File talk:History of NATO enlargement.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Finland and Sweden are part of the NATO? Did I miss something? 93.237.122.34 06:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finland Color[edit]

@Patrickneil: The dark orange color looks much better, thanks. Ecrusized (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super, all good! The pale yellow came from way-to-early SVGs that were uploaded last year. And for the record, the font used for the years is just Arial.
Now to the next dilemma. Assuming Sweden does join in 2023 (Turkey is allegedly waiting till after their May elections, and Hungary is waiting till after Turkey), would this map need different colors for Finland and Sweden? And would it need to say "April 2023" and then "July 2023" (or 4 April 2023 and whichever date Sweden's accession eventually happens)? The years are currently objects, not text in the SVG, so assuming the month is done the same way, whatever language the months would be in would break the internationalization of this file, which is used on 69 different Wikis at the moment, and if we do the month for 2023, would it need to be added to the other years? I vote no, that it would be fine for Finland and Sweden to be the same color, but I do want to open the discussion! -- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I also think it would be fine to use the same color for Sweden. Ecrusized (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with them being the same color - which incidentally makes sense as they applied simultaneously and did most of the process together. Ortherwise, if we go with two different colors, may I suggest going for 04-2023 instead of April 2023, to avoid internationalization issues? Having just month and year wouldn't cause issues related to DDMMYYYY vs MMDDYYYY, or we can still go with the ISO-recommended 2023-04 otherwise. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Map shall be adjusted in two subjects: 1. West Berlin wasn't part of NATO or FRG before 1990 so should be marked with marked with color for former GDR expansion; 2. Saar Protectorate was disestablished in 1957 in have become part of FRG, Saar was neither part of NATO or FRG before so it was another expansion of alliance not included in map. 193.25.7.132 10:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Color scheme change with Sweden incoming[edit]

With the inclusion of Sweden into NATO (likely soon), the color scheme should be slightly adjusted. As it currently stands, 2009 and 2017 have more red than 2020... it somewhat breaks the color scheme of 1949 to 2004. I have two different ideas as to what I would do. I'd honestly prefer the first (4 blues + 4 greens + 4 yellows (+ 4 oranges)) over the second (4 blues + 3 greens + 3 yellows + 2 (and counting) oranges) since each color has 4 gradients, as opposed to 3.

First Idea:

 
1949
 
1952
 
1955
 
1982
 
1990
 
1999
 
2004
 
2009
 
2017
 
2020
 
2023
 
2024
 
 ????
 
 ????
 
 ????
 
 ????

Second Idea

 
1949
 
1952
 
1955
 
1982
 
1990
 
1999
 
2004
 
2009
 
2017
 
2020
 
2023
 
2024
 
 ????
 
 ????
 
 ????
 
 ????

Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 02:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would vote for the second option. I tried the first, and 2017's #4c4200 (Montenegro) is unintelligible from 1949's #00112b. What I do like is grouping the colors into their historic periods. A bit of backstory is that the colors originally were the same/very close to the PNG file this SVG was made to replace, so that we didn't have to change the legend or table that went along with the PNG. Tables on English and German pages would need to be updated if any colors do change, I just note. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prepared what that color scheme looks like, and I took the time today to make an animated version too, if anyone wants to share their opinion: https://imgur.com/a/TvPhqgQ -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the color scheme please.[edit]

Do I've to explain myself why? KarlTovseth (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? I used the second color scheme that Spesh531 proposed above, since I didn't see any alternative proposals. Do you have a better suggestion? -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as the Sweden looks less "cucumber" like? Perhaps different shades of blue and non nato countries are gray. KarlTovseth (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve shades of blue? How would that work? -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion.
Here's an wikipedia article on different shades of blue:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_blue KarlTovseth (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing lakes and bodies of water[edit]

@Patrickneil: I don't like your new designed map that you insist on pushing. I see no reason that bodies of water should be removed from the map. Also BRD tells you that you need to discuss after being reverted. NOT revert back and order others to discuss on it. Ecrusized (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, you're correct, I was writing my reply here when I saw you'd started a topic, it's been a busy morning on NATO wiki. Here is two version of the map I've been working on that includes those bodies of water, both with and without outlines. I don't think they are necessary on this sort of map, and think they add clutter. This is a political map, it's a summary of the situation and the countries are, in a sense, stand-ins for their name. That said, if Van Gölü and Lough Neagh make a difference to other editors, I can upload that versions with them. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think they are not necessary? It was much better before you removed it. Please restore the old format, or just upload a new file instead of overwriting a years old file.
I also think that the color of Finland strongly resemble s***, the second color pattern is better imo. Ecrusized (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll state that I agree with Ecrusized that keeping the old format is best. Patrick, your version is both smaller in resolution and a bigger file than the old format. Abzeronow (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I think they clutter a map that is primarily political, not geographic. With full recognition of COMMONS:OWN, I did create this file sixteen years ago, and for a decade, was the only one keeping it up to date, it's a bit strange to ask me to fork this file because another editor got attached to a certain version of it. The SVG code has been invalid for several years, and it needed a rebuild. And "Smaller in resolution" doesn't make sense, since this is an SVG, and 140kb is a negligible difference in filesize. I offered a compromise. Did you have an opinion on it? And if you dislike certain colors, then propose a color scheme the way Spesh531 did above. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current scheme? If other countries join NATO in the future new colors can be discussed then. And if you did upload this map, it's clear that other users have made improvements on it by adding geographical features and we would like to keep them. Ecrusized (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't mind you changing colors as long as they don't contrast with the background - or the brown color which looks like poop. The color for Sweden now uses the 2024 from the second pattern above and Finland is left as it was. Ecrusized (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brown is a color. I clearly don't have the same associations. Maybe purple would be better, I went with the proposal I saw that had no opposition. I've uploaded a version with the lakes copied from the invalid SVG and with the colors you were using. I am concerned the two oranges are too close and may be indistinguishable to colorbind readers. Also there is no background, it's transparent and dependent on whether your app/browser uses light or dark mode, so I don't understand how "contrast with the background" would work. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I mean like when there was an old revision with Finland in light yellow and it was hard to distinguish from the white background. Ecrusized (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My two biggest issues with the current color scheme is that the 2020 yellow color is actually closer in color to the 1990/1999/2004, while 2009/2017 orange-yellow is closer in color to 2023/2024. The impression I've had since 2020 is that it appears that North Macedonia joined before Montenegro (and less so Croatia & Albania)... I just never bothered to comment about it or do anything about it then. Also, regarding the current colors for Sweden/Finland, they're definitely too close. I'm not even colorblind, and looking at the map from the w:NATO article, they're barely distinguishable. And regarding colorblind... I played around with several color schemes for a few hours on my own before I posed my above proposed color schemes and there's simply too many colors that need to be used with the current color scheme idea of using 3 or 4 shades of the same color. There's currently 12 needed. You can probably get away with being able to get away with using 4 shades of 3 colors (as I had in my first idea. It's not perfect, and it might be useful to make the yellow more brown/orange, but I was trying to account for protanopia, deuteranopia, and tritanopia.) You'll never be able to use more than 3 colors without patterns for this map's color scheme to be colorblind friendly. And I agree with Ecrusized, the borders are off on your version Patrickneil, especially Montenegro, but I agree with you that brown isn't a big deal. It's just a color, just a dark orange. I'm not sure if the SVG development templates are accurate on these files, but File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg and File:Blank map of Europe (without disputed regions).svg may be good files to go off of, as they claim to be valid SVGs. I'd to it myself right now if I wasn't on a work break, was home, and could upload a version myself without waiting for permission. Obviously I'm biased here, but I don't see anything wrong with my color schemes. (Also, the color of the 1999 box in the current map is slightly off from Poland, Czechia, and Hungary). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 14:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spesh531: I have lightened Sweden's color a little bit as another user made the request below. I don't mind a completely new color scheme, although I find dark brown to be unappealing. Ecrusized (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden colour scheme[edit]

Sweden's colour scheme is virtually identical to Finland's. I can hardly tell a difference. While they both joined relatively close in time, colours should still be distinct enought for a reader to notice. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spesh531, Ecrusized, and Ergo Sum: I have another compromise I'd like to suggest. It's all pretty similar to what's been in use through this SVG's history, just that the colors are a consistent space from each other:                                                 . It starts with the color of the NATO flag, #004990, which I suggest using for 1952, and moves by consistent degrees around the color and brightness wheel. 50% darker for 1949, 25% lighter for 1955, and 50% lighter for 1982. Then going 75° around the color wheel to the equivalent shade of green to the NATO blue for 1999, #009023, 50% darker for 1990, 25% lighter for 2004, and 50% lighter for 2009. Then for the yellows, another 75° and 25% lighter to #eae700 for 2017 and 50% lighter for 2020. For Finland and Sweden, I suggest going 180° from NATO blue around the color wheel to orange, and 25% lighter to #ea7200 for 2023 and 50% lighter for 2024.
I have, however, reading up on best practices, and the folks at ArcGIS have a lot of thoughts about what makes for good colors on a map. Twelve colors makes it hard to stay within the sort of eye-friendly color ramp they suggest, but six blues and six greens might be doable. Here are those shades, again building around the NATO blue:                                                 . Here is how it looks on the map. I really like that. I understand folks can get attached to the way a thing looks. I'll say that when I went with those four blues for 1949-1990, which haven't been changed since I started this file in 2008 when there were only 5 rounds of enlargement, blue to green was the clear choice. Perhaps we should have been expanding on that range, instead of adding yellow and orange. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 19:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of having less colors but I think pre-Cold War and post-Cold War expansions should use separate colors. And perhaps a third color for Finland and Sweden and other countries that will join following the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Black to Blue for pre-Cold War sounds fine, although we could also do Black, Violet, Indigo for that. Green for post-Cold War, pre-Russo-Ukrainian War (or Blue if pre-Cold War is shifted). Yellow or Orange for post-Russo-Ukrainian War sounds right (or Green if other colors are shifted). Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of the distinction many maps make of pre/post-fall of the USSR. Or in this case, pre/post Cold War, which is essentially the same idea. The point is to show how NATO has expanded over the years. Anyone who is reading an article about NATO will quickly come upon its relations with the USSR/Russia. The point of the map is to show how NATO grew over the years. So, I think it is important to have each expansion be its own color, rather than group it according to the Cold War. That being said, I agree that shades of a fewer number of colors is preferable to many different colors. Ergo Sum 00:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the notion of a pleasing color ramp but I don't really care for the 2004 and 2009 colors. They're too hard to tell apart on the map and also blend in too much with the borders between countries. They also just seem a bit too iridescent and are rather harsh on the eyes. Perhaps a different shade of light green? Ergo Sum 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the blue to green color ramp idea! (Also, that Montenegro-Serbia border is still hurting me lol)... I put the map into different colorblind filters, and I think the green should be more of a yellow color. Also, it may be a good idea to have it so 2004 is the dark green and 2024 is the light green. At a glance, it gives the impression that Scandinavia joined before the Balkan states (or maybe that's just me). Also, the idea of using a black/gray color scale that doesn't conflict with the light gray non-NATO countries is a good idea as a third color.Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 03:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I love that you shared the Esri Color Ramps site, Patrickneil. I think it's possible to take the Esri Green and Blue 2 and add the current 1949 & 1952 colors to make 12 colors. I modified the Esri dark blue slightly, so the color scale would look like this:                                                  Here's what the map would look like.
It may be necessary to use only one of the lightest green or blue (preferably the blue, as the green is closer to white), and tack on a darker green to the right of the scale.      Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 03:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That color sceme would be better, especially considering the current colors for Sweden and Finland are too similar and breaks the patter. 2606:8700:9:5:2DA6:2B5D:74CA:CAFC 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Esri Green and Blue 2 works for me, either with or without the lightest green. Maybe without if that's Ergo Sum's preference. My only comment is that it does seem a bit of a waste to not use the NATO flag color      at all, surly that could slip in to your color ramp for 1955 in place of     ? So I'm happy to make that SVG if you haven't already Spesh531, using the lakes/borders version folks seem to prefer, I just worry that I'll again get reverted by editors with that "no, too different, don't like" gut reaction, so do we have some consensus here for that yet?-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 17:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the SVG ready to go! Currently on break and not home so I cannot do it now, but I'll gladly change the 1955 to the NATO flag color. I'm using File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg as the foundational map file (with Donetsk, Luhansk, and Republic of Artsakh removed, as they no longer exist). The more I've looked at the map I made, I'm more tempted to remove the light green in favor of the dark green (go figure it's Croatia and Albania who end up with that very light green color) but let's see how everyone else is feeling. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a message in the talk page of en:NATO notifying them of this discussion. Other Wikipedias probably should be notified about this discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new color sceme proposed by Spesh531 is better visually. Maybe also add the 1957 unification of the Saar to West Germany and some more shades of light and dark green and blue to reserve for future expansion. 72.128.66.229 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, wouldn't Saar be highlighted in 1949? It was a French protectorate until 1957, after West Germany had already joined NATO. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 03:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Animated GIF
It was a French protectorate, but was more an equal of the other occupied zones as I understand it, so if you were going to color Saar with the 1949 blue, then I'd say the rest of West Germany would be too, which kind of defeats the purpose of this map. For what it is worth, I did note both the Saarland joining the FRG and independence for Cyprus and Malta with a few frames in between 1955 and 1982 in the animated version of this SVG. When we do have a consensus on colors and style here, I promise I'll go through the process to update the GIF as well, it just takes enough effort that I only want to do it once. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm getting into the nitty-gritty here, but there's also the unambiguous Free Territory of Trieste, in which Zone-A would eventually join Italy (and therefore NATO) in 1954... which would mean we would need colors for both 1954 & 1957, for Trieste and Saarland. There's also the fact that West Berlin wasn't technically part of West Germany. In fact, West Berlin wasn't part of the EEC until it and East Germany merged into West Germany, so it's fair to say that West Berlin wasn't a member of NATO either. Also, perhaps the borders of Saarland and East Germany that border West Germany shouldn't be solid on the SVG file. And if we really want to get technical, there's the small territories that the BeNeLux countries temporarily annexed (and returned after West Germany was admitted to NATO, so no extra colors here). Namely, Selfkant which borders Limburg, would be the only thing visible on the map. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext) 18:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that before about West Berlin, though I have a hard time believing that if Soviet tanks rolled across Checkpoint Charlie in 1961 you would have anyone quibbling that the area wasn't technically in NATO. I just think if we remove West Berlin altogether from this map, we'll hear it in the comments that it needs to return.
Also you have to zoooooom in, but I did indeed get Trieste separate on the GIF, it turns 1949 blue later than the rest of Italy. But I think that this SVG shouldn't strive to be a chronological map of NATO's various border changes, it's just a summary of when countries joined NATO. Again, I feel the country outlines here are just more visual stand-ins for their names, and typically just illustrating that east-ward progress that is usually discussed in text along with this map. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would like to retract my statement on showing the Saarland separately. I still think we should make room in the color scale in case new countries join in the future or split off from others. 72.128.66.229 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saarland[edit]

When did the Saarland joined the NATO? This File looks like the Saarland wasn't Part of the NATO after West Germany joined the NATO. 93.237.123.189 06:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany was created out of the Allied occupied zones in 1949 and joined NATO in 1955, but the French had made Saarland a separate protectorate from their occupied zone. It joined West Germany, and therefore NATO, in 1957, after a referendum the previous year. Now the legality of keeping Saarland separate from the occupied zone was always a bit fuzzy and the Soviet Union, a party to the various treaties ending the war, never recognized it. I think some in France hoped to turn it into an independent buffer micro-state.
But in regard to these maps, I don't think we need to show Saarland on the static map here the way East Germany is, but the animated map does try to show European borders changing over time, so I think it works there. This was previously discussed on the English Wiki. You can also notice that Cyprus and Malta "leave" NATO on the same frame, as they achieved their full independence from the UK, a NATO member, in 1960 and 1964 respectively. I would rather these changes animate one after the other, but the Wikimedia limit on GIF files meant I had to reduce the overall frames to keep the resolution. Hope that explains it! -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number font[edit]

I fixed a number of lingering imperfections with the numbers and color boxes in the legend a week ago. The numbers didn't actually line up, nor did the boxes, which were both spaced slightly differently and not all the same size. In doing this, I went back to the text tool, and ended up choosing a different font, Cascadia, for the years, rather than Arial. To me, Cascadia looks better with the strong bolding that I think is necessary to keep the text legible as a thumbnail, plus it is open source, while Arial has always been a proprietary font. An anonymous IP user asked me to open a discussion about that here. I did create up two options I could upload, one to reduce the tails on the numbers 4 and 7, and one to slash the number 7, which is more a European style. Since I do intend to update the animated version of this map this week with the color revisions, I would love to know if there's any comments, so I only need to do that work once. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 14:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No body has responded, so I guess your current version won out. Congratulations! 2606:8700:9:5:F505:9EC9:18B4:C7F 15:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GIF file now updated. -- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 17:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg&oldid=867255138"