UESPWiki talk:Morrowind Redesign Project/Map Image Standards

Map Image Standards

I was about to add a bunch of images to some places, but I'm now trying to find out if there is a standard somewhere for maps of places.

My questions are as follows:

• Do we have a maximum dimension limit for images (i.e. 300width)
• What is the standard font and font size being used for maps? (Arial? Times? Helvetica?)
• Is there a standard for font colors on labeling? I've seen different colors on different images...

I've checked out some other images and I have a general idea on what to do, but I'm just wondering if there is some official word out there, and if there isn't then perhaps we should try and create some kind of standard.

Just trying to be consistent with the rest of the site! Thanks. --Cdevine 16:01, 30 November 2006 (EST)

We don't have any established standards, and we could use some. I've been trying to title the map pages in Green colored font, with yellow used for map labels such as doorways and locations of significant items. Some of the maps have been pulled over from the old UESP site, and thay may be some of the differences you are seeing (trying to leverage what's already in existence until we can provide something better). I've been using Times New Roman font for all map labeling, with the map titles in 14pt font, and the labels themselves in 10pt font. If you'd like to take the lead and develop some image standards for the group to use, please feel free to do that; when we reach concensus on the standards, we can post them on the project page.--Hoggwild5 16:45, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Stting a standard for maps is really important, especially if there will be many people uploading files. I think that we should try to follow the standard of the maps have been pulled over from the old UESP site, which you can find mostly on the Main Quest pages. When we have set the standard, we'll have torevise all uploaded maps to date. --DrPhoton 03:24, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I don't know what font size, or font typeface was used on the old maps. If you have any idea, please let us know. I've taken a stab at outlining some Map image standards on the Project page...if anyone has any commentary or would like to see changes on the image standards I've outlined, please list them here (try to provide commentary over the next 7 days so we can fine tune the standards before moving forward).--Hoggwild5 07:54, 1 December 2006 (EST)

The style we should follow is that of Image:Kogoruhn Caverns.jpg. It is very well done! Its features are:

• Different sections/levels are connected with smooth purple lines.
• Each section is labelled with Arial white font. Size? Bold?
• Monsters and items are placed on the map as colored symbols, which are explained in a legend box. Any important monster/item can be individually labelled on the map.
• Brackground is solid black.
• There is no general title, i.e. Kogoruhn Interior Map, as this can be included in the caption of the thumbnail or the summary of the image file.

This is the perfect map for my standards. Notice that it clashes with some of the rules you've just set up. --DrPhoton 08:59, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I don't disagree -- I like this map as well. The problem as I see it is identifying the coloring used for the colored fonts, and the size of the typeface. Also, I'm not exactly certain that this map is labeled with Arial font; I've tried to duplicate the labels using a variety of typefaces and have been unable to do so, but Arial Bold was the closest I could come to this typeface. Finally, I guess I don't possess the tools or the expertise to create these types of images (I have spent countless hours working on this and my maps look like crap), so I am abandoning the creation of internal maps and leaving them to others with better tools and skills that I have. (sigh)

By the way, if the original author of the Kogoruhn Interior Map is around, we would appreciate your input.--Hoggwild5 09:12, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I'm not sure we should be too strict about it. For example, if you enforce a font color as you have, what if it doesn't show up well on certain maps? The example I ran into is Bloodmoon maps, where the caves are Ice (white). White text is obviously not going to work. Here is my attempt to match the kogoruhn.jpg map. How is this one? Bloodmoon:Gronn. --Sstasino 13:18, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Good job! Just a couple of things: "Berserker" is misspelled, and there's no need to label entrances, since they are the only doors not connected to other sections. Using different colors when necessary is OK, or you can either use shadowed text. Another thing, try softening the edges of the symbols and text a little. --DrPhoton 13:54, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Doh! Shave my head, add 100lbs and call me Homer... You are right! I will have to step up the tool I use from Paint to The Gimp to soften the edges, but I think it will be worth it. I will update another version soon. If I can get this working like clockwork, I'll crank out some more. With a standard to follow, it makes these things so much easier to do en masse. --Sstasino 23:28, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Since I've not been having too much luck creating internal maps that look like anything, I thought I'd make it easier for anyone interested to use the data I've already gathered. I've uploaded the original .bmp screenshots of each dungeon map to my personal ftp server, and included a link on the project page for anyone interested in leveraging what I've already gathered.--Hoggwild5 21:42, 1 December 2006 (EST)

New update -- just acquired Adobe Photoshop, plus I finally figured out how to get better looking maps from the construction set than you can get from screenprints in the game, so I'm back to editing maps :). I'd like to accelerate concensus on the mapping standards so we can move forward and get some decent looking maps posted to the wiki. I'd like to propose that we finalize the standards by the end of the week, and will be putting a finalization date on the project page. --Hoggwild5 06:27, 4 December 2006 (EST)

For those of us (me included) who are deficient in the use of the Elder Scrolls Construction Set for Morrowind, I've put together a tutorial for getting image maps from the construction set. Hopefully this will save others from much frustration, trial and error. A link to the tutorial can be found on the main project page. Let me know if you have any questions.--Hoggwild5 10:35, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Guinea Pig Ok I have followed your tutorial on how to use the CS to get maps, and the instructions provided on the Project Page for map standards. (note that the Image:kogoruhn Caverns.jpg map example doesn't follow the standard as published). Here is my latest attempt Image:BM-map-Gronn.jpg. In the tutorial, you suggested maximizing the size of the map. Since this picture is so large, I had to reduce quality greatly to get it to 100K, which is still 80k too large. In this case, perhaps a image size limit of 800x600 or something similar should be put in place. DrPhoton, Hoggwild5, please comment. --Sstasino 12:38, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Hi, Sstasino -- thanks for being a guinea pig on the tutorial. I've looked at the map you uploaded, and I personally think it's a bit blurry. This is probably due to the fact that you reduced the quality of the map to get it under 100K. The figure on the project page of 20K for map sizes is a guideline that I established when I was working with the screenshots obtained from inside the game; my experience at the time was that images that were larger than 20K were not necessarily improved when the image came from screenshots taken inside the game. The maps from the construction set are more detailed and more vivid than anything from inside the game, and will as a result generate files of a larger size than what we currently have listed on the project page as a guideline; as a result, that figure will need to be adjusted upward. In addition, the figure on the project page is just a guideline (to prevent someone from submitting a HUGE image when there's no benefit to it). I think in the case of the map you selected, the image will need to be bigger to preserve the quality of the map, and that's fine -- we just don't want to get a bunch of unnecessarily large uploaded images. So, use your discretion and adjust the quality of the image upward until it's no longer blurry, and re-upload. If you need some help with this, let us know. --Hoggwild5 12:51, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Sstasino -- I think the image is a bit too big for such a simple cave, and also blurry. Make it smaller (1/2 - 1/3 the size) and improve the quality.

Agreed. That was my feeling also. --Sstasino 11:42, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Hoggwild5 -- There is a problem using the CS for the maps: whatever hangs from the ceiling in a cell obstructs what lies below, e.g. stalactites or rocks in caves, or wooden beams in houses. Also, the walls and columns (or any objects with height) will appear in perspective (see e.g. Kogoruhn, Hall of Maki). In my opinion, it is probably better to use the screenshots, though we'll have to find a way of getting rid of the player marker (maybe with two images). --DrPhoton 15:22, 4 December 2006 (EST)

DrPhoton -- I haven't encountered any problem with ceiling objects blocking the lower views, but that may be a function of the dungeons I've worked in. The detail that is available by using the maps from within the construction set is simply not available by using the screenshots from within the game. In addition, you don't have to deal with removing the player marker from the map image. I have a personal preference on using the CS maps vs. the in-game maps because of the detail available (of course, that a personal preference, not a community concensus). Perhaps we could consider taking this on a case-by-case basis, and using the in-game screenshots in cases where the construction set maps aren't feasible? --Hoggwild5 17:53, 4 December 2006 (EST)

I haven't had issues yet with this either, but on most caves, the detail doesn't really gain you anything. If I compare the one from CS and the one I took in game for this particular cave, the screenshot one is actually a bit better, since you can tell that the first yellow dot is actually in the area under the entrance-way, and not in the ice wall, as it looks in the CS version. I think case by case will have to be the modus operandi for most of these. I also think that having the map large enough to show all areas, but small enough to limit scrolling the screen on typical resolutions (1024x768) is a good standard as well. The maps Lurlock did are like that, as well as the kogoruhn map, which btw, was screenshotted, not taken from CS. (notice the fog of war). But I will continue to try and follow the standard as published, so we can see how practical it is. --Sstasino 11:42, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Color Schema for Maps pages

DrPhoton, I tried to use the color settings you inserted on the project page to adhere to the map labeling standards, and I can't get any of the image editing software I'm using to accept the settings as you have them modified, so I've been using the R/G/B settings and accepting the defaults from the software for the Hue, Saturation and Luminescence. I'm using a combination of Microsoft Paint and Adobe Photoshop (new purchase) for the maps. (I have abandoned GIMP in favor of Adobe Photoshop as a personal preference). --Hoggwild5 06:27, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Don't know why(?) I got them from Corel PhotoPaint, but in any case the RGB colors should work fine, or just the name colors (yellow, red, blue, magenta) since they are all pure. --DrPhoton 15:22, 4 December 2006 (EST)

I found, at least while using the Gimp, setting the RGB automatically got the correct hue and saturation. --Sstasino 11:42, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Yep, Adobe Photoshop does the same thing. To eliminate confusion, I'm going to remove the Hue, Saturation and Luminescence settings from the table on the project page.--Hoggwild5 13:40, 5 December 2006 (EST)

RGB and HSL are both ways to define the same color. (CMYK is another) 82.204.99.179 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Restart

Okay well I hadn't realised there were so many dud maps before I started putting tags on the pages. I'm going to stop for now - I've already flooded the Recent Changes page enough - but the rest need doing too. I've been working through Category:Morrowind-Places - so far I've done Ascadian Isles, Ashlands, Azura's Coast and Bitter Coast. Once all the tags are on I guess it's time to start actually making the maps... –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 16:45, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Before restarting the map creation process for Morrowind, I think there are a few questions to sort out, most of which can be summarized as "do we want the Morrowind maps to be more similar to the Oblivion maps?" In general, I prefer several of the options chosen for the Oblivion maps (in part because I pushed for several of those changes). Specific questions that have crossed my mind are:

• Do we want to take maps from the construction set or from in-game screenshots? In-game screenshots have the advantages that north is always up, that there is a standard resolution for the maps, and that they are more directly related to what a player sees in game.
• Do we want to combine all the different levels on a single map (e.g., Image:MW-Arkngthand.jpg), or have only one zone per map (e.g, Oblivion:Sancre Tor)? If it were possible to line up the different zones so that the combined map was relatively seamless, e.g., so all the yellow/purple connecting lines weren't needed, then I could see the combined map making more sense. But as it stands, I don't see too many advantages to the combined map. It seems harder to figure out what is where (e.g., the extra labels necessary to show the two different parts of the Cells of Hollow Hand). The map ends up being thumbnailed to such a small size that it's of no use unless you pull up the full version of the image.
• Do we want to encourage maps to be shrunk in size before uploading (per the current standards)? The reasons given aren't really concerns: we have tons of disk space set aside for images; the images are viewed as thumbnails on most pages and therefore the bandwidth is usually the same no matter what the full image's resolution may be.
• Do we want to stick with the existing recommended MW legend? Or should it be tweaked? Given the dark background of Morrowind maps, the standards perhaps shouldn't be identical to Oblivion maps; on the other hand, it may simply be sufficient to switch to white text instead of black text. One specific issue that I have with the current MW standard is the recommendation to use different colours for NPCs vs creatures: I don't think that the difference between NPCs and creatures is important enough to require different colours; I also don't see blue being used for creatues on the examples I've looked at.
• Do we want to use automatically-generated overlays to help produce the MW maps? I've been basically assuming that we'd go that route eventually, but it does need to be discussed by the community. Choosing to use overlays does not automatically mean that the overlays have to be identical to the Oblivion overlays: most of the details can be tweaked. There are some limitations which can't really be fixed (e.g., positioning labels in ideal locations is basically impossible). But those limitations are inherent to any type of automation and can, if necessary, be fixed manually when a person assembles the maps. There is some work required before any MW overlays will be possible. But I don't want to start that work unless it's going to be needed. And choosing to use overlays will determine the priorities of other map-related tasks in the meantime.

I'm sure there are a lot more details that will need to be discussed. But I think this contains some of the first-order questions that need to be determined before we can get to the details. --Nephele^Talk 18:03, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Starting in reverse order, my thoughts:

• Automated overlays are preferred, they give consistency and help with the sheer number of maps needing creation.
• Color scheme: White text for all text,
  • Bullets Green for Treasure, Red for all hostile NPC and creatures, Blue for non-hostile, Purple for corpses, MW gold squares for doors (marked with white text, e.g. Bal Ur, Shrine).
• Map size as practical for automated creation.
• One map per zone, no combination of maps, no purple lines for connecting areas. Too complicated and not useful, white text markers serve the same function better and easier.
• Screen shot vs CS maps- hmm, whatever is most consistent and easy to create and combine with overlays. CS maps will have a better chance to get done, given the existing man-power.

Glad that we're taking this on now, the dungeons are generally not complicated, but the color-coded legend will help gameplay tremendously. Let me know how I can help.--Benould^•T•C 15:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I don't know why I never saw this discussion before, but I feel that I should say something, as the people who have so far contributed to this discussion have not really been done anything for the maps part of the project besides talking about it, and I've been making a lot of maps lately.

• Automated overlays: I hate to say this, but I really don't like them. I find the Oblivion maps to be confusing. You look at the map and see a letter, then you have to go down the list to find that letter and see what it means. Not very intuitive. Doing it in reverse is even worse. You see something you like in the list, and then you have to pick out that one letter from the jumble of things on the map, which can be rather difficult when several letters are bunched up in the same area. My method of putting labels directly on the maps with a line pointing to the object in question I find to be much more intuitive. Also, it means you can print out the maps if you so choose, without having to print out the descriptive list as well. Sure it's more labor-intensive, but I'm not having that much trouble with it, and I'll eventually get them all done.
• One map per zone: this I strongly disagree with. First, it leads to a lot of almost-completely-useless maps such as [[:Image:MW-Map-Andasreth Propylon Chamber.jpg|this]]. (Compare my combined version.) Unlike Oblivion, most Morrowind maps are fairly small and fit nicely onto a single image. The purple lines are only confusing if they're done poorly. Having multiple zones together on one map shows you how the levels fit together. Also, you don't end up with those confusing letters - let's see, Z3 lines up to the other Z3, where is that now? A line is much clearer and easier to follow.
• Screenshot vs. CS: I've been using the CS exclusively, first because it's easier than having to go to each location, map it out, etc., and second, because I have more control. Some maps can be very confusing just looking at the screenshot version of it. Multiple layers within a cell overlap, and you don't know how they actually fit together. You may have noticed in some cases where I've broken maps apart into multiple layers to make them less confusing. See This example. This would be impossible to do with screenshots. Finally, the CS is a more accurate representation of the map than what you get from a screenshot. It's higher-resolution, and shows creatures and objects where they are on the map. The only downside is the perspective distortion yo get, but I do my best to minimize that.
• All text in white: I've been using color-coded text to easily distinguish between different types of things on the maps. Red for hostile, blue for friendly, green for treasure, orange for traps, purple for corpses, and cyan for keys/doors/other features. Main labels (for individual cells, or map titles) are in white and larger font size. I think this color-scheme makes the most sense overall. Having all the text in white just makes it all look the same and only the dot distinguishes them. In some cases, the dot can be hard to see against certain backgrounds, and distinguishing between, say, red and purple, may be difficult at that scale. Having the dot, the line, and the text all use the same color makes things much clearer.

I think that the maps I've been creating should be good enough. I don't think that any automated overlay system is going to improve on them. Mostly what they seem to do is draw unnecessary attention to trivial items - I've made a point to only note the rare or valuable items on the maps. People don't need to know the location of every Iron Shortsword in the game. All in all, I think the standards we've already set up on the project page are good enough, and restarting everything now with a new set of standards (forcing every cell to be its own image, for example) is just pointless. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 00:47, 26 January 2009 (EST)

First, I'm not sure how the 40 or so maps I've done, mainly for Bloodmoon, counts as "not really been done  [sic] anything for the maps part of the project besides talking about it". Looks like this discussion isn't the only thing you've missed.

Second, in the year and a bit since we got the Oblivion maps up in their current format, you're the first person I've ever heard say anything bad about them. Nephele put the first examples of the new style maps up some six months before the project really got going, so you had ample time to chip in with any suggestions or feedback at the appropriate time. For my part, I much prefer the Oblivion maps to anything yet done for Morrowind and the expansions (I'm including the ones I've done here). The Oblivion style allows more detail to be included on the map key, giving more detail about treasure, creature types, traps and activators. It also allows for links, which some would say is pretty important for a wiki.

Having one map per zone is much clearer. The maps you've been doing end up with each constituent part being tiny and impossible to see. All you can say about your map of Andraseth is the the parts are in there somewhere. It's true that some maps are never going to have much on them, but you have to take the rough with the smooth: much clearer maps for most sections is the smooth.

The way you've used red and blue text on a black background means that your labels are illegible. There's simply not enough contrast. All white text was intended to fix that problem.

As I've said above, I'm no longer interested in the Redesign Project. It's been over for months and the corpse just hasn't stopped twitching yet. This discussion was set up specifically to override the map standards on that page and so the last necessity for the project page has passed. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 03:54, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Apologies to Rpeh on that one - I haven't been doing Bloodmoon lately, so I haven't run into your maps so much, except for the old lo-res auto-generated ones. (But thanks for pointing out my grammatical slip-up, that's really helpful.) At any rate, I could say the same thing about my maps - this is the first negative comment I've heard about them. The text reads perfectly fine here, but I could see how it could be improved - maybe a white stroke on the text would help. As for the Oblivion maps, I haven't commented because I just don't care about Oblivion anymore. But many of the things you mentioned don't really apply to Morrowind so much. Traps, activators? There's very few, and where they exist I've pointed them out very clearly, so I don't see that this is a problem. A linkable key is not a bad thing, but if the image alone doesn't tell you any useful information without it, then it's just a bunch of confusing letters. I could see adding descriptive text to the Morrowind place pages, but I think it works in addition to the clearly labeled items on the map. A single letter is just hard to see, and hard to distinguish from other objects. Is that an 'L' or a wall in the shape of an 'L'? And for the record, I have seen complaints made about some of the OB maps - I can't recall where at this point, but I remember people asking where things were because the letters were too hard to read. The OB maps seem to depend on the paragraph of text accompanying each one. My maps work on their own for the most part. And any description of notable goodies is usually already included in the article text. Also, keep in mind that loot and enemies in MW locations are more often fixed, not leveled. Where in OB, you can just point and say something generic like "Boss Chest", things aren't so standardized in MW. That's why giving each page the individualized personal treatment makes so much more sense than trying to automate the process. Finally, I still hold that single-image maps make more sense for Morrowind. Imagine what a page like Valenvaryon would look like if each cell had to have it's own individual image? The whole bottom 2/3rds of the page would be devoted to just a huge gallery of nearly-useless maps. Instead, my single map easily tells you everything you'd be likely to care about, without forcing you to scroll the page up and down several times comparing inscrutable map labels trying to figure out which door links where. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 10:56, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I'm going to voice my opinion here because I don't think the MW Redesign Project should be left as it is. Those missing maps have been kicking around for ages. I'll admit I haven't been able to be very active on the wiki lately, but if I do find time to come back, MW maps are the things I'm going to be doing, simply because MW is the only game I have on the PC with a CS.

As far as the map overlays go, I really don't mind. Each isthe as easy to use as the other, I find.

I don't think we can have a definite rule as to how many zones we put on one map. The reason is that the zones in the bigger dungeons tend to be, well, bigger. The same goes for smaller dungeons; the zones are smaller. So it's going to have to be up to the editor who makes the map to decide how many zones to put on. We can't have a cast iron rule. We can however have some vague guidelines. I agree that [[:Image:MW-Map-Andasreth Propylon Chamber.jpg|this]] is a bit ridiculous. But then again, when it comes to this, that's just as ridiculous. The editor should be able to judge when putting so many zones on one map is a bit crazy, especially when to get the full size map you have to go to it externally, (here) and then still click on a magnifying glass to get the full sized image.

Clarity for the readers is still the most important aspect to consider. We have to make the maps clear to the average person scrolling down the page, which brings me aptly to my next point.

Having the maps as thumbs on the page means that you can't see anything at all, until you go to the image page. People may do this, but then they will be linked away from the place page. It's easier to have a full size image on the place page so that the reader can simply read the text, then scroll down to have a look at the map, then scroll up to the text again.

The color coded lables. Well, my first thought here is: "Erm, so what?" It's such a tiny detail that I don't really see why it's brought up. The one problem I can see arising here is that one can't actually read what the labels say. Apart from that though, I don't think it really matters. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 11:09, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I haven't provided any feedback on the maps Lurlock has been uploading primarily because he never previously asked for any feedback. I had basically already stated some of my opinions in this discussion, so I didn't see what repeating them would accomplish. And previous discussions about these maps hadn't exactly given me any reason to believe that feedback would be welcome. Furthermore, the new maps have been an improvement (whether previously there were maps with no markup of any type, or no maps at all), so I didn't want to get into quibbling over details or whether these maps would really be the final set of maps for Morrowind. Especially since I definitely don't have the time right now to volunteer to do anything on these maps. Nevertheless, I do have several concerns about the format of the maps that have been uploaded.

Map shown at default thumbnail size

In terms of how to markup the maps, I'm sorry, but the text on most of the maps uploaded by Lurlock is nearly impossible to read -- for example, see the map on the map of Yansirramus I've added here (shown at 180px, which is the default size for thumbnails, and therefore the size as seen by most readers). The text can only be made out when the maps are displayed at full resolution, which means that readers need to click three times in order to make any use of the information added to the map (once to pull up the image page, once from the image page to pull up the image itself, then in most cases a third click on the image itself to get it to display at full resolution). Most readers are unlikely to even realize that there's text on the maps, let alone that if they click enough times the text will become legible; even those who do realize are unlikely to have the patience to go through the process (I know I think twice, trying to guess whether I'll really learn anything useful, before pulling up any of these maps). Therefore, I'd argue that the text added on the maps provides no useful information for the vast majority of readers.

Furthermore, having text and descriptions only displayed on the map severely limits the usefulness of the text. Readers on slow connections who choose not to display images get no information about the dungeon's contents. Readers who use searches to find items won't get any matches. It's impossible to add links to the text. It's nearly impossible to fix mistakes, typos, or inaccuracies in the text. Readers with poor vision have no option to increase the text size or otherwise adjust it based upon their preferences to make it more legible. Text should be incorporated as text, rather than image, wherever possible in my opinion.

When starting the Oblivion maps I made a point of creating maps that would be useful even at the resolution used to display the maps on articles. The higher resolution versions may be helpful when trying to figure out a detail on the map, but they are not necessary in most cases. Given the choice between scanning through the text adjacent to the map or having a map that, as displayed on the article, contains no legible information, I'd rather take text adjacent to the map. Readers can print the whole article and use the map -- which seems more intuitive to me than printing just the map, given that readers start by looking at an article, not just a map. And for readers who don't have access to a color printer, a printout of the entire article is likely to be far more useful than a printout of a gray-text-on-gray-background map.

Ald Daedroth at default size

In terms of whether or not to use one map per zone, first it's worth remembering that for most Morrowind dungeons, the question is meaningless: most dungeons only have one zone. However, whatever system is adopted has to provide useful maps for all of the locations in the game, not just those cases where there are two simple zones on the map. Which is why I pointed to Arkngthand; even after exploring Arkngthand completely on my own, I found it difficult to make sense of that map. In addition, I think there are far more factors than simply whether the doors are connected on the map. In-game, readers only see one zone at a time; I think it's less confusing if the wiki maps are easily recognizable by readers, which is most likely when the wiki maps are more similar to the in-game maps. Even more importantly there is the question of size. As I emphasized above, the view of the map that is most important is the the thumbnailed view shown on the article, i.e., the version displayed here of the Ald Daedroth map. Squeezing multiple zones into a single map means that all of the information needs to be shrunk even further before being displayed. Even the zone names on the Ald Daedroth map are illegible at default size. Using multiple maps is the easiest way to increase the resolution of the maps. It also reduces the need for padding the map with empty space between the zones -- empty space that further shrinks the map. Furthermore, when it's necessary to flip zones in order to combine them into one map (as done on Ald Daedroth), I think that's completely sacrificing map usability for the sake of the map format: my interpretation of content over style would be that it's more important for the map content to be recognizable and useful to readers, rather than that map should be rearranged to look attractive. Exceptions are possible, but I don't think the cases Lurlock has been pointing to would really make sense as exceptions. I'd rather have an almost-completely-useless map such as [[:Image:MW-Map-Andasreth Propylon Chamber.jpg|the proplyon chamber]], if it means that the maps of the [[:Image:MW-Map-Andasreth Upper Level.jpg|upper level]] and [[:Image:MW-Map-Andasreth Lower Level.jpg|lower level]] are useful as displayed on the article.

Some of the other questions are really secondary to these main issues. For example, colored text is only relevant if large amounts of text is being printed on the maps. Deciding which exact items get displayed on the map is separate from questions of the map formatting -- and is also completely separate from the question of whether the information is added to the map manually or using an overlay.

I'm open to either CS or in-game maps; I'd primarily like to establish some consistency. If we're going to use CS maps, then I think we have to address the problem of north not being oriented correctly. I think the wiki maps must have north upwards on the map, otherwise it is impossible to provide any type of directions with the map (as evidenced by the problems with the flipped Vivec map). In my opinion, maps that are posted without correct orientation should have fiximage tags placed on them to make it clear that the image is unsuitable to be a final version of the map. --Nephele^Talk 13:46, 26 January 2009 (EST)

An Oblivion map at 180px

North = Up? I completely agree. That one section of Ald Daedroth is one of only a very few exceptions to this, and I explicitly stated so in the text on the map, or on any other map which I altered in order to make them less confusing. My opinion is that the devs screwed up on this one and placed the Northmarker pointing the wrong direction. It's also worth noting that when playing the game, you can exit through the south-east door of one zone, and wind up in the south-east corner of the next zone, rather than the north-west as you'd expect. This is thus already confusing in the game, so I made a point of mentioning it on the map. You mentioned Arkngthand, which is a good example - the vertical nature of the central room makes it very tough to get anything useful from the map. In cases like that, I've made a practice of breaking the map apart in order to more clearly show the separate layers. See MW Map Maelkashishi.jpg for example. This of course requires some explanation, but I can't think of a better way to do it. Trying to show the locations of all the good stuff in this place with a straight-out-of-the-game map would be impossible.

As for making the map readable at thumbnail size, I think that's somewhat unreasonable. You can't read OB-style maps at 180px either. At least not the text-labels on them. Instead, every Oblivion location has all the maps specifically blown up to a fixed size, overriding user preferences and thus forcing the user to load the larger thumbnail, and all the content that goes with it. I find all that to be just information-overload. I think the thumbnails should be just that - thumbnails. A little teaser image that says "Hey, click me to see the full-sized version." Rather than forcing people to load the image at a large scale whenever they visit the page, let the user decide if they want to load it or not. Some people visit the location pages not for the maps, but for the other info on the page, so forcing 4-5 large image loads on everyone just seems wrong. I think Game Lord might have the better solution on this one - combine SOME maps onto a single image, but not require ALL maps to be separated into individual images.

As for linkable text, I've already pointed out that on most location pages with any notable loot, it's already mentioned in the article text, and thus a search will find those pages. Admittedly, we need to do a better job of adding links to such things, but it wasn't that long ago that the item redirects were created, so you couldn't link back then, and we're still catching up. For most rare and valuable items, the relevant items pages should already have a list of locations where they can be found.

All in all, I just don't think the Oblivion approach works for Morrowind. The levels are very different, and you can't just get away with a bunch of generic all-purpose labels, because the good stuff is almost all fixed loot, not random. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 14:48, 26 January 2009 (EST)

It sounds like part of this comes down to different personal preferences when viewing maps. And ultimately, we're all free to view maps whichever way we prefer: I can choose to only view maps integrated with articles; Lurlock can choose to always view the high resolution map separate from the article. However, to the extent that different viewing preferences determine the format and content of maps, some decision has to be reached about which is considered to be the "default". If we can't agree on how we think readers are most likely to use wiki maps, then it may have to be decided by a vote.

Personally, I think that if it is reasonably possible to have the maps provide useful information when displayed on articles, then we should do so. Otherwise, why are we even showing the image on the page? If the map isn't intended to be useful, it would probably be better to simply provide a listing of the available maps: in such a listing we could provide direct links (in a format such as Map of Ald Daedroth), which would save readers one unnecessary step when trying to use the map. However, given that readers always start by pulling up the article (none of other wiki articles provide direct links to the maps), I think that the article should try to provide relatively complete information so that readers hopefully don't have to pull up additional pages.

In terms of the Oblivion maps, yes, those maps are not displayed at default thumbnail size. That was a deliberate choice, made so that all of the Oblivion and Shivering Isles maps are displayed at the same resolution. Readers who have used one or two of our articles will immediately be able to judge the size of any new map. Especially for zones that only contain a single room (or amorphous rooms, such as Yansirramus), it would otherwise be very difficult to tell whether it's a large room or a small room; we don't provide any type of scale with any of the maps. The only way to provide a constant resolution for all wiki maps is to override the thumbnail defaults. I think for maps, which provide useful information instead of primarily serving as eye-candy, it is a reasonable tradeoff.

Even at 180px it is possible to make out most of the information on the Oblivon maps. No, it's not as easy as when displayed at the intended resolution. But it's still far easier than trying to decipher anything on the Morrowind maps at the same size. And on the image page the Oblivion map is fully legible (at the default 800x600px size, or even at the minimum 320x240px size), whereas on the Morrowind map the majority of the text is still impossible to make out (including, notably, the map key). Even if we disagree on what's most appropriate on the articles, I think it should be possible to agree that the map as shown on the image page should be useful.

With the Morrowind maps I emphasized the 180px version of the maps because that is how the maps appear for most readers on the current versions of the articles. I wanted to make sure that we were all looking at the same version of the image when discussing its useability. For example, I didn't want the discussion to get sidetracked by one editor claiming (based on a 300px version of the images) that it's possible to squint and make out one or two words, while another editor claims (based on the 180px version) that it's impossible. Nevertheless, regardless of the resolution used for displaying the thumbnails, it is impossible to read all of the text on the Morrowind map thumbnails. The only way to make the maps useable within the articles would be to display the maps at full size -- at which point, the maps would be ridiculously large. It would still be impossible to view the maps and the article simultaneously, because the map would take up the entire screen.

Some of Lurlock's arguments even assume that the readers are using the article and the map simultaneously. Having links available on the article does not help readers if they can only use the map separately from the article.

Furthermore, the Maelkashishi example isn't helping to change my mind -- it's very difficult to figure out which parts of that map belong to which zone and how they all fit together. The long section of explanatory text is, as usual, only legible once you pull up the full resolution map. I think that map would work far better if (a) it was separated into two maps, one for each zone, and (b) within each of those maps the different sections were shown in vertical order (and correctly aligned east-west/left-right). I think that the effort Lurlock has put into separating the vertical levels is valuable in creating quality maps (and there are definitely some Oblivion maps that would benefit from some extra work to clarify overlapping vertical features); the ability to do such vertical separation is a strong argument for using the CS to create maps. But I think such maps would be further improved by separating the maps into separate zones, and would be improved by moving paragraph-long explanations off the map and into the article.

Finally, I don't see why the differences in loot between the games are so all-important as to imply that completely different map styles are appropriate. Oblivion includes valuable fixed loot (enchanted loot, quest items, and even quest rewards), the locations of which are shown on the Oblivion maps; conversely, Morrowind includes random loot. Therefore the differences between the games come down to the ratio of fixed loot to random loot; there is no absolute, qualitative difference. --Nephele^Talk 00:22, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Cleanup

The mapping specifications could use some cleanup of their own. The specified value for gold is very similar to yellow. Most current maps (not marked for cleanup) do not use this color (more like 235,215,155) The size of the 5px bullets and 5px doorway box seem too small.

Both example maps (Halls of Penumbra and Ald Sotha) deviate from the listed specifications: Ald Sotha uses green title text and yellow captions while these guidelines say they should all be white, it also uses Times for all fonts. Halls of Penumbra uses a different title font and a different (better?) gold color on title and entrance (including the text)

Also, if one of the goals of the redesign project is a consistent map syntax, wouldn't it make sense to move the generic legend out of the map and into the wiki? Marcel 12:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)