Jump to content

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Feb 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive

Archives of 2015:
January 2015, February 2015, March 2015, April 2015, May 2015, June 2015, July 2015, August 2015, September 2015, October 2015, November 2015, December 2015.

Stale

Resolved

Map of the Little Maginot Line aka the Alpine Line

Resolved
 – Goran tek-en (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Article(s): Italian invasion of France (possibly the Alpine Line and List of Alpine Line ouvrages articles)

Request: Hi, I am hoping that someone would be able to create a map to be used in the above article to illustrate the French defensive positions and certain key towns and villages associated with the invasion. At present there is no map to support the article, and the creation of such would vastly benefit the article and help the reader pinpoint the various locations mentioned in the text.

I only have access to an e-copy of the below source and the low-res map contained on 174. I have uploaded several copies, including a zoomed in version (if it helps any), and one clearly marking the various French positions as highlighted in the accompanying key. If possible, could the map show the elevations (not clearly shown on the map), the 27 French defensive areas (per the key and highlighted), as well as the following key towns and villages: Briançon, Montgenèvre (not shown on the map, but located just to the east of Briançon), and Menton. If possible, could the Italian and French divisions also be included to show the general disposition of both sides?

I have been unable to find any additional maps showing the French defensive positions, but would be willing to provide any other assistance as needed. Regards -- EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Source: Kaufmann, J.E; Kaufmann, H.W (2007). Fortress France: The Maginot Line and French Defenses in World War II. Stackpole Military History Series. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-811-73395-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) (Map is attributed to Joseph Kaufmann)

Caption that accompanies the map, on page 175: "Figure 6-6. Alpine front and Maginot ouvrages. This map shows the location of French and Italian units in the 1940 and also identifies all French ouvrages of the Little Maginot of the Alps."

Uploaded images:

Graphist opinion(s):

Image's request under progression Request taken by Goran tek-en (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC). But I will not be able to start the work for about 12 days. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: I have started to work on the map but I need some help of from you. The map doesn't have the same proportions as google maps so it makes it a bit hard. Also the map is blurry and there are so many different types of lines that I have problems to separate from each other.
  • You are talking about a key, I don't understand where to find it.
  • Have you any information on what the different types of lines represent.
  • I also need help with the elevations. The map is to blurry to be able to read the heights. So you will have to help me to either get the names of the peaks or get the altitudes and which is which, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. Unfortunately I have not had the time to be active for the past few week. When I find a moment, probably next week, I will attempt to address your comments. Regards.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Goran. Again, thanks for taking a look at this.
  • In regards to the Key, i was referring to the complete list of fortifications found on the first image.
  • There is no key in the book, although i would assume the following: the dashed line is the border, the bold lines are roads, the lines with strikes through are railroads, and the faint lines are rivers. I could be wrong however, but that is my best educated guess given the lack of a key and based on how i have seen other maps drawn.
  • As for the heights, i have re-looked at the scans and the E-book (equally blurry) and i am not able to match up the figures with known landmarks. For example, on the map there is a peak of 1043 between Cuneo and Menton. I have not been able to find a match, although there is a Mont Bégo in that general area although it is much higher. Unless anyone else can chime in with information, would a work around such as using an existing map of the Alps (that already shows the terrain) and impose the key information onto it (general fortification locations, Italian division locations, and the few extra towns mentioned in the intro) be possible?
Of course we can do so and if you know of a map like that just give me the link here, thanks. We have to join the two maps the best we can. Two different maps are never the same so its always a bit tricky but with your help I'm glad to try. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not know if it would work (scale, modern borders rather than 1939 ones), but i did see this one earlier when doing some searches: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Alpenrelief_02.jpg . Is it a possible starting point?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made two DRAFTS now that I want you to look at and give me feedback on. Both of them are just a raw draft, remember that as I want to know which you want before I put in to much work. Everything that is important will be more visible in the final map. Both of them are very heavy to load but that is just because both versions are in the same file for now.

  • This is with a normal situation map for wikimedia with the summits from the original map normal flat map #1
  • This is more of a topographic map which also is used here, topographic map #2. I tried this as you talked about the mountains summits and it really tells you what a difficult terrain it is.
  • #2 will even in the final map be very heavy and probably around 4-5MB which is a lot. This is due to that the terrain is also vectorized. #1 will be much smaller but it gives another feeling and understanding. You can use the png-files which always is created if you want and they will not be that heavy but has other disadvantages.
  1. I want you to tell me which type you want #1 or 2.
  2. If you already now know that some parts of the the map should be pushed back visually?

So get back to me as I can't continue without your feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, i prefer the second as it shows the difficult terrain that is important to the topic. In regards to pushing back parts, the fortress locations around Mention need to be pushed to the left: Menton was in front of the Alpine Line and some of the fortress locations are on the wrong side of the border. Other than that, i do not see anything that needs to be corrected. Although a second pair of eyes would not go a miss. I look forward to seeing the final draft, and as always please let me know if you need additional information or assistance.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but regarding "pushing back" things I wasn't clear enough. What I tried to say was that e.g. the roads could be "pushed back visually" so that they were not that obvious. Regarding the placing of fortress, borders etc. I will ask you to check this later on and it's always good if there are more people checking it.
@EnigmaMcmxc: Now you can look at a draft here.
  • First look at the overall looks.
  • Then you have to check the border as it's very hard to see on the image in some areas and I guess it's not the same as today.
  • Check the positions of units and fortifications.
  • Check the numbers for units and fortifications as some are really hard to read.
  • Look at the legend and give me the text for each symbol.
  • Do you want the names of the countries in the map?
  • Please give me exact instructions on how/what to edit, I have no knowledge of this, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will get back to you later or tomorrow with feedback. I have also requested a second set of eyes from @Srnec:, who is also active on this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Italian division number '56' should be '58', I believe. The flag with four X's above it indicates an army headquarters (1st, 4th and 7th). A box with two X's is a division, with a large X in it is infantry, with an oval armour, with a diagonal reconnaissance. The little black triangle indicates that it possesses mountain equipment. The big black dots are ouvrages. Perhaps you knew this already, but I can't read the original scan much better than you. Enigma will have to help you with that. Srnec (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Srnec, thanks for the above although other comments are welcome. Goran, I have been pressed for time lately. I will get back to. Srnec has provided some excellent feeeback, if that helps you make some further progress. However, I disagree with one remark. The box with a cross through it is the symbol for a cavalry unit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have now updated the draft so it's up to you to check this thoroughly and give me any feedback on what to change or what you want. Get back to me, thanks. The map is heavy so it takes time to load. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I must apologize, i forgot about this! Once more, thank you for your work. Now, to address your questions:
What the numbers all mean:

Fortified Sector of Savoy (La Tarentaise)

1 - Ouvrage Chatelard and Ouvrage Cave Canon

Fortified Sector of Savoy (La Maurienne)

2 - Ouvrage Sapey 3 - Ouvrage Saint Gobain 4 - Ouvrage Saint Antoine 5 - Ouvrage Le Lavoir 6 - Ouvrage Pas du Roc, Ouvrage Arrondaz, and Ouvrage Les Rochilles

Fortified Sector of Dauphiné

7 - Ouvrage Janus, Ouvrage Col de Buffere, Ouvrage Col du Granon, and Ouvrage Les Aittes 8 - Ouvrage Gondran 9 - Ouvrage Roche Lacroix 10 - Ouvrage Saint Ours Haut and Ouvrage Plate Lombard 11 - Ouvrage Fontvive Nord-ouest, Ouvrage Saint Ours Nord-est, Ouvrage Saint Ours Bas, Ouvrage Ancien Camp 12 - Ouvrage Restefond, Ouvrage Col de Restefond, Ouvrage Granges Communes, Ouvrage La Moutiere

Fortified Sector of the Maritime Alps

14 - Ouvrage Col de Crous, Ouvrage Rimplas, Ouvrage Fressinen, Ouvrage Valdeblore, Ouvrage La Serena, Ouvrage Col du Caire Gros, and Ouvrage Col du Fort 15 - Ouvrage Gordolon 16 - Ouvrage Flaut 17 - Ouvrage Baisse de Saint Veran, Ouvrage Plan Caval, Ouvrage La Beole, Ouvrage Col Agnon, Ouvrage La Dea 18 -Ouvrage Col de Brouis 19 - Ouvrage Monte Grosso, and Ouvrage Champ de Tir 20 - Ouvrage L'Agaisen 21 - Ouvrage Saint Roch 22 - Ouvrage Barbonnet 23 - Ouvrage Castillon, and Ouvrage Col des Banquettes 24 - Ouvrage Sainte Agnes and Ouvrage Col des Gardes 25 - Ouvrage Mont Agel 26 - Ouvrage Roquebrunne, and Ouvrage Croupe du Reservoir 27 - Ouvrage Cap Martin

Re: the legend. "Division Cavalry" needs to read "Infantry Division". "Division Cavalry mountain equipped" should read "Mountain Division". "Division Armour" just needs to be flipped around to say "Armour Division". Finally, "Division Reconnaissance" will need to read "Cavalry Division".
Re: Division numbers. The French ones are correct. A few of the Italian ones need to be changed. The 13th Armoured Division, should be 132. The 11, above 24, should be 1. From looking at the map and the order of battle, i believe 58 should be 59 and 56 should be 58. The 5th Infantry Division, above the 7th, should be - my best guess based off the blurry map i have access to - 6. Likewise, i believe the 35th, above the 33, should be 36.
I believe you have the border correct, and yes it has changed since. Here is a zoomed in version of the map around Mention. The French forts in this area, on your map, need to be shifted behind Menton and the border. I hope this image helps: http://imgur.com/XJOySAP
I shall attempt to be more speedy with my replies!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: Thanks for your great information but you didn't have to link each one. I just wanted to understand what the numbers were and if they should be a part of the map. I don't put all that info into the legend, I think it's better in the article or mapinfo at commons.
One problem with the forts around Menton is that my dots are larger and takes up more space but I think they have to be that big to be visible. I have tried to rearrange them and changed the rest also. Look at this updated draft and give me feedback, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the names and links to the various forts is better off in the article than on the image. Linking to them here just saves me a job later lol.
Thanks for the previous changes: the Italian divisions look good now. Just a few minor changes need to be made to the French forts:
2-6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 25 all look good.
I think, based on the map, that 8 shares a location with 7. Can you add an 8 to the southeast of 7, but close by? Likewise, can 11 be added to the left of 10? In the same vein, please place a 16 below 15.
As for adjustments: From what i can make out on the original blurry map, 1 needs to be shifted to the right somewhat so it is almost sitting on the road t-junction. 27 needs to be shifted down onto the coast and just behind Menton. Finally, 23, 24, and 26 need to make a diagonal line and be brought down below the road. All four should then look like they form a slanted L. With these minor adjustments made, i think we are done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: Look at this updated draft and give me feedback. I will also need;
That is great, thanks! Name of the file could be, i guess: Alpine Line 10 June 1940. Description, something akin to: The strong points of the French Little Maginot Line, otherwise known as the Alpine Line. French and Italian dispositions, prior to the Italian invasion of France, 10 June 1940. Categories: Category:Battle maps of World War II and Category:Maps of World War II in Europe
RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: Now you can find it here Alpine Line 10 June 1940 --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Long-billed thrasher

Resolved
 – --Gaff (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Article(s)
Long-billed thrasher

I feel that I am asking of this too often, but I only need one more map for the time being! I'm not sure if its necessary for a GA status, but I think it would help.

The link is below. Thanks in advance, and again, I hope I'm not a bother! LeftAire (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Toxostoma longirostre range map

Graphist opinion(s):

  • Image's request under progression Request taken by Gaff (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC).. No problem. It can easily be done, since I already have the other maps as a template. I enjoy doing these, so feel free to just message my talk page if you like. I will not take it personally if the maps are not to your standards!
  • Santa Monica location map
    Santa Monica location map
Article(s)
Chain Reaction (sculpture)
Request
Chain Reaction (sculpture) is currently undergoing a GA review. The reviewer believes that the Santa Monica location map of the sculpture in the Chain Reaction (sculpture)#Location and installation section is too large. I actually don't know if that is true or not, so feedback on that is appreciated as well. The problem is, I'm using the {{superimpose2}} template to display the map with a floating pin showing the location. If I make it smaller than 450px you can 't really see the streets and location names. I would appreciate it if someone experienced with working with location map images would take a look at this and offer their opinion on best practice. Are there better templates than superimpose for this purpose? I think it's important to keep the landmarks (such as the beach and the pier) in the frame. If anyone can recommend a better way of displaying this image or if they think it is fine the way it is, I would welcome their opinion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)
I don't know about accepted practice. What I would expect here is a smaller location map (the same image that you have used); I would remember the pin location and then click on the map to see a full-sized version where I could read the street names etc. But when I click on your location map, somehow I don't get to see the full version, I get taken to the article on Santa Monica instead. Maproom (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Now you could please your reviewer by making the image smaller, while still giving readers click-access to the full-sized fully legible map. Maproom (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
As Maproom says, there isn't really another way to do this other than through a "click-thru" thumbnail, which gives access to a larger map i.e one in which the street names etc are legible. Huge maps clutter articles and in the case of location ones, should never be bigger than around 250 px wide. Readers can tell it's a map and it's pretty intuitive that if they mouse-over/click on it it will get bigger. This is of course my personal view and not a policy or guideline. Philg88 ♦talk 21:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Like I said, I'm using the superimpose template to add the location pin, so a thumbnail won't work. Ideally, I would like to use a location map and just coordinates in a thumbnail view. Can we do that? Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop/Archive/Feb_2015&oldid=992731267"