The Graphics Lab is a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. Requests for image improvements can be added to the workshop pages: Illustrations, Photographs and Maps. For questions or suggestions one can use the talk pages: Talk:Graphics Lab, Talk:Illustrations, Talk:Photographs and Talk:Maps. This specific page is the requests page for the Map workshop. Anyone can make a request for a map to be created or improved for a Wikipedia article. The standard format for making a request is shown below, along with general advice, and should be followed.
You are encouraged to share information and request advice from others. Also see possible conventions toolbox, map tutorials and topographic map tutorials.
Advice to requesters
What do we do?
Location maps
Area maps (animals, languages, empires, etc.)
Historical and conflict related maps
Battle maps
Technical maps (archaeology, city closeups, etc.)
Sourced requests: If possible, please try to provide a reliable source to create a map. This includes a map already on Wikipedia with a reliable source or an external link.
Please check: Please check back regularly to see if progress has been made or if any additional questions need to be answered before the request can be completed.
Direct collaboration: Some mapmakers are especially interested by one topic area. If you notice a mapmaker fitting your needs, consider asking on their personal talk page to request maps.
{{Reqmap}}: To request a map, you can also tag the talk page of the article in need of a map with or {{Reqmapin|Australia}} (articles then appear in Category:Wikipedia requested maps)
If a request is done to your satisfaction, please mark it with {{resolved}}.
Advice to Graphists
If you have completed work and not received a reply you may use the {{GL Map reply}} template to inform the requester.
Map makers and other visitors to the Graphics Lab may be interested in the RSS feed of changes to this page. You may find it here.
Please create maps of the countries encompassed in the legal definition of "His Majesty's dominions" and "British possessions". The former definition (not to be confused with the much more restrictive historical definition of a "Dominion") is everywhere where the British monarch is head of state: the Commonwealth realms, the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, and all the dependent territories of countries like Australia and New Zealand (including their respective Antarctic claims). The latter definition is almost the same but does not include the UK (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) itself. Neither definition includes Barbados, so the map should be dated after 2022, when that country abolished its monarch and became a republic. Both maps should include the boundaries of Canadian provinces and Australian states.
File:BlankMap-World.svg does have all the territories that you mentioned, they are just very small. This file is supposed to be edited as text. Open it with a text editor and see the examples above the tag </style>. Use ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes. For example, to color Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory and Christmas Island in red, add this line there:
.bm,.io,.cx {fill:#FF0000}
To also make their circles visible:
.bm,.io,.cx {fill:#FF0000; opacity:1}
You can also change the opacity value to a number between 0 and 1, such as 0.5, to make the circle transparent.
But this file doesn't have Akrotiri and Dhekelia or individual Antarctic territories. So I suggest using File:World map configurable.svg, which has many options to show these and other disputed territories, and to separate the 4 UK countries if desired. Open it with a text editor and follow the instructions there. If you also want to add borders of subdivisions of Australia and Canada, I suggest copying the relevant portions from this file.
If you find this too complicated, I can do it. Let me know what borders and what circles to show, and what colors to use. Heitordp (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Set .aqau1 {display:yes}, then .aqau {fill:#...}. Or set .aqau1 {display:none}, .aqau2 (display:yes}, then .au {fill:#...} includes the Australian Antarctic Territory with Australia. Either way works. Heitordp (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Carnby for doing these, they look excellent! Thank you also @Heitordp for the instructions. I tried to follow them and got as far as the issue with the Australian Antarctic Territory in World map configurable.svg. I came here for help and found Carnby had pre-empted me! I have some issues with the maps at present:
the grey circles are unnecessary and somewhat distracting (particularly in the Caribbean and Cyprus but also in the oceans).
while the red shading is traditional, ideally the shading colour should be the same green as used in typical grey-green maps used in Wikipedia: shading #346733 and borders #335033 – as recommended by the conventions for grey–green orthographic maps (perhaps the Antarctic territories should also be #49C946 as recommended there for "claimed uncontrolled areas").
the borders of borders of other countries' claims in the Antarctic should be removed where they run through the British, Australian, and New Zealand territories there – at present they look as though they indicate separate jurisdictions within those territories rather than overlapping claims that are not relevant here.
the circles in the Channel Islands are too many – the two bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey should be indicated and the other islands considered part of those two jurisdictions.
Please remove the grey circles, change the shading and border colours, remove the confusing lines in Antarctica, and remove the circles for Channel Islands other than Guernsey and Jersey. I will anyway add the relevant map to British possession at once, as these issues are only cosmetic. Thanks to you both again! The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced areas of subdivisions of Australia and Canada with one area for each whole country, and added borders of these subdivisions. It's not necessary to define areas of individual subdivisions if they will all be shown in the same color, and the borders are much more visible if defined as borders rather than a byproduct of adjacent areas. This also shortens the code.
Adjusted disputed areas as recognized by the UK or de facto. File:World map configurable.svg is a template that shows all disputed areas separately by default, but any maps derived from this template should adjust how they are shown. These adjustments are made by setting the display property to yes or none for each disputed area in the top section of the file.
Corrected Antarctic claims. The proper way to display the desired claims is to set their corresponding display properties in the top section, then color them with the corresponding codes. For example, this map is supposed to show only the British, Australian and New Zealand claims, so only .aqgb1, .aqau1 or .aqau2, and .aqnz1 should be set to yes, while the codes of all other claims should be set to none. Then set .aqgb, .aqau and .aqnz (or the respective codes of the countries including all territories: .gbt, .au, .nzt) to the desired color. There is no need to define colors of overlapping claims like .aqclgb unless the goal is to show these portions in a different color. Also note that the codes with numbers like .aqgb1 should only be used to set the display property; the codes to define colors are without numbers, like .aqgb. Using the codes with numbers to define colors results in coloring an incorrect part of the map.
Moved the opacity property to the first definition of the codes of circles, instead of defining them again.
Ajusted the positions of some circles to better match their islands like Anguilla. File:World map configurable.svg puts some circles farther from the islands to avoid overlapping circles of nearby islands. But if the map only shows a few circles, in this case only British territories, the circles can be placed more appropriately.
Since the circles of Alderney and Sark were removed because they are part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, I also removed the circles of Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha because they are part of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. I also removed the circles of Australian islands because they are considered part of Australia rather than autonomous territories. But others may prefer to show these circles for clarity because they are far from the respective territory, unlike Guernsey. Heitordp (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heitordp Very good work! Perhaps would be good to write <title>Guernsey (including Alderney and Sark)</title> and <title>Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha</title>? As far as the Australian islands are concerned, what about a very small circle?-- Carnby (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heitordp Please do show the separate states and provinces for Australia and Canada, as there is a particular reason why these should be shown as separate – the definition of a British possession explicitly mentions areas controlled by local legislatures. The Interpretation Acts of 1889 and 1978 mention "where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature" and Halsbury's Laws explains that
When parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature are deemed to be one British possession. But this principle applies only to matters falling within the authority of the central legislature.
The Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 includes "component parts of a federation, such as the Canadian Provinces and the Australian States". Please add back in the states and provinces. I would also prefer to see the Australian dependencies treated the same way as the British and New Zealand dependencies: with their own circles. These territories are sometimes considered separate from Australia, as in the now-infamous case of the special American tariff regime for the territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands.These dependencies have their own governance structures for certain purposes, so they can for such purposes be considered British possessions. There is also the practical issue that they are near invisible without the circles. This is also true of Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, which unlike the Channel Islands are nowhere near St Helena's circle. Thank you for re-centring the other circles.
Separated subdivisions of Australia and Canada, as requested. Their borders became more visible, and the tooltips show the names of the subdivisions instead of the whole country.
Restored circles for external territories of Australia, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, as requested.
Added circles for Australian Capital Territory, Jervis Bay Territory and Prince Edward Island.
Since Alderney and Sark also have their own legislatures, I think that they should also count as separate possessions, similar to the subdivisions of Australia and Canada. So I restored their circles, but adjusted their positions with overlaps to avoid occupying an excessive area.
Adjusted positions of circles in the Caribbean and Cyprus to become more centered on the respective territories, with overlaps.
Used lighter color for Antarctic claims.
I tried the green color scheme of orthographic maps, but the circles looked almost gray and difficult to identify. I prefer the red color because it provides more contrast. Heitordp (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Heitordp! I realized belatedly that the previous version did not remove the internal borders of Australia and Canada entirely, but they did become more difficult to see at certain zoom levels. Now they seem much clearer. I'm still not convinced of the necessity of having more than two circles for the Channel Islands and for the "mainland" territories of Canada and Australia (PEI, ACT, Jervis Bay) since they're so close to one another, but I'm happy that the dependent archipelagos are all individually marked. Could you perhaps upload a separate green-grey version for each map? I tried modifying the files myself using that colour scheme but the supernumerary grey circles reappeared! The red colour, in my opinion, looks good for the landmasses but the paler pink on the white ocean is not as clear. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The wisest fool in Christendom: I removed the circles of Alderney, Sark, Australian Capital Territory, Jervis Bay Territory and Prince Edward Island.
The additional gray circles appear if you open the file with Inkscape, because it shows all hidden objects. As noted on the wiki file page, please do not edit this file with Inkscape, because it disrupts the structure and adds a lot of unnecessary code. To change the colors, open the file with a text editor and search for the lines that contain #CC3333 (main territories) and #FF8888 (Antarctic territories). Change these color codes as you wish (such as #346733 and #49C946), save the file, then open it with a browser to see how it looks.
By "paler pink on the white ocean", do you mean the color inside the circles? The circles are actually defined with the same color as land, but with an opacity property (currently 0.5) to make them partially transparent, to allow seeing the islands inside them. If you don't want this transparency, change the opacity to 1 (in 6 instances). Heitordp (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to note there is a difference of one year between the astronomical date (-264) and Julian/Gregorian calendar (263 BC). Carnby (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the regional borders shown in this Kazakhstan location map file are currently incorrect. These maps have not been updated for over 2 years since 2022, and I believe this issue needs to be addressed urgently. Can someone please correct the borders using OpenStreetMap or other accurate data?
Hello, I'm looking to request a copyright-free version of this map to upload on wikipedia, would you be able to do this ? (Request for it to still depict the towns shown) . Thank you. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This map seems to broken in some way. I would be grateful if someone could fix it, as it appears in four articles, two of them FAs. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caviana, Mexiana (articles on the other islands to be written)
Request
There are several larger islands in the mouth of the Amazon, but it is sometimes rather complex to describe which island is which. This source contains an image on page 33 called Mapa de Localização das ilhas de Caviana, Janaucu, Jurupari, Jarupari that is helpful, but it is probably non-free and (because it is based on a satellite image) sometimes difficult to read. Would it be possible have a Wikipedia-style map of the same area that contains the same labels? -- LeRoc (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's a very good idea. I tried something here (I only put the name Outer Caviana for now). But it's hard to read the blueish text on the blue/green background. LeRoc (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, I think this format would work. Important is that the labels can be put on there quite visibly. The thing is: the mouth of the Amazon is a very dynamic place. Islands break in two or join together, depending on the tides. This makes it difficult to name them and assert the shape and size of each island. We had a discussion here, where we decided that for an encyclopedia it makes the most sense to go by the definitions used by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Google Maps doesn't do this, so we can't refer to it to identify which island is which. I am hoping that this map will help to make things clear. LeRoc (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The island you labelled as Janaucu needs to be split in two. There is a natural dividing line running North-South through the middle of the island. The left (Western) part is Inner Caviana, the right (Eastern) part is Janaucu.
The island you labelled as Caviana needs to be labelled Outer Caviana.
There is a small island that seems to be breaking off (Outer) Caviana, in the direction of Janaucu. This needs to be labelled Jarupari.
I'm sorry, but this is what the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics says, and what we need to follow. Would that be possible? LeRoc (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder what the right course of action is here. The IBGE map is from 2017 whereas the satellite image is from 2020. As of writing this (May 23rd 2025) the state of the islands look similar in a Google Maps satellite view as to what they did in the 2020 satellite view, so it's very possible that the islands have shifted since that official 2017 map was created. One potential solution could be to make one annotated map based on 2017 data and another based on 2020/2025 data so that you can show how the islands have shifted over time. The only issue would be finding a usable 2017 base map to avoid having to trace it all out in SVG. Didn't read the image decription properly and mixed up collect date with upload date, so the satellite image was actually taken on 2017. Not really sure how to consolidate the two sources then if the IBGE is saying one thing but satellite imagery is saying another. BaduFerreira (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem may be that the satellite image was taken during low water, which joined the islands together? (I just want to get it right and write articles about these beautiful islands.) LeRoc (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I feel a bit guilty for having "dragged" CMGlee into this. There is no fight between BaduFerreira and me, I think we both want to get this right. The question is, which of these images describes the island Caviana? My instincts tell me A, but according to the IBGE, official maps of Pará and academic papers based on their definitions, the correct answer is B. The island Caviana has split into two parts in 1850 (this is known), and apparently one of the parts is merging with the island Janaucu. I like the things that I wrote on the article Caviana, but it is important to get the shape and size of the island right. @BaduFerreira: how do we resolve this? I am thinking of taking it to the Village Pump of pt.wiki. Maybe that is an idea? LeRoc (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Feel free to update my SVG accordingly.
Thank you for your understanding :) Here is an official map by the Brazilian Ministry of Transport. If you zoom into the mouth of the Amazon, you can see the shape of the islands as they are officially defined. Also on the satellite image from 1990 I posted here, Inner Caviana and Janaucu are (still?) separate. LeRoc (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeRoc: That might be tricky. Tracing the boundaries on a non-free map might be violating copyright, which if I remember correctly was the rationale for the creation of OpenStreetMap. I suppose tracing from an old satellite image is OK. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ10:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. Would you be able to trace the boundaries on the 1990 satellite image? Just of the islands in the mouth of the Amazon (the same area that is in the other images we posted here). LeRoc (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Annotated 1990 satellite photograph of the Amazon delta
I've remade the SVG using the 1990 satellite photo as on the right. I had to zoom out as the resolution was too low to show detail. Is that better? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ00:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graphics Lab/Map workshop
Resolved
Bumping thread.
Request taken.
Map of His Majesty's dominions
Map of the British possessions.svg?lang=en)
.svg?lang=en)
ToDo colour scheme: I'm not sure it would be right to choose conventions for grey–green orthographic maps for a world map; that should be discussed;
Map of His Majesty's dominions (2025–present)
Map of the British possessions (2025–present).svg?lang=en)
.svg?lang=en)
Comment: Just to note there is a difference of one year between the astronomical date (-264) and Julian/Gregorian calendar (263 BC). Carnby (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Kazakhstan location map
Request taken. If you're thinking of a vector map (instead of a satellite photo), would something like http://openstreetmap.org#map=9/0/-51&layers=P do? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:
