Avis28

ESC 2017 Map

Please redownload the ESC 2017 map for further edits as your version is missing some parts of Greenland and Tasmania so it does not have to be corrected every time you update the map. Thanks! --Avis28 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that! I don't know why is that happening, I always download the newest version before I edit. I just tried to do it, and my editor has done it itself, I tried again, and it has done the same. I guess I have to find a new editor... Thank you for letting me know! Mihitza78 (talk) 18 February 2017, 22:26 (CET)

Just to add, I just started actually using and editing .svg files, and I am new to it. Can you recommend me a good editor, please? Mihitza78 (talk) 18 February 2017, 22:41 (CET)

@ Mihitza78: I use Inkscape to edit .svg files. --Avis28 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I installed it. It works great. Mihitza78 (talk) 19 February 2017, 13:56 (CET)

File:Eurovision_winners_map.svg

How many wins do the Netherlands have?

Hi Avis28,

I note that you changed the colour scheme of this map. While it makes it easier to see which countries have done better relative to others, it makes it quite difficult to immediately tell the absolute number of wins any particular country has. For example, at a glance, how many wins do the Netherlands have?

A better solution is to retain the hues, but vary the brightness as you've done.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@cmglee: I now switched to a multi-hue scale which should satisfy both the need of ordinality (did France or Switzerland win more often?) and the question of how many wins the Netherlands have. --Avis28 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I like how you begun the scale at yellow, a naturally light colour. I found 3, 4 and 5 wins still pretty similar, and so increased the colour saturation and rotated the hue towards (dark) red to make it easier to distinguish the colours. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. On an unrelated topic, I wonder what your thoughts on a language-independent way of distinguishing countries that have taken part but not won (dark grey, denoted by "0" in the legend), and those that haven't participated (light grey, not in legend). We used to have the latter in the legend with a symbol e.g. "*" that is explained in the caption, but some thought it messy. Is it obvious enough that light grey countries haven't participated?

Thanks! Concerning your question about the non-participants: I think the legend in its current state is sufficient. In other maps where countries are highlighted (e.g. countries of the EU or NATO), countries that are not part of the organization are generally not included in the legend. So I would say that the light grey is intuitive as a non-participant. --Avis28 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

File:NATO enlargement.svg

Hello.

In File:NATO enlargement.svg can you color Azerbaijan in red, because the Azerbaijan does not aim NATO membership and made its policy of not being aligned with a geopolitical/military structure official when it became a full member of the Non-Aligned Movement in 2011. See also news sources on this.

Thank you.

Maphobbyist (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)