Review
(criteria) |
 Comment What does the red line mean? Also, I think it needs to be specified as a topographical map: A map showing the cities and towns of Borneo would be worthy of its own valued image status. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Red lines are country borders between: Inonesia (south), Malaysia (north), and Brunei (tiny). Can you give me an example how would you consider it appropriate this to be explained?
- There is a locator map version of this File:Borneo Locator Topography.png, which allows it to be shown with whatever labels (cities) like here. Do you think that version would be better candidate for general map of Borneo, or would you still prefer reducing the scope to topographic map? --Elekhh (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1) agree with Adam Cuerden. If you put some border red lines, you have to explain, and you have to put other human things like cities aso. 2) I'm afraid that the red square in the high left corner doesn't exactly show the reduced map : the western red line seems to be no precise IMO. All of this could easily be corrected --Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't see it as unprecise... --Elekhh (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a locator map version of this File:Borneo Locator Topography.png, which basically allows it to be shown with whatever labels (cities or localities) like here. Do you think that version would be better candidate? --Elekhh (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because the point of VIC is the scope. This is an excellent topographic map, but it's not a geopolitical map. However, it has random red lines on it without explanation in the description. The locator map is not a geopolitical map either, and, let's face it, this policy of shoving single cities onto a map out of context is actually really stupid, as you can't tell what's near them or have any sort of context. Want to know if city X is near city Y? Good luck if they use locator maps. Well, rant aside - this is a topographic map, and I'd only support it in that scope, which means it ought to be either a pure topographic map, nominated as "Topographical map of Borneo" or have enough of the geopolitical elements to be able to have the full scope of Map of Borneo. As it stands, it's a topographical map with unexplained red lines, and nominated in an overly-broad scope. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it is possible to place as many localities on the locator map as you wish. But I take your other point, and changed the scope accordingly. Now to the red lines: they are obviously important as they depict national borders. Note that Borneo is the only island in the world which is divided between three countries so it is an unique case. I added explanation of borders to the file description, however I don't think labels on the map would be appropriate given that it is used in 34 different language Wikipedias. --Elekhh (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Scope changed from Map of Borneo to Topographic maps of Borneo
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- (VIC scope change info fixed by --Myrabella (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
 Support Now: If they're explained, it's fine. But, well, you can add any number of localities to a locator map, but that doesn't make it replace a map that has all the major cities and so on on it already. We can only go with what's there. =) And, yeah, locator maps do annoy me a lot, because of the number of times that the only information I've wanted was "what's the nearest large city to town X", and it's been literally impossible to find out with some useless locator map that was just shaped like a US state. Not even topographical! Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This isn't a topographic map either. Since only the relief is shown the correct designation is hypsometric map or relief map. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only the relief is shown, rivers are too. I would have thought that it fits into the definition of Topographic map. --Elekhh (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A topographic map is supposed to depict all types of physical features on the surface of the Earth, both natural (relief, rivers, sometimes natural land cover, etc.) and artificial (buildings, roads, railways, etc.), as well as political and administrative information (borders, names, capitals, etc.). Due to their national relevance and general use, topographic series of maps are usually published by governmental agencies. Topo maps are usually designated as 'base maps' or 'general purpose' maps, due to the variety of information they contain. On the contrary, a hypsometric map is called a 'thematic map' since only a theme (or limited number of themes) is depicted. Depicting water lines is common in hypsometric maps due to its close physical connection with relief -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, but the scope is not a description of the image, and has to be reasonably broad. I see a good reason for having a simplified topographic map (i.e. topography+rivers+state borders) for Wikipedia articles, as at standard article size too much information would make it messy. I believe that the wide usage of this map on wikipedia projects, as against more multi-layered ones confirms this rationale. --Elekhh (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is not a simplified (or generalized, to be accurate) topographic map, Elekhh. It is just a hypsometric map with a border. Very important information is missing like the roads, cities and countries. Sorry for insisting on the point but this is (kind of) my craft
 . Anyway I'm not going to oppose the nomination for this reason, I am just suggesting the scope to be adjusted -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for contributing your expertise! I guess what we talk about is well summarised by this quote from the related Wiki article: However, in the vernacular and day to day world, the representation of relief (contours) is popularly held to define the genre, such that even small-scale maps showing relief are commonly (and erroneously, in the technical sense) called "topographic". While I understand that the correct term would be "hypsometric", I doubt that many would search for it under such a name. I find "Relief map" much more user-friendly and if you agree with that in technical terms, it should be fine with me for the image description. However I am still unsure about the scope, as currently is categorized in "Topographic maps", and therefore it would be maybe strange to nominate a different scope. Wouldn't you agree that relief maps are sort of a subcategory of topographic maps? --Elekhh (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea that such text was sitting there, thanks for showing it to me. No, a relief map is not a subclass of a topographic map because they belong to different types. A topographic map is a 'general reference map' and a relief map is a 'thematic' or 'special purpose map'. I really think we should be accurate in the designations due to the potential educational value of VIs-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't that just one possible way of categorizing? Wouldn't be possible to categorize thematic maps which are layers of a topographic map as subcatogies, like in any GIS application? --Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a barbarian, here, but I understand that it is NOT a topographical map, at the end. Then, the scope is NOT good, because we try to make here something encyclopedic, using good, relevant and appropriate technical terms. Why not calling "hypsometric map", if it is an"hypsometric map" ? Well, we are very lucky to have here, for this time, a real and professional expert of this matter, and it is not always the case. It would be a little foolish (respectfully) not following his advices, IMO. And the western line of the little red square left above is still not adjusted --Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Can't be promoted as long as the scope issue has not been resolved. What's the point in having a specialist's advice when it is not listened to? Lycaon (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Scope changed from Topographic maps of Borneo to Hypsometric map of Borneo
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- (VIC scope change info + scope wordind (in the singular) fixed by --Myrabella (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
|
