Image talk:EU map names isles.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Rivers

This map is cool, but rivers tend to appear same color as the country borders. For a moment I wondered what is the name of the strange state where East Germany should be, until I realized Elbe is not a borderline but a river. :-) --Romanm 07:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll fix this, hopefully today - cause I'll be home in the bogs of Ireland where there's no net access. (Bad phone line, no ISDN, no ADSL - "no enough subscribers" BAH). Rivers are grey, while borders are a subdued dark blue. I'm tempted to remove the rivers altogether for clarity... What do people think? Zoney 08:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


Removing the rivers is probably a good idea. We don't need that level of detail in a basic political map. Jxg 17:08, 2004 May 21 (UTC)
I think the bigger rivers should stay but I don't know. Nice map (see below) --Szajd 15:38, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

[edit] Can I?

Moved to Image talk:EU blank no rivers territories256.png. --17:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia

As of 18 June 2004 Croatia is now an official candidate. [1] Map updated as appropriate. (Quick-edit. A properly recoloured and re-anti-aliased version will be put up later. The quality difference is negligable). Zoney 11:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Indeed you should be well-pleased and proud of this very crisp and clear map. A few suggestions:

  • May we please switch to some better and more decent font than that ugly Microsoft piece? (This font may be one of the most important typographic problems of our time, especially considering its widespread abuse.) The font for non-Member States is much nicer.
  • Why does the word 'Sweden' go one way and 'Finland' the other?
  • Yes, please re-colour Croatia.

Thanks again for this very nice map; I hope you do not mind my critique -- it is only with the hope to make it even better. -- Kaihsu 21:19, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Again, look carefully... or refresh browser. Croatia is now coloured in the same light shade as Turkey. Perhaps I can darken the grey at some stage so it's not such a close shade. I can't make the blue shades darker - the black text is necessary because of the white backgroud - any darker of a colour for the member states and the black text won't show up so well. Plus the current member state shade is, well, very nice!
Hmmm... I'll give the font issue some consideration. Note that the non-member state font is a serif font, picked along with italics so as not to stand out - its merely there to be studied if someone wants to check a neighbouring state's name. The members and candidates are delibrately in a san-serif font - though I may find a nicer one. Any suggestions.
I could perhaps put the Finland caption in the lower part of the country - facing the same direction as Sweden. I chose the angles to suit the states. The direction of captions is of course, to ensure Finland isn't upside down.
Zoney 11:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we avoid the Verdana font, please? – Kaihsu 13:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

[edit] Inadequate colors

With all due respect, these colors simply aren't up to the job. The limited range between light blue and light gray is insufficient for four separate classifications. It's barely enough for two. Only by careful concentration can I tell that Bulgaria and Turkey don't have the same status. --Yath 04:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about light green for Bulgaria/Romania and light pink for Croatia/Turkey? The light colours are necessary for clarity with the captions. The captions extend over the white area, and so need to be dark. zoney ♣ talk 09:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I darkened the 2007 admission countries. Colouring them would be harder, but possible. For the best possible results I think the picture should be re-done from a bigger picture, if this is considered necessary. At the moment you can see the differences clearly, but that dark grey could look prettier. I think it's more readable now than the last version. --kooo 15:41, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

I think this new version is still a bit too subtle. Maybe if the range of brightness were even larger. I'll take a stab at it. Derrick Coetzee 18:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added new colouring. Is it too stark the difference now, should different hues be picked? I hope this suits, if not, I can rework again. zoney ♣ talk 23:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The newest version is better than the previous ones. But Croatia still doesn't stand out much. The colour for the candidate countries isn't the prettiest possible, either. Both problems would be solved by changing the colour, I don't have an opinion on which one would be the best. Perhaps we need a larger picture? --kooo 23:49, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
No. We can't have a larger picture, as it already is too large to sit alongside text. I may revisit the colouring if people have better suggestions. There was method to my madness, green denotes the states that have a "go-ahead" for accession. Red denotes those which do not. Perhaps the latter could be replaced with yellow-ish colour. Yes, I agree the new colouring is not as pretty now, but in making the candidates "stand out", they end up, well, standing out! zoney ♣ talk 10:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please make colors clearer - this is unacceptable.--81.51.69.126 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A river or two still remaining?

Near the borders with Finland, in Russian territory, is that rivers connecting some lakes with the Baltic Sea? If so they should probably be removed also... They've bugged me for a while now, but I wasn't sure. (In the blank version, I think there's also a river remaining near Romania and Moldova?) Aris Katsaris 17:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep. I'll get onto this tomorrow hopefully. There is also a river in Ukraine remaining, at the southeastern tip of Moldova. zoney ♣ talk 00:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major new revision

I've just uploaded a quite revised version of the map. First, I've toned down the colours for the accessing/candidate countries - but kept them hopefully suitably distinct.

I've redone the iffy borders around Turkey, and fixed the gradient on the gray tail-off around the east of Europe. The superior quality of this gradient is of course the reason for the larger file size.

I've readded all the captions, using the same font for EU members (perhaps to the disgust of some, but it is clear and bold at small sizes). I've also used a sanserif font for the non-EU members - figuring that the smaller size and use of lowercase is enough to keep them out of the main focus. The candidates' font is more similar now, but I think the italics and colour distinguishes them enough.

Some little errors have been fixed, like a few stray rivers, and the misspelled Guadelope (previously down as Guadalope).

Please let me know what you all think.

zoney ♣ talk 22:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yeah... Guadeloupe... *cough*. zoney ♣ talk 23:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like! Very good job! Better colors, probably much more readable in the western balkans. The word "POLAND" no longer so much bigger than the word "Germany" either. :-)
A tiny-little detail, though, which I should have mentioned before, but I failed to remember it... The "+" in Bosnia and Herzegovia and in Serbia and Montenegro -- could you perhaps change that to a "&" ? It's just that though one sees Serbia & Montegro or Bosnia & Herzegovina, one never uses the plus sign for this purpose, I think.
Other than that, kudos! Aris Katsaris 23:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ampersands as requested. They're not the simplest, but they are not too bad and same font as the other text. I had to put one on the same line as Bosnia, but I think it's OK. The pluses were annoying me also. zoney ♣ talk 23:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the contrast is gone again. The difference between "Member states" and "2007 admission" is small, and the difference between "Candidate Countries" and the other gray countries is likewise difficult to discern. I can understand a disliking for the goofy green and violet pastels that were there before, but the map is now more difficult to read. --Yath 00:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes - the contrast has gone down - delibrately! I think it's clear enough - it's not like the earlier "three shades of blue" scheme. zoney ♣ talk 09:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oooooh! This is much nicer. Thank you [[User:Dmn|Dmn/ Դմն ]] 19:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar and the TRNC?

Should Gibraltar be marked on the map? They elect MEPs, and I think EU law applies. Also, shouldn't the Turkish part of Cyrpus (TRNC) be shaded in Gray since (I think again) only the Greek part of Cyrpus is in the EU? - Hoshie 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only items marked are the EU members (i.e. the 25), and other independant states. The inset is only included to ensure that all integral territories of EU members are included (i.e. they are part of the home country). The naming is simply so one doesn't have random little shapes in a box. The map would be too cluttered were Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Andorra, Vatican City or indeed such a tricky area as Gibralter (it's not an independant EU member - nor an integral part of the UK, but has some status as an integral part of the EU). In any case, Gibralter is on the map and is too small to distinguish if it's blue or grey. There's no reason to single out the area and cause trouble.
The "Greek part" of Cyprus is the "Republic of Cyprus", the only internationally recognised govt. of the island. Greying out the northern bit indeed would show that an EU member state's jurisdiction doesn't extend there in reality - but would ignore the fact that generally (apart from Turkey), the Republic of Cyprus is regarded as being "Cyprus".
It's a thorny issue, but essentially the sensible thing is not to stir it up (i.e. pander to the Turkish POV) and simply go with the accepted longstanding international consensus to ignore the situation on the ground.
zoney ♣ talk 12:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A Round of Applause for Zoney

Bul a bus (ha!)! Nice one, Zoney. Actually how on earth can maps be made? Fergananim

I've commented on how I work on images at User talk:Fergananim. zoney ♣ talk 11:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colors and captions and size, oh my

This is a really great map, but I have some problems viewing it on my laptop, which of course has an LCD screen. I can barely, if at all, distinguish the 2007 countries from the EU member states. I think the 2007 countries are supposed to be green, but the color is so subtle as to look like a muddled blue. The light grey or light brown of the candidate countries also doesn't leave me with a very good overall sense of where things are. This map needs a scheme were you can distinguish areas out of the corner of your eye. Perhaps a green-yellow-red-white scheme, or something. That's my only really important comment.

A minor point - I do think the mix of bold, bold-italic, and italic text leads to too much clutter. If the colors are right, the labels shouldn't have to do anything but identify the countries. Speaking of clutter, it would be very nice to have a double-size version, to be able to see what's going on in the nooks and crannies. I don't know if you'd need have separate files (in which you might do the text labels in a different proportion to the geography), or if you could just do a large image and put a thumbnail on the article page. It's bad to have the article take forever to load over a slow connection, but it's good to have more information available to people who click on the map. -- Beland 06:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the colors for many of the nations are quite difficult to distinguish. Oberiko 21:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I am colour-blind, and for me, the are completely impossible to recognise. I suggest that the nations be marked with colours of more evident differences in intensity; this will make them readable my everyone. Rama 23:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Please make colors clearer - this is unacceptable.--81.51.69.126 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental revert

My revert of 18:37, 23 June 2006 was purely accidental; I thought it was a last. Skinnyweed 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The version you reverted to:
17:42, June 4, 2006 . . Palazov (Talk | contribs | block)
appears to differ in that the user removed the "&" from Serbia & Montenegro. Not something I want to argue about.
Fred-Chess 09:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion: Colour issues

Is there any reason why different colours cannot be used intsead of shades of blue? From my laptop it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the member states and 2007 admissions. I'd suggest going for either different colours (red/blue/green) or some sort of hatching (which would be good for B&W printing of the image).

Is this a change I could make myself? I assume there is a source image that the png is generated from e.g. and SVG/PhotoShop or Gimp file? If so where is it?

I made use of your suggestion and modified the PNG file. What do you think? / Fred-Chess 09:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Man

The map appears to have the Isle of Man as part of the EU. It isn't. Countersubject 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This map sucks

Frankly this map sucks. It is too low resolution to make out much between Hungary and Greece and the colors are ugly. There is at least a nicer colored version which was reverted for no apparent reason. Maybe a high res version would be downscaled on the article page, but at least one could click on it and then make out some details. --84.178.104.179 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Overseas Collectivities

Should we add the the Overseas collectivities such as Saint-Pierre and Miquelon to the image? Some French territories like French Guiana are on the map and the Overseas collectivities are also part of France. --Ted-m 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/_/Image_talk%7EEU_map_names_isles.png_59a7.html"