Talk:Gråen

Italics for foreign proper names

@Boeing720: I saw that you had italicized some words that I didn't think would be italicized. I looked at the Manual of Style, and at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC it says "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used". Does that make sense to you?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms - "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English" Boeing720 (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

But right after that it says "However, proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Isn't "Gipsön" the name of the island? Isn't "Supra AB" the name of a company. If those are proper names, they would not be italicized.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain about how formal "Gipsön" really is. But it has been put in writing in the local paper many times (some 15 years ago or so, there was a discussion about a dozen wind mills, which since then surrounds it. For the future, I created this article much due to a red link. There are more to be said.

Though "Supra AB" is the name of the company, yes. A translation would be "Supra Ltd", as "Supra" really doesn't mean anything, but it relates to the word "Super" (which is the same in Swedish and English). At second thoughts, I can agree about that one.

Having said that, it's indeed a very common to see, things like this -> Florence (Italian: Firenze) <- And also in this article Wannsee Conference there were already plenty of italicized words, I added a few myself. Like an address from

56-58 Am Großen Wannsee -> Am Großen Wannsee 56-58 (To have the number before the street name in German, is like writing "Downing Street 10" or "Pennsylvania Avenue 1600") But I also made that italic. And this article is of Good-reading status, has been written by several very experienced Wikipedians , but there were no objections at all. It seems to me that our guidelines are changing, all the time. And matters like this takes too much time, I think. My final suggestion (nothing else) is to keep Gipsön in italics (I find it to be a good way in order for our readers to not get confused with a different language inside an English text) but Supra AB, could be like that. Bu do as you like. And thanks for your efforts. Boeing720 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Source for map and non-SVG image

@Boeing720: This map is pretty low quality visually and the two halves of it are in different styles. It should be re-done based on SVG map data. It should also not be uploaded in JPG format for any reason; at the least it should be PNG, but again ideally SVG.

Also I wonder what the source of these maps is. If it is traced from a commercial or otherwise non-free map it is a copyright violation. If it is from a free source why is that source not in vector format? Why are the maps in two different styles?

I am also noting this on the image talk page at Wikimedia Commons. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't know how to make any other format ! The map to the left is taken from an other map from Commons. The up-scaled one to the right, I have done "on top" of another map. All made in Microsoft's Paint. The general idea is to illustrate how this artificial island gives shelter to the harbour , as well as the northern (and oldest) part had an old connection to the Citadel. I made this article due to a red link. Boeing720 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't MS Paint offer saving images in PNG? JPG is lossy - it causes visual artifacts on images like this. GIMP is free for Windows, it's a lot better than Paint. By "on top of another map" do you mean you traced a non-free image? If it's from a free image what's the source? Both the map and any annotations or modifications to it need to have sources of some kind. Labels would probably be considered fair use but the actual map contours/outlines would not be considered fair use. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720? Please identify the source(s) for these maps. It is customary, and I would say necessary by Wikipedia policy, to provide sources in the map image description for both the outlines and any additional content. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the map with a template map showing the location in Scania. The reader can click on the coordinate link to GeoHack if they want to see a detailed map in any good mapping service. This is preferable to the hand-made map. Thanks for your work on this but it is really not up to Wikipedia quality standards and is not as good as following the link to Google Maps. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The right side is an adjustment of a picture in Køge Bugt, already in the PD at Wikimedia. The one to the right, I have done entirelly myself, based on an other map, every pixel is changed. I simply have no better tool than "Paint" or if it's "MS Paint" ? - If you just had added the Southern Sweden-Øresund map, or a map of the Danish stratits for location, perhaps - that would have been swell. But to use a map up to the North Pole gives no illustration of this small island and the harbour it was build to protect. Boeing720 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I have explained that to also at Commons. I have put back your illustration of Øresund and of Europe, but the Sweden map is far too large and damages the entire article. So now there are one info-image of the location, regionally as of at European level (which both are far smaller) together with my third version of "my 100% own" map of Gråen and the harbour. If you are able to, please make an other format of that JPEG image, as I have no tools nor knowledge. I once managed to make a tiny SVG-file, but the uploader disagreed. Boeing720 (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Now please let the maps be. For a while at least. There are more to add, like the Wind-Mill park at Gipsön. Boeing720 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You set it to only the map of Europe and removed Scania which doesn't really seem appropriate. The map of Sweden does not show up unless the user selects it with the button so I don't see how it can damage anything. To save your map as other than JPEG I would need the uncorrupted data in the form of a PNG (or BMP) file which Paint is perfectly capable of saving to begin with. The JPEG looks really bad with visual artifacts, beyond looking like a hand drawn map which isn't really up to encyclopedic quality standards. Like I said GIMP is free and available for Windows. Also Inkscape is free and can make SVG images. I don't understand how or why the uploader would disagree with an SVG file, people upload them all the time as have I. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

JPG issue solved, CheChe has re-done this as a vector image - File:Island Graaen and Landskrona Harbour.svg. Many thanks to CheChe for their work on this. If there are any changes to be made it is possible to do so in Inkscape. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Maps again

@Boeing720: I don't understand how it has any impact on the presentation of the article how many maps are shown in the infobox. Only one of the maps displays at a time until the user selects another. Is there something with your internet browser or internet speed that is causing this to appear otherwise? I had thought yesterday (before you made this change) about including the Denmark map to appease your sentiments but it really did not seem appropriate. It is a map of a different country and using it would imply that Gråen is in Denmark, not to mention that using it in that manner has no label vs. the multi-map version which clearly labels what is being displayed. I think it is clear that you personally have an affinity for Denmark and feel it is more relevant to your locale by proximity/history/whatever but that is not a good reason for including a map of a foreign country in an island's infobox. Allowing the user to select from three maps provides all the context they might need for where in relationship to what Gråen is. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You appear to use a cell/mobile phone. At a PC all three maps becomes visible with your method. (I've watched this at an other PC as well, running Win 7.) And by it's synthax (the 3-map), I really cannot see why just one should be showed, or which ? But the map I now found worked fine with your coordinates. It doesn't imply Gråen is a Danish island. It shows Denmark and a good part of the Scandinavian peninsula with Gråen almost in its centre. Is it possible to change/revert the colours ? And save it as "Southern Scandinavia" ? A full map of Sweden is too large for this illustration. As the country is very long from South to North (something like 14-15 latitudes). If not I suggest the Europe map, if we do not have a Southern Scandinavia map, or similar. Boeing720 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is also the possibility with Europe and Scania. Boeing720 (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I most certainly am not using a mobile phone - you can see when someone edits with a mobile device, their edits are tagged with it. To humor you, I have tested this on Chrome, Explorer and Edge on Windows 10 and Chrome, Safari and Firefox on macOS. I assure you the correct behavior is for only one map to be displayed and for the user to be able to select between them with the "radio button" toggles. This is how it works on all current browsers and how it is intended to work by Wikipedia, and multiple scales of maps are widely used in this fashion on many articles.

The goal here is to give the user a general impression of the location of the island from places they may know which is why I think it is necessary to provide all three scales of map. It also makes sense to have the first map be the closest and the third the farthest. The user can toggle between them at will. I can see why you would feel the Sweden map is too large if it is always being displayed for you, but what about a user who doesn't know Scania is in Sweden? How are they to understand the exact location if there are only maps of Scania and Europe. Nearly all users are going to be on browsers that correctly only display one map at a time.

Yes it is possible to change the colors on the map of Denmark with Inkscape (or it should be). It would also be possible to make a new map only of the Øresund area, although this presents one technical difficulty, which is that the geographic coordinates of the borders of the map must be known and entered into the "module" that defines them so that the red "pin" location will work. I do not have the software or data that created the original maps so I would be working with cutting down an existing one and setting its borders in some known/calculable way.

I already have spent time making a custom module for a Scania map[1] and recruiting another editor to convert your hand-drawn map to SVG[2]. I don't really feel that this is worth investing additional time or resources in when the Scania map provides adequate local detail and because of the nature of needing any new map to have known geographic coordinates for its edges. The map(s) displayed in an infobox should be of what contains the subject of the article. Putting the map of Denmark implies that Gråen is contained within Denmark. Recoloring the map so that Denmark is gray could work but how is that better than what the Scania map offers? I really can't help but feel that your personal affinity for Denmark is coming into play here.

As a side note, you are still on a number of occasions entering more colons than are necessary to indent. : is the right indentation when the prior post wasn't indented, not :: —DIYeditor (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Scania map will be just fine, but not all three. If I can see all three, so can many others. I'm using a direct link to this Wiki. But mostly, I use Mozilla Firefox with Google as search engine. Also this is just a stub and the infobox "premature". (It doesn't give much) Sorry for the wrongful assumption about mobile phones (confused this with your ping). Boeing720 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to argue over such small matters on a very small article. By your logic that some users see all the maps at once, this feature should just be eliminated from Wikipedia, when in fact it is useful and widely applied. This is a question about the feature itself not this particular page, and perhaps we should take that argument to the discussion page for the relevant template/module (Module talk:Location map). To quote from its documentation "For multiple maps, the first is shown by default, a reader can select the others with radio buttons." As to whether a stub article should have a infobox, I think that an infobox is the first thing a stub should have, and again this is a question for Wikipedia in general (Template talk:Infobox) and not this specific article. Do you think that if we get other people involved they will agree that 1) the location map's multiple map feature should not be used or 2) stub articles should not have infoboxes? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - as initiator of this article - to use three maps for the location of this tiny island is an overkill. The problem with the Sweden map is that it is too long, to big for the article simply. I can buy Scania, Denmark (nothingh wrong with that, as long it remains clear that this tiny island in question is a part of Sweden), Europe any Southern Scandinavia or smaller Sweden map. One or two, but not three and especially not a so large map as the Sweden map is. To demand of our readers to use the newest Operative Systems only etc, is beyond our scope. My guess is that "normal readers" don't change their OS until it's time for a new desktop or laptop. That would be to limit us. And we (Wikipedian editors) are not working for Microsoft, Google or whatever !
  

Although with the location maps further down (as of now), it no longer disturbs the initial impression a reader might get (the bird is visible at least) But it did! Boeing720 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on multiple maps

The consensus is that the {{Infobox islands}} template for this article should contain multiple levels of maps—for Scania, Sweden and Europe.

Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the {{Infobox islands}} template for this article contain multiple levels of maps - for Scania, Sweden and Europe - despite a user claiming reports that the radio button feature to select and display only one at a time doesn't work? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Edited. 11:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as initiator of RfC. It is standard practice to include multiple levels of map. It works on all current browsers and if it is commonly used on Wikipedia there is no reason not to use it on any given page, even if a stub or small article. It is a very useful feature as the user may not be familiar with the locale of the most detailed map. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this feature is used on many articles - at least tens of thousands that I am aware of, perhaps many more than that. There is no reasonable reason not to use it here also. MB 00:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - We simply cannot have an RfC about which software our readers ought to have. Do we wish to limit our scope of readers ? I don't think so. What this really was about (until the three maps was put further down) was simply the impression a reader gets. And as it seems, this has something to do with which software the reader is using. I wouldn't put my all my money on the Operative System solely though, webb-reader, DLL-versions or combinations etc.
  

In this particular case, I can neither see any reason for three location maps. If ever. Optimal in this case would have resembled the map of Denmark, a map of Southern Scandinavia or the southern Baltic Sea region - a square map in any case. Perhaps together with a European map. Boeing720 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Hi all--I've been summoned for RfC. Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful discussion. This feature of clicking on buttons to reveal maps is one I've not seen, and I like it. However, I understand the notion that limiting access to Wikipedia due to software features many people may not have is problematic. I believe the solution offered below is a very reasonable alternative: in a gallery, run the maps horizontally across the page lower down in the article. Of course, there may be objections to this which I have not considered, but until they are made known, I believe the gallery idea is best.Horst59 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this applicable only to this article or are you suggesting replacing this feature across Wikipedia in this manner? If it is not working for some users here (perhaps those with Javscript disabled) it is not working for them elsewhere and the same logic presumably would apply. That is why I asked for an RfC on this from a broader audience - if the normal way of doing things (with the radio button maps within an infobox) is adequate why is it not adequate for any given article. I think any arguments made here need to apply in a general sense.

The way it is currently laid out does not limit access to any of the article content; the other images and close-in map are drawn first and the location (pin) maps are just displayed on the right down the page. The reason the location maps are normally displayed in the infobox is to give an idea of where the island is at a glance, the very purpose of infoboxes. If they were display later or last in the article it would not serve that purpose. Again, let's think about the general case - is this system a good one across Wikipedia? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor I see what you mean that the map arrangement--the one with radio buttons--does not hinder content access. That is something I had not considered, and it is significant. Would my understanding of the matter be correct if I were to understand it in the context that while the map with the radio buttons IS NOT available for those with older operating systems, the map that IS available is adequate for them to understand the location of Gråen?Horst59 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Horst59: I don't think it is older operating systems per se; I think that it is having Javascript disabled, but I am not able to test on legacy systems. If the user doesn't see the radio buttons, all three of the pin maps (Scania, Sweden, Europe) are displayed vertically instead of having two hidden (to be selected by button). Either way all of the maps are there. The objection was over formatting, not that this left the maps invisible - on the contrary, that they were all visible was the issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This makes much sense and, understanding this, I believe the maps are fine with radio buttons. Thanks to everyone for their work and thoughts.Horst59 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have tested this on every browser I have access to on macOS and Windows and the multiple map radio buttons work fine. Only one map is displayed when the page loads (Scania) and the user can select from which map they want to see. Boeing720's problems with this feature should not impinge on its use. Also the question has come up whether a stub/small article such as this should even have an infobox and to that I say unequivocably "yes" - it is the perfect way to start an article. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But they do not work on Windows 7 or XP, not on the ones I have tried. Appearances on the screen may differ for several various reasons (see my comment above). And we can't demand of our readers to always use the latest versions of all software, including the OS. And we (Wikipedian editors) do not work for Microsoft or Google, do we ?

Infoboxes are good for lots of articles yes. But to begin each and every stub article with an infobox, no I don't think that's the optimal way always. I didn't say there's something wrong in starting up an article like that, just that it isn't necessarily the best way for each article and each editor who initiates a new article. And by all this petty matter stuff over a minor stub article, I feel too much time is wasted on nothings. Boeing720 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: All four radio buttons work in Windows XP, I've tested it on an XP machine using Firefox ESR 52.6.0 and Opera 36.0, those being the most recent browsers available for XP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @DIYeditor: erm... I tested the same from firefox (FreeBSD/my primary OS, windows, linux), IE, edge, safari (windows), safari (ipad), native browsers of BlackBerry 5, and BlackBerry OS10. Never worked for me last few months, it used to work fine before that. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the buttons worked fine with an old laptop (XP pro SP3) - just as I use at this desktop. So think it's safe to rule out the OS (various versions of Windows). About this article, - as all other "islands in Øresund" had blue links, I just thought it would be proper to make an article also about this island (which just by the way isn't the only artificial island in this sound, Peberholm and relatively large parts of Amager are also artificial. Boeing720 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stacking images

@Boeing720: Moved conversation here from my talk page. It is not normal to have 4 horizontally stacked images toward the top of an article. Per {{stack}} documentation we don't have to have all 4 images go sideways; they can be stacked next to the infobox vertically by putting them all in a single stack template as I have done. Another option is to put them (either the 3 new ones or all of them) in a (stacked) {{gallery}} that would run horizontally across the page lower down in the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:This is as simple as I don't know how to do it. Even the "stack" syntax was new to me, I just followed the pattern. Otherwise they came below all the maps. Are we talking number of pictures or just syntax ? Boeing720 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:They way you have arranged them, is an excellent piece of work. Thanks! (didn't watch the article before comment above) Boeing720 (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)