Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (diagrams and maps)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Map legend
This page has a legend which I have used for my own maps (both uploaded to Wikipedia and elsewhere) and is compiled from other maps I have found on Wikipedia. It may be helpful.
[edit] Wikiproject Chemistry
Wikiproject Chemistry has a style guide for drawing atomic structures which can be found here. Just thought this might be relevant and/or useful. Best, shoy (words words) 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Language-free diagrams
Secondary to making good maps and diagrams for english-language Wikipedia, one should consider whether the same image can be useful in non-english versions. Europeans, for example, are well acustomed to pictographic road signs without text. A diagram without text can be placed in a "thumb" box with explanatory text below which allows straightforward translation; in contrast a diagram containing text cannot be translated without redrawing work.Cuddlyable3 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My proposal
I was asked to have a look at this and I would like to add some points I think that are important:
[edit] Illustrative vs informative
When talking about images in the articles they can be divided in 2 main groups, each group responds to different needs and I think should have different rules to apply to it.
- Illustrativeimages are complementary to the article without offering more details to it. They respond to specific parts of the text and usually can not "stand alone" meaning they are not informative without an explanation. Good examples from this are pictures of characters, animals or objects, historical images, and so on.
- Informative images are more complex images that try to add information or detail to that which is offered in the article, this includes maps and diagrams, where many of them are able to "stand alone".
I believe this difference is important because there are rules that apply to one and might not necessarily apply to the other.
[edit] Small vs detailed
Illustrative images should be seen together with the article, there for they should be planed to be shown with a size between 150 and 300 pixels wide. Of course this doesn't mean the file should be this small, but the image composition and contrast should be enough to be understood at this size. Informative images on the other hand can hardly be really useful in this size and usually end being thumbs (click to see), still the image should be clear enough to give a hint of its content at this size.
[edit] Titles and empty space
A good diagram should be done without the title included in the image, the title is given in the article and also in the image name so having the title in the image isn't necessary. The same goes for big areas of empty, not informative space, both inside and around the image.
[edit] Text and labels
This is a big discussion I have with many people here. I personally prefer diagrams that are labeled. SVG is a great format that allows translation at any time, and having labels allows the image to stand alone. Otherwise the "user" would have to be going back and forward between the article and the diagram, and if the diagram is a "thumb" that means to be moving between windows in the computer.
Still independently whether it is a numbered (language neutral) or labeled diagram there are important points to make. All text should have the same font, the more different fonts a diagram has the less homogenous it is. The same goes for sizes, changes in sizes should have a meaning either ranking in importance or difference between two layers of terms. Text should be big enough to be read in full screen without problems, and it shouldn't be so big that it "covers" important information of the diagram. When placing text above the diagram the contrast of both colors should be taken in count. The lines of the diagram shouldn't affect in reading the words.
- LadyofHats you state your personal preference for having text on diagrams based on wanting the image to stand alone, in that case alone in english language Wikipedia. I wonder how you view the points I made above under Language-free diagrams. Making extra translated versions of diagrams is more not less work than simply translating text. Translating text on diagrams can only be done by those equipped with an image editor for making a new file whereas "anyone" can edit text in articles and thumbnails. Problems arise on diagrams when the length of a text changes on translation whereas that problem is nonexistent with pure text. The SVG format does not eliminate these problems and nor is it a suitable format for every diagram. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thumb images seem to be problematic for you but I don't see why. It is easy to translate the text under a thumb image by typing in the normal Wikipedia edit window, and I cannot see how using instead an image editor for this is any easier; one will always be moving between windows in the computer. Thumbs are often (but don't have to be) used to reduce the displayed size of images, which reduces legibility of any text that is embedded in the image. I agree that text should be big enough to read without problems. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cuddlyable3, I cannot see how the the map on the right could work without labels within the map itself. To me, they are essential for understanding.
- Yes, it is more work to translate text within a map, but it is not all that difficult. Inkscape is free and relatively easy to use. Let's not compromise our work because we work in a multi-language environment. MapMaster (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Maps' scale
Maps should have a graphic scale {like this one} it is not only simple to read but it is also the only kind of scale that remains true and can work with the different scaling of a computer. All other scale methods are useless for the propose of Wikipedia since they have more to do with printed media.
Well that is what I would add so far, still I will give it a thought and see whether something else is needed , you can beside about it-LadyofHats (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that graphs in particular should have their units labeled. Also, I think a representation should be chosen where the units/parameters are mapped to an axis (either x, y and/or z in the cartesian coordinate system; or, something else in another coordinate system). SharkD (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Restructure
I've just restructured the whole thing to be less redundant. It cannot be simultaneously structured by categorical topic (fonts, formats, etc.) and by a diagram vs. map divide; needs one or the other. I tried it by that divide in a draft, and the amount of redundancy was even worse, so I went with by categorical topic, discussing generalities first, diagram-specific points second, and map-specific points third. I think this will work best, and will be scalable and stable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename
Page needs to move to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (diagrams and maps), per MOS subpage conventions (cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), etc.) After the move, a number of shortcuts will need to be updated to not double-redir (see "what links here" from both the project and talk page after the move). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
