Forum:SH:Interactive Maps usage

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Interactive Maps usage

Hello friends.

So… Interactive Maps. We never codified them much either way, though there's a CT up at the moment that seems like it'll pass to stopgap the addition of fanon. Bringing this to the SH to gauge some thought:

Discussion points:

  • If we use them, should they only use unaltered canonical images (like Star Wars Galaxy Map) and/or traced maps. Or should we permit the creation of them with custom backgrounds, so long as they're depicting canonical information? (Note: This is dependent on the fanon CT for these passing, which means we'd only be dealing with canonical information as an 'only).
  • Similar to gifs, should we adopt them only on a case-by-case basis after a CT? The gif process seems to be working pretty well and we could always grandfather existing Interactive Maps in. Some things would benefit from one, but others might not really.
  • Map:DeathStarConference and Map:DeathStarConference/Legends are separated by continuity. Should we specify in whatever policy we make that this should always be the case? (regarding separating maps by continuity).
  • We'd also need to discuss whether (or not) to have guidelines on what to name these. Often, such as Map:R2-D2, its just named after R2-D2. But, some are more conjectural, such as the DeathStarConference one.
  • Similar to Index pages, and due to these being a bit finnicky to make, I would propose that these not be required for a status article nomination to pass. Perhaps they'll become preferred over time, but I think it a bit far to require.
  • If adopted, this would be most topically relevant as a section of the Layout Guide, similar to how Index pages' usage are documented there. At the same time, it could very well be large enough for its own policy. Either works.

I somewhat suspect it'll be a pretty even spread of opinions and so perhaps we can come up with a shell of a policy and then piecemeal CT vote on specific parts? Then, whatever parts pass can go into effect.—spookywillowwtalk 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

With some of the initial feedback, I've made a draft of a proposed Layout Guide section for all to review and continue discussion below.

  • Think I got most of the sentiment above: fanon is a no-go (due to the ongoing CT), CT being required (which seems to be the general feeling above), and no status article requirement explicitly stated (as Index section also states this). Things left out per above are not having any sort of naming or custom background rules—if folk don't like a custom background due to its quality or something, it can be voted down. Following a CT, if passed and added to a page, a {{MapVote}} would be added to the talk page, exactly how {{ImageVote}} works. All existing maps will probably have to undergo a mass CT over the next few months to get sorted onto relevant pages or deleted.—spookywillowwtalk 04:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Some other things: In draft form, I set the "speedy delete" time if a map isn't on SH/CT (aka, moving forward in some form) to one month. Of course, admins can always retrieve map content for folk if they want to sandbox it on a different wiki, or bring it back here when they have time to re-pursue it. Unlike gifs, they shouldn't be deleted after 24 hours (unless they're fanon, then it's just out the window), as these often require time and refinement to make. At the same time, these should be subject to deletion at some point if they fail their Consensus tracks and fall idle. Open to suggestion if people feel a month is a bad timeframe.
  • More small things: small tweak to protection policy to formally allow admins to protect files used in Interactive Maps if there's a reversion war. Rare, for sure, but maps mostly operate by placing "map markers" on coordinates of an image. Since these are based on an image's pixels, a map could be pretty much entirely ruined if uploaded with a different image of a different size if not done with care, so allows us to protect the vote outcome.—spookywillowwtalk 04:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Regarding some of the points proposed above, my personal thoughts are that we should adopt the case-by-case usage as we do with gifs to run them through CT before placing on articles, that we should place them above "Behind the scenes" after the end of the last content subsection, and that we should maintain firm splits on Canon/Legends content for all IU pages. And that in the end it doesn't really matter where the guidelines go, but I also don't think they should be required for status articles, and ideally should include a clause stating that maps focusing on (1) subject should be named after the page's title (so ones of individual characters or droids), then ones that focus on more than one thing (maps or groups of people) can be conjectural. I'm also unsure about the canonical images background thing—I do see the usage in having a like grand timeline of The High Republic or some such if someone wanted to make one, they're super great for readers and they could look similar to this but Wook-ified. But I also get that Wook (for the better) doesn't normally present altered images or compilations made by us, so do regrettably think we should probably avoid that, despite its usage.—spookywillowwtalk 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • For point 3, do we have any example of when maps can be used in an article? I also wonder how the map looks in an article since I've never seen it utilized outside the interactive map section on Wook. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 03:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Because they were never codified on Wook I'd assume that we likely don't (or if we do, they may be subject to removal). A different wiki's example can be found here or here though.—spookywillowwtalk 03:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I know there was talk about interactive mapping Amidala's outfit from TPM because it had so many parts with their own articles. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Another big thing that should be discussed is how/if information on Interactive Maps should be referenced or cited. As someone who has contributed a lot to Map:Map of the galaxy I can tell you that traditional references would not work and would severely limit capabilities because they would count toward the map markers' character limit. My suggestion to avoid fanon and incorrect information is requiring using the map markers' main link capability to link an article where all of the information for the marker can be found. But this may not be necessary if it's embedded in an article that has all of that information, so I'm not 100% sure about that route. Panther436 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd rather see this fall under the Layout Guide. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 06:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Update after draft proposal: solid work Spooky. I'd like to point a couple issues though. Regarding speedy deletion condition "if a map is a duplicate of a pre-existing map", wouldn't it possible to have the same image be the basis of several map with different usages? I can't think of an example at the moment, but I just want to make sure we're exploring this possibility and that the wording here doesn't oppose a possible use of maps. If such theorical situation is really unlikely, please ignore this ^^. Second, regarding the rule on nomination, in this specific sentence: "The only requirement for a status article […] its placement should first be codified via a Consensus track.", isn't that redundant with the first rule "All Interactive Maps require a Consensus track to be used on articles.", an thus could be removed altogether? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Removed the SA wording; was a holdover from copying the index page's wording on that. Also—for a map to be a duplicate of another map, it would have to have the by and large same markers, same text, same purpose (since arguably the background can mean very little in a map, once everything is tossed on) and more meant for exact duplicates like a 1:1 recreation of Galaxy Map or some such. Somewhat similar to duplicate/unused images.Spookywilloww (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Definitely shouldn't be a requirement for status articles, and having CTs for their usage if we want to have them on articles seems like a very reasonable route to me. I'd also leave the backgrounds thing up to case-by-case CT basis. I guess just above BTS *could* work for IU articles (though I'm not married to the idea), but potential OOU maps should also be considered. Layout Guide a la index pages could work, at least as a temporary measure until it potentially gets spun off into a separate policy page entirely. Naming: we don't currently even have naming guidelines for files, so I'd suggest not doing it for now for maps either. And continuity… what if there's a cool way to combine both continuities in a single map? Imperators II(Talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Separation by continuity is, imo, mandatory. Canon and Legends are not compatible, pretences otherwise by Disney notwithstanding. And I agree with people above about status articles non-requirement. Demetrius Viridianus (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Just played with this map a bit and discovered you can add images to nodes. I added T3-K10's image to their node. The Map does appear in the File usage area. Just wanted to point out this is something we could use to make an interactive gallery (allowing more images on a page than usual). NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah this is why I'm honestly for allowing custom backgrounds as long as they're based on canonical information, there's a lot you can do with custom galleries, timelines, compilations, master/apprentice trees, etc. Panther436 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I think if we do the case-by-case basis via CT, that also solves the custom background issue, so I say vote them in via CT. As for continuity, honestly, CT probably solves that, too. CT solves everything except for placement for me. I'm opposed to requiring they always be above the Bts because that excludes OOU articles, but also because a map used as a schematic for a ship should definitely go in the description section. I wonder if a template can be used to house the map and have it default hidden so that it can be included in the body without being aesthetically distracting. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 02:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • As for naming, I'm not too fussed about it, to be honest. They should definitely not be required for status articles, though. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 02:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Dropping below down here: rough draft of proposed Layout Guide section + accompanying amendments to protection policy and etc. that would be necessary.—spookywillowwtalk 04:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, the one sub-vote tangent that I do intend to include in a separate vote to the main proposal at least is: "If placed within an in-universe section of an article, an Interactive Map's content must remain separated by continuity pursuant to the canon policy. The continuity restriction does not apply to maps placed in the "Behind the scenes" sections of in-universe articles, or on articles covering real-world subjects." Because, if we have a TIE fighter photo from the films documenting both Canon and Legends information… and the map is placed in the Description section of either article, that's bound to be confusing. People might be reading a Canon status article and wondering why the map has information the article does not. Of course, BtS and real-world non-applicable, but it's definitely worth a subvote at least.—spookywillowwtalk 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Excellent point about protection, though does it even need to be restricted to reversion scenarios? Could just have any new map images be protected by default after the corresponding CT passes. Imperators II(Talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • "Interactive Maps without either a Consensus track or a Senate Hall thread to gather feedback are subject to deletion after one month." does this mean that Maps used outside of mainspace, for example, on WookieeProject pages, are a no-go? Imperators II(Talk) 07:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • That second point on the draft does seem to suggest that they need a CT to exist at all, which if that was the intention seems a little overkill. Should definitely need a CT to be placed on an article but otherwise I think they should be allowed to be made without a CT and exist without being on an article. Panther436 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely opposed disallowing auto-deleting them, but that is how gifs work at the moment (be used or deleted after 24 hours, though I'd tweaked that to be a month). But, that was the intent, yes. We could definitely over time end up with a lot of duplicate or poor quality maps so we'd need a defined different function to be able to curate them (a Notability policy for maps, so to say). Especially if they're made using custom backgrounds and such, we could end up with relatively or severely poor quality content—whether in the form of a hastily made or blurry custom background, or anything else—being browsable off the main header. At the same time, I imagine that most maps won't have trouble finding a home, so asking people to revise them then have them approved to exist saves us the TC trouble.—spookywillowwtalk 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Thoughts on, say, WookieeProject page-specific Maps? Those could get in handy for editing effort coordination (think WP:AST's Coordinate challenge) but I think necessitating any such maps to also be present on mainspace articles, or to have specific CT votes on them would be counterproductive. Imperators II(Talk) 14:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
        • Made some adjustments per Panther and above. I see the point on WP maps, but also somewhat reiterate the point that we do need some sort of function to combat duplicate maps and extremely poorly made ones, especially if they're using custom backgrounds that would fail WP:I.—spookywillowwtalk 16:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
          • I think the new wording's indeed better, thanks! Imperators II(Talk) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to see this in the WP:LG, and we don't require for status article. Definitely not only directly above the BtS per Fred, something should go in sections. To be honest, I don't think we really need a CT for every map; if they become widely used I think that many articles could benefit from things like schematics from Incredible-Cross Sections and the like. Also, if we do go the CT route, we only need a CT for use on articles, not that the exist at all, per Panther. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I mean, I'd like to chime in that that does mean that all sorts of "altered" or custom maps with fan-made collages or timelines and such can be somewhat allowed to exist in the void, so long as they aren't fanon. That would be much less of an issue for 1:1 schematics such as making one for anything in a cross-sections book because those are unaltered, but causes issues if fully custom maps have no barrier to entry for article placement. It would also mean that, should the Canon/Legends separation subvote not pass, people could freely present Canon/Legends mixing of information within a map presented in a Description section of a canon article and not just within a BtS section.—spookywillowwtalk 16:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I've created a mock example of what an in-body map could look like here. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 05:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Nice work, though I guess it might not be the best example since, to be honest, the Redemption article has too few and too small-thumbnailed images for modern article standards - I can easily see that meaty Description, with its current image placement adjusted, simply hosting that cross-sections image without the need for a Map. Imperators II(Talk) 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
      • But the map allows us to provide convenient descriptions of each part in a context broader than the prose itself would allow, plus it could allow for a lot more images if fleshed out. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 08:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
        • Hmm, fair point, I guess. Hadn't really thought about how in-depth exactly we want to go with the labels on the Maps. Imperators II(Talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Also looking at the above example, it would be great if we could somehow indicate the source for the Map's background image. Perhaps in that very "Redemption cross-section" caption? Imperators II(Talk) 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Just dropping in to note that a Discussions thread and a Senate Hall thread (slightly laggy on my end because the embedded galaxy map has grown so big now…) from a while ago also include some ideas about how to use Interactive Maps. OOM 224 (he/him) 11:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)