# File talk:Libyan Uprising.svg/Discussions of Map Features

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

## Two issues

• Might you consider removing the key on the left, so that it's easier to port this map into other lingual projects? We can simply give the key below on the page description.
• Can you list your source for the data on the page? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
1. It can be very easily translated. I've just translated it to Arabic in 5 min... But I could remove the legend.  Done
2.  Done

--Rafy (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

## Scaled city sizes

What was wrong with the scaled city sizes? I loved the addition - it gives a much better sense of proportion of which cities are important. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I will revert the revert. If there is a reason to not have the cities scaled like that, it should be discussed. --Interchange88 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the scaled-cities version with the information and color changes in the previous version. I believe this provides valuable additional information. -JasonAQuest (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

um, the colour changes weren't quite design genius. Now we have ugly 0f0 green and black dots imposed over red ones? please reconsider these choices. And what happened to Tripoli? It used to be yellow, "unclear situation". Has Gaddafi edited this map from his bunker or something? Last time I checked, there hasn't been some sort of decisive counter-offensive, Gaddafi is still holed up in his military complex, and the situation in the city is unclear or in the balance. Rafy, I think it is time there is actually some sort of discussion or decision process, based on references, before cities are switched to and fro. --212.117.96.146 07:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone here (possibly with discussion at another project) has made the choice that Tripoli is indeed under the control of Gaddafi forces. This is true; militarily they still control the city. It might change in the next few days, but at this point it's true.
As for the color change, it went to black to be more friendly for color-blindness.Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind the black, I mind the green. At least use the "Libyan green" from Gaddafi's flag. --212.117.96.146 09:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been wondering about that, I haven't been able to find the discussion of that, it seems live a drive-by edit. Tripoli is less definitively under Qadafi control than Misrata and al-Zawiya are under rebel control. Said cities have repelled repeated Qadafist attacks and are certainly under rebel control. Qadafi has repelled attacks on Tripoli, but the last news from the area indicated that parts were still out of his control. It's a big city, and since the situation *is* unclear, it ought to be marked as such. --175.201.133.250 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the BBC is calling it under Gaddafi control [1]. That's good enough for me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

## Air Attacks

I'm getting the impression that everytime Qaddafi bombs a rebel-held city, the situation is changed to yellow. This is misleading, as except in Benghazi where the rebels have anti-aircraft guns, he can bomb pretty much anything. With this in mind, Adjabiya should be black. While the rebels were worried about an attack, the people's leader of the glorious revolution first needs to take Brega. Haaretz says that fighting is ongoing. CNN says that the rebels have retaken Brega. --175.201.133.250 12:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

## City sizes

ok, we need to talk about the representation of city sizes. It's a nice feature, but we need to get it right, otherwise its value is below nil.

Obviously, the city size should be represented by the dot area (not dot diameter). Now, if Tripoli is 100%, at present Benghazi is 60%, Misrata is 25%, and Zliten is about 2%. Actual population relative to Tripoli's 1.06 million: Bengazi 63%, Misrata 51%, Zliten 10%. So, while Bengazi is shown more or less to scale, Misrata is shown too small by a factor of 2, and Zliten by a factor of 5. (I assume the "2% of Tripoli" dot size is the minimum; this would correspond to a town of population 20,000. I understand that smaller towns, such as Al Qatrun (pop. 3,800) are shown in this minimal dot size. But any town larger than pop. 20,000 should appear as a larger dot).

I suggest people collaborate in order to compile a list of these percentages so the map can be fixed.

If I am mistaken and dot sizes are supposed to represent something other than population size, whatever it is should be mentioned in the image description. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The population is supposed to be represented by area on the map. So the ratio between the diameters of cities should be double squared to obtain (Edited: ${\displaystyle (d_{x}/d_{t})^{2}=p_{x}/p_{t}}$ʀoyoтϵ 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)) the ratio between their sizes. This is very similar to the map shown here. -- Rafy (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC))
Correction: the map in world-gazeteer.com represents populati${\displaystyle d_{x}=d_{t}(p_{x}/p_{t})}$on size as circle diameters. I still think thank area is a better way to display relative population sizes since we look at the map from a 2d prospective. Any other thoughts on that? -- Rafy (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not going to want to represent the city size in diameter, rather in area. Thus we need to work in square roots for the diameter: a city half the size of Tripoli should have the square root of .5 of Tripoli's diameter. That's how I've done all the maps I've created, and it absolutely looks far better. An equation:
• ${\displaystyle d_{x}=d_{t}(p_{x}/p_{t})}$, where
• ${\displaystyle d_{x}}$ is the diameter of the new city's circle,
• ${\displaystyle d_{t}}$ is the diameter of Tripoli's circle,
• ${\displaystyle p_{x}}$ is the population of the new city, and
• ${\displaystyle p_{t}}$ is the population of Tripoli.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if we are taking area into consideration shouldn't it be ${\displaystyle d_{x}={\sqrt {d_{t}^{2}*(p_{x}/p_{t})}}}$. -- Rafy (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops yes. Better written as ${\displaystyle d_{x}=d_{t}*{\sqrt {(p_{x}/p_{t})}}}$Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about Az Zawiya: BBC News just posted:

“With Zawiya the focus of the conflict today, a few facts about it: the population is just under 300,000, making it Libya's fourth-largest city. It has one of the country's most important oil refineries.”

But on our map Zawiya doesn't seem to be the fourth-largest; Sabha and Tubruq look larger, and Bani Walid and others look at least as large...? —Nightstallion (?) 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not much for vector graphics editting. —Nightstallion (?) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Point me to the statistics, and I'll edit it. FYI, the relevant program is inkscape if you ever want to learn. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose this looks like a good source. Yeah, I have Inkscape installed, but I haven't got around to learning it yet... Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't see how the statistics on that website are correct. For example How come Khums is larger than Misrata? Just take a look at google maps where Misrata is at least 5 times bigger. The city scales used were taken from this website, which makes more sense in my opinion at least when comparing city sizes from satellite maps. Rafy (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

## Different city colors not NPOV

At the moment the cities on the map are shown in dark red, green and yellow for pro-Qad, anti-Qad and disputed respectively. However some could see this as red=rebbellion=bad & green=Qadaffi=good. We must prevent taking sides no matter how unimportant it may seem. Do we have any colour alternatives? (colour-blindness?) - AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

However some could see this as red=rebbellion=bad & green=Qadaffi=good. - Who? Green color for European green parties in election results, yellow for German FDP and red for socialists also doesn´t mean that green parties are better. --Dezidor (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
R/G colorblindness shouldn't be an issue, as the red is very dark and the green is light--IMO enough to be distinguished. Ansh666 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, you are reading too much into the colors. In the US, the Republican party is usually associated with red and the Democrats with blue, with no controversy. As a side observer, I can tell you most of the people on creating this page have been anti-Gaddafi, including the ones who chose the color scheme. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Beside, No one can deny green is Ghadafi's color. From book to flag.--Aréat (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Green is Gaddafi's colour, and the colour worn by his troops. So there can be little discussion on what colour to choose to represent Gaddafi's side. And since nobody is going to mistake them for the good guys, there is also no danger of the green being mistaken as making a statement of favouritism. As for the anti-Gaddafi side, their flag is red-black-green, so a dark red isn't the worst of possible choices. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

## Zones of Control

I believe that it would be smart to shade the areas under which areas are controled by each government. The spesh man (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's been tried before and the outcome was rather unsatisfactory--most of the regions in Libya are uninhabited except for small villages, so coloring in territory gives a false impression of the degree of government/opposition control (at least that's what I remember from that argument). In any case, most of this war, if you will, seems to be fought over the cities and not over territories, so shading wouldn't represent things as well anyways. Ansh666 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

## different colors for "ongoing fighting" and "situation unclear"?

After seeing Bani Walid yellow for a long time, I think it would be better to separate the two current yellow categories. That way we can better distinguish between fighting (e.g. Bin Jawad-Ras Lanuf-Brega, etc.) and places that remain neutral or where there just isn't enough information to judge. (see File_talk:Libyan_Uprising.svg#Bani_Walid for more on why I thought of this.) So maybe keep the yellow for fighting, and a light/neutral gray for unknown? Ansh666 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea, we should do this. 188.221.201.125 01:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

## crop the map?

The Guardian has a rather good map of the situation. Think about it. All activity reported in this map so far is more or less restricted to the coast. The southernmost point that has been in the news so far is Ghadames. So this map could easily be cropped to its top third. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're losing too much by having it show all of Libya, it helps put things into perspective. (Besides, their sourcing is pretty crappy, it seems. In the last few days, foreign MSM have started to buy into Libyan State Television claims, whyever that is...) —Nightstallion (?) 10:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
well, I question whether the perspective in question is really the proper one. It is misleading to show a map of a conflict where in fact two thirds of the area shown in the map aren't affected by the conflict at all (nor, it might be added, even inhabited by more than one person every ten square kilometers or so). It's not a big deal though, since thumbnail size as shown in the article is limited by image width, not height. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The BBC have also their own map of Libya which is somehow different from that of the Guardian. I would suggest depending on updates according to how mainstream media reports them.
As for cropping the map it could be useful to create another more detailed map of the conflict area as this one is imho more fitting for an infobox. A very zoomed and detailed map might not serve its purpose there. I would create one but I have a feeling it will all be over by the end of this week. Rafy (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
A crop more detailed map would be useful. A speedy resolution seems unlikely. --SJ+ 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rafy. There is no need to crop this map, but a smaller-scale one would certainly be useful. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

## Colours

• Bani Walid, Brega: should still be yellow, the situation is unclear.
• Sirt: should be yellow, there are reports of the rebel flag having been seen at numerous places and of important defections.
• Benghazi: should _not_ be yellow as suggested above, fighting is still between Ajdabiya and Brega.

Nightstallion (?) 08:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm very unsure about the situation of Bani Walid. On one hand there has been rumors that it joined the revolution early on, but on the other hand no reliable source ever mentioned that which should be strange given that it's one of the major cities in western libya.
• The only source of unrest in Sirt and Tripoli is 17feb.com which is -as its name suggests- a propoganda outlet for the revolutionaries.
• Benghazi should be brown as no major operation has taken place there yet. Brega is reported by Reuters and Al Jazeera to be under Gaddafi's control. Rafy (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
RT mentions reports of riots in Sirte; however, this is the only non-rebel source I can find stating this, and it is of shaky reliability... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Problem is that the source do not specify what vague term "riot" means in this case. Some local violent street protests without larger political ambition or attempt to take control over the city? --Dezidor (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

## Not colorblind-friendly...

The colors for "Cities controlled by pro-Gaddafi forces" and "Ongoing fighting/unclear situation" look very similar to me (I have protanopia). 93.182.187.144 18:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you possibly suggest three colors then that will be friendly for you? Keep in mind, there are multiple variants of these images and they are used across many projects, so it would be preferable if you could advocate for only a single color change, not more than one. I would recommend a change in the "unclear" position. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We must put yellow into (dirt) white, because schrafured cant be supported in desciption. --Mile (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So i suggest color Biege:#F5F5DC...anyone with better idea ?! If no i will put new map. --Mile (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

<-- #F5F5DC looks too light to me. even lighter than the current background of the map. Rafy (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Color should not be too dark, otherwise no benefit for color blind people, there are some more dirty white options, but should not be too dark. Give options...then we insert, because its not fair to those people, i just got that in my mind 2 days ago for this map. And here we are.--Mile (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is list of colors link. --Mile (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that something lighter for the cities controlled by Gaddafi would definitely be a good thing (white would be fine for me, but I don't know about other types of colorblindness). 93.182.185.138 10:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its best just to have very different contrasts, so ligth green, dark red, and dirt white is good. Do we agree here, we should make some move with colors. But yes, we cant make benefit for all, for majority probably. --Mile (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer a light green for pro-Gaddafi, dark red for rebels and a navy blue for disputed. This way, even someone with a monochromatic vision could distinghish it, since pro-Gaddafi is bright, rebels are dark, and disputed is middle. For people with trouble to distinguish red and green, pro-Gaddafi being very bright and rebels being very dark is good and the disputed is the very different blue. For those with trouble between blue and green, pro-Gaddafi would be much brighter than disputed cities, while the rebels would be red. 200.221.128.129 01:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that this colors should do: Loyalist: , Disputed: , Rebels: . 200.221.128.129 01:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
These look perfect to me. I have no problem distinguishing them. 93.182.149.19 10:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI that would be difficult because this page is transcluded on many different language Wikipedias. On some of those transclusions, it explains in the native tongue "green means X, red means Y, yellow means Z". Unless we have a polyglot that can change the text on all of those languages, then we would leave the text outdated and confusing to readers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone will catch on and change things, I'm sure... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

May i ask, is upper combo really OK ? Ligth blue and ligth green seems equally when i desaturate them to BW. Would be biege better to distinguish among them? --Mile (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd. For me the green is much lighter than the blue, but I have normal vision, so this does not counts too much. But, if you insist, maybe a even lighter green, like is better? More lighter than this, it will start to be more white than green. I really dislike the idea of the beige for the disputed because it is a color very similar to the background and I am not sure that it will be much better. The majority of dichromats have difficulty with reds, oranges, yellows and greens, which looks like shades of yellow to them. The majority of anomalous trichomats sees green as yellow or red as orange or yellow, so changing the yellow to blue makes it much more color-blind friendly than yellow to beige, which would look just as another shade of yellow to the majority of dichromats. People with problems in the blue are much rarer than those with green and red, and the blue would still be a different gray for them. 200.221.128.129 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
So if it's agreed upon I will change them to blow. Rafy (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean blue? Also, I would appreciate if you could go through as many of the interwikis as possible and change the color scheme, where it's easy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops typo... I'm still not very convinced withe the new colours. Blue gives an impression of peace and tranquillity, which is very unfitting here. I kept the yellow on other versions, people should change them when they see it fit. Rafy (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, it's all very well to keep in mind color blindness if it can be addressed without too much bother. But if being "color blind compliant" means ruining the image for people with normal vision, I'd rather have an image optimized for people with normal vision. Let's face it, color blindness is a disability, and there are going to be so many images on the internet which you will not be able to appreciate to the fullness of their potential if you are color blind. Just like if you are blind, you aren't going to be able to appreciate this map at all. It's a nice gesture to keep in mind the color blind when choosing colors, but at some point, image complexity will simply make this awkward, and image is going to suffer from your efforts at being disability-friendly. If people don't like the color scheme, it's a svg, you can just upload an alternative version with the colours tweaked whatever you like best. --Dbachmann (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As someone who is colorblind, I would just like to say thank you for changing the colors. The blue is a huge improvement. Bluepjs23 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

## Missing cities

Why is Tajura not included? 129.170.242.254 16:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tajura article says it's just a neighborhood within Tripoli. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not - it's 'a city in the Tripoli district' (which is more than just Tripoli). 82.22.8.106 17:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it really blends into Tripoli as a city: [2] (the green arrow is Tajura). As you can see, there's no separation between Tripoli and Tajura. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The city of Sirte needs addition, since it is Gadaffi's hometown. Rebels about to attack Sirte, too, according to ABC news. (I don't watch ABC, anyways :p)

## City circles and colors

The giant Misurata, Benghazi and Tripoli circles hides features on the map (including minor neighbour towns). Other towns looks like minuscle dots that are barely visible without enlarging the image. May be someone should choose another way to represent that. I could sugest small circles for the smallest towns a bit larger of the current ones, a small square for a bit larger towns, a ring for some larger, a double circle for the largest excepting these three and a star for Misurata, Benghazi and Tripoli. 200.221.128.129 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I like it as is. The smaller towns just aren't as important, and we have the labels to identify them anyway. I think it's as readable as it could be. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

## The big circles

Why not change the circles for a progresive circles' size by rate? For example a small circle for a towns: - 10,000 population. A bigger circle for cities between 10,000-20,000. For Trípoli a big square, and for Misurata and Bengasi a slightly smaller square, but big. The location, for example of Az Zawiya respect Tripoli is confused, the same for Al Abyar respect Benghazi. Thor8 (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

## Giant Summary Block on File Page- Hide/Show?

On the file page the summary block bearing the key and map in various languages I feel may be too large to navigate the file page comfortably. I am aware that MediaWiki has some provision to show and hide things, and I feel it should somehow be hidden by default with a [show] button. Basically a spoiler. While some see it as "just a filepage", others may hit up the page to observe shifts in control over time, or to view older versions for some other reason. 108.17.89.205 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

## An "Under Siege" or "One Side Holds, Other Side is Attacking" Color Scheme

Ziwara and Misrata both had sieges lasting several days/weeks, and Sirt may soon be in that position as well.

What do we think about adopting the color scheme that I did for my blog, for sieges? note misrata. the city center is depicted as in rebel hands, whereas gaddafi's guys are depicted as surrounding them.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1832211/libya%20march%2027.png

(for those curious, here's the blog: http://ctmason.wordpress.com/ ) 76.245.46.147 07:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a map that, for example, would have Sirt as green and Misurata as red, but with a blue outline. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
To wit: I would not be in favor of a red line. It just changes too much, and there are multiple fronts. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto to Magog. And we can probly still keep blue when necessary (like Sirte in the morning was). Good idea! 140.247.144.74 12:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I (starter of this subject) agree, the red line would not be appropriate for this image. I was referring to the line circle covering a filled circle to indicate one side is attacking or laying siege to the a city who's center is controlled by the other - something that has become a well-documented and common theme in this conflict.

That being said, I'm not a fan of the blue color, and am of the opinion that the outer circle should be the color of the side laying siege. 76.245.46.147 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

None of us are huge fans of the blue, but it's color-blind friendly, and no one has raised a big enough stink about it otherwise. I might consider removing the see background though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. What do you think about altering the key to specifically state that the blue outline circle represents either forces massing for an attack or a state of siege or a state of ongoing attack? Not sure of the most correct term that be used without opening a can of worms, but the blue outline (i think?) has a different meaning from the solid blue circle.76.245.46.147 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Sirt is under seige yet. Also the outer circles are a nice touch but are difficult to apply on smaller cities (like Zintan). I have created a new detailed map that should help showing the fighting in small villages between Ajdabia and Sirt. The problem is now that I can't use it since the article is prottected :s. --Rafy (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Liked your map, very detailed and informative. Can you create another or extend this to see the parts around Tripoli, or maybe even the complete Libya territory (no matter if it would become a reasonably large image)? 200.221.128.129 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is another similar map spanning from Misrata to the Tunisian borders. In principle there are two separate fronts but I could join the two maps easily. I will also try adding Cyrenaica and Ghadamis regions in order to create a complete map but that might take some time. --Rafy (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

## Show Attacks, troop movements

I don't think the new outlines around the cities are working - the blue next to blue (the sea) is hard to see, the blue and dark red are difficult on the eyes, and the outlines are hard to see on the small map. Instead, I propose that we show arrows in the color of moving troops (so dark red arrows heading towards Sirte), and little explosion symbols for attacks - blue for ongoing, then changed to the color for the winner of the battle. 141.217.183.94 16:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

the circles are supposed to indicate a state of siege to be in place. see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Libyan_Uprising.svg#An_.22Under_Siege.22_or_.22One_Side_Holds.2C_Other_Side_is_Attacking.22_Color_Scheme

76.245.46.147 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No need for a duplicate section; I've responded above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue at blue is bad choice, agree. --Mile (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the troop movements etc. so far was along the Gulf of Sidra. This map's scale is too small to show this (it is going to be thumbnailed, remember). The place to keep track of such detail would be File:Gulf of Sirt Front.svg. --Dbachmann (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.