Encyclopedia > Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties
Oh, great. So I've been working on counties for weeks now, and now all of a sudden, there's a new standard? I don't plan on going back and changing what I've done. -- Zoe, more than a little pissed off
- This has been in WikiProject U.S. States for ages, but it was never really discussed (or paid attention to) much. Feel free to tweak it to fit your format. :) (And indeed, nothing you've done contravenes the recommendations here that I can think of. Since there's generally no more than a sentence or two for each "section", there's no need for headers and crap.) --Brion 21:58 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)
- Really, i've just moved all the stuff from "U.S. States" into "U.S. Counties" to separate them. There shouldn't be much going back if any. Are counties important and informative enough to add a table like we have now in WikiProject Countries and WikiProject U.S. States? -- Ram-Man
(The following was copied from User talk:Ram-Man)
Hi, I wanted to call your attention to an error and an important omission that I just fixed in Wikipedia:WikiProject U. S. Counties[?].
- The markup for sections is ==, not ===. These header levels are hierarchical. You should always start with == and go down. (= is the article title). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more on markup.
- I added county seat to the geography section. Every county has one. In lots of cases, it's the only significant town in the county.
- And, for my taste, anyway, I'd like to know who the county was named after.
Good luck to you on your adventures in the Wikipedia, Ortolan88
- About the various header sizes == vs. ===, *ALL* of the country, state, county, and city Wikiprojects use the latter. Even though the Wikipedia manual of style may say to use H2, the entire standard has been set up to use H3. Are we to change it now and go back and change all the others? -- Ram-Man
- Well, they're all wrong. You aren't supposed to start in the middle, with H3, you're supposed to start at the beginning, with H2. The idea would be to change the standard and do the remaining 2000 counties correctly, and eventually to go back and fix the ones that are incorrectly coded. Perhaps this could be done with some kind of mechanized edit.
- Keep in mind that Wikipedia page presentation is controlled by style sheets and browsers known and unknown and it is much better to follow correct standards of generic markup. For one thing, the default style sheet has a choice of numbering heads (see your preferences) and they won't number right if they aren't coded right. I think, by the way, that the H2 markup in the default style sheet is way too big, but the presentation isn't the issue, it's the correct use of hierarchical heads.
- I know this sounds picky and it must really sound like a drag after all those entries you've done, but if you understand the value of standard presentation as you certainly seem to do, then you probably appreciate that an incorrectly coded template is really undesirable.
- So, yes, I think *ALL* the country, county, state, and city Wikiproject templates are in error and should be changed. And, as the existing entries that uses those templates are edited, their markup should be corrected, from the old, boring, uptight generic markup enthusiast, Ortolan88
- Ok, I just didn't want to have to do all of the stuff over, but I have no problem doing all the new ones that way. I'll change the WikiProjects to reflect the change. All the important ones are the U.S. States anyway, and those are only 50 and easy to change. I'll do those sometime in the future if not one beats me to it (when I add data similar to the county data I am adding now). -- Ram-Man
- Isn't there a way to make a small php script that would correct crap like this and the superscript issue mentioned below much easier? This really shouldnt be hard to correct, its a simple reg exp replace, simple to any perl/php programmer... Massive edits like this should be done this way in my opinion. -- Lightning 04:17 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
For the ten millionth time, === is well established in usage by thousands of pages. If you think it's wrong, it should simply be redefined to pump out ideologically correct <h2> tags and the style sheet adjusted accordingly. Am I wrong? --Brion 20:39 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
- While I don't know if you are right or wrong, I do know what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says. So is it wrong or right? Either this is an established *mistake* by thousands of pages or the manual of style is wrong and should be changed to reflect that. Just my two cents. -- Ram-Man
This is just a minor issue, but wouldn't it be better to use ² rather than <sup>2</sup> for the square kilometers and miles? At least on my browser, the latter method creates a significant whitespace when used 2 in between lines in a paragraph,
whereas the former method does not ² (text broken up as an example) Scipius 16:26 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Make the change! -- Ram-Man
- I'm certainly willing to do it (should help my edit-count ;)), but could you start adding the change in the new county pages you're creating? Also, is there a complete list of counties done so far? Scipius 17:02 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
- Oh sorry. I'll change to the new format now. Almost all the counties are done. I have a TODO list on User:Ram-Man which lists all the ones that are *NOT* done. That should list the status of the work on counties (at least the work I am doing). Oh, make sure you update the WikiProject States, Counties, and Cities pages. The templates there need updated. Oh personally I don't think you need to go through all the pages and change that. It is really minor and changing it is a lot of work. But it is up to you as it would make it slightly better ;-) -- Ram-Man
Should there be a duplication of population in the entries? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities -- Ram-Man
I took the liberty of adding "Adjacent Counties" to the guidelines. I've started adding this to Washington state, and it makes it a lot more fun to navigate around the counties. I only plan to slowly pick at this, and I'm going at it rather randomly. I can't think of how to automate this, since I don't know where this data exists in easily parsed digital form. -- RobLa
- It may be on the U.S. Gazeeter, but I'm not sure. I'm planning sometime in the future (who knows when!) to harvest all sorts of new data. I have a number of ideas on User:Ram-Man, but this is another interesting idea. If I find that information, I'll be sure to include it.
- Found it! I've coded up a Perl script which takes the Census Bureau Cartographic Boundary Files (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/co2000) and figures it out. The script is here (http://robla.net/2002/scripts/processcart.txt) . Thanks for the tip! -- RobLa
- I've done a bunch of work on the script, and I've put the output here: adjacentcounty.txt (http://robla.net/2002/wikipedia/adjacentcounty.txt). I've filled in Washington state, but taht's it. The data needs a little cleaning up, but it's mostly good to go. I'm not planning on making a concerted effort to enter this, so feel free to start entering/automating entry. -- RobLa, 9 Nov 2002
I've created a script that can fetch automatically-generated, small county maps from the U.S. Census Bureau's Tiger Service (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrowse-tbl) for inclusion on the county page. Here's all of the counties in Washington state (http://robla.net/2002/wikipedia/wa/gifs/).
In case you were wondering, yes, I've got a 15 second sleep interval between generations so as not to hammer their server (and I plan to bump that up to 30-60 seconds if/when I do the whole country). I'm also planning on converting all of these to PNG format.
I'd like to include these in the county entries for all U.S. counties. I've got several questions:
- Are these the appropriate size? I've limited them to 250 pixels wide per the image guidelines, and then have them of varying heights depending on the geometry of the county itself. The bigger the image, the better it looks, though.
- King County 250x200 (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapper/map.gif?&lat=47.4322515&lon=-121.747775&ht=0.746152999999995&wid=1.414132&on=CITIES&on=counties&on=indian&on=majroads&on=miscell&on=places&on=interstate&on=ushwy&on=water&tlevel=-&tvar=-&tmeth=i&mlat=&mlon=&msym=redpin&mlabel=&murl=&conf=mapnew.con&iwd=250&iht=200)
- King County 350x300 (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapper/map.gif?&lat=47.4322515&lon=-121.747775&ht=0.746152999999995&wid=1.414132&on=CITIES&on=counties&on=indian&on=majroads&on=miscell&on=places&on=interstate&on=ushwy&on=water&tlevel=-&tvar=-&tmeth=i&mlat=&mlon=&msym=redpin&mlabel=&murl=&conf=mapnew.con&iwd=350&iht=300)
- King County 450x400 (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapper/map.gif?&lat=47.4322515&lon=-121.747775&ht=0.746152999999995&wid=1.414132&on=CITIES&on=counties&on=indian&on=majroads&on=miscell&on=places&on=interstate&on=ushwy&on=water&tlevel=-&tvar=-&tmeth=i&mlat=&mlon=&msym=redpin&mlabel=&murl=&conf=mapnew.con&iwd=450&iht=400)
- King County 550x500 (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapper/map.gif?&lat=47.4322515&lon=-121.747775&ht=0.746152999999995&wid=1.414132&on=CITIES&on=counties&on=indian&on=majroads&on=miscell&on=places&on=interstate&on=ushwy&on=water&tlevel=-&tvar=-&tmeth=i&mlat=&mlon=&msym=redpin&mlabel=&murl=&conf=mapnew.con&iwd=550&iht=500)
- King County 750x600 (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapper/map.gif?&lat=47.4322515&lon=-121.747775&ht=0.746152999999995&wid=1.414132&on=CITIES&on=counties&on=indian&on=majroads&on=miscell&on=places&on=interstate&on=ushwy&on=water&tlevel=-&tvar=-&tmeth=i&mlat=&mlon=&msym=redpin&mlabel=&murl=&conf=mapnew.con&iwd=750&iht=600)
- What is the best way to get all of this uploaded? Would it be to write a bot, or to coordinate with a sysadmin on some sort of tarball solution?
- What's the best way to integrate? Ram-Man, I know you have been talking about another pass on the counties. Should I wait for the next round of scripts, and coordinate with you on making these part of it?
- Is there going to be any objection based on disk usage? All of Washington state at the current size is about 284k, which is using GIF, not PNG. With PNG, that should be smaller. Doing the math, since Washington is pretty average, I would imagine, we're talking about roughly 10Mb of images.
Check out Clallam County, Washington for an example of what these would look like in context. Note that I've done a few other counties, but this is the only one that (currently) has the image size that I'm planning to bulk generate. -- RobLa 9 Nov 2002
- Dito for me, except I am generating images of a different style for Maine. An example can be found at Cumberland County, Maine. It might be a little too large though. And I have images like with for every state in identical style with county outlines. Robert Lee
I really like the picture of the state with the county highlighted. Some of the counties in California are like that. They need to be a bit smaller. But of course there is no reason that we can't have both sets of pictures, but I find that it is most useful to know where in a state it is. As for integrating them in the articles, I can easily use the rambot to add them to existing articles if you don't already have a bot. I just finished a second pass of the counties where I updated the list of cities in the counties but it only updated a subset of counties which were not up to date. It is really up to you what you want to do. If you have your own bot, you can insert the pictures. It should be really simple to do. My main concern is that the pictures are not inserted haphazardly anywhere in the article. For what its worth, I downloaded and am planning on processing all the FIPS data on counties and cities, so I may be doing a pass sometime soon updating the county information, but I don't have that scheduled in. I am a bit busy from time to time :) -- Ram-Man
I also like the idea of having locator maps but I'm with Ram-Man in stating these images should be small (ala the California counties) and placed in the correct places. Since some people are doing great work on adding adjacent county and highway lists to the geography sections of county articles, I vote to have the locator maps placed in the vast white areas to the right of these lists. Before anybody does anything though, please check out m:Wikipediatlas. IMO those maps are the best in terms of look and utility. --mav
- Mav, I added a comment to that page at the Metapedia and provided a link that has some great pre-rendered maps. They've got not only county maps for every state, but also worls maps and country maps. The first map for "Africa" on that site is excellent for example. It is large, but the lines are anti-aliased and the individual countries in africa are outlined. Since the maps is plain, it can be easily colored with a "Flood Fill" command and unneeded border can be removed safely. All the maps are that site are available for public non-commercial use and distribution. See utexas.edu (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/map_sites/outline_sites). --Robert Lee
Unfortunately, I fear the non-commerical use clause doesn't have compatibility with the FDL. --Ellmist Monday, November 11th, 2002
I've been working around the edges, adding or editing a few place articles. As a result I've got one recommendation and some comments:
- The recommendation is that any new Township article should have a title based on Aaa Township, Bbb County, State. Sure, its sometimes creates unnecessary verbage, but going back later to disambiguate or move articles is such a pain.
- I tried a table of data, but decied against it. It cluttes up the article. I'd only change my mind if we build a general template to be used for all geographic and political subdivisions of a country. For now, thats way too many articles to go back to, and the research gets really tough for villages and townships.
- In the discussion about maps, I'd vote for the state outline version. Several universities (besides UT) have the same outlines, which to me implies a tiger or similar public domain source, I just haven't found it yet.
- Lou I 17:26 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Village pump by Wapcaplet 14:10 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
A Map for US cities and Counties
Dunno if anyone has suggested this before; when browsing random articles, I often come across some of the many U.S. cities and counties imported by Rambot. It would be quite cool, I think, to have a small state map that indicates whereabout these cities and counties are (a dot for cities, a highlighted outline for counties, sort of like we already have for U.S. state articles). Is there a public-domain or GPL source for maps like this? If not, I don't imagine it'd be too hard for a dedicated soul to create them (just time-consuming). -- Wapcaplet 23:32 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I did find a collection of public-domain U.S. maps (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states), including nice large county maps like this one of Ohio (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/states/ohio.gif). They would take quite a bit of editing to reduce to an appropriate format for what I'm thinking of, but could be quite nice! If anybody knows of another public source for similar maps, let me know. I'd be interested in working on these. -- Wapcaplet 23:37 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- There is always the U.S. Geological Survey which has data and a web application to generate maps of just about anywhere. They are more like street maps though. Never underestimate the numbers of dedicated souls out there, myself included. These things have a way of eventually getting done. -- Ram-Man 00:33 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I did look at that web site and they want us to add a citation saying that we got the maps from their web site. It is public domain, so doesn't that mean that the citation is not strictly required? I don't know enough about copyright issues, so maybe I am missing something. -- Ram-Man 00:39 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Since there are so many US cities and towns, I think the best idea would be if we could have an in-software method of converting longitude-latitude co-ordinates to a dot on a map. Possible implementations are popping into my mind as I type -- I don't think it would be that hard. -- Tim Starling 01:08 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Ideas please to m:Wikipediatlas with the others. --Brion 01:17 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Based on these maps (well, the one for New York), I quickly (ish - 20 minutes) did for the state of New York a set (62) of PNGs of the state with each county highlighted individually in red (as with the images of British counties such as at Warwickshire); should I bother uploading these? I know it's only one state, but I could do the others over the next few days if people want. They are available here (http://jdforrester.dnsalias.net/wikipedia/US%20state%20maps/NY/) (I haven't shrunk them yet, though). Alternatively, I could not bother :-) -- James F. 01:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I did California and Nevada some time ago, by all means do more if you like. It will likely be quite some while, if ever, before we have an automatic system for doing this. --Brion 01:42 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- If we collaborated, we could pretty quickly get through all of the states (as long as we can agree on consistent choices of color and size). Ideally, we'd have software to automatically render this stuff (and even more ideally, it'd be SVG), but maybe we should cobble something together in the meantime, at the very least for the U.S. counties. I am thinking that the state should have a black outline, with 50% or so grey lines for the county outlines. The counties should all be white, except the highlighted one which should be perhaps a nice blue color (Good contrast with both the white and the grey/black). Somewhere around 200-300 pixels wide would probably be good, with a clickable link to a larger version (especially for large states). Just my thoughts, at least. As for accreditation issues - I would have no problem crediting the US Census or UTexas or whoever as the original source, but we'll be doing lots of manipulation to these images so it's probably not necessary.
- As for source material for the maps, I've found three good possibilities:
- US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index), clickable county maps, good quality, but colored. Might be hard to trim out unnecessary stuff.
- UTexas (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states), particularly the US Census 1990 outline maps. Nice clean black and white version, but has extra garbage that would need to be removed.
- Texas A&M (http://monarch.tamu.edu/~maps2/), do-it-yourself county highlighted maps. Makes our work much easier, but I do not know if these images are public or GPL, and it may be hard to remove the county names.
- I'd personally prefer the black and white 1990 Census outline maps. Anyone who's interested in helping me work on these, leave a note on my talk page. Or, if James F. wants to do them all, I would have no problem with that either. Let me know if you want me to lend a hand, James. I can make my images conform to whatever you're comfortable with. -- Wapcaplet 02:54 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I'm happy to get on with it on my own if people think that this will be worthwhile. I did the examples with full red as that's what used elsewhere for similar positional micro-maps (counties of Britain amongst them). It's clear and visible. We could decide to use something else, if you want, but... Standards are standards, after all. I'd suggest making this part of the suitableWikiProject; move discussion there? -- James F. 03:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It looks like there are several different practices in use. I don't know if there are any "standards", necessarily.
- White with red highlight: Counties in England, ex. Herefordshire, Staffordshire.
- Yellow with brown highlight: List of California counties
- Dark grey with light grey highlight: Lander County, Nevada, Esmeralda County, Nevada, and the rest of Nevada
- White with dark red highlight: Cumberland County, Maine, as a sample
- Dark blue with light blue highlight: m:Wikipediatlas, as a sample
Of these, red on white seems to be the most common, however. Blue-on-blue looks nice but is kind of at odds with the custom of using blue for water in maps (not to mention it may be hard for some people to distinguish between shades of blue). I do think the state border should somehow be thicker, or darker, than the county borders (thicker would probably suffice, since the county borders would get pretty light at smaller sizes anyway). The only con I can see with using white for the rest of the state is that it may be hard to distinguish the state from the surrounding area at smaller sizes (especially on coastal states with small islands). This is probably not much of an issue, though, since we're just trying to show where the county is.
On balance, I'd have to agree that red on white is probably the way to go. Size is another important issue. Most states are likely to look okay at around 300 pixels wide, at most. Even [Texas (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/states/texas3.gif)] isn't too bad at this size. However, some counties are very small, and would practically vanish at this size. Storey County, Nevada is the smallest one I can think of, but there may be tinier ones. A big state with some small counties might have troubles at this resolution. We can just make all our maps large, say, 600 pixels to be safe, and use an automated tool to resize them all. If some get too small, we can make those a bit larger. 200 pixels might be enough; we'll see how it goes. Maybe we should try a couple at that size, to see how they turn out (and whether we need to make the state border thicker or whatnot). -- Wapcaplet 14:10 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Will get on with it, then :-) -- James F. 15:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well, 2 hours later, I've done another 3 states (coastline takes a while). Output is still at [1] (http://jdforrester.dnsalias.net/wikipedia/US%20state%20maps/). Still to do:
- 48 states (:-))
- decide to what size to shrink the images to
- run pngcrush on them
- upload files
- is there a batch image upload facility - there are going to be a few hundred of these for the east coast alone...?
- If anyone wants to help (please, feel free :-)) here are some points as to how I'm doing them (based on the PD images such as this one (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/states/alabama.gif)):
- Remove all text, symbols and markers on the image saying that it's from the 1990 census.
- Remove all markers of external states/countries, including their subdivisions.
- Remove lines that split counties from each other where there is already a split (such as two islands with a division line between them) - we're using colour to partition the counties, so such lines are not needed and detract from the image).
- Fill in coastline where it was previously obscured by text
- Downconvert the image to 1bit.
- Upconvert the image to >1bit and add pure red as a colour.
- For each county:
- Fill in the county in question with red (including unattached islands, etc.)
- Save each as an optimised PNG file.
- I'm currently doing the northern east coast (working around New England), so anywhere off to the south or west would be safe from work duplication.
- We should also work out how we want these put into the county pages, and how we mention that they reflect borders as of the 1990 census, and that they are for guide purposes only and people should not use them for anything important, such as navigation (is there a standard Wikipedia cartographic disclaimer, or should we make one up?).
- -- James F. 16:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Looking good! I will gladly pitch in. For now, I will start on California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and (gulp) Alaska. I've just looked at the outline map of Alaska (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/states/alaska.gif); many tiny counties with lots of coastline, which are quite hard to distinguish. I don't know how easy these will be to clean up, but I will give it a shot; Alaska is likely to be one of the hardest. -- Wapcaplet 17:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Have fun. Of course, 'tiny' is a relative comment; these 'small' counties are still rather large... Alaska is 1.5m km2, after all. -- James F. 18:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Very true :) But when the whole state is < 300 pixels wide, some counties might end up being sub-pixel... anyhow, Alaska went relatively well. I doubt I got all the smaller islands with any degree of accuracy, but it should be enough for our purposes. I don't have them online anywhere; I'll set something up once I get a few more done. -- Wapcaplet 19:37 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Feel free to email them to me if you want; then they'll all be in the same place at once.
- -- James F. 20:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'll email smaller-sized versions to you (since the RGB PNG files are around 60+K each). Also, I've adapted a small script (called shrink to resize them, if you would like to use something similar:
#!/bin/bash for file in $2; do convert -size $1 "$file" -resize $1 -colors 256 "small/$file" done
Usage:
./shrink [size] "[file(s)]" ./shrink 200 "*.png"
I'm an extreme newbie at shell scripting, so you may be able to do better if you have experience with it. Anyhow, I will e-mail you a chunk of them in a day or two. I've so far finished Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington (with Nevada soon to come). After that I'll start working my way eastward.
We should come up with a naming convention for these, too. Existing ones are like this:
Which may be a bit too long. I'm thinking something along the lines of California_San_Luis_Obispo_County.png or even CA_San_Luis_Obispo_County.png. What do you think?
-- Wapcaplet 23:11 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- The best example of a large state with a small county that I have encountered is San Francisco County. In the current version at 200 pixels wide, the county is visible, though it's a mere speck. I guess maybe choosing the size on a state-by-state basis might be the best idea (it'd look weird to have the same state at different sizes on different county articles). California might need 300 pixels, but for Rhode Island with its 5 counties, 300 pixels might be excessive. Of course we can wait and see what looks good. I've finished California! This goes pretty quick once you get going... -- Wapcaplet 20:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Image names are supposed to be long and descriptive, and if possible should make for acceptable alt text by themselves. --Brion 23:14 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I've so far done 11 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont) , totalling 326 counties; the names are of the format "Fairfield County, Connecticut.png", which is perhaps not really good enough in term of descriptivity.
- As for size, a one-size- (ahem) -fits-all policy would seem to me to be best, so that the format of county pages across all states would be the same. Consistency is a good thing.
- However, I'm now going to bed.
- -- James F. 23:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- OK, so I lied. Images now resized to both 200 and 300 pixels wide, and crushed: go here (http://jdforrester.dnsalias.net/wikipedia/US%20state%20maps) and follow the names.
- So: Which size should we go with? How will I upload them efficiently - one at a time will bore me to tears?
- -- James F. 00:01 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Good point Brion. We should probably stick with the existing California/Nevada naming format. I am not too opposed to a one-size-fits-all scheme, but I've just tried shrinking some of the Alaska ones; they are going to need at least 350 pixels (probably 400) of width in order to make some of the (relatively) smaller counties visible. Perhaps with some creative cropping, I can fix that... most of Alaska's width is accounted for by the Aleutian islands.
- How would you feel about using additional highlighting on the smaller counties? I'm thinking that a smallish red circle around the county would help make it easier to spot, especially if it's close to being a single pixel. Alaska's West Aleutians county consists of lots of small islands. Encircling these would make them much easier to distinguish at sub-400-pixel sizes. If we can do this, I think we can definitely keep all the states at 300 pixels wide.
- I have no idea if we can batch-upload these... surely there is a way. (Maybe Rambot can do it for us?) -- Wapcaplet 00:06 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- What about "Map of <state> highlighting <county> county" for the naming format?
- Additional highlighting is fine with me; with this, would 300px be OK? It seems most reasonable a compromise.
- I think dumping the uploading onto a bot sounds most suitable.
- And now, I really am going to bed. :-)
- -- James F. 00:21 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- 300 pixels will suffice. We'll make it suffice, one way or another :-) I agree with that naming format too. -- Wapcaplet 01:00 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
By James F.
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New York
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- Vermont
By Wapcaplet
- Alaska
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Idaho
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Utah
- Washington
- Wyoming
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Nebraska
- Oklahoma
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|