Category talk:Standardized SVG county maps of US states

High detail

Hello! I've signed on to the project and am full in support of standardizing the map shapes, if only to end the repetitive edit skirmishes on the election maps files. But is there a reason we want this high level of detail for election maps, when the exact shape of a county is really not relevant to the results of an election? The high level of detail and large file size are going to make these maps take an unnecessary amount of time to load, particularly Texas and Georgia. Not sure if this discussion was had elsewhere; couldn't find it myself. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: this discussion hasn't really taken place in many places on-wiki yet. The reason this level of detail was chosen by Awmcphee was to avoid butchering the shapes of Virginia's independent cities. Also, a lower level of detail on certain maps just looks bad (for example, square Anoka county in Minnesota).

These maps still need to be optimized which should significantly improve loading times, while they will probably look the same, they won't take up as much space. Elli (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded a lot of big map SVGs to Commons, so I understand the argument that full detail adds unnecessary file size, and am sympathetic that it affects our least fortunate readers (who have the worst Internet connection). But as far as I've ever known, SVG file size doesn't actually impact loading times on Wikipedia, because all SVGs are rasterized before they're displayed as thumbnails in pages. Try loading Wikipedia:Municipal District of Greenview No. 16 - the SVG infobox map of the county is actually 8MB, but it loads much faster than an 8MB file would. Awmcphee (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Awmcphee: I've had the issue a few times with Georgia maps despite strong connection, but on further thought I think this problem might have been due to extremely excessive file size without detail. See the older 4.5 MB version of File:GACountiesDemocraticPrimaryGovernor1962.svg, which loads county-by-county for me. I do think we want the fastest load time possible, since these maps are typically in the infobox and are the first thing readers look at when an election page loads. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I appreciate that this level of detail is probably, on balance, better than low detail. I suppose if we're wedded to uniformity, it's the superior option. I'm probably just averse to such a major change since it will require an overhaul of hundreds; my impression was the project was designed to suss out non-conformities and bring them into line with the present standards, not to overwrite every election map in the Commons. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: it's an interesting conundrum. Stuff like result colors, probably should be kept with current standards (for major parties, anyway), even though they're non-ideal (having separate presidential and downballot colors is a bit ridiculous), since changing them would be a massive amount of effort with little benefit.

Shapes have been a constant area of dispute though, and while there are some shapes that are commonly used there isn't a clear set, nor is there rhyme or reason to which ones are used where. For this reason, a large number of maps would have to be overwritten anyway, and if we're gonna do that, we might as well establish the best possible shapes for the process, then use those. Does that make sense? The goal isn't to overwrite every map, but to create a consistent standard going forward, since one really hasn't existed so far. Elli (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Appreciate that, although I think the overwriting necessary is going to be nearly as large as overhauling all the downballot colors would be and run into resistance from multiple directions; these new shapes aren't in use anywhere AFAIK (though of course their utility and origins have more "rhyme and reason" than any existing ones) and users are (inordinately, IMO) attached to their personally favored shape schema. I think a bit more discussion might be advised before going ahead with the overwrites, to avoid reverts, but godspeed. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: for sure. There isn't really a centralized discussion/organization board for US election maps (that's part of why I started the project). I think most users who care will see the changes and be open to discussing them - that's what happened with you and someone else (who posted to my talk). Commons isn't really a chatty project, though, so if we wait for comments before starting at all we'll probably be waiting a while. Elli (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding map

Hey @Awmcphee are you going to also make a new standardized style for Hawaii? I noticed that's the only the state missing from this list Putitonamap98 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Alaska and Hawaii?

These are the only two states not included in this set, are there any plans to add them? @Awmcphee Jaydec02 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Left and right margins

Many of these images are square, although the motive is vertical. As a result, many recently uploaded election maps have the same useless margins. (E.g. part of this Illinois set.) I have overwritten Illinois, Idaho, Rhode Island and Guam. Among those still to do are Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont. Watchduck (quack) 13:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It says to not adjust the aspect ratio in the 3rd paragraph of this article JosephBobilly (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Awmcphee: You have requested, that maps of "tall states" should have a left and right margin, "so that they will appear at a reasonable size in infoboxes". But this is not the reasonable way to achieve this. When the size of an image should be within a 250×200 rectangle, the image size should be set to 250x200px in the infobox template. There is a discussion about this at the Village Pump. --Watchduck (quack) 16:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)