Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1
Moved here from the FAC page, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Not to be a pain in the ass, but I really, really disagree with the use of the map in the infobox for this article. In thumbnail size, I can barely even make out Chicago, let alone the actual location of the theater The colors, text and icon all make it even more difficult to read. {{coord}}, the map of Millennium Park and the theater's address should be enough to help readers identify the location of the theater. If they would like to know the location of Millennium Park within the loop, the Millennium Park article offers up a more more useful and appropriate map in its infobox. --TorsodogTalk 16:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
And of course you can make out Chicago in the thousands of articles we have with state maps in like Victory Monument (Chicago)... Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I see that some of the National Register of Historic Places listings still have the old full state map (Victory Monument (Chicago)) and some have the new local map like (Chicago Board of Trade Building). Is it possible to have the Harris map be like the CBOTB map with just the dot and not all the text that makes things messy?
- Torsodog, are you against the NRHPs haveing any map at all?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Torsodog. I first wanted to identify the authors of maps used in the article: Dr. Blofeld made File:Chicago central map.png, currently in the infobox, and I made the map of Millennium Park, File:Millennium Park Map labels.png. Second, from comments made here and elsewhere, I believe Torsodog's objection to infobox map is that it does not provide the average reader with information about the location of the theater not already available or linked in the article. Third, the Harris Theater is not a NRHP ;-) , but that made me think of a map sometimes used in NRHP infoboxes (which I am partially credited with making, as it is a derivative work): File:Illinois Locator Map with US.PNG. This shows both the USA (with Illinois in red) and Illinois (with a red dot for the theater's location added by the software).
- I think that the article benefits from a locator map, and since I am familiar with Chicago, the current map adds to my understanding of the location of the theater. However, I also agree with Torsodog that most people are not familiar enough with Chicago's geography to get much useful information out of the current map. The question is then, would a map of Illiois, or of Illinois and the USA (with dot added by the software) be more informative to the average reader? Also if Torsodog's comment is seen as an actionable request at FAC, is there any choice but to remove the map, or do we need to resolve the issue first, then remove it if that is the consensus? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- PS In about 2 hours or less, I may be unable to access the internet for the next 48 hours - sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to hijack this nom and turn it into a map discussion, but I really don't know what to do, as I do not think the map helps. Do readers really need FOUR different indicators of the Theater's location, especially when they are all in the top 1/6th of the article? And as for the HRHP maps, I don't think they are all that helpful either, for the record. But at least those give all readers recognizable landmarks that tell them where the site is located by simply looking at the thumbnail. --TorsodogTalk 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- What I am asking is since almost all NRHP buildings have these maps and they have never been an issue in them. I am attempting to make the Harris map more like those maps by suggesting that the text be removed from the locator to be like Chicago Board of Trade Building. I am also trying to better understand the objection. Is a large scale map like Victory Monument (Chicago) palatable, but a zoomed map like CBOTB not? Are there four redundant location indicators in the article. I do not think the two maps are redundant. Even if the maps are redundant here do we get FOUR?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely think the text and icon on the map are unneeded. And really, I don't want to start comparing this to the NRHP maps because honestly, I think those are almost completely unnecessary as well (I mean really, a whole map of the state in the infobox of a single building?). My point about those maps, however, was that the reader at least is able to easily figure out what the location you are talking about is. These maps are far too specific and far too confusing. They require further inquiry into the theater's location for them to make any sense, and if that is the case, they might as well be using {{coord}}. In general, my objection is simply that I think the map is unneeded in the infobox. The address is already given in the box. That gives the reader the EXACT location of the building. And with two other location indicators already in the article (one completely unobtrusive and one much more relevant), this map just doesn't offer anything more. Furthermore, why is the theater's location so important in the first place that it needs to be given to the reader in 4 different, very prominent ways (not including how many times it is mentioned in the prose)? --TorsodogTalk 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- O.K. So although not necessary. Just a dot is better than text and an icon. I don't know if User:Dr. Blofeld can convert his maps to dots, but if he can would you accept that compromise. Yes the article has a 1.) Street address, 2.) Geolocator coordinates, 3.)Millennium Park map as well. There are a lot of people who if given a street address in Chicago, would not know where a building is, but have visited enough that if you put a dot on a map with Navy Pier and Lake Shore Drive clearly visible would have a better understanding of where it is. That is the point of Blofeld's maps. Keep in mind that almost any content in an infobox of any article is actually suppose to be in one or two other locations in the article such as the LEAD and the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Torsodog. To most readers, even those who are familiar with Chicago, the thumbnail infobox map is just going to be a confusing mess of colors. I can't read anything, except for the name of the theatre. I don't think Navy Pier is clearly visible, unless you already know what Navy Pier looks like from the air. (Navy Pier isn't even labeled in the full-size image.) The only thing most readers can infer from that map is that the theater is kind of close to the lake. Zagalejo^^^ 00:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- O.K. So although not necessary. Just a dot is better than text and an icon. I don't know if User:Dr. Blofeld can convert his maps to dots, but if he can would you accept that compromise. Yes the article has a 1.) Street address, 2.) Geolocator coordinates, 3.)Millennium Park map as well. There are a lot of people who if given a street address in Chicago, would not know where a building is, but have visited enough that if you put a dot on a map with Navy Pier and Lake Shore Drive clearly visible would have a better understanding of where it is. That is the point of Blofeld's maps. Keep in mind that almost any content in an infobox of any article is actually suppose to be in one or two other locations in the article such as the LEAD and the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely think the text and icon on the map are unneeded. And really, I don't want to start comparing this to the NRHP maps because honestly, I think those are almost completely unnecessary as well (I mean really, a whole map of the state in the infobox of a single building?). My point about those maps, however, was that the reader at least is able to easily figure out what the location you are talking about is. These maps are far too specific and far too confusing. They require further inquiry into the theater's location for them to make any sense, and if that is the case, they might as well be using {{coord}}. In general, my objection is simply that I think the map is unneeded in the infobox. The address is already given in the box. That gives the reader the EXACT location of the building. And with two other location indicators already in the article (one completely unobtrusive and one much more relevant), this map just doesn't offer anything more. Furthermore, why is the theater's location so important in the first place that it needs to be given to the reader in 4 different, very prominent ways (not including how many times it is mentioned in the prose)? --TorsodogTalk 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- What I am asking is since almost all NRHP buildings have these maps and they have never been an issue in them. I am attempting to make the Harris map more like those maps by suggesting that the text be removed from the locator to be like Chicago Board of Trade Building. I am also trying to better understand the objection. Is a large scale map like Victory Monument (Chicago) palatable, but a zoomed map like CBOTB not? Are there four redundant location indicators in the article. I do not think the two maps are redundant. Even if the maps are redundant here do we get FOUR?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to hijack this nom and turn it into a map discussion, but I really don't know what to do, as I do not think the map helps. Do readers really need FOUR different indicators of the Theater's location, especially when they are all in the top 1/6th of the article? And as for the HRHP maps, I don't think they are all that helpful either, for the record. But at least those give all readers recognizable landmarks that tell them where the site is located by simply looking at the thumbnail. --TorsodogTalk 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The current version of this mapping system has drawn basically no consensus responses everywhere. Here it is three vocal proponents and two opponents and last I counted at WP:VP it was 6 opponents and 5 proponents. Here is the way I see it. Almost all of the most important buildings in the United States (National Register of Historic Places listings) use a locator map. For most people this map is meaningless. Most of the maps just show where Chicago is within the state of Illinois. Most people who recognize the state of Illinois know where Chicago is on the map and most who do not know where Chicago is in the state don't recognize the state and even know what the map is. Furthermore, as is the case with almost all content in an infobox, it is redundant with other content on the page (as it should be since the infobox and WP:LEAD jointly serve to highlight the main article). Some of these state maps have been replaced by the hotly contested Dr. Blofeld closeup locator maps. They are also redundant with content throughout the articles. There are four issues on these locator maps: 1.) they put text on the images which obfuscates some of the cartographic content, 2.) they use distracting icons as locators, 3.) the closeup maps are of questionable usefulness that depend upon the knowledge and understanding of the reader and 4.) in addition to the NRHP buildings they are showing up on a whole host of other architectural structures that never previously had maps, increasing cartographic content redundancy as it relates to surrounding textual and hyperlinked content. Ignoring, the redundancy of cartographic content with textual and hyperlinked content (because I have yet to hear anyone say that infoboxes are suppose to present content that is not elsewhere in the article which I believe would be a false statement), I have proposed a solution to points 1 and 2. The issues are can that solution be executed and what to make of issue 3. Given that infoboxes are suppose to present highlights of the article in a different format, AFIAK, I think we should say that most readers who have three ways to intake the content also available cartographically will determine their preference. There will be people who look for text describing the street address and neighborhood; there will be readers who look for hyperlinks to expansive detail about the location; and there will be readers who are cartographically attuned who want this other alternative. I don't think there is a problem with providing a cartographic alternative to hyperlinked and textual information. Think about how confusing the hyperlinked geodata page is to a map person who. It is probably no more confusing to him than a map is to those who prefere the hyperlinked geo content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Tony, but I still disagree. Nothing changes the fact that the map, as it is presented in this article's infobox, is essentially unreadable to most, if not all users. The coord template caters to those who want in depth knowledge of the area and the Millennium Park map caters to those who want a general but quick idea of what is around the theater. Anyone else who wants further location data can look it up for themselves via the many online tools available to them with the address we provide. Readers do not need any and all possible ways to see the relatively insignificant location of the Harris Theater. They already have more than enough choices that are easier to read and consume. --TorsodogTalk 05:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- In terms of legibility, the Harris locator map is low quality. Even compared to a map like that found in Victory Monument (Chicago), it is lacking. I have no argument there. My problem is that if we have technology to provide information to the reader three ways and it is common practice to provide information multiple ways in the WP:LEAD and infobox, why should people who prefer delivery methods 1 and 2 be able to halt delivery method 3. Personally, I look for maps all the time. I never click on the geo hyperlinks to find locations. For me a map is the preferred delivery method for location content. There is a ton of content in the locator map that gives perspective. For a map person combining the content of
where dozens of street names are perfectly legible and the content of the MP map is very informative. Sure the map is grainy, but the article show an icon east of Michigan just off of Randolph even though you have to click through to see the street names in a legible size. However, the locator map adds a whole lot of perspective to that information. There is no question it is grainy. I don't know what kind of technology could make it sharper. It is far from useless. If you are the type of person who likes to click through the geo hyperlink on articles for content, I am not going to fight that preference, but what about map people. Just because the map is not useful to you, does not mean it is useless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- In terms of legibility, the Harris locator map is low quality. Even compared to a map like that found in Victory Monument (Chicago), it is lacking. I have no argument there. My problem is that if we have technology to provide information to the reader three ways and it is common practice to provide information multiple ways in the WP:LEAD and infobox, why should people who prefer delivery methods 1 and 2 be able to halt delivery method 3. Personally, I look for maps all the time. I never click on the geo hyperlinks to find locations. For me a map is the preferred delivery method for location content. There is a ton of content in the locator map that gives perspective. For a map person combining the content of
- Given that this a FAC candicacy I despair that this has turned into another map dispute. I created a Chicago Loop map for the purpose of being able to see the actual street name when you click the map. I also added a window in the corner so the reader knows where in Chicago and evne Illinois it is. The map of Millenium Park whilst good for looking at Millenium Park does not indicate where it is in the surrounding context. I therefore find your notion that this map is somehow redundant to the reader and rendered "useless" false. I'm not from Chicago and I find the locator very useful, otherwise I'd be clueless to where it actually is. My should I have to leave wikipedia and see a google map when I can casually glance at a pin map and roughly get an idea of where it is? Most readers do not know where Millenium Park is. The map is not perfect I agree, but that is an OpenStreet map graphhic issue not mine. They should improve the quality of them for sure and use less pink.... But I've now changed the locator icon to a dot so if you click the map you can understand where it is. This helps the readers in my view. No doubt my effort will be reverted to the Chicago central map which is less useful to the reader as there is no window locator, nor can you see the street name. I repeat that the Loop locator and the Chicago window locator map are certianly not redundant to the singular map of Millenium park as it offers location with the whole Loop area, within Chicago and even within Illinois in the window panel.. But no doubt you'll choose what you like. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing it to a dot. You still need to remove the offending text. It blocks a lot of the cartographic content. The reader knows what the subject being located is if he is at the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
How about this? Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. Just the map and dot. No text. Just like at the Chicago Board of Trade Building. You don't want to have to add a map for each article that uses this locator system.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you think I'm going to completely change the formatting of the theatre infobox just so you are happy with the map.... Most infoboxes on wikipedia display caption labels. You had apoint about the parker though, the black one is more precise I agree albeit less realistic in terms of a building being drawn as a dot..... Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are forgetting that I am on your side in terms of having locator maps in these articles. One of the consistent complaints is that you can not see a lot of the cartographic content. I am not entirely against putting the name out of the way. I am saying there will be fewer and weaker objections with the text removed. You have six or seven locator map types that we are hoping to incorporate into dozens of articles through numerous infoboxes. The least objectionable format is that at Chicago Board of Trade Building with no text. I am attempting to preserve the ability to use this locator system with the least objections. . .And yes, I hope you make the change so it appears on not only the Theatre infoboxes, but all types of infoboxes that you have converted. That is really the only way that it is not going to be met with strong objection as a consensus. Please help us minimize the objection by removing the text overlay from the locator maps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't the map supposed to be readable without clicking on it? I'm pretty sure I've seen Tony1 say something like that before. (BTW, I don't think the Board of Trade map is any better.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- In terms of legibility of the thumbnailed map, it is no better. However, it has no text overlay to make matters worse. I am saying that the text overlay is a problem that has been mentioned in addition to the problem with the thumbnail legibility. If the map has to be legible at thumbnailed sizes for FA then there is nothing we can do but remove it, but since we are asking the reader to click on a coordinate that is no different than asking him to click on a map. If the map has to be legible, it can go, but I don't see clicking on it as worse than asking the reader to click on a coordinate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let's look at it in terms of aesthetics. The coordinates are harmless, but a cramped, busy map looks tacky. Zagalejo^^^ 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am attempting to get Dr. B, to make it not look busy by removing the text overlay.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let's look at it in terms of aesthetics. The coordinates are harmless, but a cramped, busy map looks tacky. Zagalejo^^^ 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- In terms of legibility of the thumbnailed map, it is no better. However, it has no text overlay to make matters worse. I am saying that the text overlay is a problem that has been mentioned in addition to the problem with the thumbnail legibility. If the map has to be legible at thumbnailed sizes for FA then there is nothing we can do but remove it, but since we are asking the reader to click on a coordinate that is no different than asking him to click on a map. If the map has to be legible, it can go, but I don't see clicking on it as worse than asking the reader to click on a coordinate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't the map supposed to be readable without clicking on it? I'm pretty sure I've seen Tony1 say something like that before. (BTW, I don't think the Board of Trade map is any better.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are forgetting that I am on your side in terms of having locator maps in these articles. One of the consistent complaints is that you can not see a lot of the cartographic content. I am not entirely against putting the name out of the way. I am saying there will be fewer and weaker objections with the text removed. You have six or seven locator map types that we are hoping to incorporate into dozens of articles through numerous infoboxes. The least objectionable format is that at Chicago Board of Trade Building with no text. I am attempting to preserve the ability to use this locator system with the least objections. . .And yes, I hope you make the change so it appears on not only the Theatre infoboxes, but all types of infoboxes that you have converted. That is really the only way that it is not going to be met with strong objection as a consensus. Please help us minimize the objection by removing the text overlay from the locator maps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you think I'm going to completely change the formatting of the theatre infobox just so you are happy with the map.... Most infoboxes on wikipedia display caption labels. You had apoint about the parker though, the black one is more precise I agree albeit less realistic in terms of a building being drawn as a dot..... Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) Since this article is part of a Featured Topic on Millennium Park, I think it worth noting that none of the six FAs in the topic were featured with any sort of locator map in the infobox, and only one has an infobox locator map now. I checked some of the GAs in the FT and there is also no consistency there on having a locator map (somne do, some do not). The more I think about it, the more I agree that these articles do not really need a locator map. I believe that most readers will have a good general idea of where Chicago is (so the Illinois map with dot is not needed), and also believe that most readers will not get anything from the Chicago locator map (and the coordinates link provides better maps in terms of zooming in and out, etc. in any case). So I propose
- Moving this discussion to the FAC talk page (no one is saying this article should or should not be promoted based on just the locator map). I think the discussion should be for all the articles in the FT and they should either all have a locator map, or none should.
- I also propose removing the map from the article for now, pending outcome of a discussion of locator maps in all these FT articles (see above).
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it is fair to say that the fact that the articles had no locator maps when they passed presents any sort of prevailing preference. The technology was just introduced for articles other than NRHPs which have had the state map for some time. Furthermore, every place where the topic has been discussed the debate has essentially been no consensus. Most of those debates were with the technology that included two problems that have been or can be eliminated. I am a map person. I look at the map of almost every article in the United States that has one. I intake geographic content in cartographic form most readily. Saying "most readers will not get anything from the Chicago locator map" is not really a meaningful objection. Are you saying the map is undecipherable, readers can't read maps, or that the location of the structure is not encyclopedic content that amounts to anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am used to the Geobox and other infobox templates which have had map display options for years - sorry for the mixup, I assumed these infoboxes also could display maps all along. I do note that even with the capability to display maps, 5 of the 6 MP FAs still do not have locator maps now (have not looked at the article histories). At the size shown, the current Chicago map is undecipherable (unless you already have a pretty detailed knowledge of Chicago). When blown up the Chicago map includes all sorts of labels that are not especially useful - lots of labels of things not mentioned in the article (while omitting the label for at least one thing in the article, like Navy Pier). See Chartjunk.
- Ican see having a more streamlined Chicago locator map and, as I have said all along, my preference would be to display one of two maps (toggling between them as the French Wikipedia does). If the question is should the locator map be added and the result is no consensus, what does that say? If we can only have one map, my preference is for the Illinois map. This FAC page is already larger than the article - do you have any objection to moving the map discussion to the FAC talk page? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure lets meet at the talk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just to check it, I'm still not a fan of the map as it currently appears in the article. Again, if I had no prior knowledge of Chicago, I would have no idea where that little line was pointing. And as it is right now, it might as well just be pointing to Millennium Park in general as it is extremely hard to decipher where it is exactly pointing anyways. As for the topic discussion, I think that none of the articles should include their own individual maps, but Millennium Park, the parent article, should certainly have a map like this. With every other article in the topic containing the Millennium Park map, I think readers would then get the most useful maps in the most logical places. --TorsodogTalk 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- O.K. the line has been removed as have all unnecessary text overlays. It is a very simple map. I'll explain my mindset when using WP and why maps are important to me. I can not speak for others. First, I want information presented in the fastest perceptible manner. I first try to read the infoboxes. When I can figure everything out that I need from the infobox, I often move on to other informational pursuits. If not, I read the WP:LEAD. In almost all cases that is all I read. I want the info presented to me in the fastest bite possible. A map of anything I am familiar with is preferable to looking for links or prose. In the case of the current map. Many may not understand the cartographic content and some will. For people like me, the map is a great addition. That is why I support them in general and this one in particular. I support similar maps in all building and structure articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've essentially proven why I don't like the maps. Sure, some people may get something out of the incredibly small maps, but most will not. Why sacrifice precious infobox and article space for a sub-par map that most will not understand without digging deeper? Also, I'm not a fan of the "quickest is king" mentality. We provide links to amazing external maps and give readers all the information they need to locate the building on their own maps. The locations of (most) buildings are simply not important enough to warrant giving readers bad, small, confusing, aesthetically-ugly maps in many, MANY Wikipedia articles in the of name of fast info. If that is your intention, I think the idea should be proposed somewhere formally before inserting these maps into any and all building article infoboxes. --TorsodogTalk 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes there probably should be some sort of discussion on such matters if it is going to be more globally implemented, but I don't see any space that is being sacrificed in this instance because no other content was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- No content in this particular article had to be removed, but other articles that have many more relevant images can and will become cluttered due to the extra length this map unnecessarily adds to every infobox. Also, I think these maps draw attention away from more important relevant images due to their loudness and location in the infobox. --TorsodogTalk 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well since these maps are now formatted like the National Register of Historic Places building maps except for a more localized map, it is probably a very broad and far reaching topic of discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the Harris map seems to have been reformated as a one off. Let's wait for all the infoboxes to be formatted consistently before opening up wider debate. I am going to pink Dr. B. about what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- No content in this particular article had to be removed, but other articles that have many more relevant images can and will become cluttered due to the extra length this map unnecessarily adds to every infobox. Also, I think these maps draw attention away from more important relevant images due to their loudness and location in the infobox. --TorsodogTalk 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes there probably should be some sort of discussion on such matters if it is going to be more globally implemented, but I don't see any space that is being sacrificed in this instance because no other content was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've essentially proven why I don't like the maps. Sure, some people may get something out of the incredibly small maps, but most will not. Why sacrifice precious infobox and article space for a sub-par map that most will not understand without digging deeper? Also, I'm not a fan of the "quickest is king" mentality. We provide links to amazing external maps and give readers all the information they need to locate the building on their own maps. The locations of (most) buildings are simply not important enough to warrant giving readers bad, small, confusing, aesthetically-ugly maps in many, MANY Wikipedia articles in the of name of fast info. If that is your intention, I think the idea should be proposed somewhere formally before inserting these maps into any and all building article infoboxes. --TorsodogTalk 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- O.K. the line has been removed as have all unnecessary text overlays. It is a very simple map. I'll explain my mindset when using WP and why maps are important to me. I can not speak for others. First, I want information presented in the fastest perceptible manner. I first try to read the infoboxes. When I can figure everything out that I need from the infobox, I often move on to other informational pursuits. If not, I read the WP:LEAD. In almost all cases that is all I read. I want the info presented to me in the fastest bite possible. A map of anything I am familiar with is preferable to looking for links or prose. In the case of the current map. Many may not understand the cartographic content and some will. For people like me, the map is a great addition. That is why I support them in general and this one in particular. I support similar maps in all building and structure articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch, the very reason that five out of six of the features don't have a map is because they were either reverted or because people fussed about them which prevented me from continuing my work to help you adding them on Chicago landmarks or that the infobox does not yet have the pushpin mapping options. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think maybe what he was getting at is that most of the articles have been through the FAC process already, and no one thought that a map was needed then. And if that isn't what he was getting at, then I'll get at it right now :) --TorsodogTalk 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld: as I wrote above, I did not check edit histories and assumed that the infoboxes all had locator map capabilities - sorry again.
Everyone: I made up a quick locator map of the Loop (the map is from the US Census website, the crop is to include everything in this official Chicago Loop map. This is a simpler map and could have labels added - not sure what should be labeled - perhaps Lake Michigan, Grant Park, Michigan Avenue, Lake Shore Drive, Navy Pier, Museum Campus Chicago (could not do all those on this - too crowded)? Would something like this work? Or would putting the Illinois map with dot on Chicago on the left side and this on the right (a composite image) work better? Just trying some ideas. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I had not noticed your map. I have been waiting for complete conversion to the NRHP style pushpin with only a dot and no text overlay. It seems to have finally happened. I will put up a summary page of examples of pages and infoboxes converted by the end of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- For those concerned, a summary of the current experimentation can be seen at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Map summary and User:TonyTheTiger/Chicago building maps for Chicago. I know that Washington, D.C. had a few structures that have been converted also. For other detail consult with Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- What's the thought on officially proposing this? It seems as though you guys are just continuing to add maps to articles. The idea of a proposal is to propose it before it is implemented, not after. Is there a reason you haven't proposed it yet? Also, I just came across this article - American Museum of Natural History. More than ever, I think this idea needs to officially proposed and debated ASAP. I am very opposed to a map dominating that much of an article's infobox and article space. --TorsodogTalk 07:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was kind of waiting for Dr. Blofeld to convert a couple more infoboxes. Where is the proper forum to propose this? P.S., I love the map in that example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think more infoboxes need to be converted for a proposal to take place. Honestly, none really need to be converted for the proposal to take place, but I guess this will at least help people see what exactly you guys want to do. I'm not quite sure where to propose this, but considering that this is a change that will effect hundreds of thousands of article, it should be somewhere highly visible. I can ask around if you'd like. And I assumed you like the map in that example. That's pretty much our disagreement in a nutshell :P BTW, I saw Dr. post something about the zoomable opensource map in the coord template in the german wiki (ex). Can't we just implement that in our coord template and be good to go? Why do you guys insist upon having those map in the infoboxes? It is pretty much everything you guys want one click away without being hugely intrusive in the article space. Isn't this win/win for both of our sides? --TorsodogTalk 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do not insist on a map in the infoboxes - although I think a good map adds something to the article. I thought the objection was more to the legibility of the maps, so I made one that was much simpler and thought a few labels could be added if the consensus was that a simpler / cleaner map was better. Since there is obviously much disagreement on this, I would be fine with a proposal submitted somewhere, and also think there are already enough examples for a proposal. So I would be fine with a proposal, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have never really been involved in a proposal that is so far reaching. I think it is so important that we should probably agree on how to word it so that it is fairly disseminated. Basically, I think it should point to the American Museum of Natural History as an example of a map that extends the infobox so significantly that it could be considered problematic and then point to User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Map summary, which shows for a city how this really simply adds mapping options to the system {{Infobox nrhp}} has been using for a while that some question the necessity of. However, I think the phrasing should be agreed upon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not insist on a map in the infoboxes - although I think a good map adds something to the article. I thought the objection was more to the legibility of the maps, so I made one that was much simpler and thought a few labels could be added if the consensus was that a simpler / cleaner map was better. Since there is obviously much disagreement on this, I would be fine with a proposal submitted somewhere, and also think there are already enough examples for a proposal. So I would be fine with a proposal, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think more infoboxes need to be converted for a proposal to take place. Honestly, none really need to be converted for the proposal to take place, but I guess this will at least help people see what exactly you guys want to do. I'm not quite sure where to propose this, but considering that this is a change that will effect hundreds of thousands of article, it should be somewhere highly visible. I can ask around if you'd like. And I assumed you like the map in that example. That's pretty much our disagreement in a nutshell :P BTW, I saw Dr. post something about the zoomable opensource map in the coord template in the german wiki (ex). Can't we just implement that in our coord template and be good to go? Why do you guys insist upon having those map in the infoboxes? It is pretty much everything you guys want one click away without being hugely intrusive in the article space. Isn't this win/win for both of our sides? --TorsodogTalk 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was kind of waiting for Dr. Blofeld to convert a couple more infoboxes. Where is the proper forum to propose this? P.S., I love the map in that example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- What's the thought on officially proposing this? It seems as though you guys are just continuing to add maps to articles. The idea of a proposal is to propose it before it is implemented, not after. Is there a reason you haven't proposed it yet? Also, I just came across this article - American Museum of Natural History. More than ever, I think this idea needs to officially proposed and debated ASAP. I am very opposed to a map dominating that much of an article's infobox and article space. --TorsodogTalk 07:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)