Why is there a New England exception?" N0gar (posted this question on the project page and JCarriker moved it here at 09:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC))
In short that policy is old and we are currently in the process of updating it. It was never implemented to my knwoledge and will likely be amended. -JCarriker 09:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
On second thought... I just amended it to reflect current policy, per your query. - JCarriker 10:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Looking pretty good. Is there any way to color part of a state, or to shade gradually? For example, East Texas is certainly not part of the West; Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon are uncontroversially part of the West; but West Texas is almost universally considered part of it, and Western Washington and Western Oregon not. Similarly, Northern California is often counted into the Northwest.
Does anyone really include Wyoming in the Northwest?
Is Kansas really uncontroversially part of the North?
Thanks. Yes there is, but I am reluctant to do it because I'm concerned it would offer yet another area of conflict. However if regional models for a state can be offered I can color, part of a state. (Gradually shading is beyond my shareware). A side note: The coloring system has changed. The current coloring exculdes rare and sometimes categories, in favor of always and may or may not be included which I believe puts us on more solid ground.
Does anyone really include Wyoming in the Northwest? The Northwest absolutely, the Pacifc Northwest absolutely not.
Is Kansas really uncontroversially part of the North? Now that you mention it, no it's not.
Is Texas ever considered part of the east? Acegikmo1 19:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what?!?!?! No! Redwolf24 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up I don't think we should go so far on the East thing. Redwolf24 19:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Texas can be considered part of the east through two defacto points. When it is excluded from the West (a central region is not always offered), and through the Southeast (which can be considered a subregion of the East (think the weather channels old Southeast regions). Personally as a citizen of East Texas I can vouch that East Texas is part of the Southeast in terms of ecology, and aslo consider that the Southeast is often a synonym for the South. However as I said Texas claims to being part of the East are defcato, which is why its pink. Note that the core area of the Central Region is the perpherial areas of the East and West.-JCarriker 20:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that if a state is excluded from the West it must be considered part of the East. If this were the case, then Washington State would be part of the South solely because it is not part of the North, which is absurd. I feel that these maps are very good but define the pink, "contestable" areas far too broadly. I seriously doubt that a decent number of people consider North Dakota part of the east. Acegikmo1
I agree, I don't think Texas is ever realistically defined as part of the East (or the Southeast). It is either the South, West, or Southwest. --JW1805 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think New York and Pennsylvania should be pink on New England. Redwolf24 19:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That might seem reasonable but the maintatiners of the New England page have a very set idea of what New England is. I don't think that they would accept it, they squashed a native from Southwest Conn. pointing out that they have alot in common with NYC's Metro which is a much less contestable claim than New York and Pennsylvannia's claims to beinging part of New England which are exceedingly rare. If you want to bring it up go for it, but I've already been bitten once there and don't care to do it again. -JCarriker 20:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
We should probably have a map on the areas that were at one time claimed and in many cases settled by New England colonies. On that, Ohio would actually feature far more prominently than New York or Pennsylvania. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
So long as it wasn't the lead image I think that'd be a great idea. We could also have a similar map, suggested by Globeism on my talk page, somewhere at Western United States showing how the west shifted over time. -JCarriker 21:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Good stuff. We really should have some consistancy. Remember Pacific Northwest, Wash, Ore, And Idaho. I'm from there :) Redwolf24 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a proposed map on Pacific Northwest. Its an international region because of BC, but since there is no similar Canadian project we generally look after it. -JCarriker 20:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delaware not abeing colored red is a mistake; I'll correct it immediately. Maryland is a member of the Southern Governor's Conference [1] which places it in the gray area with Virginia. I know that the general public has set ideas of East and West, but geographers have a variety of ideas which over how to classify regions and in some of those classifications MIMAL are in the West [2] and NSNKOT are in the East [3]. They may not be popular or well known assertions but they are accurate ones. I appreciate your suggestions, thanks for your insight. - JCarriker 18:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
User:Latitude0116/67.85.2.175 disputes the map series approved by this wikiproject. His reversions of the series on multiple pages have been reverted by UH Collegian and myself. All U.S. regions pages have been protected, by Thryduulf, except Western United States which was previoulsy protected on an unrelated matter. Since this issue invloves multiple articles and this project created the map series, this is the proper venue for discussion. -JCarriker 16:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I have recently noticed that all of the maps on all of the articles concerning regions of the United States are being reverted. The maps being reverted are the standard maps that were originally agreed upon. They are now being systematically removed and replaced by maps that are not as accurate and green boxes that are not only non-standard but also unnesessary on most of the articles. I have done the best I can to undo these reverts, but it only ends up in the creation of new edit wars. (See the history page of almost any U.S. region article and you'll see the problem.) If nothing can be solved, then I suggest that the following be done to all articles related to U.S. regions:
All maps be removed until disputes are settled
All pages related to U.S. regions be protected from editing until disputes are settled
-- 67.85.2.175 04:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I have protected all the articles on the intranational regions, as the other types of region don't appear to be affected. The articles are protected in the state I found them in. Thryduulf 14:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first standardized map series. There has been no other before this one, the closest thing was Image:US regions.gif. This series was approved after debate and modification, map series. I see no such evidence of a holistic discussion of the maps that preceded it. Please provide links for the discussion that approved the maps. The box is a variant of an infobox that has been in use for years. -JCarriker 16:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Why use a 'variant' of an inbox that has been in use for years.. Why not just use the standard infobox as generated by the wiki image tag? I have no quarrel with the maps themselves, and I think Mr. 67.85.2.175 should explain why they're not as accurate. But I don't think we should have the nonstandard green boxes generated with HTML when the standard wiki markup produces an attractive and standardized frame around the image. Pfalstad 18:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable concession in my opinion. -JCarriker 18:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Response to Pfalstad: the only reason why I think the new maps aren't as accurate is because the resolution of the newer maps isn't as high. The old maps were about 577 x 882 pixels each, and the new ones are about 368 x 571 pixels each. Even though the old maps were mostly colorless, the borders themselves seemed to be more accurate, in the sense that the new maps are missing a few minor details, including Cape May, New Jersey; North Carolina's Outer Banks; Utah's Salt Lake; the San Francisco Bay, and the Florida Keys. It is also not possible to zoom up as far on the newer maps when they are clicked:
-- 67.85.2.175 09:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I think all of these pages should be unprotected, unless the edit war is seriously getting out of hand. Upper Midwest was protected, despite the fact that there was only a small edit war, and that was twelve hours before protection. This is too pre-emptive of a protection, I believe, when simple reverting clearly solved it during the "edit war" itself. kmccoy(talk) 22:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my opinion is that the articles should use the more detailed maps, using the wiki-markup, with the more detailed captions of the second set of maps. At first glance it appears that some of the original maps were just red and white states, whereas the new ones for the same region had pink ones as well - imho the pink "sometimes part of this region" is very useful.
When you have come to an agreement here on which maps, captions and frames are to be used, put a request for the unprotection of the articles at WP:RFPP - I wont be keeping a detailed eye on this page and might not spot any reqeusts made here. The individual articles are not on my watchlist so I will not spot requests there - I encourage you to link to this discussion from the talk pages of all the articles concerned to avoid 22 or more parallel discussions.
The reason I protected all of them is that if only some were protected then there was a very high likely hood of the revert war moving to those that were unprotected - I am not around 24 hours a day to watch over articles and wars benefit nobody. 80.46.159.158 22:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above anon user is actually me, I hadn't spotted I'd been timed out. Sorry. Thryduulf 22:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protection benefits people even less. A revert war doesn't really harm the project unless it gets out of hand, whereas protection of a page makes it impossible for anyone to do anything with that page, which is harmful to the idea of having this be a wiki.
Also, I noticed that some of these images say "made from existing image". What existing image were they made from? kmccoy(talk) 22:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier the info box can go, much of this debate is out of context. The minor details and zoom are irrelevant in the context of the purpose of the maps, to highlight states included in specific regions. This is the first map to do so, there were not any before it. What existed before were a grab-bag of maps (when maps existed), with no standard captions, color codes, or even base maps. They were made from a base image entitled American West.jpg, or a similar title, which is editable in paintbrush, in other words user friendly. The map series was discussed and adopted by consensus I see no such practice for any of the grab-bag maps, and again ask for links to such discussion if I have over looked something. This series was meant to standardize the map base and color code for easier comparison and portray inclusive representations based on multiple models, something most regions have.
The example of the South Central regions is misleading, unintionally so I'm sure. Compare these maps as well:
However I am willing to compromise as such, use the "better" base map e.g the grab-bag Southwest base map, using the Map series' definitions (with no modificationst to what is inculuded or excluded), color code, and caption; all within the standard wikipedia image box. This should address the issues on the table. -JCarriker 03:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The finer detail provided by the higher resolution and zoomability is a plus, aesthetically and for providing the best way to graphically indicate the region, and the multiple highlighting shades arenice: ideally, there should be some detailed indication of the regions, like a line pattern or border thickness difference, other than just the color of the background: some may have difficulty seeing the difference between the darker and lighter shades of red or other colors, especially when viewed on a black and white display. --Mysidia 04:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you modify a GFDL image, be sure that you state that in the image description page for the new image, and include attribution to the authors of the original/base image. Also, I really feel that the pages should be unprotected. The worst that could happen is that you guys revert each other a few times. Leaving all these pages protected is so anti-wiki. :/ Check out m:Protected pages considered harmful -- I like that page. :) kmccoy(talk) 05:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have unprotected all the articles now, as it appears to have served its purpose in getting people to talk here, but please do not compromise this by reverting each other again. Thryduulf 15:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If someone will provide a base map of the new map I'll make the changes myself, I'll also include doubled state lines at red/pink borders and triple lines at regional borders. - JCarriker 16:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
A more detailed base map. Since an editable base map of the map with the higher resolution; I have edited the map series base map to include mor accurate borders and more geographic features. I realize zoomability is viewed as a plus, but please keep in mind that this map series exists only to highlight which states are included in a given US region; not to show geographic features in high detail. I've also experiemnted with bolding lines to show regions and found it is not particualarlt aesthetcially pleasing and can lend its self to confusion. In the past this wikiproject has considered eleminating a heirarchy all together and just showing regions at their widest possible interpretations, for example everyhting West of the Mississippi would be higlighted red, the South would include all states that joined the Confederact, all borderstates, and Oklahoma. However there are problems with such a system as well. Therefore I can make all of the pink red as well or leave the current color code in place. -JCarriker 17:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I generally like the two-tiered color scheme (indicating states that are definitely in the region, and the extent to which it might extend). A good point is made above by Mysidia about different ways of viewing (black and white monitors and such.) I'd love to see how using a solid color for the "positive" states and a diagonal line pattern for the "maybe" states looks, perhaps with a light shading of the "maybe" states as well. I'd do it, but I'm on a borrowed computer that doesn't have GIMP. I'm mostly just glad that the articles got unprotected. :) kmccoy(talk) 18:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go kmmcoy, per your request -JCarriker 20:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think that looks pretty good. Maybe slightly narrower diagonal lines, but it's something to play with. It seems clear that you're eager to find a solution that makes everyone happy, which is fantastic. I guess the big question is whether the IP user who disagreed most strongly likes the new version. :) kmccoy(talk) 21:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will images like this one replace the current map images on U.S. region pages? -- 67.85.2.175 5:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
This topic and the following two remarks are copied and pasted from the discussion page of Southern United States. I'm doing this to make sure that everyone who may oppose or support this idea has a good chance to voice themselves, esp given that I now see this affects ~20 articles --Qirex 05:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay to change the colour of that map box to something more agreeable to the eye and more in line with wikipedia appearance? Something like #ccf, as seen to the right? And, if that change would be okay, are there other pages like this one with that table in it? (I just happened to stumble over here near-randomly, don't know much about this page). If there are, I'm happy to change the other articles too, if people are happy for me to change 'em. --Qirex 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Edited --Qirex 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. In fact, the box colors used to be different. Please change the color as you see fit.--Alabamaboy 23:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe the current concensus, see above, is to not have a box at all but just use the usual image box. -JCarriker 19:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, given that it has been a week, I feel I have allowed plenty of time for the editors of these pages to respond. I seem to have one yes and one no, and I'm not going to count my own opinion. So, I'm just going to leave it, as it seems that no-one really feels strongly one way or another. If it is concensus to change the boxes out to image boxes, then I suggest that is what should be done. --Qirex 10:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to intrude, but whoever did the section on the Mid-Atlantic has got it totally wrong. The Mid-Atlantic is Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and Virginia. Do some checking, and you will find this to be the case.
![[2]](http://www.cornhillnursery.com/images/usawest.gif){kind=link}
![[3]](http://ftp.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states/us-east.jpg){kind=link}
