Talk:Web mapping

Maps Unassessed Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article had an importance automatically assigned to it. Once it has been checked by a human, please remove `\|autoi=yes`.

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): [[Read-only|view only]], [[Terraserver]]

For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
[[Accessibility#Telecommunications and information technology access|Accessibility]], [[Atlas#Online atlases|online atlas]], [[Cartography#Map symbolization|symbolization]], [[HTTP#HTTP versions]], [[History of the World Wide Web#1980–91: Development of the WWW]]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Standardize letter case for subject name

Could we have some standard capitalization for "web mapping"? Currently, the article uses a wide mix including this, "Web mapping", "WebMapping", and "Web Mapping", though the last may just occur in section headings, where its capitalization shouldn't be changed from standard, see the Manual of Style.

Yes, I have to be more consistent. I suggest using "web mapping" (small caps, two words), except for headings.

Thanks, Andreasneumann 12:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify

Furthermore, this article needs a lot of wikifying. We have articles about many of the concepts, objects and programs mentioned - why not add some wikilinks? I'll do a little, but the author (who obviously knows much more about web mapping than I do) might help. --Huon 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links and wiki links, yes I'll add them gradually as time goes. I first want to quickly add some content so others can join and help improve. I have a few colleagues who have knowledge in the domain and will likely contribute.

Thanks, Andreasneumann 12:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest to Huon that looking up articles that define the jargon terms, program names, etc., is a good way to learn more about the subject of a page. Since I know less about the subject than the primary author of Web mapping, I will add some links as a way to help educate myself on the subject. And I will suggest the same exercise to an interested friend I know. --Teratornis 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an raw XHTML "object" tag staring the user in the face. Jidanni 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page refactoring

I like Web mapping; it gives useful information on topics I find interesting. However, I only just now found the page because few other related pages link to it, as mentioned above. I will try to add some links to and from this page. I refactored this talk page slightly, breaking up two discussion topics into separate sections, so we may discuss them separately better. --Teratornis 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "security issue"

I'm trying to add relevant links to terms in Web mapping for which a defining (or at least substantially relevant) article exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. In some cases Web mapping uses common words in uncommon or specialized ways. Where Web mapping does not define its particular use of a term, the reader would benefit from a link or footnote which does.

The lead section of Web mapping does not define what it means by "security issue" in this sentence:

It also implicates many challenges due to [...] copyright and security issues [...].

Merely linking security to Security sheds no light, because the Security article talks about the general meanings. "Security issue" implies some sort of threat, by one or more people, or some inanimate process, against one or more people, or someone's interests, or some inanimate process or object. The article leaves the reader to guess the identities of all the unstated entities implied by "security issue," which renders the phrase meaningless to any reader who fails to guess what specific security threat the author had in mind. The proximity to "copyright" might suggest that the intellectual property rights of the copyright holder(s) are at risk, but the article does not make that explicit. Other possible interpretations include threats to the security of users of Web maps, or threats to the security of third parties when someone uses map data maliciously. Would someone who knows what the article means by "security issue" give more details about it? If the phrase is a forward reference to something explained later in the article, then let's link the phrase to the relevant section. --Teratornis 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki Link

I made a link to the Chinese article on "electronic map service". It was an article I split off from the Chinese article for electronic map awhile back. If this link is deemed inappropriate please discuss and remove accordingly. --Voidvector 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mapquest.JPG

Image:Mapquest.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

All of the external links, except the ones that are actually about web mapping, should be removed. The way I see it, the only ones that meet WP:EL are the four at the bottom, on Web Mapping Tutorials and Web Mapping News. The rest are advertising or promotion. Geologyguy 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GoogleEarthLogo.JPG

Image:GoogleEarthLogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Interactive Web Maps

I believe a company called YYMAP.com was the first to offer a "google style" interactive map on the web. Their site served vector data to a custom IE extension that rendered the map in the browser. The company was around as early as the late 90's, but I cann't find any record of it today. Google search turn up resumes for some of the old employees. But I think these guys should get the credit for the first dynamic pan/zoom map that was on-line. even if it was only in IE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moclimb (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types of webmaps

It says: "A first classification of web maps has been made by Kraak" - this isn't true, there were plenty of classification attempts before Kraak (i.e. Fitzke et al. (1997), Rinner (1998)). As it notes, his classification is now very dated. A more current one to re-write that section about may be Plewe's and his dividing them up into generations: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3006/is_2_34/ai_n29356016/ 193.63.129.209 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking

The reason for blanking the sections is debatable. I hope we don't have to debate it.

That the article is poorly written is not debatable. It is poorly written. That the article is to be entirely deleted was debated already.

The sections are poorly titled. I don't think they're convenience links or pro-and-con links.

I'm trying to edit the page to improve it, but got only a few seconds to try and do so. Now please, give me a few days? — Cpiral Cpiral 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the sections I firmly believe that the sections shouldn't be there per WP:UNDUE. This is a neutral encyclopedia, and should only be reciting the views of others. It shouldn't be giving advantages and disadvantages. If it was me, I'd reword them in userspace.--Laun chba ller 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad. (I hope you'll like the change effort.) I think it's not NPOV, but WP:RS maybe, WP:NOR maybe. But certainly its wording. There are so many real NPOV and UNDUE, AfD, Wikipedia:Convenience links, and Wikipedia:Pro and con lists issues that you were seeing here (fix started!) on Wikipedia. Please help. — Cpiral Cpiral 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help that the entire section is unsourced. How's it looking now?--Laun chba ller 16:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that edit conflict, as soon as I reintegrate your changes, I'll be back here. I just made a first pass. We'll see, I'm sure. — Cpiral Cpiral 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit conflict plus the continued addition of layers of more of your edits is prohibitive. I now must follow your earlier advise, that we work it out off line, right here on the talk page. May I ask that you to stop editing for a minute and talk? — Cpiral Cpiral 19:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. You said you was going to reintegrate my changes, which I quickly did. While I was at it, I fixed a load of referencing errors, some already there, some introduced by you.--Laun chba ller 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to where we had the ec. We both edited the article, and I accepted that. Then I asked if you would wait, I said "I'll be back after I fix the ec". I make the same request now: can I please edit without expectation of any further "integration complexities"? I accept that said work may be reverted, but I respectfully offer include your input. Primarily though, I started first, and your edits were ill timed. I want my original assertions honored, with yours, while I ask for time to do so. May I have a few days, or what do you need? — Cpiral Cpiral 22:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]