File talk:OB-Map-Key.png

Ahm, I dunno if this is where to say this, but I was looking at this map key on one page, and nearly have convulsions, I was laughing so hard over the use of "std". What, the NPC's venerally diseased? Can we, maybe, um, fix that? Muthsera 12:00, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Well the file has been there for six months and nobody else thinks it's that amusing. I think "std" is a common abbreviation for "standard"; it is was in capitals, you might have a case. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry, it might be my immaturity coming out, or that fact that I'm in high school, and there's been talk about one spreading lately. Muthsera 21:11, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Should this image be on articles?

This image isn't really useful on articles because the maps there are too small. Instead it should be on the image description pages for the maps. Also, IMHO it would be better to make it normal text instead of an image, something like this (the icons in my sandbox were created using html and css only, but they should be replaced with images because not all browsers can display them properly) -- Nx / talk 22:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh boy. Okay. Way back in the dim and distant past, when Nephele first generated the overlays, the key was included on the map. See the file history here, for instance. Nephele also generated the text for the place page and included a fixed width for the maps based on how large she expected them to appear based on the size of the zone.

When I started doing the maps and adding overlays, I split the key off because there were several cases where it couldn't be included without widening the image, thus reducing the size of the important map parts to the point where they were no longer visible at the width Neph had picked. After that, Nephele removed the key from all her overlays and we continued on that basis - assuming the key would be separate.

Right. That's the first part of the history. The second part is a little way down in this discussion, where a discussion about Morrowind maps suddenly became about the Oblivion ones too. I'll let you pick the salient points out of that for yourself.

So moving forward: If we keep the fixed-sizes for maps on the place pages, the key needs to stay off because otherwise it starts ruining the way the maps look. If we decide to include maps as standard thumbnails, the key can probably be added to the maps - but that will be a big job. As the schmuck that did about 95% of the OB maps, I know just how many of them there are.

I take Nx's point about the key being more useful on the image - he's quite right. But there are valid reasons why it was done this way and there are problems about undoing it. As for my opinion... I don't mind one way or the other. I don't have the originals any more so there will be some loss of quality if the key is added to the maps, but nothing serious. There are advantages to doing it both ways, and I was probably too involved first time around to be objective now. –rpeh •T•C•E• 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant to put the key as a separate image/template on the description page, not on the maps themselves. -- Nx / talk 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

indeed a template adding this to the image summary would indeed make more sense than to continue displaying it on the location page itself where it is of little value--Rhomphaia^T•C 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could include large images on the articles themselves, I'm experimenting with that in my sandbox now. -- Nx / talk 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I see what you mean. Yeah... that might make sense. –rpeh •T•C•E• 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that larger images on the places page is the answer. The variation of sizes in the zones could well leave the pages looking cluttered. if the key were added to the image summary then all the maps on the places page could then be thumbnailed.--Rhomphaia^T•C 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Often the maps contain location markers with an explanation in the article (e.g. the target for some quest is at location C), and you still have to switch between the image and the article, so it would make sense. Here's an example with the maps enlarged to 2.5 times the thumbnail size. -- Nx / talk 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)That looks good for small to medium thumbnails, but IMO it's a bit much for the larger, and small areas look a bit out of place. Still it does add a standard feel to the layout so it's an improvement in any case.--Rhomphaia^T•C 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The sizes of the map images on the Places articles may need some reviewing, but I think they should remain at a size that they are readible right from the article. It's an advantage not having to switch between map and the overview of contents of a specific zone. The text block next to the map image will be narrowed, but as this mostly concerns an enumeration of zone contents (and not just continuous text) I feel that it is OK.

I agree that it's a good idea to add the Map key to the image descriptions as well, it's a good idea to keep the key and the map together, even when you are studying a particular map in detail. --Timenn-<talk> 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this discussion on the Community Portal. -- Nx / talk 13:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)