Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Geographical coordinates
WikiProject iconWikiProject Maps is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Related WikiProjects

The parent of this WikiProject is the Geography WikiProject. WikiProject Maps also is a management type WikiProject for pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia. The following illustrates the position of WikiProject Maps within the Wikipedia WikiProject lineage:

  • Creation/improvement of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia
  • Acquisition of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia
  • Distribution of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia
  • Monitoring of pictorial representations displayed within Wikipedia

WikiProjects that have made use of geographical maps include:

Conventions for visa policy maps[edit]

Hello, WP:MAPS. I am currently working on the visa policy of Nauru, and I was wondering if there was any conventions on the colors would be? It seems like the other visa policy articles have a lot of different colors, and I just wanted to be correct. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Jester (talkcontribs) 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Shetland islands[edit]

just dropping a quick note here as I was asked to look at this Talk:Shetland#Need_better_map_image - looks like it ought to get a combination of File:Wfm_shetland_map.png and File:Shetland_UK_location_map.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane (talkcontribs) 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please assess[edit]

Please assess Fictitious entry. Thanks! 11:32, 3 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asianflavoure (talkcontribs) 4 October 2018 (UTC)

OSM Location map template problem[edit]

Hi, @X201 has noted that the OSM Location map template displays a blank map when under a header while viewing with a mobile (as can be seen here). Is there any way to fix this? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There are more examples in the thread I created at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Odd_blank_map_bug_with_OSM_location_template - X201 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

San Huan on the OpenStreetMap[edit]

I've been seeing "San Huan" on the OpenStreetMap because it's there (someone vandalized it).
Then it shows up on our Wikipedia articles when a map to San Juan is linked. Do anyone of you experts know how to fix this?
If it's so easy to vandalize a map on OpenStreetMap, should they be included in WP articles?
Thanks, --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the link to the map on OpenStreetMap from the infobox because it misspelled San Juan and I didn't get a response here for how to fix that. I poked around a little in OpenStreetMap but couldn't figure out how to fix it so until it's easier to correct vandalism on OpenStreetMap, I won't include them on infoboxes.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like it has been fixed on OpenStreetMap's end, and my guess is the tiles Wikipedia uses were generated during the vandalism and haven't been regenerated from the fixed data. Should be fixed with time, I would force the tile refresh but I don't know how with the Wikimap. SportingFlyer T·C 03:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I'll be looking out for the correction on other articles that link to the San Juan map.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems the issue stems from there being multiple spellings for place names. When the Wikidata has imported coordinates andmap from the Dutch project for example, the map then shows San Huan, correct spelling for Dutch I guess. Then when the map is transcluded on English articles it shows the San Huan (incorrect spelling in English).--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on FreeMapTools on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the reliability of distance calculations in FreeMapTools ( on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § ~ free map tools ~. — Newslinger talk 02:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the use of OpenStreetMap[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to not end use of OSM... my bad. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Recently, some users at WP:ANI/I raised some concerns over the use of OpenStreetMap, therefor I propose the below options regarding its further use due to possible accuracy concerns among others. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Option 1: No change, keep all OpenStreetMap maps as they are.

Option 2: Immediately discontinue the use of OpenStreetMap throughout the entire wiki.

Other option: If you choose this, please explain why. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


Comment this is an exceptionally problematic RfC. OSM is fine, it’s a sister project, and very, very useful for creating maps. The issue with OSM on ANI was the adding of additional maps to encyclopaedia articles, not with OSM generally. Furthermore, what would we use if not for OSM? They have a great data license for our purposes, and the maps themselves are just as good as the big players, especially in rural/underdeveloped areas. They shouldn’t replace the SVG maps we currently have in articles - THAT is what this RfC should be about, the problem which was presented, not about their use generally. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh... I misread that AN/I thread completely, then. I have withdrawn this RfC. Also, to be clear I do support the use of OSM completely I had just thought there was people who didn't so I wanted to start a RfC for consensus. Sorry about that. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • @TheAwesomeHwyh: No worries, there was a lot of OSM-bashing going on in that ANI thread. I wonder if OSM contributors would make a lot of similar points about Wikipedia! SportingFlyer T·C 06:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    You could check their talk about it! Negativity about anything not coming from one's own backyard exists everywhere, but in practice Wikipedia is being used more and more in map apps based on OpenStreetMap, thanks to Wikidata.
    You might still find the occasional user who thinks Wikipedia is too messy and inconsistent (due to having millions of users and byzantine rules) to be relied on even for simple things like translations of names, and that managing information in OSM's own format could give better results: but that's normal when you've been used to doing something in a certain way for over ten years. Nemo 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • New discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#OpenStreetMap. Nemo 17:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Circumnavigation Map?[edit]

Would it be possible to create a useful article map for Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute on Stereographic projection in cartography[edit]

Someone opposed to create seperate article from Stereographic projection. But I think splitting is necessary. We have orthographic projection and orthographic projection in cartography.

Stereographic projection article has huge volume. Elliptical stereographic projection is differ than original stereographic projection. If we add contents such as various formulas of Stereographic map projections to a section of Stereographic projection. Expanding volume of an individual section will create an undue weight problem. See WP:SPINOFF --Sharouser (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tagged Stereographic projection#Cartography for a proposed split, so that all involved or interested editors will be aware. Having a discussion away from the article to be split without notifying involved editors is not sufficient to establish consensus. I will not be expressing an opinion in support or opposition to the split, just opening it up for fuller discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Support• The stereographic is important in cartography. There is far more material to elaborate on than would fit in the scope of the more general article. Strebe (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I know only a little about the projection's applications in cartography. Editors like me would be greatly helped by a draft, or at least an outline. If the draft in main space keeps getting redirected (which I find over-zealous, but that's another issue), then the draft can be written in draft space. Isn't this the most efficient way to cut through the conflict and get the content on Wikipedia? Mgnbar (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Support• Most map projection pages have a pretty consistent format, and the Stereographic page does not match that format remotely, because the mathematical applications drown out the cartographic ones. And I agree with Mgnbar that a draft of the Stereographic Page in Cartography would be a good thing to have before implementing the split. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

My versions of SPIC have 2000-bytes content. Most of this content is differ than original article. We should seperate it immediately. --Sharouser (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, we're talking about this version? Does it conform to the formatting conventions of map projection pages? Is that important? Is it understood that reliable sources are about to be added? In short, is it already good enough? Mgnbar (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems like there are a lot of typos (e.g. missing "the" in second sentence, missing "an" in third sentence), and it's lacking the equations and cartographic properties (e.g. circle property). I would add that stuff if I could figure out how to edit it (I guess that's the point of putting it in draft space?). Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)