Open main menu
Illustration Workshop   Map Workshop   Photography Workshop   Video and Sound Workshop  

Crystal128-browser.svg Map workshop

This workshop is part of the Graphics Lab, a project aimed at picture retouching to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. More information about the lab can be found on its main page and requests pages (Illustrations ; Photographs ; Maps ; Video and Sound). To ask questions or make a suggestions, see the talk page of the graphic lab page.

This specific page is the requests page for the Map Workshop. Anyone can make a request for a map to be created or improved. The standard format for making a request is shown below, along with general advice, and should be followed.

Make a request

See alsoEdit

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 185 days. For the archive overview, see /Archive. The latest archive is located at /Archive/2019.

Contents

African coloniesEdit

Article(s): es:Congo Belga, es:Protectorado francés de Marruecos, es:Colonización francesa de Argelia and the respective article in each language.

Request
Hi, do you can do a map of this three colonial territories, in the case of the Belgian Congo it exist one but it has a very lower quality.--Fr2002 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

@Fr2002: I think you will have to explain a bit more. Do you want one map were those three areas are highlighted? What type of map? What is the over all area of that map? and so on. Please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Divide blank world map with subdivisions by continentsEdit

Article(s):

Request
Hola estimados, quiero pedirles que dividan el mapa por continentes con uno de los dos estilos (style 1 o style 2 o 3) para que puedan verse mejor el mapa y más cerca. Sería útil para algunos artículos que existen. Al menos lo pido para Norteamerica (que incluido Centroamerica y el Caribe además de Groenlandia y Hawaii) porque hay otro similar pero siempre le falta uno que otro "territorio". Pueden hacerlo PNG o SVG, como gusten-
Is there news? --189.230.76.133 14:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Details of your request go here… --189.238.82.187 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

I don't know how many speak Spanish (I think it is) here but no one has taken this and I don't know how to contact the requester. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)}}

Goran tek-en Hello, I am interested in this request

A translation would be: "Hello estimates, I would like to ask you to divide the map by continents with one of the two styles (style 1 or style 2 or 3) so that the map can be seen better and closer. It would be useful for some existing articles. At least I ask for North America (which includes Central America and the Caribbean as well as Greenland and Hawaii) because there is another similar one but it always lacks one or another "territory". You can do it PNG or SVG, as you like." Hispano76 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)   Request taken by Goran tek-en (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hispano76: I can help you but first we have to check some things.

  • Have you searched commons to see what already exist, if not please do so.
  • If we will do new ones: Do you want just country borders or also "landscape/area" borders like in this file:World blank map.png

It will be really really hard to know which are correct and up to date, and to find an accurate source in svg. Please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Goran tek-en
1) I didn't find an existing image for this.
2) Only territorial borders Hispano76 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hispano76: If you look here;

@Hispano76: I need your feedback on the things above, ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Do these designs work?
Goran tek-en Hispano76 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hispano76: I think we misunderstand each other. You put a lot of links to maps with administrative divisions and I don't understand why. You wrote before only "Only territorial borders" so why those links?
If you checked the links I gave you before and the maps you want can't be found there I have to understand what you want.
  • Do you want each continent alone on it's own map without the rest of the world?
  • Do you want each continent viewed as straight on as possible? E.a. Antarctic is often showed at the bottom of a map and not straight on.
Like in this map were it's mostly Africa which is shown straight on, the rest at different angels.
I have to understand so I don't do a lot of work for nothing. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
um, he had actually written a text re-explaining what the ip was looking for and what the ip is looking for, but apparently the new code editor 2017 deleted that part... I explain again and apologize. Goran tek-en
I think you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself understood. What I and the ip are looking for is a map of the state/provincial subdivisions of nations by continent similar to these three maps of Europe. But for the continents of South America, North America with Central America and the Caribbean included, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Europe.
Although my priority (and I don't know the ip... :/) would be to have a map of the territorial subdivisions of North America that includes the Caribbean and Central America as well as Hawaii and Greenland. I already linked several maps of the subdivisions by country, it could be used as a reference to create a continental map of territorial subdivisions. Do you understand me?
Postscript: South America is another priority. Hispano76 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hispano76: Thanks for explaining to me. Most maps have different projections so to move borders/territorial subdivisions from one map onto another is often an impossible task. Even those two Canada, United States are different and not possible to join together for a whole map. So I think the best way would be if someone who knows how to work with datasets/gis or something could do this. I don't have that knowledge.
I'm trying another way but it means a great deal of work for me but I will try it on North America and then we will see. So I will be back in a while with a draft. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hispano76: When I make a map I design it so that it will be legible at 100%, this is the only size I have some control over. I can never design one map so it will be legible at many different sizes. As I said before this is really complicated as there are countries with so big differences in sizes of it's administrative divisions and then it's almost impossible to join different maps. So it's a big complicated map both to make but also to take part of. I hope you have a good idea of how to use it as to my understanding it will be hard.
All sources for Greenland were very different in projection compared with my base map so I had to guess a bit there.
Draft-1 for you to check, give me feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Goran tek-en I understand. On the map it seems good to me, I could opt for this design instead of looking for another one. As for its use, I had thought of making examples of population density at the state level, entities that have already had a woman in the position of state executive power, etc. You could fix it or make a second version so that different colors can be added. I'm sorry if I seem demanding. Hispano76 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hispano76: I don't understand what you mean by this "I could opt for this design instead of looking for another one." specially the word "opt".
So to see if I understand you;
  • This draft is okay for you and could be some kind of "empty base map". I will then need the following;
Name of the file
Description
Category/ies at commons to be able to upload it at commons.
  • You want another version were some divisions have different colors. It would have been god to know this before as many of the divisions are not an area by itself, in fact I have removed such areas as the had no use for the purpose you gave me before. It can be done but also this part can be extensive depending on how many it is.
You have to provide me with sources and maps are easier for me, not names of divisions. Get that and I will look at it, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, is okay.
Name of the file: File:North America, administrative divisions.svg
Description: Map of North America with subdivisions at the state level. / Mapa de Norteamérica con las subdivisiones a nivel estatal.
Category/ies: Category:SVG labeled maps of administrative divisions of countries of North America (location map scheme) or Category:SVG labeled maps of administrative divisions of North America (location map scheme)
About that, I wanted something like this map of Europe but I no longer understood what you meant by other sources and maps, in that part I was confused, must be by my lack of experience in this. I'm sorry. Although I have reviewed the file, it seems that entities such as Alaska can be "colored" as long as they do not have intermediate lines such as rivers. But the colors are down 30-70%. Perhaps by simply removing the geographical boundaries, it can be solved and colored. Anyway, this wouldn't be urgent and you can take your time. Hispano76 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hispano76: Now you can find it here file:North America, administrative divisions.svg. In some way you have to tell which areas to color and if any are the same, what you want to show. You can make print screens of the uploaded file (or download a png) and then put colored dots in the different areas you want colored and provide me with it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll check it out. Greetings. Hispano76 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Biome of AustraliaEdit

Article(s):

en:Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub
en:Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest
en:Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests
Request
As per these sources ([1] - or jump to its map link - and [2]), it is quite clear that most of eastern Australia, besides a few spots, are not under the temperate forest biome. Sydney, for instance, mostly has dry sclerophyl and a few wet sclerophyl places, just akin to Adelaide and Perth. Therefore, it will be more appropriate for the region of Sydney to be under the Mediterranean biome. Furthermore, as you can see from these maps I provided, there are small pockets of temperate and subtropical forests to the north of Sydney. Also, the eastern portion of Melbourne is also dry sclerophyll, meaning it should be under the Med biome as well. I would hope that these are amended, as the original maps are rather fallacious and misleading. Thanks. --Meganesia (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

  Request taken by Goran tek-en (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Stale

--Goran tek-en (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Meganesia: I will help you but you have to be more precis, I have zero knowledge of this. Tell which map that should be edited and from which source and what to edit. Don't explain a lot that I don't need, please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing populist parties in Europe, Dec. 2017Edit

Article(s): en:Right-wing populism

Request
Please shade the UK light blue. As I stated when I requested the Oct. 2017 map be fixed, the en:Democratic Unionist Party is in the parliament and supports the Conservative Party government. The DUP is a right-wing populist party (see here -- source: Ingle, Stephen (2008). The British Party System: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 156.). Also, some factions of the Conservative Party (including some MPs) are right-wing populist.[3]
Also, maybe Iceland should also be shaded light blue. Since the en:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2017 (held in late-October 2017), two parties that are arguably right-wing populist, the en:People's Party (Iceland, 2016)[4][5] and the en:Centre Party (Iceland), were first elected to the parliament. Most of what I read labels these parties simply as "populist", but both of these parties lean on the right, at least on issues related to nationalism and immigration, and right-wing populism is increasingly being labeled as simply "populism." This isn't as important as my first request, but I think it should still be done. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)
This map needs more reliable sources in the first place. The only source attributed in the description is Parties and Elections in Europe which does not even label some of the parties mentioned in the map as right-wing populism. Add to that that it appears to be a one-man self-published website. I'd agree with your analysis of the UK though, but this Icelandic source doesn't look very reliable to me. De728631 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Greater ArmeniaEdit

Article(s)
en:Greater Armenia
Request
please overlay other landmarks like the Caspian or Black Sea, for context… --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

Saint Pierre and MiquelonEdit

Article(s)
en:Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Request
please create closeup map of the islands in relation to Newfoundland. The article has two long-distance maps which show them as specks… --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

Location maps NorwayEdit

Article(s):
Sortland, Kvæfjord

Request:
@Jon Harald Søby:, @Marmelad: These maps (and possibly others?) need to be updated. Godfjorden in Kvæfjord became part of Sortland in 2000. Blue Elf (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Metrication by yearEdit

Article(s): Metrificación, Sistema internazionale di unità di misura and many others

Update map and friendly coloring
A lot of work here. It is supposed to be the "replacement map" for metrication pages; nevetheless it has a lot of issues. There are no South Sudan boundaries; the color palette isn't the best for visually impaired people. I'm not good at all at Perl and similar, could you help me? The palette is shown in the second image.--Carnby (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

Note: Argentina adopted the metre in 1863, not in the 1880s.--Yilku1 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


Maps of Poland, Russia and LithuaniaEdit

Article(s): en:Kingdom of Poland, en:Kievan Rus', Polish-Lithuaninan Commonwealt, Russian Empire, Muscovy...

Request
I don't know source of these maps, it might be still under copyright. It would be nice if we could have free SVG alternatives
Details of your request go here… -- Bojan  Talk  03:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


British IndiaEdit

 

Article(s)
en:British India
Request
please remove anachronous Uzbek and Tajik borders, fill in hinterland cities… --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


What exactly do you want?

LamuEdit

 

Article(s)
en:Lamu
Request
the map Funguvisiwa vya Lamu.png at https://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funguvisiwa_ya_Lamu#/media/File:Funguvisiwa_vya_Lamu.png may not be allowable here, but the size and detail are great. please make free-use Commons-friendly version … --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Why would it not be allowed here, it's from Open Street Map, as long as credits are given I can't see any problem. --

Then can you bring it to Commons, my unsigned friend?Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Create a map using gpx dataEdit

Hello. I have a gpx file with communities border of my country. Anyone can help me to use it to create a map? Xaris333 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Just search internet for "Create a map using gpx data" and you will find information on how to. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It was the first I did. No useful results. Xaris333 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Here you can upload a file and choose output, more options here. Qgis is a free program that has a plug in gpxsomething wich also work, here. List of websites. You can also go this way, it also depends on what kind of output you want. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of Limosa lapponica subspeciesEdit

Request
  1. Merge L. l. anadyrensis map into L. l. baueri map as one map, under the latter name (synonymy [scroll ¾ down linked page for details])
  2. Rearrange maps geographically, rather than alphabetically, so left to right in this order:
  • L. l. lapponica
  • L. l. taymyrensis
  • L. l. menzbieri
  • L. l. baueri

- MPF (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s)


Blank svg map of districts of TurkeyEdit

Article(s): en:Turkey_districts_blank.svg

Request
A blank svg map of Turkey on district level (similar to the [6]). The only district map of Turkey on Wikipedia is this[7], which is a png map.
Graphist opinion(s)


Map of the 4th Ukrainian Front advance during the Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944Edit

Article(s): en:Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive

Request
I would like an English version of the map using NATO military symbology. Additionally this will serve as a replacement for the original file which could be deleted as not public domain. I will provide translations and help with what symbols should be used to graphist. OpenStreetMap can be used for the source terrain. --Kges1901 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

@Kges1901: I could help you but first I would like to know what kind of map you want, example a topographic like the first one or other? Please ping me, thanks--Goran tek-en (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: I would like a political-style map that shows terrain features as elevations are not shown in the source map. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: I'm sorry but I don't understand, if there is elevations and terrain to me that is a topographic map like this.
  • If that is not what you mean please link to a map of the kind you mean.
  • I can't see/understand which part the original map is of the source map, remember I know nothing of this subject. Please provide screen print with a rectangle on it (or some other way) showing the area you want, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  Request taken by Goran tek-en (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
@Goran tek-en: I would like all of the map (the entire map) that is linked. Apologies if I wasn't clear, a topographic map is suitable. Kges1901 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Is this the correct area?, and at OSM there are 4 different types of map, which do you mean? --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: I would like a standard map. here is the link to the square I drew with google maps that provides the area I would like to be on the map. Kges1901 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Thanks for that square it helped me a lot. Have a look this #1 draft. This is how it looks straight of, don't think about things sticking out or so right now. This is a moderna/today map with streets and other things, do you want me to remove something or add something, feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: The map is excellent, but the area has changed significantly between today and 1944. You should use File:4th Ukrainian Front situation map 1 to 8 February 1944 northern half.jpg's placement of bodies of water and compare it with the OSM map to obtain the 1944 location of the bodies of waters. Otherwise, the roads are generally in the same places now as they were in 1944. Kges1901 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Is it correct that the water bodies was much more narrow/smaller and there where wetlands on the sides 1944? I want to know for sure because there is some work with that and the source map is not that clear, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Yes, the water bodies were smaller and narrower in 1944, and there were wetlands. Kges1901 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: When we graphic workers draw maps we try to follow those map conventions so that we have some similarity between the maps. I have now a new #2 draft for you to look at. It doesn't look like the OSM map because of the conventions I mentioned. Really there is nothing left of the OSM map, too much had changed. This is not the final version by far, and I have had to guess quite a bit as I don't really know what everything is on the source map. I would like to get the overall background more lively but I really don't know what it is. Is it fields, sand or what. You tell what you want it to show, give me feedback on the hole map. Any feedback goes, just tell me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: The area that isn't built up or wetlands is steppe. I have added the place names I would like added to the map here (pardon the shifting of the background, that was accidental) The places with place names on them that you have in green are actually also settlements. Kges1901 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Was the steppe at that time divided into rectangular "fields" as it is on the OSM map of today, it actually looks like that on your linked source? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Goran tek-en}] It was indeed divided into fields. Kges1901 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Two different drafts for you;
  • Spelling draft, this si for you to check the spelling as some were hard to see, also check if any more green areas should be settlements. The names are not in the final position or anything like that.
  • #3 draft, now there is a stepp background also, check everything and give me feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Goran tek-en: Spelling corrections: Apostolov to Apostolovo, missing Malaya Lepetikha (east of the Dnieper, north of Velikaya Lepetikha) and Alekseyevka (north of Kapulovka), Nizhinye Rogachuk to Nizhnye Rogachuk, Pervemayevka to Pervomayeka, Ustikalka to Ushkalka, Manovone to Ivanovonoye, Blagovesh... to Blagoveshchenskoye, Batki to Balki, Menchikor to Menchikur, Peskochina to Peskochino, Alekseyevika to Alekseyevka, Verkooe Tarasovki to Verkhne Tarasovka, imen Chkalova to imeni Chkalova, Grushovka balka to Grushevka balka. The only thing that should be inhabited instead of green is Balki. Kges1901 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Two different drafts for you;
  • @Goran tek-en: The base map is ok now. Troop positions can be started on now. Germans can be blue, Soviets red. For the map legend (key), the scale of the source map that I linked is 1:100000 or 1 cm of the source map is equal to 1 km. In the key, you can decide what colors represent troop positions on a given day. In the key, note that positions are at 07:00 on each day. In the source map, the key is in the top right corner. For instance, the first color to the right of "к 7.00-1-2-44 г" represents the troop positions of Soviet troops for 1 February 1944, and so on. Kges1901 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: There are so many different types of encircled areas, lines, squares etc and to me it's very hard to understand which type that shows what. Troop positions, battle lines, movements etc. It would help me a lot if you could mark out the different types and describe them on the map, hope that's OK, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Here is a key to the symbols. [8]. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Day 1Edit

@Kges1901: I do have problems to interpret the map so now I will give you 10 different drafts to check. What I want is to get all the different areas, lines etc correct before we start giving them the final look. The numbers below are the different days.

@Kges1901: This is a template that we use when we do military maps File:Template_of_Military_Symbols.svg, is those the symbols you want? If so you have to help me which I should use where.
Two different versions of drafts; 1G without gradient, 1G gradient. Do you want the units names like that? This is going to be really really complicated with all eight days on the same map. For my sake (no knowledge of those battles) it would be very good if we can take it day by day and then we look at the whole info and see what we can do, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: I agree with you about taking it day by day, so first I will upload a version that has the first day's German positions complete. (Here) The symbols I want are the ones on the chart you linked. I would like the map without gradient, because the regiments should be displayed using the "III" regiment unit size symbol with, for instance, for the 570th IR, 570 to the left of the box and the division number, 302, in this case, to the right. For the HQ locations, you don't need the text HQ to the right of the box because anything with the vertical line coming out of it is automatically an HQ per your symbology. Also, there should be no 'x' over Schorner and the HQ in Dudchino is a corps HQ so use 3 'x's as shown in the unit size chart. Kges1901 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: German day 1.
  • I have assumed that the brown lines are Geman but I'm not sure.
  • I have put small dots at the ends of the lines, it's much easier to understand where the start and end. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Almost there with the Germans for Day 1. Only thing now is to change the number of 'x's above IV Army Corps to three 'x's - XXX as it is a corps. Kges1901 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: German day 1 #2. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Here is a link showing the numbers that should be added for each German divisions. Attached is a link to the original map with the 1st day positions of Soviet units marked in. [9] Kges1901 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Russian. I don't know how to mark when it's two units, tell me. I don't know all of the abbreviations you use so if you can write it in full ones. If you can write text for German and then Russian on separate maps it would be great for me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: For two regiments you could put two regiment symbols next to each other and have the division numbers to the right of the box. RD = Rifle Division, RC = Corps. Rifle units are infantry. Units marked 'Guards' should have the abbreviation 'Gds' under the number. Kges1901 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901:
  • What is GRD, and what symbol and unit type?
  • Within the green line on the draft, where should "Soviet 50th GRD" be, which line, area or what?
  • Day 1 German Russian-2. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en:
  • Guards Rifle Division - division - XX - infantry, use abbreviation 'Gds' below unit designation number to the left of the box
  • Lower right of your greeen-circled area Kges1901 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Russian-3. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Goran tek-en: Excellent work. Comments for Soviet units: the 416th Rifle Division should be marked as infantry - you have used the mechanized infantry symbol there. The 50th Guards should also be north of the 416th. 34th Rifle Corps should have 'Gds' below the '34', and three 'X's instead of four 'x's. 32nd Rifle Corps should have three 'X's instead of four 'x's. 3rd Army (4 X's) should have 'Gds' below the '3'. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Day 1 German Russian-4.
  • To me 416th Rifle Division is marked as infantry, I have encircled it with a green line on this draft.
  • I know the 50th Guards should be more to the north, I did draw a grey line to show this but that was not really clear. I have now moved around the units to make more room. This means some of them interfere with blue lines and almost other units lines. If this is OK for you I will leave it like that, tell me.
  • 34th etc, this is were I don't have enough knowledge about how to show things. I assumed as there is a difference between units and HQ this also was valid for GDS. You have to help me with stuff like that and be a bit more specific, "both units and HQ" like that. I have never used those military symbols to this extent before so you have to help me.
  • 32 HQ, is it OK to have the vertical line upwards like this, not much space there? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Goran tek-en: For the 32 HQ, could you decrease the size of the symbol instead? I'd rather that the symbols be slightly smaller than one of them have to be upside down. Kges1901 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Russian-5.
Smaller HQ symbols. You didn't answer my other questions above. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en:
The HQ symbols look much better now, thanks.
Apologies for my delayed responses. It's ok if the unit symbols overlap lines.
'GDS', the abbreviation for a Guards unit, should be standardized to 'Gds' - same for both units and headquarters. Other changes:
  • The HQ '5' infantry box and 'XXXX' should be '5 Shock' infantry box and 'XXXX'
  • The HQ '10' infantry box and 'XXX' should be '10 Gds' infantry box and 'XXX'
  • The HQ '9' infantry box and 'XXX' that is southeast of the 108 Gds should be '37' infantry box and 'XXX'
  • The HQ '3' infantry box and 'I' should be '3 Gds' infantry box and 'XXX'
  • The '96' infantry box and 'XX' should be '96 Gds' infantry box and 'XXX'
  • The '108 Gds' are a special case here - the place where they have 2 regiments (III) is at the beginning of the day, and there is a third regiment (III) moving up to the southeast, denoted with an arrow on the source map. The position with the dashed lines for the 108 Gds is the entire division (XX) at the end of the day. To show this situation, suggest drawing in the third regiment (III, infantry box symbol, and 108 Gds to the right of the box) at the beginning of the day with the box at the position shown in the source map, then with arrow heading towards the two regiments of the 108 Gds in the solid circled area on the source map. The two regiments should be shown by side by side boxes that each have III, infantry box, and 108 Gds to the right of the individual boxes. To show the position of the entire division at the end of the day (dashed circle area on source map), draw arrow from the 2 regiments position to the end of day position to show the movement, and keep the symbol you already have at the end of day position there. Kges1901 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Russian-6.
  • Thank you for making the information structured, much easier for me.
  • I have also changed the line around the end position to another type, then we can show in the legend that this is at the end of the day. This is just a proposal, if you don't want it, just tell me. --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Some final comments on this day, before we move on to the next:
  • Your proposed change to the legend makes sense.
  • 63, Infantry box, XXXX should be 63, Infantry box, XXX
  • The '259', Infantry box, XX that is to the northeast of the 32, infantry box, XXX and to the northwest of 34 Gds, Infantry box, XXX should be III, infantry box, and '259' to the right of the box
  • The '59 Gds', Infantry box, III should have '59 Gds' on the right rather than the left of the box
  • The '18', Infantry, XX should be '118', Infantry, XX
  • The '2', Infantry, XXX should be '2 Gds', the Mechanised Infantry symbol in the template of military symbols, and XXX
  • The II, infantry box, and '61' to the right should be III, infantry box, and '61' to the right
  • The II, infantry box below that should be III, infantry box, and '61' to the right
  • The '230' infantry, XX that is next to the headquarters of '9', 'XXX' and infantry box should be infantry, III, and '230' to the right of the box. Kges1901 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Russian-7.
Now I have added the different names and a legend. You should check the names as I'm not sure for all of them. As you can see there is a lot of information just for the 1st of Feb. I think it will be hard to have all of the days in the same map, probably we have to make different ones... We will continue and then we will see. Goran tek-en (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)--

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Goran tek-en: Thanks. Two final comments:

  • In the legend, change 'Russian' to 'Soviet'
  • For the 259th, I meant for my comment to apply to the other one. The '259' and 'XXX' should be changed to 'III', infantry box, '259' to the right of the box. The one that is currently 'III', infantry box, '259' should be 259, infantry box, 'XX'
  • All of the German units with the 'II' unit size symbol should have that changed to 'III' Kges1901 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Soviet-8. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Thanks. One last change: '259' should go to the left of the infantry box for the '259', infantry box, size symbol XX Kges1901 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day 1 German Soviet-9. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Day 2Edit

@Goran tek-en: There isn't much change for Day 2. Here's an image showing new unit positions. Kges1901 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Draft D2_G_S.svg. I'm not sure how we are going to show the different movements per day. Right now I do one new map/day as it will be to messy to have everything on one, how do you think about this?
Now some of the Soviet lines cross over German so I guess they should be drawn back but you have to tell me what/how. Also check the legend as this is for 2/2. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Goran tek-en: We could do separate maps for each day's positions, and have them combined into one gif for the article. The German lines should be drawn back to reflect the Soviet advance, as shown on the original map.
The XX, 108 Gds can be shown at the final 1 February position for the second day, as we don't need the first day beginning positions on the second day map. Accordingly, the legend should be changed to remove the end of day symbol. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Draft 4th Ukrainian Front_D-2-2.svg. Day 1 the German lines were brown with blue behind to the weast/north, if there are lines for day 2 you have to show me them, I can't see any. I will right now just move the German troops and you will have to inform me. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: There are no German lines for several of the days. For the purposes of the map we'll just assume that the German positions are opposite of the new Soviet positions. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Thanks, so what about my draft above? --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: The map is fine except that the icons marking the day 1 positions of the units that moved on day 2 (2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized and 50 Gds, XX, Infantry) should be removed.
  • The 'start of day 1 Feb' in the legend should be changed to 'start of day 2 Feb'. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Now I don't understand because in the image you linked to "Here's" there are 2 of each of those . So which is correct, your image or what you tell me now? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: I have reconsidered my original opinion has having two identifical symbols for the same unit would be confusing. As a result the southernmost of the 2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized symbols should be removed. Kges1901 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Draft 4th Ukrainian Front_D-2-3.svg. I just wanted to make sure I didn't do unnecessary work.
I did remove "2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized and 50 Gds, XX, Infantry" as you wrote that before and that made most sense to me, if not correct just tell me. I also made a change in the legend so the dates are in the same style. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Goran tek-en: Your change with the extra box makes sense. Dates should be in the style '2 Feb. 1944'. I think we can move on to the third day after this. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Day 3Edit

@Kges1901: Give me info. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Goran tek-en: Apologies for the delay. Here is the link with units whose positions changed by 07:00 on 3 February shown. [10]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Draft 4th_Ukrainian_Front_D-3-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en:
  • The map is missing the 54th Guards Rifle Division (54, infantry, XX) shown on the original and its subunits, which should be added.
  • The (248, infantry, XX) position from 1 Feb should be removed as redundant.
Kges1901 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Draft 4th_Ukrainian_Front_D-3-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: The subunits of (54, infantry, XX) as annotated on the original map should be shown, otherwise there will appear to be an empty area. Kges1901 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: I'm sorry I don't understand. For me the base reference we have is Day 1. You are talking about original map but as I have tried to inform you, it's to complex for me to understand completely.
Comparison day 2 and 2.
  • Day 3: Added 416, moved 248 and removed it's previous line.
  • Day 3: Moved 54, 50.
  • So what you mean by sub units I don't understand. --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Goran tek-en: Apologies for being unclear, but what I meant was the units marked in this image such as "Training (on left of box), II, Infantry, 54 Gds on right of box" and "Penal (on left of box), I, infantry, 54 Gds (on right of box)". Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Draft 4th_Ukrainian_Front_D-3-3.
  • I don't know if sub units should be depicted in a special way.
  • I might have to many units there now, just tell me.
  • When you write info for me on the original map please don't write the smallest that smal. Can be hard to read depending on the background, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is a zoomed-in version of the crowded area with the unit that was invisible on the larger scale version; 2 (on left), II, tank, 37 Gds marked in turquoise should be added.
  • The front line is marked by the forward most (westernmost or leftmost) lines that are brown on the outside and blue on the inside. The outer most icons (1, II, tank, 37 Gds), (3, II, mechanized, 6 Gds), (2, II, mechanized, 6 Gds)) need to be moved east (right) to reflect that, bringing them closer to Konstantinovka (Константиновка in the screenshot linked in the first bullet point).
  • If the above – showing the units with the size symbol II – cannot be done in the limited space available, I suggest that you create an inset map that shows a magnification of the "crowded" area in the upper left corner titled 'Frontline of the 2nd Guards Mechanized Corps at 07:00', then add the subunits of 2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized (what I mean by this is ((1, II, tank, 37 Gds), (3, II, mechanized, 6 Gds), (2, II mechanized, 6 Gds), (1, II, mechanized, 6 Gds), and (2, II, tank, 37 Gds)) there. The inset map would not have to include the (2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized) symbol.
  • If an inset map is created, the front line should still be close to Konstantinovka, but (1, II, tank, 37 Gds), (3, II, mechanized, 6 Gds), (2, II, mechanized, 6 Gds), and (2 (on left), II, tank, 37 Gds) do not need to be shown in the "crowded" area, and (2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized) should be moved forward to the point that is slightly northeast of Konstantinovka where the map in the zoomed-in version says '2 МК' in red letters.
  • Add "(-)" below 2 Gds in the symbol for (2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized).
  • Add "(-)" below 54 Gds in the symbol for (54 Gds, XX, Infantry).
  • After these are addressed 3 February will be done. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Draft 4th_Ukrainian_Front_D-3-4.
  • That was a tuff one, hope I got it all right.
  • I looked more for the brown/blue lines so I have adjusted others also, so check that area all together. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Day 4Edit

@Kges1901: I will wait for your info on day 4. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Do you have any info on the German forces on the northern portion? I will adjust the german lines but should I just move the different forces also or should some of them be removed? --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day4-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the large HQ marker for German 302, Infantry, XX and 3, Infantry, XX
  • A unit symbol for German 302, Infantry, XX should be placed to the west of the units with size marker III and 302 to the right of the infantry symbol
  • A unit symbol for German 3, Infantry, XX should be placed to the west of the units with size marker III and 3 to the right of the infantry symbol
  • Shift the German units to the north of the 302, Infantry, XX HQ marker to the south, so that 138, III, Infantry, 3 on right is northeast of 144, III, Infantry, 3 on right
  • 572, III, Infantry, 302 on right should be to the north of 138, III, Infantry, 3 on right
  • To the north of 572, III, Infantry, 302 on right should be 571, III, Infantry, 302 and 570, III, Infantry, 302 in that order Kges1901 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day4-2. I didn't understand all of it. Goran tek-en (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)--

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Goran tek-en: It turned out correctly. One last change: add the unit marked in black text. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Day4-3. --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: One last comment: The position and unit symbol for 279, XX, Infantry at Balki can be removed. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day4-4. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Goran tek-en: I noticed my own error that needs to be corrected: II, Infantry, 54 Gds (on right) should be III, Infantry, 54 Gds (on right). Kges1901 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Day4-5. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: 5 Gds (Mechanized, X) should be using the File:NATO Map Symbol - Motorised Infantry.svg symbol instead. Kges1901 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Day 5Edit

Konstantinovka sector, Dneprovka sector, Veseloye sector - Soviet positions marked by blue lines with red borders Kges1901 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC) @Kges1901: Day5-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • 2 Gds (-), XXX, Mechanized should be 2 Gds, XXX, Mechanized
  • Remove Training, II, Infantry, 54 Gds
  • Remove Penal, I, Infantry, 54 Gds
  • Remove 4 Gds, X, Mechanized and arrow
  • Remove 5 Gds, X, Mechanized and arrow
  • Remove the dotted line circle south of 50 Gds, XX, Infantry Kges1901 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day5-2. --
@Kges1901: Day5-3. I didn't know if the X should be blue or red? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Day5-4. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: I have seen something which I think is a mistake. The dashed line we used to show troops on the first day is the same dashed line we use to show troops the other days also, or have I just mixed it up. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Goran tek-en: The link for 5-4 is 404. Regarding the lines, I think that using the same color in this case is fine because those units stayed in the same place for the period on the map, so they didn't change locations. Kges1901 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: The link works anyway now (checked in incognito so no memory issue by me), it might have been some temporary server issue. It's not the color I mean it's the dashes. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Goran tek-en: Using the same color is fine since we are creating separate maps for each day. Kges1901 (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Is Day 5 done? --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Shall we continue or? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Goran tek-en: Apologies for the belated response - real life got in the way, but Day 5 is done. Kges1901 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Day 6Edit

Nikopol sector, Verkhnye Rogachuk sector, Konstantinovka sector Soviet positions marked by red with green borders. Kges1901 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: I'm sorry I didn't mean to push you, I just didn't want this not to be completed.
Day6-1. I have drawn some black lines to show you what I have mentioned before. That the dashed line for the first day is the same as we use for areas (not front lines) and to me that is not correct. I think we should have another type of lines for areas after day 1.


Requesting a version of this particular map with subdivisions such as states and oblasts and etc.Edit

Article(s): Since the image isn't working here's the link to its wikipedia page!

Request
I can't seem to find the above map ANYWHERE when I upload it to google image search, and unfortunately its not the simple 1-px-wide border system but national borders of varying size and pattern, and I'm simply not skilled or do not have the right equipment available to be able to expand said map down into the sub-national sub-divisions. Thanks! --Abbazorkzog (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

@Abbazorkzog: I don't really understand what you are looking for but have you checked out this category with blank world maps. Don't forget to look in all the subcategories also. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Map for the "Cultural Triangle" in Sri LankaEdit

Article(s): en:Cultural triangle

Request
The "Cultural triangle" is literally a triangle between the cities of Anuradhapura/Polonnaruwa/Kandy in Sri Lanka.
Would anyone be kind enough to create a map showing this, or let me know how to do? With Inkscape I added a red triangle over a screenshot of OpenStreetMap, but the result is not great because the 3 city names are not all visible, and labels of unrelated smaller cities add to the mess. Thanks! :-) --Syced (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

  Request taken by Goran tek-en (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: Draft for you to check, feedback, thanks, --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en:: Looks great! Would you mind adding the cities Sigiriya and of Dambulla too? Thanks a lot :-) Syced (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: Draft 2 and if this is okayI will need the following;
  • Name of the file
  • Description (language)
  • Captions/s (language/content)
  • Category/ies at commons
to be able to upload it at commons. If you don'y know about Captions read here.--Goran tek-en (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Perfect thanks!
Name: Sri Lanka’s Cultural triangle
Description (English): Situated in the centre of the island, covering an area which includes the World Heritage cultural sites of the Sacred City of Anuradhapura, the Ancient City of Polonnaruwa, the Ancient City of Sigiriya, the Ancient City of Dambulla and the Sacred City of Kandy.
Caption (English): Sri Lanka’s Cultural triangle
Categories: Maps of Sri Lanka, Culture of Sri Lanka
Thanks! Syced (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Syced: Now you can find it here file:Sri Lanka’s Cultural triangle.svg. If you are happy with this please put the code {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} on this request so it can be archived, thanks.   Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Goran tek-en (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

2 maps of ArgentinaEdit

Request
  1. Color Tierra del Fuego Province the same color the rest of Argentina, as the ban is the whole country
  2. Change color of Buenos Aires and Rosario, Argentina, to Purple - Sexual orientation and gender identity: all employment

--Yilku1 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s)
@Yilku1:   Done BMacZero (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a mistake in N.2, the cities of Buenos Aires and Rosario should be purple "Sexual orientation and gender identity: all employment" --Yilku1 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Create Luzon locator mapsEdit

Article(s): More zoomed in locator maps for Luzon.

Request
Locator maps for Luzon
Additional locator maps for Luzon, as is the most populated island, which means there are more points of interest here than elsewhere in the Philippines.
  1. Mega Manila, 40 km radius from Manila City Hall. (A more zoomed out version of Metro Manila location map.svg.
  2. Northern Luzon, from Batanes to the southern tip of Bataan.
  3. Southern Luzon, from the northern tip of Quezon to Masbate
Philippines location map (Luzon).svg can be used. The three maps do overlap, and there's no need for other parts of the country to be grayed out.

Howard the Duck (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s)


polygamyEdit

Article(s): en:polygamy

Request
please differentiate colors for those who can't make them out… --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


Locator map of Loveland, OhioEdit

Article(s): en:Loveland, Ohio

Request
This image is misleading, because it only shows Loveland's location within Hamilton County. Loveland lies within three counties: Hamilton, Clermont, and Warren. Loveland does hang off the side of this Hamilton County map, but you can't tell that there are three counties involved. This situation affects many municipalities, but most are primarily in a single county. A majority of Loveland's land may be in Hamilton County, but the downtown and city hall are in Clermont County. Accommodating all three counties may be challenging. For the purpose of the infobox that it's currently embedded in, perhaps the three counties could be laid out vertically. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


Battle of Cape EconmusEdit

Article(s): En:Battle of Cape Econmus

Request
A replacement set of maps showing the three stages of the Battle of Ecnomus
The English Wikipedia article Battle of Cape Econmus has a map - File:CapeEcnomus.png. Unfortunately it is inaccurate in a couple of small but important details. A have recently successfully nominated the article for GA, it is currently undergoing an ACR, and I hope to shortly submit it for FAC; for this the map need to be correct. There are a number of similar maps in RSs. Eg page 89 here. But perhaps the best maps to base any new ones on are here - apart from the lack of a key and the barely distinguishable colours. This is my first map request, so apologies for anything missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

@Gog the Mild: I could help you but there are some things I don't understand. I have no knowledge of this subject, the link for the article is wrong in some way, you use some abbreviations and I don't understand them, I'm a graphic worker not an editor. You have two links to sources but the one to google books I don't know how to get to page 89, in the livius link there are several images so I don't know which. Please just get me a link to the images directly and what ever text information I need. Please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:

  Stale

--Goran tek-en (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by number of Internet usersEdit

Article(s): en:List of countries by number of Internet users, and the Wikimedia Foundation's annual report if this is done somewhat quickly

Request
Hello! I'm wondering if someone here could update the above map to the most recent data from the International Telecommunications Union, which you can find here (spreadsheet link via this webpage). I also wonder if using two different colors is the right approach... Thank you!
--Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


svgEdit

Article(s): en:Genpei War

Request
please convert this .png to .svg. I want to translate map's information.
Details of your request go here… --MOSIOR (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)
  Request taken by AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Iran historical mapEdit

Article(s): en:Pahlavi dynasty

Request
Someone at en:Talk:Pahlavi dynasty to request to change the SVG map in the infobox of the article to jpg, and they may be right, as the current map that shown Russia instead of USSR, it not historically accurate for the article which was for Iran in the period of 1925 to 1979. For example, we have SVG historical map of en:Weimar Republic, which show the historical border of Germany as well as the historial border of nearby countries. --Matthew hk (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

@Matthew hk: Why it should be changed to a jpg I don't understand. Svg is so much easier to edit and better in many more ways and there is always png versions created on a svg file. So if you want the globe image to be accurate of that time you would have to provide sources on which/how to change borders, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en:, it was due to an ip user keep on changing map on a lots of article. Some of the reasoning seem right, for example for "Pahlavi dynasty". But yes, i did not have source, just have the two jpg files. The ip did not even provide any other source to allow other people to follow up. Just common sense at that time was Soviet Union instead of Russia, is not enough. Matthew hk (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: I still don't understand, I'm a graphic worker and I know nothing of your subject. Please just tell me what you want changed, only the information I need for that. Which borders to change and a source for that border, preferably a map. I do graphic work not research or things like that, thanks for your understanding. --Goran tek-en (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Can convert either one jpg to svg? Again, it is not my request actually, An ip got a rampage on changing so many svg map to jpg despite sometimes his jpg proposal are more correct. Matthew hk (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Please always ping me. I need sources on what to change, in any format. You are the requester here but if you don't want this just let me know. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Projection identificationEdit

Article(s): Polynesia etc

Request
The map was originally in equirectangular projection, as in its description, but has since been changed to what looks like orthographic projection. Can someone please confirm what projection this is so that the description can be updated? Thanks!
Graphist opinion(s)


Map cleanupEdit

Article(s):en:Chera_dynasty

Request
  • Blur boundaries - of darkish grey area (we are not sure about them)
  • Remove the darkish grey from the area marked as "Ezhil Malai" (we are not sure about that)
--Rajesh of Raigad (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


Greater Beirut svg mapEdit

Article(s): en:2019–20 Lebanese Football League

Request
Hi, would anyone be kind enough to create a map of en:Greater Beirut in the same style of this map on Beirut? I'm asking here because I'm not able to do so myself. The coordinates on OSM should be N: 33.9838, S: 33.7860, E: 35.6802, W: 35.4220. Thanks for your help, Nehme1499 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


Municipalities of Mexico.svgEdit

Article(s): Municipios de México

Request
Hello, this is a map of Mexico's municipalities (updated to 2015), but I would like to have it fixed. That the municipal boundaries are black lines. In a way, it looks like this map. Also this map is too heavy to edit in Inkscape, is there a way to decrease the weight? or should it be re-done again? I ask because this does not happen with the other map I linked in the example.
As a clarification, this map would also be used to "color" it by adding the municipalities won by political parties, etc. --Hispano76 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


Federal electoral districts of MexicoEdit

Article(s): es:Distritos electorales federales de México

Request
Hello, I would like to create a map of Mexico's federal electoral districts. There are two websites that may be useful or based on the state maps listed in the article es:Distritos electorales federales de México To clarify, I want to be able to "color" the districts just like this map. --Hispano76 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


Africa in 1930Edit

Article(s): en:Africa

Request
Botswana should be pink for British, not independent… --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)


1796 Italian campaign mapsEdit

Article(s): en:Battle of Arcole, ru:Бой при Арколе

Request
I tried converting the PDF to SVG automatically, but the result was messy. There are also some things to be fixed here: Vaubois is spelled incorrectly; Davidovich corps (18k troops) present in Ala by the 12th is not shown; Massena's strength actually was around 9,500 while Augereau had 8,300 (his movement towards Brenta and back is also not shown); Joubert is incorrectly shown to leave Legnago completely (while a single demi-brigade was dispatched); presence of 28k troops in Mantua under Wurmser's command may also be depicted. --Qbli2mHd (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
If an SVG is made, it can be changed slightly to substitute the other two images. --Qbli2mHd (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)