO, WT:MOS, WT:MAPS, WT:WPMAPS, WT:OSM, WT:GRAPHS, WT:HCGWA, WT:GL, WT:BARCHART, WT:MOSIMAGES, WT:IMAGES, Help talk:Pictures, and WT:GRT, maybe some others. Any/all of those (aside from the two Village Pump pages, but try also WP:VPIL) would be good places to ask for help/input on working up the draft's contents. Material from Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions possibly should be worked into this (with caution; wikiproject style advice is just an essay and does not always reflect community consensus, and is sometimes even staler than this draft). Also get input from WT:MOSACCESS, on ensuring that key information is not "hidden" from sight-impaired users by being only available in a graphic (at least the bare gist needs to also be in the prose). An alternative to proposing this as a stand-alone guideline page would be to re-develop the material to be a section for MOS:IMAGES, and if accepted then redirect this old proposal to that section, as the old WP:Manual of Style/Proper names "policy fork" now redirects to the salvageable material that become a section at MOS:CAPS.

PS: One content change that's a potential problem is Yug's replacement of a table of example stuff with transclusion of a version hosted by a wikiproject [5]; if this were to be resurrected as a guideline proposal, then the material would need to "live" inside the guideline itself and not be subject to wikiproject change whims that wouldn't even show up for watchlisters of the guideline. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish and Thinker78: hello,

Overall

I have extensive experience in this map convention field. Mostly, I just gathered the dominant (quantitative consensus) and best (qualitative) cartographic practices on wikipedia, documented them into wikipages and toolkits, increased their visibility. The aim, naturally, was to have consistency via shared toolkits. It's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions.

The « replacement of a table of example stuff with transclusion of a version hosted by a wikiproject [5]; » was not controversial. Since the former was used by one early influential wikicartographer, while the later was used broadly by a dozen or active wikicatorgraphers. The page fullfilled its mission : gather the best and most consensual cartographic practices. Similarly, I went today to expanded the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Orthographic_maps#Examples to reflect dominant practices. (This edit is long overdue).

But I and others were volunteer. So the overall standardization effort became a « notable guideline », while other derivative practice and guideline emerged (Germans Map lab) : commons:Template:SVG_locator_maps_(location_map_scheme)/cat. In recent years, there are efforts to migrate « wikimaps » to a cloud system such as https://sharedmap.com -like service. (Note: This private project was partly coordinated with Wikipedia) . I'm aware such new cloud projects do exist but I don't know much. Overall, I just moved on. There are still competing guidelines, it would be good to review the whole to suggest an updated consistency, but it requires a long investigation, documentation, community discussion, online mapping service design, which are far too heavy for a part-time volunteer. I trust the techies will find a way some days.

The best we can do quickly is to continue update according to the dominant, elegant de facto consensus and their toolkits.

For this wikipage

As for this current wikipage Manual of Style/Diagrams and maps , It's massively outdated. The catch-all title is confusing, the content and tone match the 2007 (!) online digital graphic context. Data visualization literacy has vastly improved since, lot of content can be skipped. I encourage a whole rewrite. Yug (talk) 🐲 09:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base convention.
Another related convention for locator (German), with some color variations.

Yug Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I was going through the main page at hand and I not being a subject matter expert was wondering if you could provide some examples of guidance that is drastically outdated to the point of not being useful. I could only mostly see maybe the font guidance being an issue. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what needs to happen is either a) replacement of much of this MoS proposal page's content with what's at the /Conventions wikiproject page, then a WP:PROPOSAL to make it a guideline finally; or b) "massaging" of the /Conventions page in situ into guideline-appropriate language to the extent it needs tweaking, then PROPOSAL of that to be made into a guideline and replace the current MOS/Diagrams and maps page entirely. Either way, it's not helpful to have a "dead" guideline proposal living at an MOS:something page title and shortcuts, and a better page sitting as a wikiproject advice essay that doesn't have guideline authority. And either way, if there's anything useful in the old proposal material, it should merge with the current wikiproject advice. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move for starters. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other guidelines

Inasmuch as this project page is not truly "inactive", I have some further thoughts and suggestions I would like to add. These run something like this:

Indicator lines: it is often useful in a map or diagram to indicate a particular spot with a line. Such lines are most helpful when they follow these guidelines:
- Lines should usually be straight unless a curved line is somehow more practical or informative
- Lines must have enough color contrast with the background(s) they are crossing so that they can be followed from beginning to end
- As a convention and to facilitate general readability, it is strongly suggested that indicator lines not cross unless clearly necessary
- Lines should be a uniform thin width from beginning to end
- Lines may end with an arrow, a spot, or nothing to indicate a specific element of the map or diagram; to indicate an area or region, a circle or elipse should be used if the area/ region is enclosed within it, or, alternatively, a bracket may be used to indicate a more general area or region not enclosable with a circle or elipse
Backgrounds: unless the image clearly requires or is enhanced by a background of a different color, white is the preferred background for all diagrams and maps

--Anyhow. Some ideas. KDS4444^Talk 11:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm gonna keep going:

Geographic map locatoions
- It is sometimes helpful when presenting a map to show where the subject of the map is located with respect to some larger area (e.g., a county's location within a state; a building's location within a city). Such magnified views can be done by showing a miniature map of the larger area with the subject of the map "exploding" from its situated location by four corners, thus:

-KDS444 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares... KDS4444 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See thread above; caring has belatedly started again. Though this editor is blocked, their comments should be considered. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on lead image for article on tooth decay

Please comment here KDS4444 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Continued_discussion_on_standardizing_map_format

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Continued_discussion_on_standardizing_map_format. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging Yug, who I see worked on something related to this at Commons way back in 2007. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sdkb for the ping :) I won't engage for the following reasons : 1) I'am in wikislow right know ; 2) by experience, this kind of discussions is best to have with "graphic experts" on WP:GL/M's talk page or alike, so it keeps an expert tone and not a long time-consuming democratic fight of various tastes and opinions ; 3) surprisingly to me, the discussions seems to head in the right way, the expertise gathered is spot on, ColorBewer is the way to go, etc. So it seems my intervention would not bring much things now aside from an experienced cartographer's review and blessing. All together my contribution to this long discussion seems optional. Yug (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]