Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arabic Varieties Map

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Arabic Varieties Map

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2022 at 07:57:37 (UTC)

 
Original – Map of the geographical distribution of the various varieties of Arabic recognized in the ISO 639-3 standard, including Arabic-based creoles but excluding Judeo-Arabic languages.
Reason
First and only sourced (verifiable against high-quality reliable sources) high-quality (high resolution, SVG, colorblind friendly, internationalized) map of Arabic varieties we have
Articles in which this image appears
Arabic (level-3 vital article), Varieties of Arabic, Levantine Arabic (level-5 vital article)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator
Goran_tek-en
Extended content
I think it's a great map, but I have to admit to some issues:
First off, while it does have a zoom in on the world that's... probably unnecessary, it lacks a key on the map itself, which means the key doesn't appear in any of the articles it's in; ideally, an image should be understandable as used in the article, or at least after expanded in size using Media Viewer. It uses numbers instead of labels, and one single variety of Arabic (Nubi) uses stripes, which are otherwise said to indicate widespread/mixed usage. Further, it's not clear what, if any, difference is between solid, striped and spotted. (Striped and spotted are both labelled as meaning "speakers are widespread over this area", which is kind of the same as you'd presume for the solid coloured)
Randomly positioned spots are only used for 10's overlap with 11/12, everywhere else, overlap is done using a hexagonal grid striped with spots. What's the point of the random spots for 10, then? Do the widths matter? 6 and 9's overlap is done differently than any other overlap.
It puts number labels on the map, but not words. That does simplify internationalisation, but at the cost of making it less useful. Simply replacing the numbers with words would instantly turn this into a labelled map, as it is, unless you click through to the file description page, what the colours mean is completely unknowable.
It uses lots of subtly different green shades, so it's probably for the best the colours are also labelled. I'd hate to try to colour match between, say, South Levantine Arabic and Hadrami Arabic. Libyan Arabic and Gulf Arabic are also quite close, as are Tunisian Arabic and Egyptian Arabic, or Chadian and Omani. Luckily, all these are geographically seperated from each other, which mitigates the issue, but, again, it does mean a simple word label would do.
I don't get the number order. Why is 31 at the extreme south side of the map next to 12, for instance, when 29 and 30 are in the Mediterranean? Why is 13 right of 14 and 15? Why is 20 the other side of the Middle East from 18, 19, 21, and 22?
It feels like this is so very nearly there, but there's enough I don't get that I can't support. A lot of work has gone into this, and I appreciate that, but it feels like this needed a round of feedback. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 09:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback.
It's on purpose that there's no labels on the map. Then any Wikimedia project can reuse this map and add a clickable and editable legend in their own language below, example in Frysk. Isn't this the best practice recommended by ?
I'll answer your other points later today. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's recommended to have a version without Language-dependant labels, but that doesn't make that version the best one for specific language Wikipedias. Basically, it's great to have that for ones that haven't been translated to your language, and that might well be the one Commons would feature, but English Wikipedia FPC looks at it from solely the English Wikipedia perspective. and, combined with the number order being a bit odd and some colours being very similar, it makes it a lot harder to use. You have to constantly jump back and forth between the image and list. Basically, being language-neutral is a good thing for Commons, as it means any Wikipedia can use it, but it's more of a "we haven't translated this to your language" stopgap. At English Wikipedia Featured Pictures, we kind of have to judge it explicitly for use on here.
Don't get me wrong. I think this should pass, but it needs a little work first. And I really hate giving this much feedback on your first FPC nom, but SVG diagrams.. are not easy. They're probably the hardest type of content to get through FPC, because being made by Wikipedians and being so editable, there's an assumption that they're going to be polished to perfection by the time they pass (and I'm really wishing I had kept up my Inkscape skills so I could help more with this). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 10:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I understand. I don't think anyone will add the legend to the map, so if that's a requirement for EN WP FP then I prefer to withdraw this FPC.
That being said, thanks again for your feedback: your points regarding Nubi, solid/striped/dotted, "6 and 9's overlap is done differently than any other overlap", and the colors are valid and I'll see what we can do to improve them.
Regarding the number order: it's more or less West to East. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 are weird Arabic varieties, often called "language islands" in the literature, and often shown differently on maps. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I think my issue is more that the numbers aren't listed on the Wikipedia pages more than on the map. Since this is pretty important to the articles, could we make it substantially larger and put the numbered list in the captions? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 02:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, regarding just the part of your comment about the captions, the captions in the first two articles: Arabic, Varieties of Arabic, do have a full numbered list (I wonder if you saw it). The caption in the third article: Levantine Arabic has an abbreviated list, I suppose because that's sufficient in that article. Bammesk (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, think I got confused somehow. That'll deal with the problem of labelling, though the dotting and striping issues need dealt with. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 04:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, back to number order. I'd say the numbering for the Middle East is still a bit weird, 20 being the oddest, as it's nowhere near any other consecutive number, and 13 being a bit strange. 8 is in the Sinai penninsula, and should maybe be renumbered into the Asian numberings instead of the otherwise consistent African numberings, but it doesn't seem that bad. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we dealt with the problem of labelling.
Regarding numbering: I think 13 is okay. 8 is "Eastern Egyptian Bedawi", besides the Sinai, it's also on the eastern coast of Egypt (along the Red Sea), so that's why it's after 7 (Egyptian Arabic). 20 is odd indeed.
Regarding dotting and striping, I added the following legend based on the main source:
  • Solid area fill: variety natively spoken by at least 25% of the population of that area or variety indigenous to that area only
  • Hatched area fill: minority scattered over the area
  • Dotted area fill: speakers of this variety are mixed with speakers of other Arabic varieties in the area
What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One potential solution to the number order (if that's really a problem) that minimizes changes:
  • 20 -> 13 (as 20 is spoken in Eastern Africa)
  • 13 -> 18
  • 18 -> 19
  • 19 -> 20
An even simpler change would be 20<>13. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that would work. It makes things a little easier to find. I would probably upload it as a new file, though, since the file seems to be used on a lot of Wikipedias, and a gradual changeover is easier than trying to push a mass update. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 23:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: what do you think? I think we could upload as a new version (instead of a new file) and I'll take care of updating the various Wikimedia projects accordingly (I checked and only 3 have numbered legends, so it'll be fairly easy). A455bcd9 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 @Adam Cuerden There is so much text here I don't really know which part/edit you mean, please make it more specific and easy to see, thanks.
For New Version or New File, to me it should be a New Version of course. Uploading a New File will only make it all more confusing, remember that most people do not have yours knowledge about this. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: Adam mentioned that the number order is "a bit odd". To solve this I suggested either to switch 13 and 20 (solution A) or to switch the following: 13->18->19->20 (solution B). Do you think it makes sense to change the number order? If so, which solution do you prefer? Thanks for your help. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 To my understanding there is no straight order; top-bottom or left-right or similar. Using country names would also be confusing, using an alphabetic order for the dialects would be an option but that would be more for the readability of the legend not for the map itself. #31 is the only one sticking out for me but I can't see any really good swap which will make stuff so much better.
So my answer (being an image person) is, No I can't see any big gain in changing around the numbers. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: that's okay for me! (btw, I think Adam's point was that currently the order is more or less west to east, with the exception of "20" and of 29, 30, 31. But I said above that 29, 30, 31 are a bit special Arabic varieties (and the first two are islands) so it's fine to have them numbered at the end. So the only remaining issue was "20" that I then suggested to switch with 13 to have a better west->east order) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 That is up to you, just tell me directly which you want me to which. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it doesn't add any encyclopedic value and misleads the readers. While the map is supposedly sourced (it's more like a synthesis of various maps published by an evangelical Christian organization that doesn't submit itself to any kind of academic review), it's full of errors (some of them already highlighted on Commons and more will follow). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Extended content
  • Thanks for that edit - but see my comment on Commons FP - each dialect I check is inconsistent with Wikipedia. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Charlesjsharp: I don't know whether I should answer here or on Commons so I'll do both The source used in Ethnologue and I let you see here what fellow linguists think about Ethnologue. tl;dr: it is considered excellent. So if there are inconsistencies with other maps on Wikipedia, it's either that these maps are wrong and/or that they are unsourced WP:OR. Do you have a specific example of another inconsistency? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No… It is definitely not the case that linguists by & large consider Ethnologue "excellent". Plenty of academic linguists cite Ethnologue uncritically in peer-reviewed journals, but it's also not hard at all to find criticisms. I think the situation in 2022 is that it would be equally hard to support the argument that a) Ethnologue is generally considered some sort of standard source among linguists & the argument that b) Ethnologue is not considered a reliable source in linguistics. I think that the WikiProject Languages page that you directed me to earlier is precisely right: Use Ethnologue. Check its sources. Go with better sources when they're available. Pathawi (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pathawi, when I said it's "excellent" it was based on Ethnologue#Reception_and_reliability. Do you have reliable sources saying that Ethnologue is bad? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do! Well: I can show you reliable sources that describe Ethnologue as being of variable quality, or having a skewed viewpoint. & it really doesn't matter. I'd say that Ethnologue#Reception_and_reliability represents a range of opinions: not a consensus of excellence. (The first ¶ is majority positive.) I'm not interested in undermining Ethnologue as a resource. I think that for individual languages there are frequently far preferable resources. Pathawi (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose reluctantly. This map evidences a lot of work on the parts of A455bcd9 and Goran tek-en. They are attempting to address what has been a very serious issue in Arabic dialect maps on Wikipedia, & I think that this map is a great improvement over what came before. I'm sure that there are errors in this map, but they are relatively minor, compared to a previous map that was riddled with problems—dialects in the wrong country, dialects that didn't exist… I'm grateful for their effort & I think that Wikipedia is better for it. However, I don't think that right now is the right time to feature this map. I'll explain it as three reasons (tho they bleed into one another):
  1. I think that the map actually should probably be around a little longer. We should expect that there's going to be a bit more review from other parties before there's a relatively stable version. Multiple possible changes are currently being discussed.
  2. I think that Ethnologue should really be a source of last resort, rather than a preferred source. Ethnologue is not subject to academic review. In fact, I suspect that if we were to be strict about these things that it would not qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with the characterisation of Ethnologue as the "standard reference" in linguistics—it is certainly cited in scholarly work in linguistics, but it's also frequently criticised by scholarly work in linguistics. I am not interested in discarding Ethnologue as a source tout court, but I think that sources that are subject to academic review should be preferred (taking account, of course, of other reliable source criteria like age).
  3. The creator of the map currently holds that as this map is hosted on Wikimedia Commons it is not subject to Wikipedia reliable source criteria, & requests that others not edit the map without the creator's consent [1]. This is really the biggest issue for me, & maybe encompasses the previous point. I think this map really needs to be subject to Wikipedia guidelines for it to be considered as a featured image.

I would love to support this map in the future on a re-nomination, but I think some time is needed to work these issues out. Pathawi (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
Hi @Pathawi! Thanks for providing valuable feedback as usual :)
  1. Yes, it may be better to wait longer. In the meantime, it's still good to get feedback here on how we can improve the map I think.
  2. I think Ethnologue is good. But we may find a better source. I opened a discussion regarding Ethnologue's reliability, feel free to contribute.
  3. If this map becomes a featured picture, then we can always upload new versions under another map. Similarly, Goran tek-en's request not to edit the map is irrelevant here as we can still create a new updated map under a new name.
Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I need to go on to other things for today, but with regard to #3: We can do that, but that would be a different image—not this one. As long as we're using this file, I do think that that issue is relevant. Pathawi (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On #3 I think we need @Adam Cuerden's help: if we upload a new version on Commons for this map (for instance to change a language's border or fix any other issue): would the "featured picture" status be kept for the new version? Or is it recommended not to upload new versions for featured pictures and instead to upload new images under another name? I assume this issue arises rarely with featured pictures as most of them aren't technical drawings or maps that can be regularly updated. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 @Pathawi and others. Yes I know that my "request" " Please do not edit ... or upload a new version" is a bit hard and I'm not really happy about it. But my experience with complex maps/illustrations that has been edited in several steps and then later on I'm requested to fix the problems has made me put this out. I don't tell any one what to do, I ask for cooperation.
I see the problem but I didn't have any other solution to my initial problem.
If this is a big thing I will remove this template and all together stop using it although it will produce more problems.
Actually others think this is a good thing and it's now translate ted to German and it has been improved so it will take the Authors name and can thereby be used generally, thanks to Aristeas. Featured_picture_candidates and Template_talk:No_edit_no_revision --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: I agree, the template doesn't pose any problem, as you said, it's just a request for cooperation. A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the exact phrasing is probably the issue. Big text saying it's widely used with captions in the articles duplicating the details of the map as it is and thus variants should be uploaded as new files is probably the best.
As for #3, the featured picture on changes issue, it varies, but there's a procedure, "Delist and replace" that's usually quick and free of controversy to switch things over. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback @Adam Cuerden. So I consider that #3 isn't an issue anymore. Do you agree @Pathawi? Similarly, #2 is a question that is broader than this FPC and should be addressed somewhere else. So far, Ethnologue has been considered reliable on the English Wikipedia and this FPC relies on Ethnologue, so I consider that this FPC satisfies the 6th criterion ("Is verifiable"). What do you think @Pathawi? Then your #1 remains. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree that either of these is resolved. The issue in #3 isn't that the map could be changed in the future. The issue is that it really needs to be subject to Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy. If the map were subject to reliable sourcing policy, I'd have no problem at all with approving a map now that future sources led us to change, & I certainly wouldn't object to those future changes. As for #2, I'm not saying Ethnologue isn't a reliable source (tho I think if we treated the policy strictly there would need to be a bigger conversation about Ethnologue than I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia yet)—I'm saying that by our reliable source policy we should prefer material from scholarly sources over Ethnologue (with caveats, of course, like age of source, additional caution for dissertations, &c). Pathawi (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathawi, I'm not sure I understand you. My point is that this FPC is only about THIS version of the map. And I consider that this version followed the English Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. Any future update of this map will not automatically be a featured picture. So we should focus on this version alone, and not on potential future updates. That's why I (maybe wrongly?) considered these issues as resolved (for the purpose of this FPC, they're not resolved per se of course). A455bcd9 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the issue is that the creator of the map considers it not to be subject to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. We need consensus to delist an image. I don't want to create the situation where we feature this map, then it falls afoul of reliable sourcing guidelines, & then it becomes difficult or impossible to delist. It took months to get the previous Arabic dialect map—which included totally fabricated dialects & dialects in wrong countries—removed from Wikipedia. I can't get behind the featuring of a map created for Wikipedia if it's held to be not subject to reliable sourcing guidelines. Pathawi (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathawi, I don't understand, for me the situation is the following:
  1. If this image isn't modified => no problem
  2. If this image is modified and a new one under a new name is uploaded => no problem
  3. If this image is modified and a new version is uploaded under the same name => potential problem if that new version doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines.

So the problem appears only in #3, however:

  • Goran tek-en is only a graphic designer, they won't upload new version unless asked to in this image's talk page. You'll be able to contribute like everyone else. So most likely, if a new version is uploaded, it means the community will agree with it.
  • If a new version is uploaded and new or anyone else thinks that the new version doesn't follow Wikipedia's reliable source policy anymore then Adam said that "there's a procedure, "Delist and replace" that's usually quick and free of controversy to switch things over". It'll be super easy to say that, for instance, the new image doesn't respect the 6th criteria anymore because it's OR.

That's why I don't understand what the problem is. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been so much obstructionism with the issue of this map. It took months to get the previous, unsourced, error-riddled map down, & part of the difficulty was that Wikimedia Commons isn't the same body as Wikipedia. I suspect that this map is more contentious than most images that are proposed for featured picture status. I'm sure that Adam Cuerden is right that the delisting process is usually quick & controversy-free, but I don't believe that delisting would end up being straightforward in this case. I have trouble imagining that I'd support featuring this image unless the metadata at Wikimedia Commons made it clear that it was intended to be used for Wikipedia, & was thus subject to English Wikipedia policies & guidelines.
Then we can make it clear on the English Wikipedia during this FPC that only this version will be awarded the "Featured Picture" status and that any newly uploaded version would be automatically delisted and will have to go through the same process again. What do you think @Pathawi? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on a polite agreement that I don't trust. (Not that I distrust you: It's that too many other parties can get involved, & there's been lots of chaos thruout this process.) I really don't want to discuss this further: I have too many other things to give my attention to. I can't support this nomination right now for the reasons I said up at the top—none of that has changed. I think that we should continue hashing things out over at Wikimedia Commons, & deal with all of the conversations about sourcing. Hopefully it will be worth discussing this again in the near future.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Arabic_Varieties_Map&oldid=1124864318"