Talk:Horta, Azores

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which map?[edit]

I note the recent reversion of my change of the map on the grounds that the maps should be consistent across the municipalities in the Azores. I agree that consistency is usually a good thing, but bad consistency is not. The old map, which does not show up very well here: is a small map (300x180 pixels) with no identification of any of the islands or places. It doesn't even name the surrounding body of water. My suggested replacement, , while not perfect, could be used consistently across the whole archipelago. It shows all of the islands, their principal municipalities, and has an inset which locates the archipelago and Horta in the Atlantic. It is big enough (1480x1072 pixels) to show all the necessary detail. I suggest that we change out the existing maps for the larger one throughout the Azores -- I'd be happy to do that if there is consensus.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching I found the Wikipedia convention on maps, at the following link Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions, which is a complete specification on the standards across all Wikipedias. It provides information on the design and details that should be included in the maps(including locator and area maps). Consequently, although I was not responsible for the design of the maps in the Azores series, those maps do confirm to the conventions and design aesthetic (and are, therefore, located on the Wikimedia Commons for use). Mind you, the quality and details of maps could be improved (by using the details specified), but using the C.I.A. map does not correspond to the Wikipedia conventions for locator and area maps. I continue to support the use of the existing Wikimedia Commons templates, until new maps that conform to the Wikipedia Maps specifications are designed. Ruben J.C. Furtado (talk contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC-1)
OK, I've read the referenced article (and tried to understand it, it's not very clear). Trouble is, it doesn't seen to be what we actually do for island groups, for the very good reason that without labels it's really hard to tell one island from another, see:
to show just a few. What do we think about as a model for the 19 municipality locaters? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that if a Wikipedia administrator were to discover those map examples that there might be conversations about getting the them to conform to the standards. Regarding the island group reference, I believe islands would fall under the "Areas map" classification. In that case, each political entity would be highlighted alone to distinguish it in a group setting. As the conventions state, these type of maps "just expose the areas of control, and don't include complex labels and explanations", as stated in the conventions, in order "to create a wiki style free of nationalism issues". I actually think the conventions are quite straightforward: simplified designs, neutral aesthetics, displaying efficiently selected data. As I read these guidelines, I found that the only things wrong with the Azores maps are the colour choices and, possibly, other minor details. BTW, the example of Tenerife is actually the exception; the maps used in the Canary Islands series use simplified designs to identify and distinguish each island/administrative unit. Ruben J.C. Furtado (talk contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC-1)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horta, Azores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horta, Azores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked source for pdf source. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban population numbers conflict & geobox population errors[edit]

There are two different numbers given for the population in 2011. In the geobox (but not showing now, visible only from Edit) from a European Commission report, it is 14,994 and in the table in the Geography>Human Geography section it is 15,038. Both numbers are supposed to be from Portugal's census of that year and represent the total population on Faial island, which is all attributed to Horta urbanized area. The population shown in the European Commission report of 2013 is matched with the total area of the island. Is there an explanation to rectify the two close but not the same numbers? The other issue is that the population numbers do not show in the Geobox settlement, and it does not compute the population density, which is set to be done by "auto". I am not familiar with geobox, and the page for the geobox template says that geobox settlement is deprecated. In the near term, it should probably be changed to an infobox settlement. However if anyone can get the population section to show on the page, that would be good. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horta,_Azores&oldid=1202800622"