Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arabic Varieties Map.svg
File:Arabic Varieties Map.svg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2022 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Other_maps
- Info created by Goran tek-en - uploaded by Goran tek-en - nominated by A455bcd9 -- A455bcd9 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- A455bcd9 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- High educational value. It is unfortunate for me that I did not know about the existence of Uzbeki Arabic and Tajiki Arabic until now. -- IamMM (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment looking at the use of {{No edit no revision}}: having a non-standard template in the main template namespace with a general name but an individual user's name hard-coded into it seems a bit hacky ... --El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Good catch. Well, I think this template would be useful for more contributors, we would just need to make the name of the user configurable via a template parameter. @Goran tek-en: Your template {{No edit no revision}} is a good idea and well done, but El Grafo is right that this template now appears like a template for general use (it’s in the name template namespace and has a general name), but your name is hardcoded into it. We could easily make this template even more useful for other users by making the name of the creator/user configurable via a template parameter. Would you be happy with that? It’s easy, I can do it for you. Or we can make a copy of that template in your user space (e.g. as
{{User:Goran tek-en/No edit no revision}}
), then you can keep your name hard-coded. What would you prefer? No offence, we just want to help, --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)- @Aristeas None taken, it's just fine. I created/started to use it because many of the maps/illustrations I create or a bit complex and often when you need to edit something you need the full original file to be able to edit it correctly. If then something has been edited in the uploaded version it makes this hard. But on the other hand this (wikimedia) is all about all of us helping out so it's a bit contradicting, I know.
- So if it's considered this template can be useful generally I'm all for making it configurable (I didn't/don't have that knowledge) and I didn't realize this with the namespace, I just looked at other templates and copy/edited.
- So please edit the one existing and I would be happy to get information on what you are doing (likes to learn).
- Will it be like "Contact the Author" or what do you mean, instead of my hard-coded name?
- Thanks for the help! --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Goran tek-en: Thank you very much for your consent! Well, I have tried to adapt your template – see the talk page of the template for a short account of what I have done. If more discussion is needed, we should continue it on that talk page, too, in order to keep this discussion here focussed on the FP state of the map. Hope it helps and best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Good catch. Well, I think this template would be useful for more contributors, we would just need to make the name of the user configurable via a template parameter. @Goran tek-en: Your template {{No edit no revision}} is a good idea and well done, but El Grafo is right that this template now appears like a template for general use (it’s in the name template namespace and has a general name), but your name is hardcoded into it. We could easily make this template even more useful for other users by making the name of the creator/user configurable via a template parameter. Would you be happy with that? It’s easy, I can do it for you. Or we can make a copy of that template in your user space (e.g. as
- Support Arabic is one of the most important languages with a rich history and literature, and this map successfully visualizes the distribution of its many varieties. --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We should be aware that there are many issues with this at current FP nomination at English Wikipedia Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: what are the "many issues with this"? (besides M.Bitton's opinion mentioning "asinine errors" without pointing specifically to any or providing any reliable source to back their claim) A455bcd9 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea which is right, but the distribution map presented here varies markedly from the relevannt English Wikipedia articles (e.g. nos. 20,23, 25, 26). Can I suggest you validate the data and correct the articles or map (which is wrong) before nominating here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Charlesjsharp. I don't understand, I looked at the numbers you cited:
- 20: Hijazi Arabic => the map used on Wikipedia is unsourced original research ("Source Own work") however the geographical distribution of Hijazi on this map is roughly consistent with the new map
- 23: Dhofari Arabic => the map previously on Wikipedia was incorrect and contributors (including M.Bitton) accepted to change it to use the same source as this map
- 25: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic => there's no language distribution map in this article but the article says that this dialect "is native to the areas of South Western Yemen and the nearby country of Djibouti" => this is consistent with this map
- 26: Hadrami Arabic => similarly, no map in this article (and not many sources either...). The article says that it is spoken by the en:Hadhrami people, that article contains a map that is again consistent with this new map.
- What are the inconsistencies you identified? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- FYI @Charlesjsharp: M.Bitton has just uploaded the new map for 23/Dhofari Arabic, using the same source (Ethnologue). A455bcd9 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Charlesjsharp. I don't understand, I looked at the numbers you cited:
- I have no idea which is right, but the distribution map presented here varies markedly from the relevannt English Wikipedia articles (e.g. nos. 20,23, 25, 26). Can I suggest you validate the data and correct the articles or map (which is wrong) before nominating here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I suggest other editors have a look at the number errors that have been highlighted on Commons and en.wp discussions. Those are just the tip of the iceberg as the map is still new and most editors too busy and less invested to counteract the unbelievable amount of work (by the nominator) that has gone into plastering it all over the place in order to claim that "it's used in other projects". M.Bitton (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback @M.Bitton. The map shows the view of Ethnologue. As such, there are no errors per se. On the other hand, for sure, there may be errors in the original source (Ethnologue). But I think that's a different discussion. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: I would also like to know more about these mentioned errors. The main thing I understand from reading the long discussions here, the image talk page and the English WP nom is that they have little to do with this nomination on Commons. Disputes about image usage in English wiki articles should be resolved there. What I see is just a map based on Ethnologue data. -- IamMM (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Certainly this map can be improved – such a map summarizes a lot of data, so it can easily lack reliable sources for some points and contain ambiguities and errors. However, to be honest, the discussion on the English Wikipedia gives the impression that not all participants are only concerned about improving the map, but that a war is being fought here between different Wikipedia contributors. Maybe this impression is wrong, I certainly hope it is wrong, but the style and wording of some comments there gives that impression. It is therefore very difficult to judge whether this map is really so problematic or if that discussion is particularly about rivalries between contributors … That’s a pity, as we all should be devoted to the one goal of free reliable knowlegde and not to personal rivalries. --Aristeas (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: Hi and thanks for your comment. You can judge whether the map is problematic or not by looking at the sources used to create this map. They're all listed on File:Arabic Varieties Map.svg. Most of them come from Ethnologue, which is considered a reliable source in linguistics per en:Ethnologue#Reception,_reliability,_and_use. Of course this source itself may contain errors and if such errors are found and documented by other reliable sources, we could and should update this map accordingly, or upload a new one. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Certainly this map can be improved – such a map summarizes a lot of data, so it can easily lack reliable sources for some points and contain ambiguities and errors. However, to be honest, the discussion on the English Wikipedia gives the impression that not all participants are only concerned about improving the map, but that a war is being fought here between different Wikipedia contributors. Maybe this impression is wrong, I certainly hope it is wrong, but the style and wording of some comments there gives that impression. It is therefore very difficult to judge whether this map is really so problematic or if that discussion is particularly about rivalries between contributors … That’s a pity, as we all should be devoted to the one goal of free reliable knowlegde and not to personal rivalries. --Aristeas (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I respect the amount of work that went into this, but not only are there the questions above about its accuracy and reliability, it's a very busy image (of necessity) that once we're sure about the information it conveys is probably better fitted as a VI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: thanks for your feedback. Why would it be better as a Valued Image? (I can't grasp the difference between FP and VI tbh...) A455bcd9 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)