Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abkhazia map-fr.svg

Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 18:47:54

•  Info created by Sémhur - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Info A topographic SVG map of Abkhzia in French.
•  Support -- le Korrigan →bla 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose A QI candidate rather than a FP one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, but... why ? le Korrigan →bla 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because these maps, no matter how good they are, lose their wow after a while. After you see 20 or so maps that look like this come through here, it's not so special anymore. Quality on the other hand never goes away. (I'm not saying these aren't FP-level quality, but it seems QI is better suited for most maps nowadays. And don't forget VI either.) Rocket000(talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My answer is per Rocket000(talk) Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, insects pictures lose their wow after a dozen too :-) (and there's currently less than 30 maps featured, not much to get bored from). My point, by promoting maps, is that they take days to create (I just did one: find and extract public domain data, vectorise it, adjust it, check it, colour it, extract more data...), and that they have very high encyclopedic value (they can be used on hundreds of articles, can be translated easily, serve wide educational and promotional purposes...). The maps I am trying to promote also quote all their references (like a good Wikipedia article). I can ensure you that creating any of these maps is a different process and requires as much devotion as writing a Featured Article ! And finally... have you seen any free replacement maps anywhere on Internet for these maps? There you go: quality + value = FP. le Korrigan →bla 08:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I agree that this skillful professional level of map-making is definitely worthy of any praise or recognition it gets. And then some. It's a lot different than having a fancy camera and happening to press a button at the right time. I'm definitely not suggesting it's somehow less important or less valuable then another insect or bird. IMO, maps like these are usually way more important then some pretty picture (not that your map is ugly, but you know what I mean). I just think it progressed beyond the point of more FP nominations. But, hey, if FP is by any means a motivating factor for you to continue making awesome maps, then by all means, nominate away! :) Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, now I see what you mean. Actually for me, FP promotion is more a way to promote the Graphic Lab (from which these maps are coming - none are mine) and their standards, and to encourage others to join in. Better visibility through FP / QI promotion is a way to do it. But, sure, there's no point in flooding FPs with them either :-) Thanks for your comments, le Korrigan →bla 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Mapmaking is difficult. Commons' privary purpose is to host images that can be used on all the Wikipedias. While this is just one language, SVG is designed to be particularly easy to translate into other languages, so that's not a problem. I vote to support this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per Adam Cuerden. Notyourbroom (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment - Very seldom I vote for, or even make comments about maps here. The reason is one of the main qualities (i would rather say requirements) of any map is accuracy: postional accuracy as well as thematic accuray. And the truth is we have no means of evaluating accuracy here. The only things we really can assess in FPC are the beauty, the rarity or extraordinary interest of the theme and the 'way it looks'. Yes, a map may look 'professional' and yet be cartographically useless because of its errors or poor conception. In this case, there is an obvious technical imperfection (only visible in svg format), which is the fact that several objects (linear and areal objects) extrude to outside the neatline. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  you are right: a map is only as accurate as its sources. Just like any Wikipedia article. This is why I try to promote maps where the author has written the sources of data he has used, so that the reader can see where all come from, and assess by him/herself whether the map can be deemed accurate. Just like for any Wikipedia article. Regarding the objects "extruding" from this map, it comes from the fact that source data covers a greater area originally and nodes outside the area are deleted, but without affecting data within the map area. It can sometimes leave extruding elements though, without affecting accuracy. le Korrigan →bla 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support--Coyau (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support —kallerna™ 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - Per my comments above, about the extruding elements. A FP should be technically excellent and this is easy to correct -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Extruding elements are removed, fonts have changed from Arial to DejaVu Condensed (free font), and it's a W3C valid SVG now. Sémhur (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support making SVG maps is difficult, and this map is excellent quality. Also, this image is clearly useful for Wikimedia projects (and, as someone said above, can easily be translated as it is SVG) Anonymous101 ^talk 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Doesn't render properly (e.g. scales have no numbers, fonts messed up) and has overlapping labels. Lycaon (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem on my computer. Could it be a problem on your side ? le Korrigan →bla 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I see it too (Firefox 3). They're over lapping in the PNG thumbnail also, which means it's MediaWiki. Rocket000(talk) 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have fix it. The PNG here looks fine, but the image page isn't updating yet (not even when I view the SVG itself). Rocket000(talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 2 oppose => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]