User talk:Goran tek-en/discussions/2019

Discussions 2019

Yet another map request

Extended content

Hi Goran_tek-en, How are you? You did a bundle of maps like this one: File:Chart 9 German Radio Intelligence Operations in Southern Russia 1941-42.svg last year, which were excellent. I have about 12 or 13, this time there are for the Luftwaffe signal intelligence service. There are not anywhere near as complex, mostly flight patterns and unit withdrawal routes. This is an example: [1] page 42. I think it will need decoded, that I can do. They seem to have been done on inked paper, the blue paper that plans that used to be on, and then transferred to the document. So they are slightly blurred, but it can be decoded, after looking at it for a few minutes. The rest are all of a muchness. I can take them out of document and join them up and present at the Graphics lab as before, with attached info for each one, unless you want them put somewhere else. Thanks Scope creep (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Would you want the raw maps on Commons?. Scope creep (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Hi, I can help you with that. It's very helpful if you can extract them and add all the necessary information included sources. It seems as you have a google account so you can put them on drive so I can download them. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I have a google drive, I will need your email to share them per [2]]. Probably better to email me, and I will take it from there. I will be a couple of days to add in the info. Some of the image fairly blurry, so it'll add a file for every image, with the source and info for out of focus text. The image are public domain. Same kind of documents as the last time. Scope creep (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Can you provide me with the source/s? --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: , I have emailed them to you. If you need individual pages, forward me a message, and I will create a list. Scope creep (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: I have started with 181-1 and in the txt document for that I can't see a source? #1 of 181-1, feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: , I think that is cracking. That one would be page 1a of IF-181. I am assuming that is the source? Scope creep (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: I will need the following; Name of the file Description Category/ies at commons to be able to upload it at commons. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Name: Fixed Signals stations of the Reichswehr Description: Fixed H-Stations in the Reichswehr in 1924 Categories: Military history of Germany during World War I, Signals intelligence of World War I.Scope creep (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: The two categories you gave me does not exist on commons so I need new ones. Uploaded file Fixed Signals stations of the Reichswehr Description --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: , I'm not that au fait with Wikipedia Commons category. I will do a wee search over the next 2 days and find or possibly create a category. Scope creep (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: There is something wrong with the name in the legend. It doesn't sit on the screen properly and the end of it, is sitting off the image to the right. Scope creep (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Here is the main category for WWI. I have uploaded a new version but it takes some time for the preview to be updated. There is a lot of problems with fonts in svg files. I'm using Liberation Sans which should work well but still there is problems with the different png previews which are created. Here Help:SVG#Fonts_/_text there is some information about this but it's nothing you have to read, just want to show that there is problems. I'm doing my best to have space around text but it's impossible to not run into problems some times. I'm a graphic worker and it takes other types of knowledges to be able to avoid this, if it's even possible, I'm not sure as it also changes over time and depends on so many things. But of course I always try to get it to work. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I've had a look at it. It is a pretty handsome font, very modern, a bit like Verdana on Word. I think it is the ideal font, and it would be close I would have choosen, clean and modern. I've read that text. I know what you mean. I guess it is a case of trying it and see. I have changed the category to Military intelligence in World War I. It is the closest I can find. There is not much in the way of choice. I have a couple of improvements. The name should be Fixed Signals stations of the Reichswehr but I can change once it is finalised. The other one, is the cased Signals in the legend. It doesnt look right. I known I specified, sorry it is late in the day :) but it doesnt look right, lowercase it to signals. Apart from the font spacing it is perfect. Scope creep (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Signals changed. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: Just looking. Thats Done. Scope creep (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) 181-2 @Scope creep: #181-2-1 --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: That's good, apart from name that is: Legend in document:Luftwaffe signals organisation, summer of 1939 Name of the file: Luftwaffe signals organisation, summer of 1939 Description: Luftwaffe signals intelligence organisation before the start of World War II. Image from IF-181 p.18 of [3] Category/ies at commons: Category:Military intelligence in World War II Scope creep (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: The category you provided is not correct. It's really frustrating with that the png preview is not correct. To me it's worse now than what it has been before. File:Luftwaffe signals organisation, summer of 1939.svg --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC) 181-3 @Scope creep: #181-3-1. For me the information texts ar pushed into it self and I think that's because of the lifted letters "th" etc. This is on the server where I'm showing my drafts. We have a svg-checker at commons but unfortunately that is not running exactly the same library for showing svg-files as the rest is so it's not giving the exact true result. Anyway here is a screen print of how it looks there, #181-3-1 screen print. So that is not correct either. If we have the same problems when it's uploaded I will fix the lifted letters then in some way. I have a problem with Petsamo, today it's in Russia but according to image 181-3 it was in Finland. Was the border different then or has it moved, so I know what to change. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I will check the category, and the location. I assumed there would be a WW2 version of the WW1 Military history category. Back in a sec. Scope creep (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Re: Petsamo, between 1941 and 1944, it was part of Finland, before it was handed in settlement to the Soviet Union, hence since the map is within that period, it is Finland. Scope creep (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Re: Category is : Military intelligence in World War II is the closest I can find. I'll add this in. Scope creep (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: OK I will adjust the border, anything else to change, correct. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: , Perfect. Legend in document:Luftwaffe signals organisation in Norway, middle of 1942 Name of the file: Luftwaffe signals organisation in Norway, middle of 1942 Description: Luftwaffe signals intelligence organisation in Norway in the middle of 1942. Image from IF-181 p.19a of [17] Category/ies at commons: Military intelligence in World War II Scope creep (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: You really have to check the uploaded file File:Luftwaffe signals organisation in Norway, middle of 1942.svg as I both had to redo the basemap to get a valid code and to change the small lifted letters th and rd to get the text to work. I can't make them work as text and I'm not to happy to make that into outline (no text info). If you can't accept it like this that is what I have to do if so. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I know when you post to me, they are at a resolution of 675 × 960 pixels, and when I put them on the article as thumbs at 150pixels wide, the resolution is 421 × 599 pixels, and seem to push the text at that resolution. At the original size, the text is excellent. Is it a case it a different font on the German Radio Intelligence Operations during World War II image. Back with a second comment.Scope creep (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Assuming the Liberation Sans is open source, free as in beer, is it not possible to embed it in the SVG. I guess it is not the solution it make the images huge. Scope creep (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Found this, post vectorisation [4] Scope creep (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: , I've noticed that 181-3 is now rendering fine, on the Luftwaffe page at Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350 in the Section 5 History of operations in the west. It looks perfect and renders the text perfect, while the previous two don't know. When you look at the first two full sizes, fully expanded, they look perfect, and even on the meta details page, they look perfect. I suspect it is a resource problem at my end. I tend to work with a ton of open windows in Firefox, it could be a resource problem when too many windows are open. I now have eight windows open on a 15.6 inch, 8gb, i7 laptop using 1.2gb of memory. Last night it used about 4gb of memory, plus a ton of other stuff open, email, adobe reader with several docs open, office and so on. Now with more than 50% of memory available, it renders perfectly. Scope creep (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: When I look at your article at #5 the thumbs doesn't look correct but that is a problem all over the hole of Wikimedia and nothing I can control. When I click on a thumb view the image doesn't totally correct, at this page I get a magnifying glass and clicking on that gives me a picture at the right size and there everything looks fine. The post you found is about putting text on curve (any line) which doesn't work. You have to turn into what I call outline, no font info. It becomes like a drawing and then it works. I'm not sure even including the font in the svg would make it work, it's nothing I have read about anywhere on Wikimedia. The problems is with rendering the png images and exactly how that is done is nothing I have any knowledge of. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: Yip. If the outline is what you think we need do, then we should do it. I think the images so far are perfect, and perfectly illustrate the point that is spoken about. I'm happy with that. I think we should just move on. When the meta details page is open, they are fine. I think it is worth move on. 17:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC) 181-5 @Scope creep: #181-5-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Legend in document:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1940 Name of the file: Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1940 Description: Luftwaffe signals intelligence organisation in the west, indicating the types of signals that are intercepted per location. Image from IF-181 p.24a of [5] Category/ies at commons: Military intelligence in World War II I don't think it needs the aggregate figure of men in the top left hand corner, I can put that in the caption, and think it is described in the strength tables for each unit. It is perfect. Scope creep (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: File:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1940.svg Your article is really massive, you must have worked/researched a lot for that. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC) 181-7 @Scope creep: #181-7-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I came across a whole bunch of NSA, CIA and British documents on the Luftwaffe signal services about 3 years ago, while doing a search for General der Nachrichtenaufklärung just now adding it in the last sixth months. Its a lot bigger than I thought, but I do a wee paragraph every couple of day, it seems to add up, although in the last few weeks, adding a few paragraphs a day, to try and knock on the head. I enjoy doing, certainly in the short term, but after a while, it becomes a bane. I think after this sprint, I will leave it at a logical end so it is able to be read, until March or April next year. If you take a look at the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, you will notice there are no maps in it. I know for a fact that reason for that is during late 1943, am RAF bombing raid in northern France blew up some 80 tons worth of documents that were owned by the GDNA. It was their archive made up of maps, directory, card indexes and so on, their library of documents that could be used to help in decipher and solving messages and extracting intelligence from them. When it was blown up, it was a severe blow to them, and it stopped them in the tracks, and hence no maps from them made it into German archives after the war. Unlike the Luftwaffe who were geographically distributed, lots of their maps made it into the archives. I'm assuming that anyway. I have checked that map. It is perfect. I guess using the same category. Description is: Geographical locations of Luftwaffe signals intelligence intercept outstation locations in the west of Europe, in the middle of 1941. from IF-181 p.28a of [6] Scope creep (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: File:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1941.svg Petsamo is nothing I can find in Norway but there is a place in today's Russia. So I wonder if the arrow north north east on the source is indicating this? Do you want this arrow or some text explaining or other. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC) 181-10 @Scope creep: #181-10-1. Did you see about Petsamo above. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I will take a look. Scope creep (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Yip in Fig 7. Might be a mountain.80.229.232.253 23:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Goran tek-en, It is the Pechengsky District, specifically at 69°33'38N; 31°13'40E, and old Luftwaffe airfield. Is the possible to add a change to the last map, and this one add it, without too much work. It would be nice to see it. Figure 13, has them a Kirkenes, also at the very top right, is where the Luftwaffe got pushed back too. It was stupid I never noticed that. Scope creep (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: We have to consider a few things; If I add the needed part in it's correct position the map will be almost twice in it's height, which to me is not good. Most screen are viewed in landscape and around 800 px and more in height. So to be able to view a map like that you would have to scale down the map and then it would be hard to read the text. It would be the same effect if I reduced the "higher" map to 1000 px. We have sources 7, 10, 13, 14 which use the same base map with locations which is not a part of it and we have to fix them also. So this draft 181-10-2 is "one" solution to this. I can add this to 7, 10, 13, 14 like this draft. To have a wider map is not a problem as most screens are in landscape. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC) {ping|Goran tek-en}} Afternoon. Yip, That's cool. That's a proper fix. A proper cartographic solution. I never realised it was so far out. Norway is much bigger than I thought, even though it has been shrunk. It's even further out on the Fig 10 map, so far out the arrow wouldn't fit on the page. It a good solution. We are now of part of the document, part 2. I think that is biggest diagrams almost done. So it now at Name: Geographical locations for Luftwaffe signals unit in west Europe, middle of 1942 Location: IF-181 Seabourne Report Vol VI Part 2 at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sNVKDp-yiJVnVaMWV1QkpldTQ p. 35 Scope creep (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: You stated the name to "Geographical locations for Luftwaffe signals unit in west Europe, middle of 1942" but before the names has been in this format "Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1942", should you/we not stick to that? --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: Yip, I see now, I've changed the format, at some point. Yea, Leave it out. I can bung the geolocation bit in the caption. Scope creep (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1942.svg. I have also updated file:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1941.svg with the extra map so you should check that one also. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC) 181-13 @Scope creep: Draft 181-13-1. You have to check it closely as the source has lines splitting and it's not easy to see, especially Calais.--Goran tek-en (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: Some fixes 181-10 that File:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, middle of 1942.svg Oslo is knackered yh instead of th Meldekopf should have a capital M. 181-12 Husum missing an - HF Meldekopf should have a capital M. Paris has stuff missing: Signal's Regiment West 2nd Bat. Regt. West Meldekopf 2 Radar Intercept Centre West 3rd Bat. Regt. 3 14th Co. Regt.3 evaluation 17th Co. Regt. 3 training Also center into centre. Calais seems to be only - 6th Co. Regt. West, Radar intercept. The rest seems to be ok. Scope creep (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Previous is corrected. New draft for 181-13-2. To me Paris is divided into two places, "Paris" and "Bougival-La, Celle St Cloud, La Jonchere, Malmaison" and if you look at source 181 Fig 10.png it's actually two places and I have kept that in this draft also. If you don't want it will change. I haven't changed everything as you wrote as I see it like this. Have look and then tell how you want it, it's up to you, you have the knowledge. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I think your right. I know the "Bougival-La, Celle St Cloud, La Jonchere, Malmaison" are all giant chateaux. I think I was sleeping. It looks ok. I must have been looking at the wrong diagram. Scope creep (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: , that looks ok. Scope creep (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:Luftwaffe signals organisation in the west, D-day 1944.svg --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC) 181-14 @Scope creep: Draft 181-14-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC Hi @Goran tek-en: That look quite excellent. I'm not sure what a DF baseline is, but they were sure busy making them. Its perfect.Scope creep (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: I will need name and description. info-1, info-2. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Name: Luftwaffe High Frequency Direction Finding (DF) operations before D-Day, World War II. Description: This diagram represents a number of Direction-Finding (DF) base lines that were created by the Luftwaffe, and in place before D-Day. DF baselines are imaginary lines or axis in which DF equipment of a DF network is deployed in locations on that line. Luftwaffe Signals used straight DF lines. The length of the base line indicated the net location capability value in miles, in which a DF location can be made. For example, the distance from Husum, Germany to Brest France is 716 miles, meaning that the net location capabilty is 716 miles in depth. Scope creep (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:Luftwaffe High Frequency Direction Finding (DF) operations before D-Day, World War II.svg --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 181-15 @Scope creep: Draft 181-15-1, I had to guess on some of the lines. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: . That is perfect. Name: Luftwaffe Very High Frequency DF operations before D-Day, World War II. Description: This diagram represents the organisation of a number of Luftwaffe Very High Frequency (VHF) Direction-Finding (DF) base lines that were created by the Luftwaffe, and in place before D-Day. DF baselines are imaginary lines or axis in which DF equipment of a DF network is deployed in locations on that line. Luftwaffe Signals used straight DF lines. The length of the base line indicated the net location capability value in miles, in which a DF location can be made. For example, the distance from Husum, Germany to Brest France is 716 miles, meaning that the net location capability is 716 miles in depth. Scope creep (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:Luftwaffe Very High Frequency DF operations before D-Day, World War II.svg --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 184-1 @Scope creep: Draft 184-1-1. There is text I can't read, marked with X I'm also not sure about all the lines. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I see what you mean. I think this is the start of some blurred ones. Scope creep (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC) It is a Primosole, and mostly Primosole Bridge. There was unit there as it was the highest point. There was a huge battle called Operation Fustian. Your location is accurate. Scope creep (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: How About Palx left of Kunawi? Is the rest OK? Then I need the usual info. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) I need to do all the names: Southern Italy is Gallipoli Black Sea is Constanța with dash at the bottom of the t. Rhodos is Rhodes Pal with the X is Palaiochora Portopalo is one word. Derna is right. Kalamaki is ok Kunawi I need to look for it. I think it a mountain. Still looking. Scope creep (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: Kunawi seems to be genuine, it seems to be colloquial name for a place in Crete. I cant locate it, which is weird, but I found a good book ref that describes, but doesnt tell you were it is. The name is correct. I would suggest completing the diagram as described, and put in the baselines per diagram. Hope that helps. Scope creep (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: I don't understand what you mean by "put in the baselines per diagram". Draft 184-1-2 to be checked. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: oh I see, my mistake. Nothing on it. Scope creep (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2018 (UT It should be perfect, once the fixes are in. Name: Luftwaffe DF Networks in the Mediterranean, middle of 1942 Description: This diagram represents the organisation of a number of Luftwaffe High Frequency (HF) Direction-Finding (DF) baselines that were created by the Luftwaffe, that was in place in the eastern Mediterranean, in mid-1942. The HF DF network enabled the Luftwaffe to track Allied bombing raids in the Balkans, e.g. the Allied Liberator bombing attack on Ploiești that was sent to destroy the oil installations and infrastructure a year later on 1 July 1943. The category is the same as before. Scope creep (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:Luftwaffe DF Networks in the Mediterranean, middle of 1942.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Thanks {{ping|Goran tek-en} Scope creep (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 184-3 @Scope creep: Draft 184-3-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: That is excellent. Name:Luftwaffe HF DF network of W-Leit 2, in the beginning of 1943. Description: This diagram represents the organisation of a number of Luftwaffe High Frequency (HF) Direction-Finding (DF) of W-Leit 2 that were created by the Luftwaffe, that was in place in the eastern Mediterranean, in the beginning of 1943. Constructed from the diagram at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7sNVKDp-yiJdGRmNmctUzdZS1U p.27a Scope creep (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:Luftwaffe HF DF network of W-Leit 2, in the beginning of 1943.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 184-4 @Scope creep: Draft 184-4-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Hi {{@Goran tek-en: Merry Christmas! One thing to fix: Poto is Noto on Sicily I think that's it. Name:VHF and Radar Intercept Stations of W-Leit 2, at the beginning of 1943 Description: This diagram represents the organisation of a number of Luftwaffe Very High Frequency (VHF) Direction-Finding (DF) and radar stations that was in place in the eastern Mediterranean at the beginning of 1943. VHF direction finding was used to track Allied aircraft that were fitted with VHF transmitters, that were fitted in March 1942. Radar was used both for detection of aircraft and jamming of Allied ground radar. Scope creep (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded file File:VHF and Radar Intercept Stations of W-Leit 2, at the beginning of 1943.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC) 184-5 @Scope creep: Draft 184-5-1. According to this map file:Luftwaffe DF Networks in the Mediterranean, middle of 1942.svg Kalamaki was more to the west? I can't see which symbol Loutsa should be? --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Goran tek-en Merry Christmas. I'm just back from a weeekend away. I will check this now. Scope creep (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC) There is 3 Kalamaki's in Greece. This Kalamaki is district of Athens, in the 1940's it would have been a seperate town, and is at 37°54'37.93"N, 23°43'23.70"E . Regarding Loutsa, there is several of these, and our one is now called Artemida, East Attica. It is located at 37°57'23.59"N, 23°59'54.88"E They are across the peninsula from each other, and the way the map looks, makes them look very close. Scope creep (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC) The big location is Sedes, in Thessaloniki. A former military airport. Regarding the Loutsa etc icon. Kalamaki is a DF Station. Loutsa is the circle with black dot, signalling intercept company. Scope creep (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-5-2. Does this mean that file:Luftwaffe DF Networks in the Mediterranean, middle of 1942.svg is wrong regarding Kalamaki and Loutsa? I'm not sure I got the lines correct now. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Goran tek-en It is the correct line on the current one. On the file:Luftwaffe DF Networks in the Mediterranean, middle of 1942.svg, it is out. Well spotted!! Scope creep (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Nothing written about it above, I think concentrating too much on the stuff that was knackered re: that place on Crete, and I never noticed that it was knackered. Can you please use the same coord's. Quick fix I guess. Regarding the current one. One fix. Can you add Thessaloniki above sedes. Name:Luftwaffe MF and HF DF baselines of W-Leit Southeast, autumn of 1943 Description: This diagram represents the organisation of a number of Luftwaffe Medium Frequency (MF) and High Frequency (HF) Direction-Finding (DF) baselines that were created by the Luftwaffe and placed in the eastern Mediterranean, in the autumn of 1943. Scope creep (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: You should check file:Luftwaffe DF Networks in the Mediterranean, middle of 1942.svg now. Uploaded new file File:Luftwaffe MF and HF DF baselines of W-Leit Southeast, autumn of 1943.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Goran tek-en That is excellent. Both of them are now synced now per the two locations. The next one will be difficult, again due to the blurring. The diagram has a bunch of parallel lines, which are difficult to differentiate. I can give you as much help as you need, even doing an analysis of the document, to determine each line. 4 out the six are identifiable, perhaps 5 when you look at it carefully.Scope creep (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC) 184-7 @Scope creep: There are black dots, outline dots and big outline dots, what do they stand for? --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC) I think the black dots are places. The big round empty circles, i.e. outline dots, are where Luftflotte, air fleets were located, e.g. at Frascati was where Luftflotte 2 was located. I think the outline dots are where they left. The triangles I will need to have a look in the document. If it is anything it must be the same notation used in all documents. I'll take a look. Scope creep (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Thanks, the triangles are peeks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: Definition Big outline circles = Luftflotte 2 Triangles = VHF platoon Black dots = Evaluation companies and HQ for W-Leit 2 Small white dot(s) = Luftwaffe Signal Corps assembly areas. Scope creep (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC) That make sense, as the HF, VHF intercept teams would be up high. Scope creep (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-7-1. First I want to say that the colors I have picked is colors that is supposed to work for most of people with color viewing variations. Of course if this creates other problems for a larger other group we will have to change but I try as good as I can to make the maps work for everyone. I have had a hard time to define which line is which in many cases so you will have to help me from your documentation. E.a. I don't know if the lines with airplanes should be their own lines as I have done. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I have been waiting for this. It is deeply cool. I'll check it. Scope creep (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Regarding the planes, better than original. I'm writing the section at the moment, with all this stuff, so I should be able to fetch a sentence each pink/purple plane route. Some fixes first, minor really. Futapass should be Futa Pass. Passo Pordoi is Pordoi Pass (just found this out) Change Luftflotte 2 to Luftflotte 2 HQ Change Special VHF of 10th Company, LNR 2 to Special VHF RT detachments of 10th Co. LNR 2 Blue plan line: W-Leit 2 evaluation company moving Taormina to Frascati Major fix: Blue dashed line not present. 17:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-7-2. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Weird. Cant see it. I can see the directional arrow, which I'm assuming its the colour, a blue. Scope creep (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC) I will check my PC. Scope creep (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC) It is not visible on their either. Its a decent monitor, a Dell Ultrasharp. Should be visible. Another colour perhaps? Scope creep (talk) @Scope creep: Draft 184-7.png, can you see it here? --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Missed one: Pink planes: Retreating signals units, out-stations and signals staff. Also please change HQ for W-Leit 2 to W-Leit 2 HQ.Scope creep (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC) I can see it now and it's on the correct line, and blue. It looks great, although I'm on my mates laptop which is ancient. Plane detail still missing. It should be. I will need to examine the text again Scope creep (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Can you check with another browser as I don't think it's the color. Two drafts, one as svg file and one as png file. Can you make print screens for me and keep the adress bar so I can see which is which. Draft 184-7-.svg Draft 184-7-2.png I can't belive I got all the different lines correct as which type so you check that. --Goran tek-en (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC) I see the text is in the legend. Will do. Its looks functionality perfect. Will do. Scope creep (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I'm back on my own laptop. I can now see the line perfectly in 7.2. I take a quick look at the rest of it, but I think functionally complete. Scope creep (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I think that is a solid bit of work. I think it is finished. Information is as follows: Name:Line of Withdrawal of Luftwaffe Signals in the Western Mediterranean Description: This diagram represents organisational withdrawl of Luftwaffe signals units in the Western Mediterranean, July 1943 to May 1945. After the fall of Africa, Luftwaffe signals units retreated as the Allies gained ground. The retreat started after Tunisia was captured by the Allies in Tunisia in May 1943, followed by Sicily in August 1943. The Luftwaffe removed critical DF, radar and intercept out-station equipment first from Tunisia to Frascati, and then from Frascati to Padua, as the war progressed. Frascati was the regional headquarters of Albert Kesselring before being moved to Padua and then Canazei. Scope creep (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded new file File:Line of Withdrawal of Luftwaffe Signals in the Western Mediterranean.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC) 184-8a+b @Scope creep: Draft 184-8a-1.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC) I'll get on it. Scope creep (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: I just looked at 8b, don't you want a+b as one map? --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: I think page 56 and 57 are the same map. Yip, two maps need combined. Identical map space to the last one map, with a different view, but slightly deeper, longer? as it shows El Ahouina, which is a neighbourhood of Tunis. The radar station is in Marsala on Sicily. There is two sets of lines, one slightly dashed for DF baselines. The dashed one is years 43 to 44. The BIG X is Oberhaching that is in Germany, so it will need country outlines. I think the reason why the two maps have been duplicated, on the carbon paper map, you cant see the dashes. I was wondering why there were two sets. Weird. MACAF which can put in the description is Mediterranean Allied Coastal Air Force. There is several for each type of bombing. Scope creep (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: I can't find U-Altenburg, as we are adding borders I need a position. --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: It is called Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary, the Germans called it, as an exonym, Altenburg. The coords are 47°51'42.32"N, 17°15'44.97"E. I drew a couple of lines of Google earth pro, setting the vertical position as between the move page controls and add sticky not on Adobe reader, and the wee island that has the city of Supertar off the coast of Italy, and drew a vertical line to the left right up to the top into Russia. The place was close to the vertical line on Google earth, but I wouldn't have found it without WP. Scope creep (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-8a+b-1.svg. I had to guess on the different lines here to. You should also check the borders, they should be from 1944 but I'm not sure. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Fixes, on a cracking map. DF stations isn't in the left legend. Is it possible to expand the Jul to July and so on, if their is space. Malta Naval Recce is missing, put in Legend. Possibly need a new colour. Those dashed line with bomber groups on them, when they are DF baselines. I think that is fine. Belgrade has a e'. The u-altenberg is Wieselburg-Ungarisch Altenburg. I think get rid of the U and make it Altenburg. Change 205 Bomber Group to 205 Bomber Group RAF. I have the borders yet, need to get a map from somewhere. Scope creep (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Excellent planes. I will need to a secure a map. Scope creep (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-8a+b-2.svg. Did you want me to change anything with this "Those dashed line with bomber groups on them, when they are DF baselines. I think that is fine.". I have an extension to Google Chrome, Aline, that lets you put guides on on top of any web page, it's great when you need to set a position like we did. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Afternoon @Goran tek-en: I was thinking about loud, Yip, it looks ok. Its cleaner, with the MACAF sentence, fixed, but some fixes are still needed. I checked the map boundaries on this map: 1944 Map and they're ok, except for one bit, described below. Change 205 Bomber Group to 205 Bomber Group RAF. It was the RAF bombing from that direction, i.e. No. 205 (Heavy Bomber) Group. Yugoslavia is spelt wrong. It should be Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia is missing. I don't know how much work it is, but it might be a controversial missing them out. I know to put the Germany text and Czechoslovakia might not be enough space. Can you change Fall of Tunis to Fall of Tunis May 1943 That really rounds it off. That is excellent. It much better than the original diagram. What the different the colours make, on it. It has brought out the fact that different DF lines were being set up as they retreated north. Scope creep (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: If All of the planes and the black lines are from the allied that should be mentioned in some way. That's nothing I understand without that info. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I was going to put it in the caption, the fact the bombers were coming in from the south, and attacking progressively further north. That is the essence of the diagram, that they are falling further and further back. You could put a description in the legend, but it would be substantial and require more changes, something like, DF baselines were used to track the Allied 12th Command and 9th Bomber Groups and other Allied air units, as the Luftwaffe was pushed back and progressively fell back into Germany. Put it at the top of the Legend, and that will be a description of the image. I don't know what you think about this but it is quite long, and be too big for the Legend. It could be Luftwaffe signal units established DF baselines, used to track Allied bomber groups as the Luftwaffe was pushed back into Germany between May 1942 and September 1944 is shorter. Could be better? Also the fixes plus on more which are: Change 205 Bomber Group to 205 Bomber Group RAF. Change Fall of Tunis to Fall of Tunis May 1943. Change spelling in Yugoslavia to Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia border is missing. I dont know how hard this is? Change Front Line to Front Line June 1941 to May 1943 Lastly, that I just noticed. Is it possible to change the order in the legend, to obey the order in the diagram? So light blue is at the top as its September 1944-May 1945, and so on. Black at the bottom and so on. Scope creep (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-8a+b-3.svg. I have made some changes by my self and if you don't like them we go back to the previous ones. To me black is was Germany during this period so I changed that to red. I also changed the information texts for the green dashed lines to green after your explanation. I have also put RAF there, don't know if that is correct. Made changes to the legends, it's a lot text/info, maybe we should move the explanation to tje description as you said, it's up to you. The text in the legend for allied bombing, check that, and everything else as always. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: I would keep it black Goran. The diagram isn't indicative of a static event, the 205 bomber group has maybe 4000 aircraft in it, so they are bombing this huge area every day. The planes are there to show the routes, into the DF base-lines. I'm always worried about straying from the diagram, as a couple of years ago I got called up for it, and dont want to repeat it, so I would keep it black. They have indicated it as sharp black, and it looks decent on the map. With all the other fixes in that you have done, the only thing do is change it back. Lastly change the Fall of Tunis to Fall of Tunis May 1943 in the legend box. Ignore that frontline one. I didn't understand what it was. Scope creep (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-8a+b-4.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Name: Luftwaffe HF Baselines in Central Mediterranean Description: Luftwaffe organisation of High-Frequency in the central Mediterranean area from May 1943 to September 1944. As the German Army conquered Italy, Sicily and Tunisia, Luftwaffe Signal Intelligence established DF baselines, radar intercept and radar jamming sites and signal intercept out-stations among the different locations to detect Allied heavy-bomber movements. As the Allies pushed the Axis up the spine of Italy, the Luftwaffe progressively established new DF baselines as it withdrew. By late 1944 the Luftwaffe Signals were pushed into Germany. Scope creep (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded new file File:Luftwaffe HF Baselines in Central Mediterranean.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 184-9a @Scope creep: Draft 184-9a-1.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: Lets check. You need some names, give me some names. That one in the middle top is Futa Pass Rom is Rome Padua one is Monte Venda (this is the X) The name at Genoa is Portofino Scope creep (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC) The one in Verona is Montecchio that is north of the city. Scope creep (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) The below Padua is Monteortone (a church with a tower), which is a slope of Colli Euganei, at Abano Terme. The udine I wont able to find. It's on a flat plain, 10 north is the alps with numerous peaks. Genua is Genoa Scope creep (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-9a-2.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Thats is excellent. Quick ones are so excellent. Name: Luftwaffe VHF DF stations, first half of 1944 Description: Organisation of Luftwaffe VHF Direction Finding stations during the first six months of 1944. I dont want to put a description about falling back. I think at this point they still occupy most of Italy, although Tunisia and Sicily is gone. Scope creep (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded new file File:Luftwaffe VHF DF stations, first half of 1944.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 184-10 @Scope creep: Draft 184-10-1.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Hi @Goran tek-en: Minor fixes. Pancevo to Pančevo I know this is nitpicking, but is the country names need to be so gigantic. My eyesite is terrible, but they pretty big and dominate. May be the size when zoom into the map. Bulgaria is a bit dodgy. Scope creep (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-10-2.svg. I totally agree on the names, I saw it when it was uploaded and right then I didn't have the energy to change it, sorry. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: It is a huge amount of work you have done in the last three-four weeks and its no blame for any mistakes. It's the sort of work that would have taken me four-eight months (I'm not kidding), and would have been a complete mess. It is has been sterling work indeed, first-rate. I think we're almost near the end, there can only a few left. I'll check. Only a couple. Almost done. Name: Luftwaffe organisation of VHF DF Stations in Balkans in the first half of 1944. Description: Organisation of Luftwaffe VHF Direction Finding stations in the Balkans during the first six months of 1944. Scope creep (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded new file File:Luftwaffe organisation of VHF DF Stations in Balkans in the first half of 1944.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC) 184-11 @Scope creep: Draft 184-11-1.svg. Some of the places are not shown where a "city" name is on today map so I tried to put them as the map has them. Is the Hungarian border to the north correct? If not we might have the same fault in another map. Is there some kind of border that passes thru Demolita, south to north? For the area of Athens I can't really se how many of the islands that should be included? Same for area Tirana. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: Deeply cool map. Yip. I'll check. Scope creep (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Checking each one. Hungarian border. It is a wee bit off, but it a broad brush and it is in the rough shape, and in the right spot. I used this 1944 map at [7]. Not that bad, but northern border a bit askew. It follows a river on the left. Demolita. I can't find it. I will need to search. Scope creep (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Name fixes. ==Bulgaria== Burgaz to Burgas Demotica is now Didimoticho at 41°20'53.48"N, 26°29'46.90"E The border which is to the right of Didimoticho is a river. ==Romania== Romania is quite weird as it looks as they have just been plopped down. I have placed some placemarks in Google Earth Pro, but they dont look right. There is a mountain of places in Romania with names ending with esti. Rumania to Romania Constanta to Constanţa and is at 44° 10′ 0″ N, 28° 38′ 0″ E Janesti to Zărnești at 45°33'30.33"N, 25°19'29.06"E Ploesti to Ploiești is at 44°56'5.64"N, 26° 1'9.19"E (almost directly above Budapest) Pitești is missing at 44°51'19.04"N, 24°52'14.48"E Mahmudia is at 45° 4'52.42"N, 29° 5'17.99"E Floresti is Florești at 45° 1'44.51"N, 25°48'10.51"E ==Germany== Oberharting to Oberhaching ==Yugoslavia== Pancevo to Pančevo Nisli is Niš ==Greece== Salonika to Thessaloniki Parnis to Parnitha Rhodoos to Rhodes Elos is Élos at 35°21'37.83"N, 23°38'3.20"E Kalochorio is Kalo chorio at 35° 6'49.96"N, 25°43'24.13"E. @Goran tek-en: I will leave it there for a moment. I'm brain dead working on Romania. Pick it up tomorrow. I have not check unit emplacements yet. Scope creep (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-11-2.svg. Then Romania is misspelt in Luftwaffe MF and HF DF baselines of W-Leit Southeast, autumn of 1943.svg also, I will change. Now there is one position to many in Romania. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Yip I know. I'll take a look at it. Changes: Black triangle in the legend. Change VHF and Radar intercept out-station to VHF intercept out-station. Change WT in the legend to Wireless Telegraphy. The white diamond in the legend box should only be: Radar intercept out-station Romania: Soldanul is Soldanu at 44°13'29.01"N, 26°31'21.80"E. Take out Ploiești. It is not on the map. Tankabesti is the correct name and is at: 44°40'51.37"N, 26° 4'24.55"E Bucharest is at 44°25'36.30"N, 26° 6'8.99"E @Goran tek-en: Try these changes and see how it looks like in Romania, after they are changed. Scope creep (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC) This is a couple of changes I've not put in, but I will do it next, see what Romania looks like, if it follows the shape on the original diagram, hopefully. 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Draft 184-11-3.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: Righty then. I have looked at this until I'm blue in the face. The only thing I can say for sure is that only 5 out the 8 locations in Romania are spot on. The other 3 I don't know. I can't spend any more time on it. The other fixes are: Change St Nickolas to Agios Nikolaos on Crete Kalachoria on crete is Kalo Choria at 35° 6'57.46"N, 25°43'26.49"E Back in a sec. Scope creep (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Name: Largest geographic expansion of Luftwaffe W-Leit Southeast in the middle of 1944 Description: This diagram represents the largest geographic area that the Luftwaffe unit, W-Leit Southeast ever controlled, which occurred in the middle of 1944. At that point, the unit started to withdraw. Scope creep (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC) @Scope creep: Uploaded new file File:Largest geographic expansion of Luftwaffe W-Leit Southeast in the middle of 1944.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC) 184-20 @Scope creep: Draft 184-20-1.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC) @Goran tek-en: Change vasvar to Vasvár Chane Schweiz to Switzerland Change Gyor to Győr Change Alasso to Alassio Name: Luftwaffe Radio Communication Network of VHF and Radar Intercept Out-Stations, Signals Regiment South Description: The diagram represents the communication system for Signals Regiment South. The regiment was controlled by Meldekopf Vienna, the central communication control station for the whole regiment. Each radar or intercept out-station would communicate with the Meldekopf either via direct telephone line by teleprinter when it was available, or by radio link when direct telephone lines were not available, usually later in the war. @Goran tek-en: Scope creep (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Uploaded new file File:Luftwaffe Radio Communication Network of VHF and Radar Intercept Out-Stations, Signals Regiment South.svg. I goess that was the last one for this time.  Done--Goran tek-en (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Goran tek-en: Thanks for that. It was very welcome, and brightens up the article something terrible. Scope creep (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New map requests

Hello again, Goran. Happy New Year! I come with two new map requests, if you have time and are interested. While working on the article about Jean-François-Marie de Surville, I realised that a map would be useful to show his voyage. I've got two (non-free) sources.

Map of his whole voyage

Map of his movements in around the North Cape of New Zealand.

I'd like two maps like this, one of his broader voyage, and one of his movements around the North Cape. The North Cape one also includes the movements of Cook, who was navigating the area at the same time. This should be much easier than my last request...let me know! RGloucester (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I will help you but I need the sources as I will set them up as info source. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I linked them above. Did you not see the links? RGloucester (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: To me that link is to yours (or some one else) google drive and not the place that page comes from. Maybe you scanned it from a book and uploaded the image, I don't know. I need either a link to where the source is for real or if you have the book I need name, author and which page. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That's my Google Drive. It's direct excerpt from a digital copy of the book, which I accessed using EBSCOhost. If you look at the bottom of the excerpts, you'll see the book's name, &c., are listed. In any case, these are from The Expedition of the St. Jean-Baptiste to the Pacific, 1769-1770: From Journals of Jean de Surville and Guillaume Labé, edited by John Dunmore. The first map is page 34, the second is 137. RGloucester (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I'm not familiar with EBSCOhost so I didn't see the text at the bottom, I was looking at the map. Thanks for page # info also as linking to your drive is not a long term source, but the book is. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft whole-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. A few corrections. "Bornea" should be "Borneo". "Tartary", "Kamchatka", and "North West Coast" can be removed is irrelevant. Finally, the Easter Island label is there, but I don't see the actual island. There are also seems to be a strange group of islands in the middle of the route from New Zealand to South America, which I think should be removed. Thanks. RGloucester (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft whole-2. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. Thanks again for your hard work. You can upload it with the name "Voyage of the Saint Jean-Baptise". The description can be the same, I'll edit it later. Is the second map more difficult? RGloucester (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Can you give me at least one category for it. I'm working on the other one. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft north_cape-1. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For both maps, use Category:Jean-François-Marie de Surville. The second map looks good too. It just needs a legend, indicating that the blue line is the route of James Cook's Endeavour, and the red line is the route of Jean-François-Marie de Surville's Saint Jean-Baptiste. Also, please change the spelling of "harbor" to "harbour", and capitalise all such words, like "beach", "harbour", "point", "bay", etc. I'd also appreciate if, on both maps, you converted the text to paths, so as to make it easier to read. RGloucester (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Now you can find it here file:Voyage of the Saint Jean-Baptise.svg.
Draft north_cape-2. I know that there is a problem with rendered png's (thumbnails) that are not in 100% and text stretching. This has to do with the library that wikimedia uses and is out of my control. But to change the text into path is not something recommended, fonts/text. So I'm not happy to do this at all at this time. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the reason I asked is because another editor did such a conversion at File:Northern Expedition 1926–28.svg, and it made the map much easier to read. The page you mention doesn't seem to forbid the change, but if you have reasons for preferring not to, I understand. The last things to do are correct 'Ninety mile Beach' to 'Ninety Mile Beach', and italicise the ship names Endeavour and Saint Jean-Baptiste. The map can be uploaded as "Voyage of Saint Jean-Baptiste around the North Cape", with the same category. RGloucester (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: No there is nothing forbidding one to do so but I don't think the pros are so much greater than the cons to do it, it's up each and one. When I design a map I do so for it to be viewed in 100%, the rest is out of my control, I can never make a preview/thumbnail be as good as the map in 100%. This problem with the text not rendering correct in the png thumbnails is really irritating and makes my work so much harder as I try to give text enough space to expand in a way I can't control. But one day (tomorrow or in a year) the library will be updated and the problem will be gone.

• What you have asked that other editor to do is not something I like but wikimedia is a free place. If you look at the uploaded file info my original file was 705KB and the new version is 1.17 MB. Also I have tagged that map to be a "W3C valid source code" but I'm not sure if the other editor has checked this again before uploading the new version. If hers/his version is not valid that tagging should be removed by that person, is that checked? And is the improvement really that great, it is still meant to be viewed in 100%.
  

Now you can find it here file:Voyage of Saint Jean-Baptiste around the North Cape.svg.  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your hard work. On the subject of the map text, I did not ask that editor to do that...he did it of his own accord, and I've never spoken to him before. I simply noticed the change. I completely understand your reasoning for not wanting to do that, and I trust your judgement in this matter. I hope I have not caused you any distress. You have been an invaluable help in illustrating topics that would otherwise be left without any visual representation. I cannot thank you enough for your continued work here. RGloucester (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: No problem with either thing, we all have to help each other: you do the investigation/writing, I do some graphic work. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've realised after the fact that File:Voyage of the Saint Jean-Baptiste.svg could use a legend. It looks incomplete without it. Could you add a legend that says: "Route of the Saint Jean-Baptiste, 1769–70". Please make sure to italicise the ship name. Thanks very much! RGloucester (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft legend, like this? --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. Thank you. RGloucester (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

AH! There is a spelling error, and it is my fault. Saint Jean-Baptiste is the proper spelling...I apologise. RGloucester (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: New version uploaded. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it, as always. RGloucester (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for map of battles of Uganda-Tanzania War

Hello Goran, happy new year! I'm coming to you with another map request for the Uganda-Tanzania War. I've just acquired a copy of a book that has a nice map of Uganda and its border regions that shows the locations of battles of the war and the directions in which Ugandan troops fled into neighboring countries. It's fairly extensive, but printed in a hand-drawn style, so it might require more work than usual and maybe the plotting of geographic locations on a more exact, pre-existing political map for precision. If you're interested, let me know so I can email you a copy of it and the translations for the accompanying Swahili legend. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: It's always hard to know before you have the material so send it to me and then I can decide. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: It appears the Wikimedia "Email this user" function does not allow photos to be sent, so it might be that you'll have to email me a message first so I can send it to you directly through my email account. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Map and translation sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Yes I can help you but as before I will need the exakt source of the map, if it's free or not, before I begin, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: It's under copyright. It's from Vita vya Kagera : Kagera hadi Arua by Luteni Kanali J. F. Ngatuni, Meja A. N. Kigadye, and Kapteni M. A. I. Ghahae (1982), page 23. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I need your help here. In this image you can see things I have found (red dots) and things I haven't found (blue dots/line). I would need coordinates or so to be able to add them, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Okay so it appears that Pakwachi is really Pakwach, Mpiji is really Mpigi, Ziwa George can be found at Lake George, and Mto Kagera can be found at Kagera River. Kyotera is Kyotera. I don't know about the other ones. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I have included what we know so check this draft and tell me what to add, change or what ever, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Nice work. The only thing I can think to add is a marker for the Battle of Lukaya. Strange that the original map didn't have it. Also, the legend should say "Fleeing Ugandan troops", not "Fleeing Ugandan troop's". And I think "Occupied area by Uganda 1978" could be reworded as "Area occupied by Uganda, 1978". Other than that, everything looks great! -Indy beetle (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: New draft. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Excellent, it looks like it's ready to be uploaded. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Then I will need the following;

• Name of the file
• Description
• Category/ies at commons
  

to be able to upload it at commons. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en:

• Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War
• Map of battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War.
• Category:Uganda–Tanzania War Category:Maps of Uganda

-Indy beetle (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Now you can find it here file:Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War.svg.  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Fantastic work! Thank you for your help. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Map update request

Hi Goran, Can you please see if these maps File:Locator map Punjab Pakistan.svg, File:Locator map Punjab Pakistan (relief).jpg, File:Locator map Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.svg can be updated to remove the "maroon" color from Indian administered Kashmir to keep it neutral on the locator maps (used on WP). Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: This is always difficult as personal preferences can come in to this, and my knowledge about this subject is very low. When I read at this page it doesn't appear to be wrong to mark out an area like this. So I really don't know how to act here. For the moment I will not change it, you will have to get me more convinced for that. I hope you understand me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed a sensitive issue that is why from what I've seen no locator maps for India/Pakistan or even any Kashmir administrative region currently on use at WP use such claimant maps (e.g. File:India Jammu and Kashmir location map.svg, File:Gilgit Baltistan Location Map.svg) only these two maps by a recent contributor stand out. Locator for both countries have not had claims marked out, so it seems better to me if that is maintained here as well. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I can go with that, but you have to tell which color should replace in this File:Locator map Punjab Pakistan.svg and this File:Locator map Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.svg. The third one which is a jpg, I think I can use the source and replace just that part. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The color same as the rest of outside/India should be correct here (e.g. File:Gilgit Baltistan Location Map.svg, Azad Kashmir Location Map.svg). Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Please remeber I don't know anything about this area, it would had been so much easier for me to just no the color. Now you have to check those two drafts, Locator_map_Punjab_Pakistan.svg and Locator_map_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant the same color as the rest of India/outside, i.e., area which is not Pakistan in this case the dark grey of the surrounding countries. The current drafts makes it look like the Indian Kashmir is also under Pakistan. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Please read what I'm writing. I repeat, I have NO knowledge of borders areas or what ever. Just tell me which color the previous "maroon" colored areas should be on respective map. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you, these colors should be used instead of maroon in the respective locator maps: Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (marked in image). Gotitbro (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: New versions uploaded.  Done--Goran tek-en (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you for the help. Gotitbro (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilateral map Ghana and Hungary

Hello! I would like to ask for your help. I need a map showing the locations of both Ghana and Hungary. This map would illustrate the Ghana–Hungary relations to be created in English wiki. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Norden1990: I can help you with that but you will have to tell me, or show on a map, which area the overall map should cover? --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. this could be a sample. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Norden1990: Draft to check. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be OK, but could you use green color for Ghana and orange for Hungary, as it's usual in English wiki to represent bilateral relations? See for instance --Norden1990 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Norden1990: Of course I will change and also I will need the following;

• Name of the file
• Description
• Category/ies at commons
  

to be able to upload it at commons. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• File:Ghana Hungary Locator.png (or svg, jpg whatever)
• Map showing locations of both Ghana and Hungary
• Category:Bilateral maps of Ghana and Category:Bilateral maps of Hungary

Thanks, --Norden1990 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Norden1990: Now you can find it here file:Ghana Hungary Locator.svg.  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Map

Hello Goran, Could you make a map for the rule of Fakhr Al-Din II similar to the one you made for Zahir Al-Umar? AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@AliHusseinAbbas: You will have to link to that map because I don't know which you mean, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you also make similar maps to the rule of Jazzar Pasha, Harfush Dynasty in the Bekaa and Nassif Al Nassar (Amir of Jabal Amil)? AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fakhr Al-Din II, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakhr-al-Din_II AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Harfush Dynasty:, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harfush_dynasty AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nasif Al-Nassar, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasif_al-Nassar AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jazzar Pasha:, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazzar_Pasha AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about this map:, https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zahir_al-Umar_maximum_extent_map.svg#mw-jump-to-license AliHusseinAbbas (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@AliHusseinAbbas: First of all, I have zero knowledge of this subject. So for each one of the different four you want maps on I will need;

• The overall area that each map should hold.
• The area of each of the "kingdoms/dynastis".
• Exact information on what else should be added to each map.

Do understand I create maps, not research or anything like that, thanks.

• Fakhr-al-Din_II
• Harfush_dynasty
• Nasif_al-Nassar
• Jazzar_Pasha --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@AliHusseinAbbas: If you don't provide me with the information I need there is nothing I can do.

Stale

--Goran tek-en (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I did provide you with the links that answers exactly the questions you asked me. You’re confusing me. First you ask for links, and then I provide you with them, and now you want the areas they were ruling. The links answer your questions or do you want me to write with my own words the areas they were ruling? AliHusseinAbbas111 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@AliHusseinAbbas: I'm sorry if I'm confusing you. I'm a graphic worker not investigator or researcher. The links you have provided are for articles of the "kingdoms/dynastis" and there is a lot of text. What I need is maps (links to them) that show the area of them. How can I know the area of them if you can't show them to me?

It might be a bit confusing that I need a map/source to be able to make a map but as I have no knowledge of this, how should I do? --Goran tek-en (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay now I understand. The reason I requested maps for these dynasties is cos there exist no maps for these dynasties. Only description of the territory that they used to rule. So I thought demonstrating it on a map would be good. AliHusseinAbbas111 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@AliHusseinAbbas: But as you have the knowledge of those dynasties can't you draw a very simple map. If you take a screen print on OSM of the area you want for each dynasti and then draw it (doesn't have to be exact) on that screen print and give me access to it we can work from there. But if you know of any map in the references you have on the articles I can use that as information even if it has copyright on it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ll see what I can do. I’ll try to draw it. Unfortunately no maps exist of these dynasties, I already looked. AliHusseinAbbas111 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thought you deserved one here too :) for Vale Royal Abbey. Cheers! Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NO_Facebook_Youtube_license

Because you used {{NO Facebook Youtube license}} several times. Youtube allows to use CC-BY licenses: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 09:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Thanks for that information, I changed that link to "en" so I could read it. I use "cc-by-sa" license and that link talks about "cc-by" so that is a difference which I'm not really sure how it affects. This is all so complicated it's really hard to do the right thing. If you have more knowledge/info please let me know, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes thats true, youtube does not offer CC-BY-SA

CC-BY aswell as CC-BY-SA requires to name the Author, License, URL to the Lizense,... Therfore reuseing is identical

The difference is if you make a derivative of a CC-BY-SA picture you have to republish it under CC-BY-SA,

but if you make a derivative of a CC-BY picture you have to offer the original file under CC-BY (and make an Attribution (name, License,...) , but you could publish the derivative under a more strikt license, like you do not allow other to use to share the derivative at all

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I don't understand this part "like you do not allow other to use to share the derivative at all". A derivative of CC-BY-SA can be shared as long as they follow that license. I probably misunderstood your text. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's make an example: If File:Wikipedia_japanese_introducing.svg would have been published under CC-BY, I am allowed to publish File:Wikipedia_japanese_introducing.png under "(C) all rights reserved", but I have to name the author, the license, a link to the license, and what I changed.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: Correct but you wrote "like you do not allow other to use to share the derivative at all", but it can be shared under cc-by-sa and that is what I want. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about a derivative of a CC-BY picture "but if you make a derivative of a CC-BY picture", and that can be published with all rights reserved, then nobody (extecpt the autor) is allowed to use nor to share the derivative. Therefore everything I wrote was correct.

I just wanted to explain the difference between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, and that there is in my opion not much differnce between them, except that CC-BY-SA-Pictures cannnot be combined with other Pictures.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox map for the Wikipedia article Pahlavi dynasty

Wikimedia Commons has a map File:BlankMap-World-1970.png, which shows the world map in 1970, including Iran ruled by Pahlavi dynasty (Pahlavi dynasty was a dynasty of Iran between 1925 and 1979). Thus, we can properly change the map File:BlankMap-World-1970.png, in order to make the new map to become the infobox map for the Wikipedia article Pahlavi dynasty. First, only remain the five regions: (1) Western Asia, (2) Central Asia, (3) Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the lands between them, (4) Afghanistan, and (5) West Pakistan, as a whole from the original map. Then, enlarge the five regions as a whole to the size of the original map. After that, emphasize Iran in green and sign the names of all countries in the new map. Finally, name the new map as "File:Iran 1970.png". In conclusion, it is better for the new map "File:Iran 1970.png" to become the infobox map for the Wikipedia article Pahlavi dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:8900:1E40:707E:A1BF:2ABB:6907:4D44 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: If this is you I would like you to confirm this as I don't do work for unsigned requests and signing is standard Commons:Signatures, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Stale

U.S. recognition of Armenian genocide map

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that the state you highlighted as green on this map is Mississippi, not Alabama. If you could fix this it would be greatly appreciated. Spengouli (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Spengouli: Thanks,  Done. --Goran tek-en (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Вікі любить Землю 2019 в Україні триває до 31 травня!

Вітаємо!

З 1 по 31 травня триває сьомий конкурс «Вікі любить Землю» (Wiki Loves Earth), метою якого є фотографування пам'яток природи. Протягом травня ви можете завантажувати власні фото природно-заповідного фонду України та змагатися за призи. Зі списками пам'яток природи України можна ознайомитися тут. Приєднуйтеся!

Цього року є деякі зміни в правилах, зокрема:

• фотографії пам'яток, які на момент початку конкурсу не мали жодної ілюстрації на Вікісховищі або у Вікіпедії, отримують коефіцієнт 10 в кількісній номінації. Якщо ви маєте фото ще не проілюстрованих пам'яток — це збільшить ваші шанси на перемогу;
• окрема спецномінація для аерофотозйомки (фото з дронів тощо).

Більше інформації про конкурс читайте на сайті конкурсу. Якщо у Вас є запитання, можете звертатися wlewikimedia.org.ua – Оргкомітет «Вікі любить Землю» (in English). 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Map I made

I noticed you've made quite a few good maps. As such, i was wondering whether this map I created needed any improvements. Thanks Floathreenn (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Floathreenn: Hi, it's all about your intentions of the map. But I would have preferred it to be an svg (vector) map instead of a bitmap and we have those conventions that we try to stick to so the different maps looks a bit the same. So check thru that page and the pages linked form it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit of a novice, could you please make an SVG version of this image that incorporates the necessary conventions? Preferably a black+white and a colored (any color) version. Floathreenn (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Floathreenn: Right now I'm busy but I can help you in a while, (not very long).--Goran tek-en (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Btw, the name of the file should be "1908 Cordeaux-Darwiish territorial proposal". Its description: "1908 proposal by the leader of the Dervishes, to Harry Cordeaux, British Somaliland's colonial administrator." Its category: "Category:Maps showing the history of the former colonies of the United Kingdom". Floathreenn (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Floathreenn: Now there is a draft for you to look at.

Is Taleh a capital?

The thicker dotted line (with the sharp bend) is one we use for country border so is this a country border? Give me feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In 1908 there was no definitive capital. The only changes I wish you to make are (a) to add "Qoob Fardood" in brackets to buuhoodle, as in "Buuhoodle (Qoob Fardood)" and (b) to add "Lassader" to the map, located between Buuhoodle and Taleh. As for the country border, it wasn't ratified yet; it was still disputed. So you should (c) use a dotted line associated with disputed borders. Also (d) Qardho and Badwein are misspelled. Otherwise its perfect and you should go ahead and upload the draft. Floathreenn (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Floathreenn: New draft for you to look at.

I can't find Lassader so if you will have to mark it out for me somehow.

Once that is done I will need the following;

• Name of the file
• Description (/language)
• Captions/s (/language)
• 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) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• For Lassader, just place a dot midway between Buuhoodle, Badwein and Las Anod. Lassader is more or less exactly in the midst of those 3 locations. Its exact location isn't important as Lassader was somewhat dynamic, not static.
• Name of file: "Sayyids Darwiish 1908"
• Description: "1908 proposal by the leader of the Dervishes, to Harry Cordeaux, British Somaliland's colonial administrator"
• Caption: "The Sayyid's 1908 Darwiish border proposal to Harry Cordeaux.
• Category: "Category:1900s maps of Ethiopia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floathreenn (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Floathreenn: Now you can find it here file:Sayyids Darwiish 1908.svg. It's very good if you always sign your posts with ~~~~, thanks.  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1901 Darwiish map

Thanks. Could you also make a SVG version of the 1901 Darwiish map? There's a sample you can work on here. But for some reason the newer version up to Badhan doesn't show up on this incorerect page.Floathreenn (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Floathreenn: I started a new post so I/we can keep them apart. I can't do it right now, probably in the beginning of September, remind me then here thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Request

@Goran tek-en: Can you do my request here?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: First I just want to remember you to sign your request at graphic lab. I myself never touch an unsigned request as I don't know how to get feedback/help.

Right now I can't do it but later on if this file KPU_Logo.svg is correct as it is (I see the difference in the lower left part of the shield and the border around)? --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Update about the request: The logo has been done. Only the mascot needs your help.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Continue on the request here,  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

File:BlankMap-World6.png

File:BlankMap-World6.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Cherkash (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Map of route of Black Prince chevauchée of 1355

Hi Goran tek-en. I was wondering if you would be interested in creating a map based on 1 (1355 southern campaign) or 2 or 3 (page 10)? Any questions or further info required, please let me know. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Hi, I can help you but not right now. If that is OK for you I will get back to you when I have the time. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: That’s ok. Hope you are well and will wait for your assistance. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Is the two routes passing thru or by the cities? Should there be any arrows, if so from where to where? --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: The route should pass through the cities. Yes arrows showing march direction from Bordeaux south to Saint-Macaire, Bazas then follow route east to Carcassonne and Narbonne, then north east towards Béziers (not through) and return westwards via Carbonne then back towards La Réole. If you need more information please let me know. Regards Newm30 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Draft for you to check, feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: I will be unable to work on this for some three weeks, just so you know. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: - Just a few suggestions, when you return:

• Are we able to fit Bayonne onto map?  Done
• Can you label rivers as per this map as well as the Ariège?  Done
• Only one arrow on route line may look better to the left of Narbonne.  Done
• Can you put towns Agen and Tartas on map.  Done
• Can you put Pyrenees mountain range in?  Done
• Can you put Agenis, Gascony, Armagnac, Saintonge, Foix and Languedoc region headings on map in France.  Done
• Can you put Aragon and Navarre region headings on map in Spain.  Done
• The green arrow to the left of Narbonne, should not cut across the outward route where it does; from where it meets the outward path it should follow the same route almost to Carcassonne then turn sharply south to Limoux.  Done

Thanks. Any questions let me know? Regards Newm30 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: New draft.

* Only one arrow on route line may look better to the left of Narbonne

But the green line is abrupted here so to me it ends and then starts again, like the image you provided.

- So tell me; Should the line be continiuos, and then one or two arrows. If the line is abrupted which arrow to remove?

I have reviewed and for clarity I think we should make the line continuous and then just use one arrow.

• Can you put Pyrenees mountain range in?
  

This means that we should put in topographic material in a location type (flat) map. I have made it like conturs with some coloring.

While I thought this would maybe work, I think it detracts from the map and can be removed.

• Regions.
  

At this page with French regions I can't find your names. Please provide me with a map with them.

This map gives the locations here

• There is a lot of space at the top, should we remove some of it?
  

I believe that we could trim the top of the map.  Done

Feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: - Responses above to questions

Other request - Can you put the Arize river, which is the river that Carbonne is on.  Done Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: New draft.

• Regions. I still have problems to find and understand them. Do want borders and names? You will have to mark out for me on that map, what you want, because I can only find a few names and some doesn't make sense to me.
• I just made a version of the Pyrenees, if it's not OK I will remove it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: - I provide details of locations of regions below and responses below. The region borders are not required to be shown, as they changed overtime and the region names in approximate locations is ok.

*Agenais - to the north of Agen, below river Lot. Can the Lot and Tarn rivers be shown - Lot splits from Garonne to the north of Agen and Tarn splits from the Garonne to the south of Agen.  Done

*Gascony - to the north of Tartas.  Done

*Armagnac - between the Adour and Garonne rivers below Arouille.  Done

*Saintonge - not required as cropped from top of map.  Done

*Foix - could the city of Foix be put on the map? The region name could then be displayed to the the immediate north of the city.

*Languedoc - to the north of Carcassonne.  Done

I think the version of the Pyrenees can be removed.  Done

Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: New draft 3.

Do you want a small globe on which the map area is shown in red, I think it's hard to understand which part of the world that is shown, but that is probably because I have no knowledge of this. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en:

There would be no harm in placing a small globe showing location for clarity.

Could Armagnac be moved down south east just above Mirande.

Agenais has been inserted as "Aragon". Also once fixed to Agenais could it be moved to the west above Agen.

Tarn river needs to be moved to the river under the France country heading.

Foix region name needs to be moved to above Foix city as it was relatively small county.

@Newm30: New draft 4. The map for showing location has bordes, is that a problem as they are not accurate for that time. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: I need your feedback on above, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Sorry have been distracted as my wife was in hospital. I have looked at other maps and they seem to leave border as it currently stands. We could have border line in info panel and say current border, as an option. I am very happy with the map. Once again fantastic job. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: I apologize, I didn't mean to push you, hope everything works out for you and your wife.

Draft 5. When the draft is viewed here I can see some text not showing correctly, it's always a problem as different servers use different libraries to interpret svg file. There is a svg checker at commons but not even that one uses the same versions of libraries as commons it self, and it changes all the time. If there is nothing else to edit I will need the following;

• Name of the file

Map of route of Black Prince chevauchée of 1355.svg

• Description (/language)

Map of the route of the Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355, part of the Hundred Years' War. This map shows the Black Prince's movements during the campaign.

• Captions/s (/language)

Route of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

• Category/ies at commons
  

Maps of the Hundred Years' War

to be able to upload it at commons. If you don'y know about Captions read here.--Goran tek-en (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: I mark this

Stale

as I need your feedback but don't hear from you. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: - Sorry for the delay. Have been busy looking after my wife and forgot about this. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Thanks for getting back to me. People always has priority over this. Now you can find it here file:Map of route of Black Prince chevauchée of 1355.svg.
 Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

File:World metrication.svg

Can you update File:World metrication.svg where numerous countries are left as uncategorized and blank, and possibly more corrections are needed for countries that are already colored, but incorrectly? File:Metrication by year map.svg which is complete, can be used to complete File:World metrication.svg. Matricatria (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matricatria: I can help you but you have to specify exactly what to change, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This map is indeed problematic, not only because numerous countries have not been colored, also because the color bar does not go beyond 1980, even though numerous countries have been metricated since then or are in the process of metrication.

Would File:Metrication by year map.svg, which is complete, be of any help to you (even though it has a different color scheme and the final year of metrication in the map is 1998) ? In that file, there is a Perl source code with country codes that show the years of metrication up to the year 2000. Would this file be useful to update File:World metrication.svg? Matricatria (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matricatria: Thats really not what I meant. What I mean is that I'm a graphic worker and I do not do research, and/or put in much time to understand a subject, or similar work. And to me it's not up to me to search for countries in one map and transfer that information to another map.

What I can do is update File:World metrication.svg all the way up to right now but then I will need a list from you like this:

Country name, year

Another thing is that File:World metrication.svg has been superseded by File:Metrication by year map.svg so why do you want to update it. Should it not be better to update File:Metrication by year map.svg up to today? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since File:Metrication by year map.svg is up to date and has superseded the incomplete File:World metrication.svg (even though Wikipedias still use it and which also has a near identical File:SI-metrication-world.png version), my request look superfluous. There is one advantage of this incomplete file though; the color scheme does not pose any problems for the color blind (which I am not), unlike the complete file. I would not want it to be deleted either, though that is not up to me. I will not burden you with a monumental laborious task and I retract this request. Matricatria (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

OK  Done Don't forget to look at the draft for your request below this one, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ghana Hungary Locator.svg

In File:Ghana Hungary Locator.svg Kazakhstan and Moldova are missing. Can you add them please? Matricatria (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matricatria: Check his draft, feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for filling Moldova and Kazakhstan in the draft. I have realised that there are so many big requests like I made, and which I assume are also not urgent or even necessary. I won't bother you with big and detailed requests for maps. Only "small" less laborious ones like this, if the need arises. Matricatria (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matricatria: I don't mind big and detailed requests at all so just ask me. What I do often need is information and support regarding a request from that person. I have often zero knowledge of that topic which the requester is excellent in. Just ask.  Done--Goran tek-en (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Map request (Jinan incident)

Hello again! I hope this year has treated you well. I have a new map request, if you're free to help. It's for the Jinan incident article. The model will be this (from a book, The Northern Expedition: China's National Revolution of 1926–1928) but I'd like to add troop movements. I made a rough sketch here...very poor, but please bear with me. The orange and green lines should follow the dashed lines (which are railways). The blue line should follow the railway until the curve before Taian, at which point it diverges from the railway and goes straight over the mountains to Jinan. The black line follows the Yellow River. The names of the actual places are in the wrong romanisation, so they'll have to be changed, but we can do that later. We'll also need a legend for the lines, and a 'battle marker' at Jinan (labelled 'Tsinan' on the map). The location, by the way, is Jinan city, Shandong province, China. The event took place in 1928, if that influences anything in the creation of the map. If you need any additional information, let me know. RGloucester (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Right now I have no time but probably in 2-4 weeks. If that is OK for you I will start with it then. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Ping me when you're free. RGloucester (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: First I need to understans which area you want, is this correct? --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct, centred on Jinan. RGloucester (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I have found a map from 1928 of that area but as always maps are not the same in scale, proportions etc. The one you have provided is really just a type of sketch, so I'm not really sure what is correct or not so you have to check this draft and tell me what to change.

Three things, the lake at the bottom is not on the map I found so do you want it there, and do you want the mountain area to be marked out, tell me what the names of cities should be, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me for my delayed response, I've been away for the past few days.

First of all, I would like to request the removal of the roads from the map. The main story with regard to the incident involves the railways, so I'd prefer those are emphasised. Second, your draft shows the railway route north from Jinan incorrectly; it should go north over the river directly, where a road is currently marked, then head west, before turning north. As for the mountains, yes, I would like them marked. The lake is Dongping Lake. The map we are basing this on, if one can even call it a map, has a very poor scale, which makes it hard to understand. If you look up Dongping Lake, it should help you understand what the geographical area being referred to actually is. It's much larger than the map makes it seem.

As for the place names, 'Tsinan' should be 'Jinan', 'Tchchou' should be 'Dezhou', and 'Tainan' should be 'Taian'. With the modern place names, you should be able to more easily identify the area being referred to. Thanks again. RGloucester (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I didn't mean to push you, sorry. Draft 2 and still just the base map, feedback thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking good. Taian, however, is supposed to be on the railway line. I think the route of the line is a little off. It should follow the dashed line on the original map. It also still seems a little off north of Jinan, as it almost immediately turns west after crossing the river, in my understanding. Once that's sorted, we'll need a few other things. First of all, mark the river as the Yellow River. Second, mark the red dashed line as the 'Grand Canal', and perhaps consider converting it to a blue type colour, as it is water. Third, mark the provinces. The one that covers most of the map is Shandong, the one beyond Dezhou is Zhili. Fourth, mark the railway lines. The one going east out of Jinan is the Qingdao–Jinan railway. The railway heading north-south from Dezhou to Jinan and Taian is the Tianjin–Pukou railway. Finally, I wonder if we can make the Jinan city marker (and nameplate) slightly bigger to reflect that it is the focus of the map. Thanks again. RGloucester (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I checked the different maps again and added with your information I have come up with new rail ways lines, the ones in pink, the faded are the old ones. Draft 3. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of it is good, except the railway heading north from Jinan is wrong. It really headed north directly from the city centre, not far east, and more importantly, the part that heads north is part of the Tianjin–Pukou railway, and is not directly connected to the Qingdao railway as you've drawn. Here's a map of the city itself, which should hopefully clarify the position of the railways. As you'll see, the Tianjin railway comes from the south and heads north, while the Qingdao railway's connection with the northern route requires a reverse move. RGloucester (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft 4. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. I guess we can move on to the battle lines now? RGloucester (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft 5. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking very nice. First one minor correction, which was my mistake. Please replace 'Taian' with Tai'an. As for the red line, I was wondering if there is any way if we can make it clearer they followed the railway out Jinan. Perhaps move the line to the north side of the railway? Next, the blue line needs a little adjustment. First of all, I'd like to make it clear they followed the railway to Tai'an before going over the mountains to Jinan. Second, they didn't head straight into Jinan from the mountains. They went over the mountains to a bit east of Jinan, at Longshan, where they cut off railway access to Qingdao, then followed the railway west into Jinan. If we move the green line to the north side of the railway, I expect it will be easier to display the blue line's movement. I don't know how feasible it is, but perhaps we could add a dot for Longshan. Let me know. RGloucester (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I have to understand more what you mean by "followed" the railway, did they actually travel ON it or next to it? If it's different for the different lines, tell me so. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Followed means "on it", either by walking on it or by actually using trains, depending on the army. 18:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft 6, and I haven't put in the green arrow yet. How did the green arrow move, next to or on the railway? Who was first, blue or green? --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The arrows look good now. I was intending to add dates in the legend, but, to clarify, the green arrow arrived in Jinan before the blue arrow had got to the railway. It moved by train. RGloucester (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft 7, is this OK? --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks lovely. The green line's label in the legend should be 'Japanese 6th Division – 20 April'. Blue should be 'NRA 1st Army – 27 April–1 May'. Grey (can we change this to a light shade of blue?) should be 'NRA 2nd Army (Guominjun) – 18 April–1 May'. Red is 'National Pacification Army – 29–30 April'. The battle marker should say "Jinan Incident". RGloucester (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Draft 8, if this is OK, I will need the following;

• Name of the file
• Description (/language)
• Captions/s (/language)
• 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) 15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

One last thing, please add a date to the "Jinan Incident" bit in the legend. The date is 3 May 1928. The file name can be Jinan Incident. The description is "A map of troops movements in the lead up to the Jinan incident, April–May 1928". The caption can be the same, I think. It should be placed in Category:Jinan Incident. RGloucester (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Now you can find it here File:Jinan incident.svg. I was just going to ask you if we shouldn't put the year somewhere on the map, thanks.  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Goran. I hope you know that you really are a treasure. Your work is invaluable for furthering the mission of Wikipedia. RGloucester (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Thanks for that, but all who is active within wikimedia contributes in their own way. Just as you, I think this is relaxing and it makes me feel good. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Car with wheel hub motor

Hi Goran tek-en,

Thanks for taking this on - it is not urgent at all - please take your time. Yes I uploaded it but I was not the original artist. I am happy for you to redo as much as necessary. Please ask what you do not understand.

Regards

Chidgk1 (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)  Done

File:Plan of Jasenovac main camp.svg

File:Plan of Jasenovac main camp.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Fæ (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo helmet designs

Thanks again for making these designs. They're really good work, and substantially improve the Sutton Hoo helmet article. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Republic of China Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on maps for the Northern Expedition, and more recently, the Jinan incident. Your contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of 1920s Chinese history has been invaluable! For this, I bestow on you the Republic of China Barnstar.
		this WikiAward was given to Goran tek-en by RGloucester — ☎ on 13:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

RGloucester Thanks for that, does this mean I can travel freely all over China now??? --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately not...I think this barnstar's official status in mainland China lapsed in 1949...my apologies! RGloucester (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Map request for Libya/Egypt

Hello Goran. I was wondering if you would be able to make an English language map of Egypt and Libya. It doesn't have to be very detailed, just like this but in English. Only Libya and Egypt and the few towns in there would need to be identified. It would be for this Wikipedia article. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Sure, I will start to look at it, will be back. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Draft 1, feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks good! Just change the spelling of "Kairo" to "Cairo" and "Libanon" to "Lebanon" and everything should be ready! -Indy beetle 17:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I will need the following;

• Name of the file
• Description (/language)
• Captions/s (/language)
• 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) 18:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Map of Libya and Egypt
• Map centered on Libya and Egypt (English)
• Map of Libya and Egypt (English)
• Category:Maps of Egypt, Category:Maps of Libya

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Now you can find it here file:Map of Libya and Egypt.svg.

 Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! -Indy beetle (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A map request

Hello!
Could it be possible for you to turn this map into an SVG and to add the disputed Orthodox Church of Ukraine in Ukraine (including Crimea)? Moreover, the "Church of Ukraine" of the Moscow Patriarchate should be replaced by "Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr.)". Should you need precisions, feel free to ask me. Veverve (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: I could but I'm uncertain about this. I have zero knowledge about this and you ask me to add "disputed" stuff which almost always is a matter of opinion. I can also see on your talk page you had some issues here. So if you can't confirm this information in some way I say I will not do it, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point. I ping @Ad Orientem: , admin on Wikipedia who has some knowledge on the subject, in order for him to confirm or not my request. Also, for my defence, the warning I received was when I started using Wikipedia and was unexperienced. Veverve (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thanks for your understanding and we all make mistakes, so if we get some confirmation we are good to go. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

While I think about it: the legend should be put at the bottom horizontally (cf. here) instead of being directly and vertically on the world map. Veverve (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The OCU should be added with some kind of footnote as it is only recognized by a minority of canonical churches (three at present). The other should be identified as the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP)." Sorry for the delayed response but I have a few editors over the years that having been shown the door at English Wikipedia have taken to harassing me on other wikis. So I long ago disabled the cross wiki notifications. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe "(Moscow Patr.)" is a better way to say it. Veverve (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: I will help you with this with the considerations given above. Regarding the legend there is also another alternativ which some find really good, to keep it in the description like this. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a good idea, but in Wikipedia articles would it not require to add this very long legend into the frames to explain what is what? Veverve (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: I don't know anything about creating articles in Wikipedia but here you can see how that file is used. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I see, but as you can see, a separate legend had to be done. You can see here and here examples of legends being put below and taking a lot of space (first one is in-line legends, second one is simple legends). Veverve (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

@Veverve: Now there is a draft to check. You have to check everything. I have used another color palette because this is supposed well for "most" people who has color vision issues.

• I have marked 2 areas with a question mark and triangel, which areas do each belong to or is it some other?
• You have asked me to add Orthodox Church of Ukraine in Ukraine (including Crimea) but to me it's already marked. Explain in detail what you want changed, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There is in Ukraine, Estonia and Moldova two churches claiming jurisdiction over this country.

Ukraine: the w:Orthodox Church of Ukraine (an independent church) and the w:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (a church from the Russian Orthodox Church)

Estonia: the w:Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (a church from the Ecumenical Patriarchate) and the w:Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (a church from the Russian Orthodox Church)

Moldova: w:Metropolis of Moldavia and Bukovina (a church from the Romanian Orthodox Church) and w:Metropolis of Chișinău and All Moldova (a church from the Russian Orthodox Church)

If you look at the original map, the stripes are used to show those conflicts, e.g. Estolna is covered in red (Russian Orthodox Church) and yellow (Ecumenical Patriarchate) stripes, Moldova is in red (Russian Orthodox Church) and green (Romanian Orthodox Church) stripes. The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) should also be in shades of grey (unknown) and its colour (currently deep pink).

A new colour must be added for the w:Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

The letters M (in the colour of the Russian Orthodox Church) and E (in the colour of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) should be kept like in the original map. Moreover, I believe autonomous churches should be in the same shade as their main church (e.g. grades of yellow for those of the EP, grades of pink for the Russian Orthodox Church). Therefore, to avoid any confustion, the colour of the OCA should be changed.

Should you have any other question, feel free to ask, and thank you for what you have done already ! Veverve (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I add that, as I said in my first message, the w:Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) (autocephalous) is disputed, like the OCA. Therefore a "(disputed)" should be put next to the OCU's name in the legend like for the OCA. Veverve (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Further feedback:

"Church of Japan" should be "w:Orthodox Church in Japan" (ref.: http://www.orthodoxjapan.jp/)

"Church of Finland" should be "w:Orthodox Church of Finland" (faithful translation of "Suomen ortodoksinen kirkko")

"Church of China" should be "w:Chinese Orthodox Church"

Veverve (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The title you put: "and autonomus Orthodox Chorches" should be "and autonomous Eastern Orthodox Churches" ("Eastern" is in the official name, i.e. w:Eastern Orthodox Church Veverve (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Veverve: Draft_2.
• In the ogiginal map the conflict/unknown in Estonia, America and Moldavia is not shown in the legend and is not understandable for someone without special knowledge and the areas are very small and hard to see. Stripes are used for Autonomous so for me it would be confusing to use that also here. I tried something else.
• It doesn't help me that you link to the article of Orthodox Church of Ukraine, what I need is to know which area it should be and if it in some ways conflict with the current one you have to explain which is which.
• I can't see any letter E, but I have added C and M.
• I don't have any knowledge of the hierarchy among churches so I have changed to what I think you mean. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Throught the power of MS Paint and Photofiltre, I made a draft which hopefully will help you understant what I mean. There is no way to see which territory the OCA revendicates with your method. Veverve (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to put "(disputed)" next to "Orthodox Church of Ukraine". Veverve (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: Once again I say, I have zero knowledge of this subject, so for me to be able to make an understandable map you have to explain the issues for me. Short but concentrated.

• 1 You wrote "There is no way to see which territory the OCA revendicates with your method.", I don't understand "revendicates".
• 2 North America. To my understanding it is a mix of POM and Unknown as I show it. What do you mean the green stripes represent?
• 3 Estonia and Moldavia. I show a mix of two different "churces" by using gradients joining. Why do you want stripes?
• 4 We use stripes to show Autonomus areas so for me it's is confusing to use them for something else.
• 5 Ukraine. Here I really don't understand at all. Do we have Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr.) under Autonomus and then Orthodox Churc of Ukraine (disputed) under Autocephalous within Ukraine? --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Explanations

• 1 You wrote "There is no way to see which territory the OCA revendicates with your method.", I don't understand "revendicates".

That is, the OCA claims to have jurisdiction over the whole USA+Canada. The way you put it in your draft, there is no way to see they claim to have jurisdiction over this territory, as only the East of the USA and Canada is shown in their colour.

• 2 North America. To my understanding it is a mix of POM and Unknown as I show it. What do you mean the green stripes represent?

The green stripes are used to represent that the OCA revendicates this territory, but since the OCA is not recognized by all E. Orthodox churches it is also unknown which church de jure has jurisdiction over this territory. I changed their colour from pinkish to this green colour (see the legend in my draft).

• 3 Estonia and Moldavia. I show a mix of two different "churces" by using gradients joining. Why do you want stripes?

With stripes it is clearer that both claim to have jurisdiction over this territory. With your mix, it seems the Moscow Patr. has the East, and the other church has the West.

• 4 We use stripes to show Autonomus areas so for me it's is confusing to use them for something else.

You can use black stripes over a colour to indicate autocephaly, and use horizontal coloured lines to show the church's existence (and therefore its jurisdiction over the territory it claims) is disputed (see the OCA and China in the original map).

• 5 Ukraine. Here I really don't understand at all. Do we have Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr.) under Autonomus and then Orthodox Churc of Ukraine (disputed) under Autocephalous within Ukraine?

Exactly! The Moscow Patriarchate claims that the (autocephalous, i.e. completly independent) OCU are just a bunch of schismatics and that the Moscow Patr. has jurisdiction over Ukraine; and the way the Moscow Patr. administrates its jurisdiction is by an autonomous (i.e. dependent on and part of another bigger church) church called the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church".

I hope it made things clearer! Veverve (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

China should look like this. Veverve (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: Draft 3.

Wov, this is really complicated and religion is supposed to be accepting and forgiving. Why should china look like that, explain, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Because China is "unknown" but some churches say the Moscow Patriarchate has jurisdiction over China.

The "unknown" is due to the fact that territories of churches have been implemented during Antiquity/the beginning of the Middle Age. Therefore, the question of who has jurisdiction over Japan, America or Australia was never tackled because... well, people did not know those locations existed. Therefore, it is a matter of opinion of which church has jurisdiction over those "new" territories, hence the "grey+colour" scheme used for China and America. I guess Japan is un full redish on the original map because nobody denies the Moscow Patriarchate has jurisdiction over Japan.

As for the question of Western Europe, the Eastern Orthodox consider that it is the patriarch of Rome, that is the Pope (presently Francis), who has authority over it. However, since they consider the Church of Rome has left the true Church of Christ (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox Church), the question of who has since 1054 authority over Western Europe has not been answered (the last Ecumenical Council recognized by the Eastern Orthodox was in the 8th century while the East–West Schism happened in 1054).

So the territory is either: a) delimited since centuries at an Ecumenical Council; b) accepted by all churches despite no formal declaration at an Ecumenical Council (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate having authority over Siberia, Khazakstan, etc); c) contested, that is a church revendicates a territory and some churches say "yes, that is indeed your territory and you are free to do what you want here" and some say "no, that is not your territory" (e.g. the Orthodox Church in America, the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine); d) unknown (e.g. there is a diocese of Brussels of the Ecumencial Patriarchate and another separate diocese of Brussels but of the Moscow Patriarchate, and none claim be the only one to have authority over Belgium.

It can happen that a church with an established territory gives autocephaly (that is, complete independence) to another church which is within the first church's jurisdiction. E.g.: the territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate used to cover Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland (some argue Ukraine was also part of it). However, the clergy of those countries asked to become autocephalous (independent) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate agreed and gave them autocephaly (see for exameple: w:Church of Greece, w:Polish Orthodox Church, w:Serbian Orthodox Church ). The Ecumenical Patriarchate had the right to grant autocephaly because those regions were part of its territory.

All those things are related to canon law which is very complicated. I hope I have made things clearer. Veverve (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Third draft

As for your third draft: it is very good, the only problem is:

a) China (as I said earlier), b) the fact Romania as a whole is in "territorial dispute". Romania should be fully of its own colour, because the territorial dispute is only in w:Moldova + w:Transnitria, c) I just noticed that Japan was also contested (at least by the Ecumenical Patriarchate); so Japan, like China, should show it is disputed between "unknown" and "Chinese Orthodox Church"/"Orthodox Church in Japan".

Concerning the legend: a) there should be some sort of lines bewteen each section of the legend as I showed in my draft, b) you should follow the order of the autocephalous churches I set out in my draft, because it follows the chronology of the grating of autocephaly of those churches. Accordingly, "Unknown" should be at the end of the "autocephalous" list or in "Territorial dispute" Veverve (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine: it should be both in the "Autocephalous" category, with a legend in its full colour, along with being present in the "territorial dispute" (see my draft for reference). Veverve (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft-4

@Veverve: Draft-4.
Thanks for all your amazing knowledge, how long have you studied this to be able to keep everything apart? It's unbelievable that they for about 1000 years haven't been able to come to some kind of agreement, no wonder we have war in this world.
Romania was my mistake. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I believe I have studied it Christianity for years, and yet I believe I still do not know much.

For the draft: a) correct "Churc of Ukraine" to "Church" (this error happens twice in the legend), b) this little pointy pyramid thing should be softened, like in the original map.

Apart from this, everything is alright to me. I will now ask Ad Orientem to have a look. Veverve (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you should change the colours of the autocephalous churches around the Moscow Patriarchate (that is, the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Georgian Orthodox Church), because it is hard to distinguish them. I.e. the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is purple and the Georgian Orthodox Church is dark pink, it should be changed to colours more different, i.e. not in a shade of pink or red. Veverve (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

And the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr.)" should also be in the "autonomous" category. Veverve (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft-5

@Veverve: Draft-5.

When this is OK by you I will need the following;

• Name of the file
• Description (/language)
• Captions/s (/language)
• 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) 14:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I will provide everything once Ad Orientem will have given the greenlight. Veverve (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this may take a while. Veverve (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Information

Since it may take a while, I might as well give you the red tape now since I have time:

• Name of the file: File:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2019).svg
• Description: I propose to reuse the description from File:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox jurisdictions.png by modifying it. English:

This is a world map of the canonical territories of the autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. Where a certain territory is disputed (either between two different churches or one church claims it as its territory while others consider it part of the diaspora), the territory is in the two shades and is indicated in the "Territorial disputes" section of the legend.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople also claims all territories not belonging to any other autocephalous or autonomous jurisdictions - in other words, the grey areas on this map. However, other jurisdictions dispute this claim. Thus, I have chosen to leave them simply grey.

There is one autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction - the Church of Sinai - which is not shown on this map, because its territory is too small to be visible on a world map. It is limited to one monastery and several dependencies in the Sinai peninsula.

• Captions: English: Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2019)
• Category/ies at commons: Category:Eastern Orthodox Church maps

Comments:
Do you think you could add an autonomous "Church of Sinai (Jerusalem Patr.)"? (coordinates given here are this)
"The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople also claims all territories not belonging to any other autocephalous or autonomous jurisdictions" -> It is true. I had completly forgotten about this when I told you "Therefore, the question of who has jurisdiction over Japan, America or Australia was never tackled because... well, people did not know those locations existed. [...] d) unknown (e.g. there is a diocese of Brussels of the Ecumencial Patriarchate and another separate diocese of Brussels but of the Moscow Patriarchate, and none claim be the only one to have authority over Belgium."

@Veverve:

• 1. I don't understand for Church of Sinai, the coordinates is a position not an area, so which area should it be?
• 2. The text below that, is that just information because I don't understand what to do otherwise. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The Church of Sinai is this monastery, nothing more, nothing less.

2. It's only for your personnal knowledge. Veverve (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft-6

@Veverve: Draft-6. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think the map is more or less done, we are just waiting for Ad Orientem's approval. Veverve (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Orthodox Church of Japan" should be "Orthodox Church in Japan" Veverve (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Information v2

• Name of the file: File:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2019).svg
• Description: I propose to reuse the description from File:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox jurisdictions.png by modifying it. English:

This is a world map of the canonical territories of the autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. Where a certain territory is disputed (either between two different churches or one church claims it as its territory while others consider it part of the diaspora), the territory is in the two colours and is indicated in the "Territorial disputes" section of the legend.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople also claims all territories not belonging to any other autocephalous or autonomous jurisdictions - in other words, the grey areas on this map. However, other jurisdictions dispute this claim. Thus, they are left simply grey.

The Church of Sinai in the South of the Sinai peninsula is limited to one monastery and several dependencies.

In order to keep this map understandable, only the main autonomous churches are indicated; in cases where the map would have become too unclear (i.e. overlaping jurisdictions) the autonomous churches have been left out.

• Captions: English: Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2019)
• Category/ies at commons: Category:Eastern Orthodox Church maps

@Veverve: Draft-7. It's only the link for the last draft that works as I saw you linked to Ad Orientem. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Two autonomous churches should be added: w:Latvian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr., Latvia) and w:Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric (Serbian Patr., w:North Macedonia). Therefore, the list of autonomous churches should be put below the map for the shake of keeping space on the map, unless you have a beter idea in order for the "Autonomous" legend not to hide a good part of the map. For the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric, use an "S" the way you used "M" and "C". Veverve (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft-8

@Veverve: Draft-8.

• The dark thin stripes that we use for Autonomous, I just realized that there is a mistake from my side with them. The purpose of them is to show that they are Autonomous so they should all be the same, not different angels.
• I don't know what the M and C represent/menas? --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

a) "The purpose of them is to show that they are Autonomous so they should all be the same, not different angels." They should! or else we have the same legend for differend autonomous churches (+ Latvia has the same problem). You should use stripes with different angles like you did in the previous drafts when there are more than one autonomous church of a main church (i.e. Moscow's Latvia, China, Japan, and Ukraine).

b) "w:Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric (Serbian Patr., w:North Macedonia)" should have its stripes over w:North Macedonia and not over Serbia. I now realize that North Macedonia is too small to put an "S", so do not put one. "Latvian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr., Latvia)" should be "Latvian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patr.)"

c) the autonomous churches should be in order of jurisdiction: first the ones of Constantinople (Finland). Then the ones of Jerusalem (Sinai). Then the ones of Moscow (Latvia, China, Japan, Ukraine; in this order (it is a chronological order)). Then those of Serbia (Ohrid).

d) "C" means "Constantinople", "M" means "Moscow". Latvia is also too small to put an "M" in it. Maybe those letters should all be removed, what do you think? They were useful in the PNG version of the map because it was the way to show a church is an autonomous church belonging to a main church, but now stripes are used.

Veverve (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and merry Christmas! Veverve (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed what I asked for in b) Veverve (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft-9

@Veverve: Draft-9.

a)* To my understanding the stripes only show that they are Autonomous. The colors show which churches that are involved.

The only thing I think about is that Japan and China has the same colors and stripes. So for them I have changed the angel over Japan.

c]* I agree, they are removed. --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Very good!

I would strongly prefer you using a different angle for each autonomous church of the Moscow Patriarchate, e.g. straight horizontal lines for China; straight vertical lines (｜) over Ukraine, and leave the rest as it is. Latvia would need more lines, example.

You've put the stripes of the Ohrid archbishopric over Kosovo, but those stripes of the Serbian Patriarchate should be over North Macedonia (i.e. over this country) and not over any other country.

The "Serbian Patr. North Macedonia" should be "Serbian Patr., North Macedonia"

Thanks again for your help! Veverve (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft-10

@Veverve: Draft-10.
If I change the distance between lines (Latvia) I create a new type of pattern which has to to have a reason for it. I have added Latvia to the enlarged countries. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I believe the map is now done, we only need Ad Orientem's approbation and I you are good to publish the map. I will add the final version of the information once we have the greenlight. Veverve (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. You might want to post a note about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and see if there is any more feedback. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Veverve (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello.
I asked someone to check you map, so please do not delete the Draft-10.
1) From what I have learned recently, the Jerusalem Patriarchate and Antioch Patriarchate are in a territorial dispute concerning who has jurisdiction over the Arabian Peninsula. See the articles compiled on this blog post. Moreover, the Jerusalem Patriarchate apparently has authority over the Sinai Peninsula (source), i.e. until the w:Suez canal.
Here is my draft the the changes in the region, once again using MS Paint: https://imgur.com/JMSnk6x (the "Territorial disputes" legend should also be changed accordingly and all countries of the Arabian Peninsula should be in black-purple).
2) the Orthodox Church in America should be in plain green colour with "Orthodox Church in America" in the "Autocephalous" Legend; and in green-grey with "Orthodox Church in America/Unknown (disputed)" in the "Territorial disputes", i.e. the OCA should have the same treatment as the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
Veverve (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft-11

@Veverve: Draft-11.

• The drafts are in png format (bitmap) but the final uploaded image will be in svg format (vector).
• I had to change some colors so you should check Serbia, Antioch both in map and legend. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick! Once again you have done an amazing job.

In the "Autocephalous" legend, the Orthodox Church in American should have "(disputed)" next to it. Veverve (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, here is the complete territory of the Church of Georgia, I do not know if you need to change anything on your map concerning Georgia as I cannot zoom enough to see if your map's data is fully supported by File:Eparchies of the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church.svg. Veverve (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The black straight line to show the Church of Sinai makes it impossible to see where the territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate stops. Veverve (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft-12 and Georgia

@Veverve: Draft-12, Georgia --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The w:Lori_Province should be fully coloured and be the only place in Armenia coloured in the colourd of the Church of Georgia. Something along the lines of this. Veverve (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: Georgia-2. As the maps have different scale/viewpoint the area is not totally correct. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's good! I believe the map is ready for release now. Veverve (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Information v3

• Name of the file: Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2020).svg
• Description: English:

Update and revision of File:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox jurisdictions.png, with the help of File:Eparchies of the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church.svg.
This is a world map of the canonical territories of the autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. Where a certain territory is disputed (either between two different churches or one church claims it as its territory while others consider it part of the diaspora), the territory is in the two colours and is indicated in the "Territorial disputes" section of the legend.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople also claims all territories not belonging to any other autocephalous or autonomous jurisdictions - in other words, the grey areas on this map. However, other jurisdictions dispute this claim. Thus, those territories are left simply grey.
The Church of Sinai in the South of the Sinai peninsula is limited to one monastery and several dependencies in the South of the Sinai and one dependency in Cairo.
In order to keep this map understandable, only the main autonomous churches are indicated; in cases where the map would have become too unclear (i.e. overlaping jurisdictions) the autonomous churches have been left out.

• Captions: English: Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (January 2020)
• Category/ies at commons: Category:Eastern Orthodox Church maps

@Veverve: Now you can find it here file:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2020).svg.  Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sudan/South Sudan section in Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop

Hello.

I realize that you must be extremely busy with tons of map requests. But when you have the time, can you visit the Sudan/South Sudan section in Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, where I put a request to include South Sudan in the orthographic maps in August? I am afraid, that once the UK leaves the EU, it will result in a new huge load of requests to redraw countless of maps. I want to reduce the maps where South Sudan is missing, as much as possible, before a new workload involving the UK could potentially be thrust upon you and your colleagues. I have updated/corrected hundreds of PNG and JPG maps, and recuded the number from more than 2000 maps to 550 maps (See: Category:Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries). But since I am SVG illiterate, I cannot do these changes in SVG maps.

Yours sincerely, Maphobbyist (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maphobbyist: Hi, you have done a great work with this "boring" stuff which no one really wants to do. I did some maps before but I will help you here, slowly but I will.

• I do have an idea/thought about this when we have many many maps that needs to be edited due to countries, borders, membership, etc. changing. That is and will never be possible for one or a few persons to achieve, so we should have like a project for it, it could be sent to every one who does work at the Graphic_Lab/Maps and repeated every third month or so until it was done. Or maybe it could be like the banners that ask you to vote or take part of a competition, or some other way.
  

I don't know enough how Commons work at that level to be able to say how it should be, I just have that idea/thought. Maybe you know this, or someone else, or where to go with an idea/thought like this. I really think we need a plan like this to use when we have situations like this. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Maphobbyist (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Goran tek-en (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your work. I will continue to contribute, by adding the South Sudan borders according to my ability in the PNG and GIF maps, and reduce the number as much as possible in January. Many of them are bird range maps in Category:Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries. I try not to think about the UK and Brexit until then. :) I wish you a Happy New Year. Maphobbyist (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maphobbyist: Have you thought about many many maps, above.

File:World-iq-map-lynn-2006.svg

Hello again! Could you fix this map?
I have written the problems here, I will reformulate it more precisely:

• French Guyana, i.e. this country in red, should be in grey like in the previous versions
• The Swaziland (now called "Eswatini"), i.e. this country in dark blue, is "SZ,Swaziland,72" and therefore should be in this coulour (currently it has not colour at all).
• Greenland should be in grey like in the previous versions.
• Puerto Rico is currently in the "> 95" colour, but the data says "PR,Puerto Rico,84". Therefore, Puerto Rico should be in this colour.
• Those blue islands in the West Indiesshould be in grey, i.e. the sovereign nations in orange must not be changed.

Veverve (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

By "grey" I mean this. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and happy new year! Veverve (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: I could, but as always I'm cautious not to get mixed up in some kind of disagreement and I can see you had some discussions with @Olivello: . So before doing anything I would like to hear from that user/creator (or to get a good explanation for this). --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have not heard from Olivello since two days, hence why I asked you. Veverve (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: To me two days is a very short time. If you haven't been able to get contact with that user for a month or so you can get back to me, hope you understand. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I perfectly understand. Veverve (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Above is moved to here. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)