File talk:Map of US state cannabis laws.svg

This file is/was the subject of a discussion on the English Wikipedia. Please read the discussion there before starting a new thread here.

Map colors

My first post was an attempt to update this map, thought I am afraid my attempt was unsuccessful. After trying to update the colors used in WordPad and saving the file, the new upload displayed the same colors as the previous version (not sure why). I was trying to use light green to represent states with legal medical cannabis, a medium shade of green for states with decriminalized cannabis possession laws, and dark green for states with both medical and decriminalization laws. This way, it would be easier to see patterns based on the darkness of the shade of green, as opposed to the arbitrary shades of salmon, pink and blue. If any one is able to assist, it would be much appreciated. I picked out #adff2f for light green, #6b8e23 for medium green, and #006400 for dark green. I will try to figure out what went wrong and attempt another upload. --Another Believer (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea of using a gradation of the same color. I am not sure I would use the same order, but that is up to you and others editing this map file.

You can preview the map before uploading it. The Firefox browser can do this. Just double-clicking the downloaded SVG file does not work for me though. Even when I told Windows to use Firefox to open it. I had to launch Firefox, and then go to

File menu, open file,

and then browse to the SVG file. Then I could see the downloaded SVG map inside Firefox.

Here is a map on the right that may be helpful concerning shades of green:

File:Cannabis use among adults (aged 15-64).svg

Also, please update the legend colors in the image description here:

File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.svg

I don't know if Firefox can normally open an SVG file by double-clicking the SVG file. Maybe this Firefox SVG FAQ can help:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/svg/faq

I looked around a little on the web and could not tell if Firefox can normally open an SVG file just by double-clicking the SVG file. I downloaded this SVG file:

File:Cannabis use among adults (aged 15-64).svg

I could not open that file by double-clicking it either. To view that SVG file I had to use File menu, open file inside Firefox. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I just needed to empty my temp. Internet files, or if someone else fixed the colors, but they have been updated. I think the green shades work well, though I'd be interested in feedback from others. Timeshifter, I appreciate your comments and assistance. --Another Believer (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Timeshifter, what order would you use? To me, the darker the shade... the more "cannabis-friendly" the state is. Medical cannabis is a sign of compassion for the sick (while other residents can receive criminal penalties for possession), decriminalization is a more liberal stance that removes criminal penalties for possession, and dark green represents states with both medical cannabis programs and decriminalization (the most liberal stance on the issue). What did you have in mind? --Another Believer (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The new map is growing on me. The current shading order is fine. I was thinking maybe the lightest shade should be for states with decriminalized cannabis possession laws. Since in most cases there are still penalties, though they are only fines for first-time possession. But some states are in the process of seeking true legalization for possession of small amounts. Some cities such as Denver have voted in legalization. Some cities and states have "least priority" laws. It is complicated. For now the chart is fine. Maybe it can be updated with more shades. To separate "least priority" states and true legalization states (when it happens). And so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is adding states with industrial hemp legislation, although that would certainly complicate the map, with some states fitting into just 1, 2, or all 3 categories. Just something to keep in mind. --Another Believer

The colors are still very hard to make out. I understand the use of a scheme for the colorblind, but maybe give them more contrast or mix grayscale with blues and yellows which are also color-blind friendly. cawmaster (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

New Jersey

I wish it weren't so difficult to update these maps. I tried uploading a new map which illustrated that New Jersey now has a medical marijuana program, but the state did not change color. I must be doing something wrong--is there someone else that can help? --Another Believer (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New version

Uploaded a new version here. As I say in the upload comment:

Changing Maryland to "medical." I know this is slightly controversial but see: here; and here.

Badanedwa (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut and Rhode Island 2012 update

Shouldn't Connecticut (legalized medical marijuana in 2012) and Rhode Island (decriminalized in 2012) be updated on the map? I'd do it myself but I don't know how or have software to deal with .svg images.

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-usa-marijuana-connecticut-idUSBRE85018X20120601

2. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/13/rhode-island-decriminalizes-possession-of-small-amounts-of-marijuana/

TimeClock871 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Legalisation Washington and Colorado

Per Initiative 502 (WA) and Amendment 64 (CO), recreational use of cannabis is now legal under state law. Clearly we need a new colour; I'd suggest purple. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WASHINGTON

It is now decriminalized, not legal!

[1] says legalized. Do you have a citation that calls it a decriminalization? Travürsa (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP is probably going off of what that Steve Elliott character at "Toke of the Town" has been saying. Elliott clearly has not familiarised himself with the legislation beyond the DUI parts, nor does he have a handle on the definition of "legal". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical in Massachusetts, etc.

Heh, forgot to also request that MA be changed to dark green following the approval of Question 3 [2]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Per above, both Connecticut and Rhode Island should also be dark green. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Maryland Decriminalization

Maryland has passed Decriminalization (10g or less)... I updated the state-by-state section, but the map color needs an update and I am not sure how to. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:301:77ae:19c0:221:e9ff:fedd:6b65 (talk) 01:19, April 11, 2014‎ (UTC)

You need an account in order to upload a new file. Once you've created an account, you can update the file in a text editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can the colors please be changed back to the original color scheme of shades of greens?

The new color scheme is less distinctive and more difficult to read. The really light blue does not stand out well against the light grey states and the white background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandDandy (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There was absolutely no discussion surrounding the change of colors on the map and the user changed them since the user said they were "obnoxious", the new colours are so light however, its difficult to see and much harder to distinguish the states, please can we revert back to the clear color scheme that we had before since those colors were very clear as opposed to these which are incredibly hard to make out Guyb123321 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Since there was no reply to the last post I've gone ahead and reverted the map Guyb123321 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The colors in the key do not match the colours on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.210.154 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You also need to re-add Maryland. aharris206 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of how to do that, but the fact is the previous colour change was undiscussed, the colour scheme as it is is difficult to make out, so are there any objections to me changing the colour scheme? Guyb123321 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is. To readers with sight disabilities, it is very hard to make out the different greens. Which has been complained about multiple times since that change. Someone should change that gray to something else though. STATicVapor (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The variations of light blue that are used on the "new" map are also very difficult to make out and as can be seen above, its not just myself who has complained about them, could we at least change the color scheme to make it clearer e.g. have "bolder" colors rather than the faint, light colors used currently --Guyb123321 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that after I reverted back to the pastel colour scheme, Guyb123321 changed it back shortly after citing that discussions had taken place and no objections had been raised. This is just not true, there have been a great many complaints not just recently but previously on this very talk page, and on multiple other talk pages where the map is an integral part of the article. This brings me to the reason I reverted it, not to do with the complaints (although I agree do with them) but that which was stated in my edit summary and completely disregarded, that independent of the image here, different wikipedia articles also use the same colour scheme and changing the image changes the page completely. So if anyone wants to ignore the complaints about the old colour scheme and revert it anyway they should first go through every page the image is used on and make the same edits there. Without doing this any edits here will completely mess up pages that use the images and lead people to continue reverting back and fourth which will result in an edit war.

Although on a personal side note, I do myself prefer the pastel colour scheme and believe the majority of editors with a connection to this page do also. I think the previous scheme looked untidy and the shades of green were hard to differentiate between making this a vast improvement. I would appreciate it if any further changes were fully discussed as having the page locked as a result of an edit war will not be a good thing. --Jamez1502 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry everyone! I had no idea the color change was going to cause such commotion. I would be happy to change the colors to whatever you guys want. I was just trying to make them fit better with the general Wikipedia color scheme (pastels). I also cleaned up the SVG code while I was at it so that it will be easy to change states in the future. Kaldari (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The colors are still very hard to make out. I understand the use of a scheme for the colorblind, but maybe give them more contrast or mix grayscale with blues and yellows which are also color-blind friendly. cawmaster (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I came here because it is next to impossible to distinguish adjacent shades of teal. The colors of this map really need to be changed if it is to be a useful resource. Fishal (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I dont know if its my mild color blindness or the poor color choice, but this map is very difficult to comprehend. Its fine to use different shades of one color, altho ideal to use multiple hues in different shades, so the monochrome can see it. The same sex marriage legality article has a map that is a fairly good example, but that could use some adjustments also. It at least shows different colors and shades for the most part. I would fix it, but I have trouble with SVG editing and dont have enough time to fool around right now. This can help you figure out if the map works for everyone. Thanks!--Metallurgist (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

New York

New York has legalized medical marijuana. Could somebody please update this on the map? --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington DC

Washington DC has a medical marijuana program and should be colored dark blue on this map http://doh.dc.gov/service/medical-marijuana-program75.179.42.181 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

how to update this map

In attempting to update Oregon as green, I edited the file in InkScape, saved it, then happened to see the "please don't do use InkScape, etc." notice while I was trying to figure out how to upload over the file.

So could someone explain how it is supposed to be edited? EncMstr (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to answer this because this was posted three and a half years ago, and it seems nobody has gotten around to properly answering it.

EncMstr, to edit the file you need a bit of knowledge of how to use .svg files. These are different from other imaging files (.png, .jpg, exc) in that the image is rendered from instructions in the document file. Because of this, learning how to update a .svg file is not too dissimilar from learning how to code a webpage in html5.
  

To update the file, you need some form of text editing software (I just use notepad, which comes with every windows software, or sublime text; a free text editing software.)

You then need to find the region you want to update. In this file (as of January 2018) near the top, you will see a section with <path id="HI" fill="#01A318".

This is really the only part you would need to edit, unless you were making larger changes to the file as a whole, which would require a bit more knowledge in .svg coding.

That part of the code essentially creates each state and draws it out. The multiple numbers after the "fill='#01A318'" is actually the code that maps out the borders and lines.

The only part you really need to worry about when updating a state however is the "path id" and the "fill."

The "path id" is a two letter combination denoting which state it is drawing. The example I put above is Hawaii. You can use this to locate which state you are changing, so it is not a bunch of trial and error.

The "fill" section is where you actually update the map. Next to each state's path ID is a hex value (color) which the file will use to color the state in when rendering the file. If you are changing one state's color to another, it may be a good idea to copy and paste the hex value from another state with the same color you are changing to. This ensures the colors of each state match the others in their same category.

To check your edit was sucessful, make sure you save the file on your computer, and then "open with" whichever browser you use (chrome, firefox, explorer, opera, exc)
  

That is really all there is to it. It may take some time getting used to, but there is definitely a learning curve. The reason we ask people not to use inkscape is because the software messes up the aesthetic of the file when others want to update it, along with possible errors the user may not be able to catch when using an editing software. Updating the .svg file by editing those specific regions (as I mentioned above) does the same thing but is much cleaner and has a lower possibility for error.

You are also free to practice updating the file as a test on your own computer, this is nice practice in updating the official document and can help you better get a feel for working with .svg files! Just make sure you are not uploading your tests to wikipedia.

If you find anything confusing, I am sure there are youtube videos out there on editing .svg files, and you can always ask me or someone else in the community here for help if you need it.

aharris206^talk 07:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Tennessee included in receiving medical in the use of Cannabis ? Hamp02 (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Legalized vs. legal

Could we distinguish between states that legalized marijuana and states with marijuana currently legal..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What about Missouri?

I checked out on this article, and if you look closely, you can find that Missouri already decriminalized the drug. Shouldn't we change the color of Missouri, or no? --Damirgraffiti (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See the header and post this question on the English Wikipedia file talk page. Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana & Color Scheme

So, after looking at a mother jones article, I think we should include states that have legalized non-psychoactive forms of marijuana for medicinal reasons. I have created a new color scheme which, for the most part, changed the "both" color to teal, left dark purple and light purple for the two types of medical mj, and changed that barely visible decrim color. I think the only color that could be tweaked further would be the decrim color, but the original is simply not good enough. The U.S. virgin islands are barely visible with that color. I'm going to make a bold edit. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, but we should at least have a discussion about it later.

- Source for changes: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/map-united-states-legal-marijuana-2014-2016

Chase1493 (talk)

New Hampshire

HB 640 will probably be signed in a few days resulting in decriminalization in New Hampshire. - Bri (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new map scheme

Just wanted to let everyone know that a new map scheme has been proposed on WikiProject Cannabis, so your feedback would be welcome.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to eliminate CBD states

Now that Epidiolex has been approved for prescription use in the U.S., I believe an update to the map is needed to eliminate the CBD states. There's a topic that has been posted at WikiProject Cannabis if anyone would like to comment.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Minnesota

I don't think that Minnesota is correctly represented, I think that there should be a separate color or be in the legal column SwedishDeks (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep the map simple and not add any new colors, especially for a single state. As for marking Minnesota legal, I wouldn't consider cannabis legal there and none of the organizations that track cannabis policy do either as far as I'm aware. I do understand there is some uniqueness to the situation in Minnesota but I think it should be addressed in other places besides the map.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair take, it's just the Minnesota situation is complex, and I wanted to here some more experienced people's take since I don't know much about this stuff SwedishDeks (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Georgia

SomebodyChange Georgia to Medical effective today. Criminalize Pot! (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Criminalize Pot. Georgia is considered to be a state with a low-THC, high-CBD law rather than a state that has fully legalized cannabis as exists with other 38 states. This is how organization such as Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and the National Conference of State Legislatures classify Georgia, so that is what we go by to color the map. When Georgia raises the THC limit and those organization consider Georgia to have fully legalized medical cannabis, then we can change the map accordingly.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Color of D's

Timeshifter, what is the eye condition we are trying to optimize the map for by coloring the D's black? I plugged the values #80CE69 and #800000 into whocanuse.com and the worst case seems to be Protanomaly or Protanopia maybe, but still the text is easily distinguished from the background from the simulations that are produced at the site. If it was a long string of text then maybe it would be tiring on the eyes to read, but we are dealing only with a single letter here so it would seem that contrast is not as important when dealing with only a single letter of text. By the way, thank you for pointing out that pure red (#FF0000) was not sufficient against the green background, but I feel like with the significant darkening to #800000, and the subsequent lightening of the green background, there is no way anyone is not going to be able to see the D's according to the simulations at whocanuse.com and also this website which I checked. Yes pure black might provide the most contrast, but do we always have to optimize the maps for maximum contrast by coloring the text black? Can't the maps have a little bit of flavor so long as they are sufficiently readable for people with issues seeing color? Admittedly a bit miffed here but also trying to learn at the same time which I definitely already have through these edits.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I am gong to upload a darker shade of red (#650000) that meets AAA requirement and hopefully that is the end of the disagreement. It looks pretty much black on the old monitor I'm using, but I checked on my phone and can see a bit more redness to it. If it's not necessary to go that dark for a single letter of text let me know, but otherwise I would just like to move on here. Thanks again for pointing out that the pure red was not sufficient (not sure how it escaped my attention before), and a little bit off topic, but I really do appreciate the sticker-header template that you made as well, because it is something that I have been wanting to be added to wikipedia for years.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Back to pure black. Thanks for lightening the green background color to #80ce69. Text color of pure black (#000000) passes WCAG 2 AAA test. Maroon (#800000) does not. Contrast ratio: 10.95:1 versus 5.71:1. Maroon also fails the direct sunlight test. Most importantly to me is that I notice the difference with my not-so-great eyes between the 2 text colors on the thumbnail map at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. I can miss the "D" on the small state of New Hampshire if not paying attention. Red text was especially bad. Whereas pure black stands out even at smaller map sizes. I don't have to squint, or make an effort. This is even more important on cell phones.

I used the bottom 3 checkers in this section I created: Commons:Map resources#Accessibility and map colors. Section higher up is for user-editable maps which I have worked on for over a year. Where we have had many discussions about color, color blindness, and contrast. 3 checkers (just enter color numbers):

• WebAIM: Contrast Checker.
• WhoCanUse. Who can use this color combination?
• Colour Contrast Check -snook.ca.·

Black cherry (#650000) text color fails the direct sunlight test ("Simulating the effect of direct sunlight on a phone or screen"). This matters. I have been working more and more on how stuff looks on cell phones. Not just color stuff. My old eyes require larger font sizes on monitors and cell phones. And I use large monitors to help out too. This is a very common accessibility problem. Contrast ratio of pure black versus black cherry: 10.95:1 versus 7.05:1.

We shouldn't be trying to just barely pass the WCAG 2 AAA test. We should use pure black text to get the very best contrast possible at thumbnail map sizes. We had similar discussions on the user-editable US maps with the state names and values on each state. People shouldn't have to click on the map and expand it in order to read the text. Even people without perfect vision. Accessibility is a core Wikipedia principle. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The required contrast ratio according to WP:MOS is 4.5:1. The #650000 color far exceeds this with a 7.05:1 ratio, so I don't see at it as barely passing when you apply the standard that wikipedia actually requires. Also, WP:MOS says nothing about direct sunlight. Probably because there are easy solutions to the problem, which includes turning the phone away from the sun, shading it with the hand that isn't holding the phone, finding some other form of shade (like a tree), going inside, or turning up the brightness. So I don't see any reason to cater the map for this avoidable scenario at the expense of making it look very bland.

People shouldn't have to click on the map and expand it in order to read the text. Even people without perfect vision.

Dude I probably click for the full view 9 out of 10 times that I look at the map, because the thumbnail view is pretty lame to look at, just like all thumbnail views are. A thumbnail is basically a preview of the image you see when you click for the full image. It's not some burden to click on it for anyone.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/CSS colors for text on white. The top table has one column with a AAA yes/no result.

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors. It says (emphasis added) "When links and references are not present, extra contrast is possible by setting the text color to pure black (#000000). If a dark background is desired, it should be used against white text (#FFFFFF) without links or references."

MOS:COLOR says (emphasis added): "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible."

We should not be doing the minimum possible to help readers see stuff better. I don't know if I am visually impaired yet. My old eyes are definitely worse than before. I have cataracts that are beginning. My ophthalmologist says I don't have to get new lenses right now, but that he is also OK with me doing it now. It might help me with driving in low light. I don't currently drive at night at all. All of my problems are very common to me and many others, and you should pay attention to what I am saying instead of just blowing it off.

See Google Search: WCAG AAA minimum contrast ratio. See the many results showing the many people, organizations, government agencies, etc. striving for WCAG AAA and more, and not just AA. Black cherry only just meets WCAG AAA contrast ratio of 7.1.

I don't want to have to turn up the brightness on my cell phone. It is irritating. It uses a lot more battery power, and thus shortens battery life. And my phone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery. I have to pay a lot to replace the battery. And sunlight behind a white curtain can make a monitor more difficult to read.

See: Category:English-language SVG maps of the United States made with templates. I have worked on all of those user-editable US maps. Unlike you, most people don't bother to expand a map unless they have to. And with the black text on those maps people, for the most part, don't have to. The state names and values are readable at the thumbnail sizes used in most articles. Sometimes not, if the thumbnail is very small. Which is usually not the case since I am the one adding the maps to articles in most cases.

So far you have given only one very lame reason to use black cherry over pure black You said that pure black makes the map "look very bland". That is ridiculous. It adds only a tiny almost unnoticeable amount of red mixed into the text color. And only for a few "D's" spread around a map. So please revert to the map with the black text, and stop edit warring. I have given many good reasons, and replied to all your points. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I just see things differently in that I don't see it as an indignity if a person with vision problems has to expand the thumbnail to get a better view of the image. I do it all the time when looking at the map because looking at a thumbnail image usually kind of sucks. Sorry to hear about vision problems. I will post a note at Talk:Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis to see if anyone else wants to provide their opinion, which I have done in the past whenever changes to the map are proposed (I don't think many people subscribe to this Commons page).--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Something interesting I would like to point out. The color that wikimedia.org uses for redlinks is #ba0000, which on a white background produces a contrast ratio of 6.8:1, not meeting the threshold for AAA. The color that wikipedia.org uses for redlinks, #d73333, results in a much lower 4.76:1 contrast ratio on white background, barely passing the AA requirement. So the contrast used for this map for the single letter D exceeds the ratio that wikimedia commonly uses, and far exceeds the ratio that wikipedia commonly uses. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable at all considering that.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Why should people have to do anything extra if we can use pure black which provides the highest color contrast ratio, and therefore allows the most people to see things more clearly. Black text overall is used in tables and in prose in Wikipedia articles. Especially in table cells with light colors. It is common. In most maps too. Most editors want the most people possible to be able to see their prose, tables, and maps clearly.

This reminds of the occasional web page using gray text that I find in Google search results. I, and many others, just go elsewhere to get the info we are looking for.

I am spending time on this now mainly because you apparently are trying to convince others of this dumb idea of using minimally adequate text colors in maps, and probably tables too, against light colored backgrounds. Currently, this is not really a problem, and people are using pure black text, and I would like to keep it that way. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

#650000 is not minimally adequate at all; it far exceeds the standard required by Wikipedia which is a 4.5:1 contrast ratio. Wikipedia itself uses a 4.76:1 ratio for redlinks, which are often much longer strings of text than a single D. As far as convincing others, I do not concern myself with the text color on any other map besides this one, so you don't have to worry about me barging in on any other maps, or tables either for that matter.

I am placing my previous post where I originally put it btw, perhaps you incorrectly assumed I put it to the left by accident.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the gray #72777D color in the timestamp of both of our signatures produces a 4.52:1 contrast ratio, even lower than the 4.76:1 ratio of wikipedia redlinks.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Clickable state names, abbreviations. Or clickable states without text

Unfortunately, none of the clickable items in this section's header name can be done inside an image file on Wikipedia. It is done by overlaying the image file.

I prefer pure black 2-letter state abbreviations built into the map file itself that are not clickable. The "D" could be replaced with an asterisk (*). In either case (D or *) people have to go to the legend to see what it stands for. And people are already used to having to look around to find out what an asterisk means. That map would be an improvement.

That map file by itself could be copied (without Template:Legality of cannabis by US state‎) and placed by itself in Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction.

Then, to that separate map alone, add the clickable overlay where one can click anywhere inside a state's border, and be sent to that state's row in the article table.

I think this type of clickable image map is better than the clickable blue links used for names in the map found here: Help:Tables and locations#Section link or map link to a row anchor. Plus the color is blue or light blue depending on whether the link has already been clicked by the reader. Less and less contrast. Pure black unclickable 2-letter state abbreviations are best. And it is easier to click anywhere in a state, versus aiming for a linked name on a thumbnail map. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly man a lot of that went over my head but I would just say it sounds overcomplicated and that simplicity is generally a good thing which is why I like the current map and think it does its job great. The state names as mentioned before there is no need for and would get in the way of other stuff... and the current map already provides these anyways when hovering the mouse over each state.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have come around to your point of view of having only 3 colors at Template:Legality of cannabis by US state‎. Versus 5 colors:

File:US map. State regulated cannabis programs. With legend.png

I like the 5-color map a lot, but I now realize that is because I understand the CBD/low-THC states. Unlike many readers.

Unlike for you, hovering my mouse over the states in the current map template does nothing for me. Nothing happens. I am on a Win 10 Pro PC. I tested in Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and Opera.

Adding 2-letter state abbreviations actually makes the current map simpler, not harder. Here is a possible base map below that could be copied and colored. It is 350px wide below. Same as the current map template. The abbreviations are readable without enlarging the map. The font size could even be increased a little bit without touching the state borders.

File:Blank US map borders labels.svg

It doesn't have territories though. But it illustrates my point about simplicity. A map with territories might be found, but it is not essential.

The 3 colors should be light gray and 2 pastels. As in the first table at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors. From the first 2 color columns. Yellow and light green would work well. Or light green and light blue. And so on.

It is easy to add an asterisk (*) next to, or below the state abbreviations for the 7 states that need it. To indicate decriminalization. In any case a reader has to go to the legend the first time they see the "D" or the asterisk.

The above would be useful even without making the states clickable. Making the states clickable would be nice though if it takes the reader to that state in the table. The abbreviations outside the map could be made clickable since a blue link is not a problem against the white background outside the map. The states with the abbreviations inside the map could be made clickable such that clicking anywhere on the state would work. That would be optimal. The abbreviations inside the map would not be clickable. Text inside the map should remain black for best contrast.

Here is an example of a US image map linked below where clicking on any state takes one to a section or ID on the page it is on. For example to a state in a table.

Template:USA image map in page

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

To get the state names to pop up when hovering the mouse, you have to be viewing the isolated SVG file in your browser. To do this, just click on the main file image at the top on the commons page. In case there is some confusion, here is a direct link to isolated SVG file.

The territories are very important to include, especially when you consider that 3 of the 5 territories have legalized cannabis for recreational use, plus one has for medical use. I would definitely say the map you have provided is insufficient for this reason alone.

Also, the state names in the map distract from the decriminalization markings so that they doesn't stand out anymore. With the current map, it is very easy to see right away all 7 states that have decriminalized cannabis. With the map you have provided, it will get obscured in all the unnecessary text and people will have to go looking for them.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Go to Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. Click once on the map at the top of the page. Hover over any state. Nothing shows up. It's only when you click the map again that one reaches a map where hovering over a state causes its name to pop up. Why would most people want to click twice? The map is very large after the first click.

I am sure the same method used to add 2-letter state abbreviations to the above US-states-only map can be used on a US map with territories.

There are many ways to indicate which states are decriminalized. The asterisk (*) as previously mentioned. And/or underlining the state abbreviation. And/or circling the abbreviation. And so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)