*'''Oppose''' reluctantly. This map evidences a lot of work on the parts of [[User:A455bcd9|A455bcd9]] and [[User:Goran tek-en|Goran tek-en]]. They are attempting to address what has been a very serious issue in Arabic dialect maps on Wikipedia, & I think that this map is a ''great'' improvement over what came before. I'm sure that there are errors in this map, but they are relatively minor, compared to a previous map that was riddled with problems—dialects in the wrong country, dialects that didn't exist… I'm grateful for their effort & I think that Wikipedia is better for it. However, I don't think that right now is the right time to feature this map. I'll explain it as three reasons (tho they bleed into one another):
# I think that the map actually should probably be around a little longer. We should expect that there's going to be a bit more review from other parties before there's a relatively stable version. Multiple possible changes are currently being discussed.
# I think that Ethnologue should really be a source of last resort, rather than a preferred source. Ethnologue is not subject to academic review. In fact, I suspect that if we were to be strict about these things that it would not qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with the characterisation of Ethnologue as the "standard reference" in linguistics—it is certainly cited in scholarly work in linguistics, but it's also frequently ''criticised'' by scholarly work in linguistics. I am not interested in discarding Ethnologue as a source tout court, but I think that sources that are subject to academic review should be preferred (taking account, of course, of other reliable source criteria like age).
# The creator of the map currently holds that as this map is hosted on Wikimedia Commons ''it is not subject to Wikipedia reliable source criteria'', & requests that others not edit the map without the creator's consent [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Arabic_Varieties_Map.svg]. This is ''really'' the biggest issue for me, & maybe encompasses the previous point. I think this map really needs to be subject to Wikipedia guidelines for it to be considered as a featured image.
I would love to support this map in the future on a re-nomination, but I think some time is needed to work these issues out. [[User:Pathawi|Pathawi]] ([[User talk:Pathawi|talk]]) 17:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
First and only sourced (verifiable against high-quality reliable sources) high-quality (high resolution, SVG, colorblind friendly, internationalized) map of Arabic varieties we have
I think it's a great map, but I have to admit to some issues:
First off, while it does have a zoom in on the world that's... probably unnecessary, it lacks a key on the map itself, which means the key doesn't appear in any of the articles it's in; ideally, an image should be understandable as used in the article, or at least after expanded in size using Media Viewer. It uses numbers instead of labels, and one single variety of Arabic (Nubi) uses stripes, which are otherwise said to indicate widespread/mixed usage. Further, it's not clear what, if any, difference is between solid, striped and spotted. (Striped and spotted are both labelled as meaning "speakers are widespread over this area", which is kind of the same as you'd presume for the solid coloured)
Randomly positioned spots are only used for 10's overlap with 11/12, everywhere else, overlap is done using a hexagonal grid striped with spots. What's the point of the random spots for 10, then? Do the widths matter? 6 and 9's overlap is done differently than any other overlap.
It puts number labels on the map, but not words. That does simplify internationalisation, but at the cost of making it less useful. Simply replacing the numbers with words would instantly turn this into a labelled map, as it is, unless you click through to the file description page, what the colours mean is completely unknowable.
It uses lots of subtly different green shades, so it's probably for the best the colours are also labelled. I'd hate to try to colour match between, say, South Levantine Arabic and Hadrami Arabic. Libyan Arabic and Gulf Arabic are also quite close, as are Tunisian Arabic and Egyptian Arabic, or Chadian and Omani. Luckily, all these are geographically seperated from each other, which mitigates the issue, but, again, it does mean a simple word label would do.
I don't get the number order. Why is 31 at the extreme south side of the map next to 12, for instance, when 29 and 30 are in the Mediterranean? Why is 13 right of 14 and 15? Why is 20 the other side of the Middle East from 18, 19, 21, and 22?
It feels like this is so very nearly there, but there's enough I don't get that I can't support. A lot of work has gone into this, and I appreciate that, but it feels like this needed a round of feedback. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!09:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback.
It's on purpose that there's no labels on the map. Then any Wikimedia project can reuse this map and add a clickable and editable legend in their own language below, example in Frysk. Isn't this the best practice recommended by ?
It's recommended to have a version without Language-dependant labels, but that doesn't make that version the best one for specific language Wikipedias. Basically, it's great to have that for ones that haven't been translated to your language, and that might well be the one Commons would feature, but English Wikipedia FPC looks at it from solely the English Wikipedia perspective. and, combined with the number order being a bit odd and some colours being very similar, it makes it a lot harder to use. You have to constantly jump back and forth between the image and list. Basically, being language-neutral is a good thing for Commons, as it means any Wikipedia can use it, but it's more of a "we haven't translated this to your language" stopgap. At English Wikipedia Featured Pictures, we kind of have to judge it explicitly for use on here.
Don't get me wrong. I think this should pass, but it needs a little work first. And I really hate giving this much feedback on your first FPC nom, but SVG diagrams.. are not easy. They're probably the hardest type of content to get through FPC, because being made by Wikipedians and being so editable, there's an assumption that they're going to be polished to perfection by the time they pass (and I'm really wishing I had kept up my Inkscape skills so I could help more with this). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!10:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I understand. I don't think anyone will add the legend to the map, so if that's a requirement for EN WP FP then I prefer to withdraw this FPC.
That being said, thanks again for your feedback: your points regarding Nubi, solid/striped/dotted, "6 and 9's overlap is done differently than any other overlap", and the colors are valid and I'll see what we can do to improve them.
Regarding the number order: it's more or less West to East. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 are weird Arabic varieties, often called "language islands" in the literature, and often shown differently on maps. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I think my issue is more that the numbers aren't listed on the Wikipedia pages more than on the map. Since this is pretty important to the articles, could we make it substantially larger and put the numbered list in the captions? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!02:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, regarding just the part of your comment about the captions, the captions in the first two articles: Arabic, Varieties of Arabic, do have a full numbered list (I wonder if you saw it). The caption in the third article: Levantine Arabic has an abbreviated list, I suppose because that's sufficient in that article. Bammesk (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, think I got confused somehow. That'll deal with the problem of labelling, though the dotting and striping issues need dealt with. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!04:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, back to number order. I'd say the numbering for the Middle East is still a bit weird, 20 being the oddest, as it's nowhere near any other consecutive number, and 13 being a bit strange. 8 is in the Sinai penninsula, and should maybe be renumbered into the Asian numberings instead of the otherwise consistent African numberings, but it doesn't seem that bad. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!05:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we dealt with the problem of labelling.
Regarding numbering: I think 13 is okay. 8 is "Eastern Egyptian Bedawi", besides the Sinai, it's also on the eastern coast of Egypt (along the Red Sea), so that's why it's after 7 (Egyptian Arabic). 20 is odd indeed.
Regarding dotting and striping, I added the following legend based on the main source:
Solid area fill: variety natively spoken by at least 25% of the population of that area or variety indigenous to that area only
Hatched area fill: minority scattered over the area
Dotted area fill: speakers of this variety are mixed with speakers of other Arabic varieties in the area
Oppose as it doesn't add any encyclopedic value and misleads the readers. While the map is supposedly sourced (it's more like a synthesis of various maps published by an evangelical Christian organization that doesn't submit itself to any kind of academic review), it's full of errors (some of them already highlighted on Commons and more will follow). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a registration authority (just like the Library of Congress) is meaningless and doesn't change anything to the facts that: a) it's an evangelical Christian organization that doesn't submit itself to any kind of academic review and b) its maps are riddled with asinine errors. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention that you added it to all those articles.
Anyway, I'm not interested in improving either this map or the one that it replaced (because it had errors, even though it was used by reliable sources). Since you're no willing to answer the question, I will ping the other editors (@IOIOI, High surv, and Pathawi:) who were involved in the other discussion and see what they have to say about a map that is being presented as the mother of all maps. I will also leave a note on the concerned countries' projects to attract more input. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I felt aggressed. And yes, I added the map to most of those articles and they're still there 2 weeks later. This map is far from perfect and we're working with High surv and Pathawi to improve it. We've already implemented one of High surv's feedback (issues in Bahrain) and I hope we'll be able to improve it further. That's why, again, if you could provide reliable sources pointing to asinine errors it would be extremely useful. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at Dhofari Arabic (No.23) and the map area on this map does not agree wuith the map and description on the English Wikipedia article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reluctantly. This map evidences a lot of work on the parts of A455bcd9 and Goran tek-en. They are attempting to address what has been a very serious issue in Arabic dialect maps on Wikipedia, & I think that this map is a great improvement over what came before. I'm sure that there are errors in this map, but they are relatively minor, compared to a previous map that was riddled with problems—dialects in the wrong country, dialects that didn't exist… I'm grateful for their effort & I think that Wikipedia is better for it. However, I don't think that right now is the right time to feature this map. I'll explain it as three reasons (tho they bleed into one another):
I think that the map actually should probably be around a little longer. We should expect that there's going to be a bit more review from other parties before there's a relatively stable version. Multiple possible changes are currently being discussed.
I think that Ethnologue should really be a source of last resort, rather than a preferred source. Ethnologue is not subject to academic review. In fact, I suspect that if we were to be strict about these things that it would not qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with the characterisation of Ethnologue as the "standard reference" in linguistics—it is certainly cited in scholarly work in linguistics, but it's also frequently criticised by scholarly work in linguistics. I am not interested in discarding Ethnologue as a source tout court, but I think that sources that are subject to academic review should be preferred (taking account, of course, of other reliable source criteria like age).
The creator of the map currently holds that as this map is hosted on Wikimedia Commons it is not subject to Wikipedia reliable source criteria, & requests that others not edit the map without the creator's consent [1]. This is really the biggest issue for me, & maybe encompasses the previous point. I think this map really needs to be subject to Wikipedia guidelines for it to be considered as a featured image.
