Talk:Dot distribution map
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Figure 2.2 shows..."
[edit]In section Symbolization you will find 2 references to an image that is not there. The mentioned source Roth, Robert E. "Dot Density Maps." also does not include this. In the PDF it just says "FIGURE 1 HERE". This section sounds like somebody just copied it from somewhere and forgot the images. Where does this come from? 178.200.136.201 (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dot distribution map. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022114348/https://www.umapper.com:80/maps/view/id/43438 to http://www.umapper.com/maps/view/id/43438/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dot distribution map. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umapper.com/maps/view/id/43438/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306081700/http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/ to http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
External links?
[edit]Any objections to my creating a short external links section? There are for example some lovely US-wide zoomable dot maps showing population distribution together with ethnic makeup. Jbening (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Page Overhaul
[edit]I took some time to overhaul this page quite a bit, adding to the history section and adding some about design guidelines. And of course a lot of sources. There are still some issues, especially with the very problematic confusion and variant terminology of the two kinds of dot maps, but that is a problem for the cartography discipline to figure out. However more sources about that debate would be welcome. I also reset the quality rating, so please re-rate! Bplewe (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)