Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Map Locators/United States

Dis-locator maps

This system of denoting locations within the United States without wasting space on multiple images seems quite ingenious, and makes a lot of sense — for the continental United States. I respectfully suggest that it is not only inadequate for locations within Alaska and Hawaii, but actively misleading. Quite a few readers of en:Wikipedia never got the geography lessons of us native U.S. kids that showed these two states in insets that, of course, do not give the viewer any idea of where these places are actually located. Frankly, quite a few modern native U.S. citizens probably couldn't point to either Alaska or Hawaii on a world map, either. (I'm waiting for a Tonight Show "Jaywalking" segment that shows hapless citizens suggesting that Alaska is off the coast of California and Hawaii is embedded in Mexico because of these common insets.) The usual Alaska/Hawaii insets of these kinds of maps assume pre-existing awareness or irrelevancy of the true location of these states in the context they're provided, which most definitely does not apply in presenting the lead image of a Wikipedia article on the subject.

This problem gets even worse when someone tries to insist that we follow a practice (not a Wikipedia policy) of using these locators maps to display a place that isn't even on the maps, as User:MONGO is currently arguing for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument on that article's talk page. I am concerned that a WikiProject is giving at least one editor the idea that it is more important to follow standards agreed upon by a tiny subset of Wikipedians, even when the standards confuse the readers. Standards are good, but we should never let them get in the way of the more general principle of accurately informing readers.

Might I suggest that the clever folks who created the existing SVG map with the insets also create SVG maps of both Alaska and Hawaii that provide some geographical context as well as a place to specify positions? If WikiProject Protected Areas is zealously including these maps in articles for these two states, they are doing the general Wikipedia community a disservice. Unlike the continental U.S. itself, not everyone knows where Alaska and Hawaii are, nor should they be expected to. This probably will not help the NWHINM article, unless the Hawaii map is made rather large, with the most commonly identified section too small in the lower right corner for adequate dot-pointing, but it should improve the visual information content of Alaska and other Hawaii articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accurately inform readers, then find a map that doesn't say "reserve" on it, and instead clearly says what the subject is, or have it say nothing and we can encircle the new area. You are the only person yet that has complained about Hawaii looking like it is in Mexico...obviously that is a separate country...eh?--MONGO 18:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, MONGO, I was the third person to complain, the first two being User:Borisblue and 70.244.216.110 (talk · contribs), both of whom did so by mocking the apparent location of Hawaii in Mexico. My complaint was more direct and included a solution. And you are not addressing the point above; you are merely attempting to change the subject by lodging a not-unreasonable complaint of your own that the map isn't adequately labelled yet — a point which I and other users have addressed and continue to work on. In the meantime, all evidence supports the idea that the Reserve and the Monument are coincidental, so a map of the one is the same as a map of the other, and is vastly preferable to the SVG map which shows neither the subject nor its global position. I think you are on thin ice attempting to argue that such a map is preferable to one that shows the actual subject and its location, but uses a different term that all evidence suggests covers exactly the same area. I would suggest it would be more useful to work on a new SVG map than continue to pursue this illogical position. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the map you complained about in the article. We're not going to just change the loc_map that is just there to give a rough detail of the location of the protected area. As I have mentioned, in some cases, we have used other maps...but in most cases for articles that expand, we add more detailed maps to the body of the article. One case in point is Acadia National Park, where an excellent map was created, but almost no one has this software so it is laborously impossible for us to produce a map for every single protected area...we rely on maps generated by governing bodies and put them outside the infobox, generally.--MONGO 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. MONGO. Could you tell me what software you're talking about? I'm not all that artistic, and I'm not volunteering to join the WikiProject, but I always prefer to try to fix problems I find rather than asking others to do the work. I might crank out a map or two if it seems appropriate, if not for this particular article, then perhaps for another. (Of course, if I decide to do so, I'll review the WikiProject standards and practices carefully first.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the software used to produce the map in the Acadia article, User:Kmf164 created that and I was told what software was used, but am unable to locate that conversation now...you can ask her as it's pretty neat stuff. To adjust the jpeg, I simply used Paint and then converted to a PNG...I have about as much talent artistically as a bullfrog, so even if I had the software, I'd probably make a mess. When the loc_map was created, it was just designed to be used a very basic reference point in collaboration with the "X" and "Y" attributes that allow us to move the red locator dot around to different spots...it's a neat tool. The older PNG map was lousy in comparison, so the SVG was an upgrade and at least had colors. This encyclopedia is always evolving so guys like me need to recognize that every now and then, others do have better ideas. There have also been complaints about the map and some prefer to have a descriptive image in the infobox instead, and a more detailed, public domain map later in the article. I am not able on my computer (that I know of) to make SVG images such as the loc_map...I'll let Kmf164 know about this exchange and se eif she will chime in here.--MONGO 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inquiry. I agree that the dot locator maps aren't suitable in this case. I'm also not sure I can do anything better than the Hawaii map that's there now. The problem is not so much the software (ArcGIS), but the GIS data for the new Hawaii monument probably isn't available yet. As for developing some map standard to use for parks and protected areas, my ideal is to make maps with shaded relief that suitably show the parks - particularly the western U.S. and Alaska parks. But, the files needed to do that take a lot of disk space, and take time to assemble into something useful. Until I get the can dedicate a large block of time to get that done, I suggest more simple locator maps. --Aude (talk | contribs) 07:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put together this locator map (see right) for Shoshone National Forest. The map lacks shaded relief, which I may add later, and maybe simplify more. Even with that, I don't think this kind of map is suitable for infoboxes. My preferred solution is to create infobox maps like those used in Canadian parks (e.g. Banff National Park), and put detailed maps like this one in the body of the article as a supplement. That solution would indeed require new basemaps for Hawaii and Alaska. --Aude (talk | contribs) 07:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]