User talk:Alphathon

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

The 5 to 9% coloring is not sufficiently distinct from the less than 5% coloring. AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for pointing it out. I was working on it anyway so I have changed them both (and made them more distinct than the 10-19%). Alphathon™ (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 49c45f470dc48d2e641b8ba9c3fd5e1c[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Knowledge of German EU map.svg[edit]

Hey! Thank you for your contribution to this map. Since you're good with SVG-graphics I kindly ask you to correct some mistakes. First, Lithuania and Latvia have both much higher percentages of German speakers, than indicated by the map. Second, the source doesn't provide any data for Bosnia-Herzegovina or Switzerland so these should be deleted. The Swiss data is also wrong because most people are not able to communicate in German in the French speaking and Italian speaking parts.

Kind regards

Aaker (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thank you for the fast reply. The data for all the Knowledge of X EU maps come from this Eurobarometer survey [1]. If I remember the Swiss source correctly it actually indicates percentages lower than 50% in the French and and Italian speaking parts. Anyway, mixing of different kinds of surveys produces a garbled image of reality. Aaker (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−

Hello, Alphathon!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PS2_versions_(reversed).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Evan-Amos (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I wrote to you asking. You own SVG graphics, and I like the SVG flag map. But the problem is that I do not know SVG graphics. That's why I asked you, could you create SVG flag map of Northern Ireland and the Crimean? Дмитрий-5-Аверин (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alphathon, I just used your Europe map with the 1914 borders to create this here. There are some doughts coming up that the border of Romania are correct. It shows Bessarabia included, which is according to this map 1914 not the case. --Pechristener (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for quick fix!--Pechristener (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First French Empire[edit]

Thank you for your work on [File:First_French_Empire_1812.svg]! One thing: it seems to be missing the Septinsular Republic (Corfu etc.). I wonder if you could add that at some point? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's right, a satellite state. Thanks! --Macrakis (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For the same map of the French Empire in 1812, The San Marino Republic is missing (not a part of the Kingdom of Italy). An other 'state' can be add: the principauty of Erfurt, in the mid-Germany, which was a personnal state for Napoléon, not into the Confederation of the Rhine (so a border line should be drawn). This principauty was not a part of the French Empire (not in dark purple color), unlike what many maps propose in historical atlases. In the same order, the principauty of Andorre was effectivly part of the French empire in 1812, as you represent it (some maps on WikiCommon are false about it, like, which also localises the principauty of Erfurt ). Thanks!--Jipécé34 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Again for the same map – what is the intended legend? The map is currently in use over at First French Empire, and a few different legends have been suggested there. A definitive answer as to the most correct legend possible (as well as adding it to the file documentation for future reference) would be greatly appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map was created as a vector replacement for First French Empire (1804-1815).png. At the time that file was labelled (on Wikipedia) as
  French Empire
  Satellite states
I am by no means an expert on the subject and I created it quite a while (just over 5 years) ago, but my understanding is that the dark blue is the French Empire proper (i.e. what was considered to be legally part of France) while the light blue is all other client/satellite states. For example, the Kingdom of Italy was ruled in a personal union with France (under Napoleon), while Spain and Naples (and officially Sicily although it was British-occupied I believe) were client states ruled by Napoleon's brother Joseph, and the Duchy of Warsaw and the states of the Confederation of the Rhine were satellite states. My understanding of the terms involved leads me to suggest that client state might be the best term to use as it is a sort of umbrella term which covers various types of relationship, although whether this would cover Italy I don't know. Perhaps it would be preferable to have more than two colours, but as I said I'm no expert. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks anyway! TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Hello! I wanted to ask you for help. Can you please make map like this for this state? I want to replace all different maps with default blank ones like this, but i dont know how to make it... :( Thanks in advance! --WhiteWriter speaks 15:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, definitively 1943. :) Thanks, i am so untalented for this maps... I can crop one, at least! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map request[edit]

Please let me know if you would be interested in creating a new .svg locator map for the Wales infobox? Something similar to other European country article maps: e.g. Latvia, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine, which have an oval world map, then Europe zoomed in with the relevant country highlighted. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alphathon, have you had any further thoughts on this? Daicaregos (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alphathon. You have new messages at [[User talk:Daicaregos (talk)|Daicaregos (talk)'s talk page]].
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  বাংলা  català  čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  español  suomi  français  galego  हिन्दी  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  ქართული  македонски  മലയാളം  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tagalog  Türkçe  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]


Gooday Alphathon, just writing to ask if you could possibly create a blank svg locator map of this, but redrawn in your own map style please, many thanks. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I'm not sure what the timescale would be though. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks. Perfectly happy to wait, no rush. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, if you haven't already started, could you perhaps redraw the blank map based on this one instead? As it has more accurate borders for the time period. Many thanks. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the map but seem to be having some problems uploading it. With any luck I should have it up later today. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I finally got it working: File:Europe 1942.svg Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, many thanks! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Cartographer's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your contributions to wikimedia commons in svg map design. Well done! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to let you know that it exists...--Antemister (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? My German isn't good enough to follow it on anything but the most basic and vague level. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 06:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congress of Vienna[edit]

Hi Alphathon, just writing to ask if you could possibly create a blank svg map of this, (in your usual style) please?. And if so, could you make sure to include the boundary of the German Confederation as shown, many thanks. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that I've made the map but I want to double check some things before uploading it. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blank map of Europe 1815.svg. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks!

One more thing, don't suppose you could possibly upload a separate file showing the borders of Congress Poland, please. Many thanks! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was technically an independent state I have added it to the main file with a dashed border similar to how Kosovo and Northern Cyprus are displayed on the modern map. For other maps it can either be simply deleted or left in, depending on the purpose of the map. I've also uploaded a file of it highlighted in green with the Russian Empire in light green. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, many thanks! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Cartographer's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your contributions to wikimedia commons, and to others in svg map design. Great work! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Flemish region Map[edit]

Hi Alphathon,

you made for Wales (also England, N-Ireland and Scotland) a map.

Is it possible for you to do the same with Flanders? A simular map with the green and grey color?

So a map of Flanders in Europe using the same style.

There is only this old version

many thanks Klodde (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be too difficult, so I don't see why not. I assume you mean Flanders in dark green with the French/Walloon region (I can't remember what it's called) and Brussels in light green. Would you want a "zoomed in" map of Belgium like that of the British Isles on the Scotland/England/N. Ireland/Wales maps or just leave it showing it within Europe? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I read your text I realised that in fact there shoud be 3 different maps. It's too difficult to explain, so I made 3 examples.
  • shows "Vlaams Gewest" (Flemish Region), 1 of the 3 Regions in Belgium, (you have also Walloon Region and Brussels-Capital Region), it is a government responsible for Flanders without Brussels and without Wallonia.
  • shows "Vlaanderen" Flanders geographical, no politics, there you don't need to show Belgium, don't need to show Wallonia, don't need to show Brussels
  • shows "Vlaamse Gemeenschap", Flemish Community, in fact it is responsible for language rights, so for all places where they speak dutch it includes Brussels, you have also the French Community (where they speak French) what includes Brussels and Wallonia without the Germanspeaking part of Wallonia, and then you have also the German speaking community (where they speak German)
Be aware, very important
  • For all maps, there is a little part of Flanders that don't border Flanders, called Voeren, always also colored darkgreen, don't forget to show it
  • For Flemish Region, don't forget to show the borders of Brussels, there is also a little part of Wallonia that doesn't border Wallonia called Comines-Warneton, always light green, don't forget to show it and it's border, don't show the borders of the German speaking part, it is included by the
Walloon region
  • For Flemish Community, don't forget to show the borders of Brussels, there is also a little part of Wallonia that doesn't border Wallonia called Comines-Warneton, always light green, don't forget to show it and it's border, then also don't forget to show the German speaking part and it's borders right (it doesn't include the French Community, also always colored light green
I hope you understand my explainings?, many thanks if you can realise.
Klodde (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I updated, I made a little error and adapted what was wrong, 1 of the maps have to show the borders of the German speaking part, another map may not show the borders of the Germand speaking part
Klodde (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. Basically I need to make the following:
  • Map of Flanders (including Brussels) within Europe, which doesn't show the rest of Belgium
  • Map of the Flemish community: Flanders (including Brussels, possibly coloured with diagonal lines since Brussels is also the French community capital) within Europe. Does show the rest of Belgium (light green).
  • Map of the Flemish region: Flanders, excluding Brussels. Does show the rest of Belgium (light green). German-speaking community is part of Wallonia.
While I'm at it I might as well do maps for the other regions, so that would be:
  • Wallonia within Europe; doesn't show the rest of Belgium
  • Walloon region: Wallonia within Europe; does show the rest of Belgium; does include German-speaking community
  • French-speaking community: Wallonia within Europe; does show the rest of Belgium; Brussels highlighted as capital; does not include German-speaking community
  • German speaking community; rest of Belgium in light green
  • Brussels-Capital region; shows rest of Belgium in light green; German-speaking community part of Walloon region
Am I correct? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, just attention: borders of German speaking part not visible in maps of Walloon region and Flemish region, the rest is clear I think.

Klodde (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Alphathon Klodde (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alphaton, is it possible for you to make things larger, I added you're maps on many pages, but on the English wiki someone putted back an old map, he said the following

Smaller problems are that the new maps show everything smaller; Brussels is barely visible, and the Wallonia map was reverted partly for this and partly to match Flanders. Oreo Priest talk 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He putted the old maps see below back because in you're new maps Brussels is to little

So my question, can you make the square with the map of Belgium larger in the 3 following maps (see below), so that Flanders, Walloon and Brussels will be bigger in the detailed map compared to european map. I hope that you understand what I mean.

many thanks

Klodde (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. I should be able to upload the revised versions later today. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for make them bigger Klodde (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large Cities?[edit]

Hi Alphaton, I refer to the map file:Netherlands Map.svg. The legend reads that a black dot indicates a "Large City". That may be true in mainland Netherlands, but Kralendijk (pop. 12,000), Oranjestad (pop. 1,000) and The Bottom (pop. 500) are certainly not "Large Cities". Perhaps should they be marked with much smaller black dots? The same goes for the German language version of the map. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of the Rhine[edit]

Hi Alphaton, I don't suppose you could show the territories of the Confederation of the Rhine on the map, similar to the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Confederation please, many thanks. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I'll get onto it when I get a chance. BTW, sorry for the lateness of this reply, I've been a bit busy and haven't been on Wiki much. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks! Much appreciated as always. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Bulgaria[edit]

Hi Alphaton, I don't suppose you could possibly redraw some maps of medieval Bulgaria could you?

These one's [2][3][4]

Many thanks as always! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, hope I'm not pestering you too much with these requests?

I'd be willing to do it at some point, but I won't have the opportunity to do so for the foreseeable future. I may be free in a few weeks, but if not I won't have the time until next year due to work commitments. I'll post back here if I get the opportunity to let you know.
Oh, and I certainly don't mind; it's nice to be in demand.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18th century Europe[edit]

Hi Alphaton, I don't suppose you could also do these maps [5][6], if and when you have the time, many thanks. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New level {{User VG-4}}[edit]

Hi ; new level 4 for you ?


--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blank map of Europe[edit]

Hello, Alphathon, I have many requests to you regarding File:Blank map of Europe.svg. Can you please add the other break-away regions besides Kosovo and Northern Cyprus (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh). Can you also add a disputed Crimea connected to Russia by it's path over the one connected to Ukraine as that would be needed for maps representing law. If possible, can you make Crimea's shape on the map more accurate as it would make it a lot easier to depict the disputed borders. I also wanted to ask you to make the relations of the Faroe Islands and Denmark same as the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom, they should be connected at first but at the same time they should be able to be separated. I also wanted to ask you to add Lake Peipus, Võrtsjärv, Rybinsk Reservoir, some lakes in Karelia, Lake Van, Lake Tuz, some other smaller lakes of Turkey, Lake Sevan, Lake Balaton as well as any other lakes you, yourself, think should be added. I know this is a lot to do so take your time. Feel free to update the map step by step (i.e. first you can add the break-away regions and worry about the lakes later). Thank you! --Leftcry (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly give it a look if I have some time.
I'm not sure quite what you mean about the accuracy of Crimea. Are you perhaps referring to the depiction of Syvash? Unfortunately, the thickness of the borders (which surround the whole country, including the coastline) kind of obscures the Arabat Spit.
I'm only familiar with lakes Peipus and Balaton, which should absolutely be on there. I can't comment on the others since I'm not really familiar with them.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response! As for Crimea, the only reason I asked for more accuracy was because I thought it may be harder for you to depict the disputed border, otherwise Crimea looks fine as it is. I'll provide some maps with the unfamiliar to you lakes, so that you can see where they are (if you want a more accurate depiction then I would suggest looking at Google Maps or other internet maps). --Leftcry (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your edits to the map so far. There are just a few small issues. You seem to have confused the de-facto en:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic with the former en:Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. I also wanted to ask you to connect the paths of the territories of Transnistria controlled by Moldova to the path of Moldova as that would make it a lot easier when creating maps depicting law. Can you also make the relationship of the disputed Crimea to Russia the same as the relationship of Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia as that would again make it a lot easier when creating images depicting law. I also wanted to ask you to try to tweak Georgia as some of its territory doesn't seem very accurate (especially its border with Russia), you can use File:Georgia location map.svg to help you. Thank you! --Leftcry (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about Nagorno-Karabakh, and it has now been fixed.
The path of Moldova includes all of Transnistria; if you or anyone else wants to make a map which doesn't show a particular part of the disputed territory all you need to do is delete it. The same is true of other countries and their disputed territories (e.g. Ukraine still includes Crimea as well as the new disputed path, Serbia's path includes Kosovo etc). Did you mean group them together (like Denmark etc)? That might prove tricky - a path can only be part of a single group so it would either have to be grouped with Transnistria or with Moldova, not both (and it could be argued either way which is preferable).
Georgia isn't really that bad considering its scale, but it could certainly use a touch-up.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean group them together, sorry for not being clear. I think that the territories claimed by the breakaway republic but still controlled by the central government should grouped with the original country rather than the breakaway regions as that will be easier for maps depicting law. As for Georgia, I agree with you that it isn't too bad, but I do think that it's accuracy can be improved. --Leftcry (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I disagree about the grouping of the Transnistria areas though - if one wants to make a map involving or concerning Transnistria then it really doesn't matter that they are grouped together, but it is easier to remove it all at once (Transnistria proper and the two other territories) if it is grouped. This map isn't just for creating maps with disputed territories on it, it is a general base map. I imagine it is far more common that they would be removed than needing to be grouped per controlling nation. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you on that. --Leftcry (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to maybe add Vatican City? --Leftcry (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It should really be on there already. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think some islands in the Caspian sea should also be added. --Leftcry (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also add Lake Urmia in Iran and some lakes in Iraq such as Lake Therthar, Lake Razazza and Lake Dukan as well assome other ones. --Leftcry (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you added a lot of lakes in Russia, including those in the north, can you also add the ones in Murmansk Oblast as it isn't very consistent if you add the ones in Karelia but not the ones in Murmansk Oblast. Can you also fix the coast in the en:Gulf of Finland, especially the Russian coast cause it looks the most off. --Leftcry (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blank map of Europe[edit]

Hi. I uploaded a blank svg map of Europe for 1839, based on your 1815 map. Maybe you could add it to the timeline of blank svg maps you created. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aland Islands[edit]

Hi I noticed that you have done most of the edits on File:Blank map of Europe.svg. I wanted to ask you to fix the shape of the Aland Islands as well as make their relationship with Finland the same as the UK and the Isle of Man or Denmark and the Faroes Islands as they are an autonomous area. Thanks! --Turnless (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look into it, but I'm not sure they should be treated like the Isle of Man or the Faroes. Neither Man nor the Faroes are autonomous regions but rather pseudo-independent countries. Man is a crown dependency, meaning that it is dependent on the British Crown (for defence, international relations etc) and its inhabitants are legal British citizens but it is not subject to UK law or legally part of the UK. (Incidentally the same is true of the Channel Islands). As I understand it the situation of the Faroes is pretty similar. None of these territories are part of the EU. If my understanding of the situation is correct, the Åland islands' situation is more similar to that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Island in the UK or of the Spanish autonomous communities in that full sovereignty is retained by Finland but the islands are allowed to create their own laws. I will however look into it in more detail. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right in the fact that it would be kind of unusual to make them separate like those other examples. My thing was just that it wouldve just made them easier to colour on maps seperately from the rest of Finland. So, in that case maybe you are right. The Kalinigrad Oblast of Russia does however retain that relationship with the mainland Russia despite not even being autonomous. Is that only because it is an exclave? --Turnless (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about Kaliningrad. Honestly I don't know what the original criteria were for it and other regions being separated (if there even were any - it was probably just down to the one's the original creator knew about rather than having strict rules). I suppose it might just be that they can be easily separated without "breaking" the map (with the other examples if they were included there would be additional/misleading borders etc). That being the case, it might be worth doing for the Ålands too. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, much easier to separate it right away rather than breaking the map apart. --Turnless (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Europe map[edit]

Hi, I don't know if you saw my mention of you on en:File talk:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg, but it is regarding adding two internal subdivisions of Russia to the map. I hope you can help us with this issue. Thanks! --Turnless (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen your map of Kingdom of Italy 1861 and Kingdom of Italy 1870: may I ask you please to make also the intermediate map of Kingdom of Italy 1866.svg, where Austria gave Venetia & Mantua's provinces to Italy after the plebiscite of 21-22 october 1866? (in the next days there will be the 150° anniversary of the italian unification with Venetia, so it will be great to have a exact map of that: so, could you make please also a map zoomed on the Venetia & Mantua's provinces in which they set the plebiscite of 1866?) Thanks in advance! --Holapaco77 (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly give it a go at some point but unfortunately can't do it any time soon (I'm very busy with work commitments at the moment). Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus and Gibraltar[edit]

Hi, I wanted to request certain improvements to File:Blank map of Europe.svg. The map is missing any actual territory for Gibraltar. The island of Cyprus also does not show Akrotiri and Dhekelia as separate entities and just unifies them with the Republic of Cyprus. Could you please add them? Thanks! --Turnless (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Graphics[edit]

Hello. How do you generate your graphics? Particularly vector (.svg, etc.) graphics. Such as the Xbox360 controller diagram that you contributed.

Is there any particular software that you like to use; for instance?

I'm asking because I would like to follow your example; and my own high quality contributions.


Tjt263 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use Inkscape, which is free and open source. There are plenty of tutorials out there to get you started. Adobe Illustrator would also work just as well, but of course it isn't free and I actually find it a little harder to use. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typos in 'Mitteleuropa zur Zeit der Staufer' SVG[edit]

This text is provided in German and English.

(DE) Hallo, Alphathon, ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich mich vertue oder es ein Renderfehler ist, aber nach meinem Dafürhalten gibt es zwei kleinere Tippfehler in der aktuellen Version Ihrer Karte. Die Grafschaft Glatz steht dort als "Galtz". Die von Ihnen benutzte JPEG-Vorlage ("Droysens-26") schreibt "Glatz". Ich habe die Beschreibung Ihres Bildes durchgelesen und denke nicht, dass Sie dies absichtlich getan haben. Beim benachbarten Troppau fehlt übrigens ein "p", glaube ich.

(EN) Hi, Alphathon, it could be a mistake by me or a rendering issue, but I believe the current version of your map incorrectly refers to the County of Kladsko as "Galtz" instead of "Glatz". The JPEG file used as a reference by you ("Droysens-26") uses the correct spelling. I did read the description of your SVG map and don't think you changed it intentionally. In addition, neighbouring Troppau lacks a "p" ("Tropau").

Danke für Ihre Arbeit! Thank you for your work! --Equality 7-2522 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. You were correct and both errors have now been fixed (along with another that I spotted). Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just a rendering issue I have, but I think "Beuthen" is misspelled as "Bethen". It's in (present-day) Silesia, northwest of Krakow. Thank you again for your work and the fast corrections. I apologise if it's just an issue with Inkscape or if I'm making a mistake. --Equality 7-2522 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right. I'll correct it when I get a chance. Thanks for letting me know. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File: East German Location on Map[edit]

Why does the map label East Germany as "Real Germany" — Preceding unsigned comment added by C O N C E P T (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Which map? Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] - This One. The caption is titled "Real Germany" instead of the correct East Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C O N C E P T (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found what you mean - someone vandalised the Wikipedia article and added it at the bottom of the infobox. I should note that the issue was with the article, not with the map file, which is why I was confused (in fact it was discussing the flag). In future if you find something like that you can either fix it yourself (just hit the edit button) or if it too complicated bring it up on the article's talk page on Wikipedia (not here on Wikimedia Commons). I'm happy to correct it all the same but here's not really the place to do it as it's really nothing to do with the map (nor me specifically). Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy German Empire[edit]

Hi. I've seen you corrected an animation File:HRR.gif. Don't you think, that there should be also East Prussia added?... Or wasn't it a part of the Empire? Pibwl (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pibwl: East Prussia (or "Ducal Prussia" as it was until the 1770s) was never officially part of the Empire as far as I'm aware. In fact, that's why the Kingdom of Prussia was called that, even though it's main power base was in Brandenburg. (No kingdoms were legally allowed to exist within the empire other than Bohemia and the nominal realms of Germany, Arles/Burgundy and Italy. So in order to bolster his prestige, the ruler of Brandenburg-Prussia declared himself "King in Prussia".) Similarly, the Habsburgs ruled Hungary and Croatia, which weren't part of the Empire, as well as Bohemia and what became Austria which were. As to why, blame feudalism. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Pibwl (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a popal bill, the state of the Teutonic Order and ist descendant Ducal Prussia never were a part of the Holy Roman Empire. And before Ducal Prussia was taken over by Brandenburg, it was not ruled out of the Holy Roman Empire. It was something like Ian Smith's Rhodesia.
On the other hand, Bohemia was a part of the Holy Romam Empire. It had been such for centuries, before it was taken over by the Austrian Habsburgs. An before Austria was taken over from the Habsburgs (who had their centre in nowaday's Switzerland), Austria had been taken over by Bohemia for some time.
In the Holy Roman Empire, the king of Bohemia was the only king besides the German king, who was elected by the most powerful German dukes and Archbishops and had the right to ask the pope for the empirial crown (before, according to the Golden Bill, the popal coronation was no more required to get the title of the Roman Emperor).--Ulamm (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at emperor Charles IV. His father was of the en:House of Luxembourg, his mother the daughter of the last Czech king of the en:Přemyslid dynasty. In his offices in Prague, modern Czech and modern German languages were developped, at the same time. The suppression of the Czechs began with the Habsburgian victory against the Hussites (en:Battle of White Mountain) in beginning en:Thirty Years War. The leader of the imperial troups in that war, Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von Waldstein/Albrecht Václav Eusebius z Valdštejna, was of a Chech family.--Ulamm (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verbreitungsgebiet der heutigen niederdeutschen Mundarten.svg[edit]

@ Alphathon,

Thanks for the heads-up. The Rhein/Reihn issue is a typo. As for the "in Holland" part, that was in the original source file so I just copied it verbatim. Looking at it now most of the area in question is in Overijssel, Drenthe and Gelderland if I'm not mistaken (and none in Noord- or Zuid-Holland). Regardless, I'll change the text to read "in the Netherlands" on the English version. Am I correct in saying that the proper form for the German to take would be "in den Niederlanden"?. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct.--Ulamm (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Alphathon, I don't suppose you would perhaps be interested in making two blank maps of Europe; one in 1800 ([7][8]) and the other in 1806/8 ([9]) – perchance?

Regards TRAJAN 117 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll give them a go at some point, although probably not until January. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.🤗 TRAJAN 117 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever work with shapefiles or GeoJSON?[edit]

Hi Alphathon - thanks for all of your work making maps for Wikimedia!

I'm working with the WikiMaps group & am looking to build Wikimedia's volume of GIS-based data files for historical maps. Is there any chance you've built some maps in any GIS formats and then converted them to SVG? Or, do you have any georeferenced svg's? Thanks in advance for any help. --Jeffme (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, I just build them as plain SVGs in Inkscape. I don't think they're georeferenced either (if I understand correctly what georeferencing is). Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

u a girl or boy?

Jg184258 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GIF edit[edit]

The HRE gif is missing a vital part of showing its actual maximal extent:

I've seen you editing some GIFs here and there, if you decide to do sth with it you can use this:

The year is c. 1250. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it by myself, but, frankly, I'm not good at editing GIFs yet.Ernio48 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hussites.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ernio48 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Exec. We have started an A-Class review for the article en:Nazi Germany and I was wondering if you could help with the image review portion? The question being asked is what is the source of the data for the above map. I would appreciate your comments on this question if you have time and know where the data came from. Replying here would be fine. Thank you, Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update request for map[edit]

Hi there! I'd like to kindly ask you to update the map at File:Map provinces Netherlands-en.svg. Since the start of this year there have been some border changes of the Dutch provinces, particularly around Utrecht. See File:Netherlands location map.svg for the current borders. If you can find the time, then many thanks in advance! Thayts (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I would like to ask for a correction of a 1004 map. As shown by the map I inserted, Poland included Lusatia since 1002 (although removed from the country in 1005 and incorporated again in 1018, I think it is worth including). Also, since 1003 Moravia and Slovakia were parts of the country - Bohemia too, but as the only difference in 1004 map seems to be Bohemia included in HRE's borders, I assume it's after the shift from Poland to HRE, which happened in 1004. Other borders don't need to be changed - Pomerania behind the red line was lost in 1007, and Grody Czerwieńskie (Red Ruthenia) were incorporated in 1018.

Also, could you give me advice about mapping - what program do you use etc. I am an user of Photoshop as it's fairly universal, but I can't create a line as hard as the ones for the borders, even though I set hardness to maximum. Also, do you have any tips for connecting different maps so that they fit perfectly?

Although these questions may already prove that I am an awful mapper, what are the proper proportions of cropping blank maps of Europe (modern one and medieval ones) to the size of 1714-1990 square maps? I can't seem to find them. Thanks in advance, SuperSzym (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "a 1004 map" you mean Blank map of Europe 1004.svg. From what I can tell you are correct. Unfortunately the included map is quite vague and generalised and I'm not sure it can really be relied upon for the borders. (For example, the 992 borders contradict other sources such as Europe byzantine empires.jpg and Droysens-22-23.jpg in several places, so to try to use them together would be problematic.) I'll see if I can find a better source though.
Software-wise, I use Photoshop for raster maps (.png, .jpg etc) and Inkscape for vector maps (.svg). The "hardness" of a line could refer to may things. I would suggest you first check the opacity of the brush you are using, which should be on the toolbar at the top of the screen; if it isn't 100% then it will create a semi-transparent line. If the line is too thin, you'll need to increase the brush size, which can also be found on the top toolbar, as well as the right-click menu; you can also use the shortcut keys [ and ] to decrease and increase the brush size respectively.
Getting maps to "fit together" properly can be quite involved and isn't something I can easily explain. If the maps in question all use the same projection it's relatively easy (you just scale them to the same size and line them up) but if they are different you have to convert them so they are the same projection, which can be quite difficult, especially if they do not include grid lines or some other indication of the projection. I'm not really sure what you mean by the "proper proportions of cropping blank maps of Europe".
Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-French border problem[edit]

Hello Alphathon. I edited one of you maps for the French Graphics Lab/Map workshop (great work by the way, it was very easy to edit) and the contributor that asked for it noticed that the border between France and Italy wasn't accurate for this year.

The maps is File:Blank_map_of_Europe_1929-1938.svg and maps before may also be wrong.

You can check File:Evolution_of_Franco-Italian_border.jpg to get the correct borders. I also edited File:State of Austria within Germany 1938.svg to have approximatively the right borders (both France and Italy polygons have been modified).

Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Thankfully it's only 1860-1947, but there are still a fair number to fix (especially all the WWII states/satellites/territories). It should be fairly straightforward though, just a bit of a pain to do to all of them.
Oh, and I can't really take credit for the ease of editing as I just followed the same principals as the original blank map of (modern) Europe. I'm glad it's easy to use though.
Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saxony locator map (1000).svg[edit]

@ Alphaton,

As you shold know, in 1000 Wratislaw, today's Wrocław, becam the see of a suffragane of the Archidicese of Gniezno. That indicates that Silesia wa an integral part of Poland, at that time.

Therefore, it is wrong to show Silesia (and almost a third of Greater Poland) as connected to the German Kingdom. --Ulamm (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the labels in your mapof Germany are not covincing, as you combine Latin territorial or tribal names with German words for their political status. In true old age maps, eihter both titles and names are in Latin, or the title is in Latin but the territorial name is in German, or both is in German, such as File:Meklenburg Ducatus (Saxoniae Inferioris, Merian) b 002.jpg , File:S.R.I. Westphaliae circulus - CBT 5873429.jpg, File:Sacri Romani imperii circuli et electoratus Bavariæ tabula chorographica (1663).jpg, File:Ducatus Bremae & Ferdae maximaeque partis fluminis Visurgis descriptio - CBT 5874410.jpg--Ulamm (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Germany map (and by extension the Saxony map) is merely a vectorisation of this map from Professor G. Droysen's Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas, and the names, borders etc are taken directly from it. I have to assume that there was a reason for the mixed Germanic/Latinate naming, as the later maps from the same publication (such as this one) use German throughout. He also seems to have used archaic forms of some names. In principle I would be happy to create a modified version of it which corrects any inaccuracies (or misleading depiction) on his part, but to do so would take a lot of work (both research and drawing) so I don't know if I really have time, and can't really justify doing so, at least not without more support for the change.
As to the status of Silesia, it isn't exactly clear to me what Droysen was trying to convey. He depicts it as connected to Germany, but also labels it as part of Poland (note how the label crosses the border, covering both parts). This similar map by William R. Shepherd (1923) shows Silesia entirely as part of Poland but labels it (and Chrobatia) as "Under Poland since 999", as does F. W. Putzger (seit 999 unter Polen), which would seem to support what you say. The title of Droysen's map is Deutschland um das Jahr 1000 (which I understand to mean "Germany around the 1000" rather than "... in the year 1000"), which suggests that it is supposed to represent a broader time frame than simply 1000 CE, so perhaps that is what he's trying to convey. It is also possible (and I'm just speculating here) that there is some peculiar feudal relationship at play, where that part owes tribute to the Emperor or something (the Holy Roman Empire certainly had more than its fair share of feudal weirdness, particularly in border areas).
Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Age of a map is no warranty of quality. Sometiimes, historical maps of former times are heavily influenced by thier time of production. Especially publications from the time, when Greater Poland was the Prussian Province of Posen often show a heavy German or a heavy Polish point of view.
The Bohemian rule over Silesia extended across Oder river from about 950 to about 990. This way, Wroclaw was founded by the Bohemian ruler Vratislav, but became a bishop's see under the Polish archidiocesis of Gniezno (On the Day of Gniezno, celebrated by the "Roman" emperor Otto III. After a pagan revolt in Poland in 1038, king Casimir I had to escape from his coutry, and Silesia was conquered by Bohemia. But emperor Henry III enabled Casimir's return to his throne and, as feudal lord over the Bohemian king, enforced Silesia's return to Poland. (Similar to the English policy of a balance of powers on the European continent, "Roman" emperors tried to manage a balance of powers between the Slavic states of Bohemia and Poland.--Ulamm (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About the quality of fiefs. the context has to be considered. When rulrers of Denmark or Poland were vassals of the Roman Empire, that was rather symbolical. The connections of Bohemia became more and more constant. And for the first time in 1114, a Bohemian king held an office in the imperial hierarchy.--Ulamm (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An amendment on feudal relations: Bohemia was a fief of the "Roman" empire, but conquests or personal union rules of Bohemian rulers did not necessarily become fiefs oft he "Roman" Empire that way. That is of special importance in the situation of Silesia: From 1163 to 1190 Silesia hab been an Imperial ffief, as Freidrich Barabarossa had enabled Silesian rulers to return from their German exile. Afterwards, there was an increasing German immogration, especially after the Mongolian invasion of 1241, but no institutional ties. When the kingdom of Poland was restored in early 14th century, the rulers of the subdivisions of Silesia preferred to subordinate to the kings of Bohemia. But as a fief of Bohemia, Silesia did not become a part of the "Roman" Empire. No Silesian ruler participated as a Reichsfürst (prince of the Empire) in a Reichstag (Imperial parlament), and no institution of the Empire became active in Silesia.--Ulamm (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that old map ≠ quality map, and don't believe I said it did. I am also aware of historical bias generally and the nationalistic biases of the time (as well as the use of history to justify contemporary territorial claims). However, that isn't really relevant when the goal is simply to replicate the map as an SVG, as was the case with the Germany one. It matters more for something like the locator map, which doesn't simply replicate the original but rather purports to show the true state of affairs. It is also worth noting that only old maps can be so replicated for copyright reasons (Droysen's map is old enough to be in the public domain).
I'm not really sure the Silesian duchies' lack of status as Reichsfürsten is relevant here. Whether they were fiefs or not, if they were subordinate to Bohemia they were therefore not imperially immediate (Reichsfrei) subjects of the Emperor and so wouldn't have had a right to sit in the Reichstag. It also doesn't really matter what their status was in the 12th–15th centuries, as that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what it was in the 10th–11th centuries.
As I said though, in principle I am willing to create a modified version of the Germany map which corrects this or any other error, but need more than just your say-so. (Everything you say may be correct, but you are not a reliable source AFAIK; biased or not a historian has to be considered more reliable than some random person on the internet.) That said, since the other sources I linked to say that it became part of Poland in 999, there is another solution: rename the locator maps* from "1000" to something like "at the end of the 10th century", and maybe add a note to their descriptions. Seit 999 unter Polen (or Polonia to be consistent with the Latinate naming of the original source) could also be added to the base Germany map.
* As you can see in the Saxony map's description, there are several others based on the same original file.
Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the situation after the the treaty of Trenčin (1335) is not relevant for a map showing the situation at about the year 1000.
The relevant thing is,that from about 990 to 1038 Silesia was not under Bohemian rle, but a part of Poland, which is well documented by the fact that the discesis of Wratislaw/Wrocław in consense by the "Roman" Emperor Otto III and Bolesław I. of Poland who was launched from a duke to a king in the same event.
The church in Bohemia was governed by the diocese of Prague, a suffragane of Mainz., split off from Regensburg in 973/976. In 1063 the diocese of Olomouc in Moravia was founded as a split-off of Prague. As late as in 1348, Prague became an archidocese, with Olomoiuc and Litomyšl as suggraganes. That was, when since 1346 Charles IV, son of John of Luxemburg and the daughter of the last Přemysloian king of Bohemia, from his residence in Prague ruled the "Roman" Empire.
I have just scanned a page of dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte 17th editiion 1981. If you tell me your ordinary E-mail adress, I'll send it.--Ulamm (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer but I'd rather not release my e-mail address publicly. I'm rather busy right now so I'll get back to you later about the rest of it. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


And also:

Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Königreich Böhmen mit Helmkleinod.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Q douglasii (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Elitepremium.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Zxcvbnm (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blank map of Europe 1797[edit]

File:Europe 1797.svg

Hi. I uploaded a blank svg map of Europe for 1797, based on your 1789 map. Maybe you could add it to the timeline of blank svg maps you created. Facquis (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Facquis: I see you have gone ahead and done it (which is fine by me). Unfortunately you seem to have missed the Second and Third Partitions of Poland – Poland-Lithuania should no longer exist by 1797 and should instead be divided between Russia, Prussia (South Prussia, New East Prussia and New Silesia) and the Habsburg Monarchy (West Galicia). Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the information, I am not very experienced in Eastern Europe. I will fix it as soon as possible.--Facquis (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Facquis: I have noticed another minor issue with your files: your edits seem to have caused several of the paths (in particular Russia) to be above the "Large masses of water" object (i.e. the lakes), which means it is hidden behind them. To fix this you just need to send the "Large masses of water" object to the top of the hierarchy. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the main Ottoman path seems to be above its vassals (Moldavia, Wallachia). This does not seem to have been done by you but by another user editing the 1789 map. Still, it should be rectified. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:PS1 Dual Analog with Box.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! 20:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm writing to you regarding maps in the User:Alphathon/Historical Europe template. Most of those maps contain all of Ukrainian reservoirs that were created from 1956 till 1972, despite a lot of the maps being set centuries prior. Just thought I'd let you know! ImStevan (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, I just haven't gone back and fixed most of them yet. I have had a new/revised version of the base map in progress for quite some time which takes them into account (among other things like the Dutch polders) but need to find the time to finish it. Thanks anyway though, and please do let me know if you notice any other anachronisms which I may have missed. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]