User talk:Info por favor
|
| Babel user information | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
| Users by language | |||||||||
I've recently been following the page that uses this image ("Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016"), and I'm concerned that the coloring for Iowa doesn't follow the established standards. As a casual Wikipedia user, I don't have the ability to update the image myself, so I'm notifying you here -- apologies if this isn't the preferred method to let someone know about this.
If you look at the discussion page for "Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016", stripes are to be used in the image if the state is a "virtual tie." Based on the five polls that have been taken in 2016 for Iowa, one shows Hillary Clinton ahead beyond the margin of error, one shows Bernie Sanders ahead beyond the margin of error, and three show Sanders and Clinton differing by less than the margin of error. This analysis, as well as a casual assessment of the polling, show that Clinton and Sanders are indeed neck and neck; this would be as good a time as any to use stripes for Iowa.
Again, I hope this is the right place to put this. I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor and don't have the skills/permissions to update the image myself. So I hope you're the right person to talk to (you were the last to update the image). Let me know if there's some consideration I've missed that would indicate the state should be fully green.
-- Luigidorf (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
When updating this file, please use a text editor, not a visual editor, as requested on the file page, so that it remains in human-editable plain text format. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You! I knew I was forgetting something; I finally found the no InkScape notice on File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg but someone called Ron 1987 had already reverted my non‐text edit.
- Could you please add a Minnesota path to the CSS and fill it as marriage ? I don’t know how to add paths in CSS.
- What do you think of joining the path for the large island in Brazil’s Amazon delta with the mainland ? Now that there’s no‐need for state borders in Brazil, I find that one water border distracting, like it’s another state or something...
- Could you restore File:World marriage-equality laws.svg to text‐editability, with Minnesota and Brazil as Marriage, and Illinois as Government has Announced Intention ? I think that file has had garbled‐code from visual edits for quite‐some‐time now. If you like the idea of closing the internal water of Brazil, please include that change as well.
- On File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg, I did, in fact, use a text editor, but I don’t know why my word processor changes the linebreaks so it’s not clean, in the way that you have restored it! But do you really think we need a footnote on the map for Minnesota ? If we include that, then we’ll need 1’s next‐to Delaware and Rhode Island too ; RI law takes‐effect the same day as MN, and DE takes‐effect 1 July, 2013. Isn’t the text in the template enough ?
- Do you know why, when Wikipedia samples File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg, from vector into PNG’s, it generates a short constitutional‐marriage‐ban stripe below Arizona, and a short constitutional‐total‐recognition‐ban stripe behind the Northern Mariana Islands ? If we could somehow eliminate those in the SVG text, that would be excellent.
Response[edit]
Yikes, so many questions at once! One by one:
- Could you please add a Minnesota path to the CSS and fill it as marriage ? I don’t know how to add paths in CSS. I already did. I did it by creating the path in Inkscape, and then copying just that part into the text version.
- Thank you! Also, now I can add paths to text‐editable vectors in the future. Teach a person to fish... Info por favor (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think of joining the path for the large island in Brazil’s Amazon delta with the mainland ? I assume you're talking about the following image? Are you asking my opinion or for me to do it?
- Let's pick‐up the Brazil‐coastline discussion at‐a‐later‐date. Info por favor (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Could you restore File:World marriage-equality laws.svg to text‐editability? It never was text-edtiable.
- Someone complained that it had been once and was no longer. I'll find the diff when I'm less busy in real life. Info por favor (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don’t know why my word processor changes the linebreaks so it’s not clean Use a new text editor. I recommend Notepad++ if you use Windows. It literally takes 5 minutes and an absolute minimum of technical aptitude to download and install. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- [W]e’ll need 1’s next‐to Delaware and Rhode Island too Noted; I will do this ASAP.
- On the talk page for
and here on the same page I cannot recognise a finalised consensus, or suss what the de facto consensus may be, about numerals on the map. If an unambiguous request for consensus were presented, I would vote to oppose numerals on , outside the case of California, where marriages preformed prior to the promulgation of prop 8 are recognised as marriages by the State of CA by court order. That is a highly‐complex situation, that I believe merits visual distinction in the map. Info por favor (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Otherwise, I am opposed to numerals or other footnote markers on the map itself. Info por favor (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the talk page for
![here on the same page](/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Why_no_"1"_for_Delaware_and_Rhode_Island){kind=link}
- Do you know why, when Wikipedia samples File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg, from vector into PNG’s, it generates a short constitutional‐marriage‐ban stripe below Arizona, and a short constitutional‐total‐recognition‐ban stripe behind the Northern Mariana Islands ? No. I will investigate, and possibly file a bug with Mediawiki.
- Thank You. Thank You. Thank You.❢ That bug is pernicious and a longtime foe! Info por favor (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Your latest edit seems to have greatly changed the shape of New Zealand. Was this on purpose, and if so where did the new shape come from? Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, because I thought New Zealand was quite hard to recognise when the marriage map is used in an article, where the whole‐globe is only a few hundred pixels across.
- I copied the path from File:New_Zealand_on_the_globe_(New_Zealand_centered).svg.
.svg){kind=link}
- I know that this does not match the projection of the rest of the map, but I did not think, for myself, that this was a significant argument against using a more discernible shape.
- Info por favor (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's clearly New Zealand either way. A map projection manipulates the earth in a certain way, it's extremely unusual to mix different projections in one picture, arbitrarily picking which countries get which projections. While New Zealand may look more recognisable to you in that shape, changing its projection makes it distorted with regards to everywhere else on that map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Info por favor (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you agree with me over Mozambique should be grey? The penalty in Mozambique's books is not imprisonment in the first place, so it shouldn't be orange; since orange only applies to imprisonment, countries that would actually enforce a penalty like Mozambique's would go grey (seems unfair). Mozambique got anti-discrimination protections for queer* people (I don't know about trans* ones though, but the coverage of this map is solely over homosexuality after all), and has declared support for LGBT rights in the UN (arguably, Sierra Leone did the same, but I think it's safe to say that, unlike SL, Mozambique has a relatively well-organized and human rights-respecting government, at least for the standards of African least developed states). Moreover, to the exception of Angola, attitudes to LGBT people tend to be best in ex-Portuguese colonies when it comes to Africa, and the ties they have to Brazil and Portugal make it safe to say that as for now further state-sanctioned homophobia is quite unlikely to appear.
On another note, Chile is soon going to get civil unions (the bill was accepted by the Senate) and Nicaragua was never colored beige in the first place though it has the most pervasive "anti-gay propaganda" legislation right now after Russia (and when Moldova had it, they were quite similar), so I wanted to wait to see if people were going to maintain the grey as it was until these necessary changes, that I can't do myself for my extreme lack of skill when it comes to editing images. If you want to uncolor Utah again, please consider this. Regards. Lguipontes (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
New Hampshire Dem[edit]
There are 2 polls performed on the same dates so which poll do we use to color NH? Prcc27 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh. Good question. I hadn’t noticed the dates. Maybe put both polls in table. I would say one with 50% MOE should mean we stripe it. Info por favor (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Stripes[edit]
Can we please stripe the states the way I had them? The reason I'm striping them that way is so then they are perfectly aligned. For example, Arkansas's blue stripes will perfectly match up with Missouri's blue stripes and vice versa for the green stripes. It looks neater that way, and we had the same type of alignment for the U.S. same-sex marriage map. Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will check the way we had it most recently on the USSSM map. The person who created the original SVG, from which the SSM map was colored, was from Europe, and wrote in the documentation that the stripes were designed not to align, in order to make state borders more visible, but if there was a consensus to rewrite the code, so that they would align, I will go with that. I will align the colors as you prefer until I see a different consensus. Info por favor (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)