WikiProject Users

(Rated C-class, Low-importance)

This editor is within the scope of WikiProject Users, a collaborative effort to rate Wikipedia editors to assess the value of their contributions to the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can contest your rating and see a list of open tasks.[Humor]UsersWikipedia:WikiProject UsersUser:Sdkb//WikiProject_Users/templateUsers articles  C  This user has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This user has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Choropleth maps are about as basic as you can get for a data-based map. I created nearly all the US choropleth maps with numbers in this category:

• c:Category:English-language SVG choropleth maps of the United States with visible numbers. Made with templates

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh maps! Going to put on my cartographic critique hat for a moment:

• First, I'm glad you are using rates on the maps instead of totals, that is good (Passed the first test on choropleths, my first professor failed us for mapping totals, and I make my students redo them or receive a zero).
• Second, In terms of map elements, you should include the projection information, data source, indication of North (north arrow, compass rose, or graticule), scale bar(s), and author name (On Wikipedia I just use my user name) on the map. This is not an ownership thing, it is an accountability thing, when the map leaks into a place that is not Wikipedia, they should be able to find and message you with questions.
• Third, for symbolization, generally a bi-variate color schemes are very dangerous to use for univariate maps as they can very easily open the door to accusations of presenting data in a leading way. They are good for multi-variate maps, an example could be %Democrat and %Republican, with a middle value that would represent a perfect 50/50 split. If you're using it for a single variable, it is generally used for things with a "middle" value between two extremes, such as hot and cold (My first cartography professor would fail our maps for a bi-variate color scheme on a single variable). Using it for a single variable like Homicide rates per 100,000 by state is misleading as the dataset is not diverging from a central point, and it makes it harder for reader to actually use the map to compare areas at a glance.
• Fourth, I have a few rules in my GIS classes, and one is that no maps about gun ownership in the U.S.. The reason is that all the data is pre-digested estimates. I did some research on gun violence as it relates to public health, and ultimately we found that gun ownership studies have pretty big error margins. Firearms are inherited between family members, gifted, lost, traded, and sold under the table with no record. Many people also actively keep gun ownership in their homes private and do not tell anyone that might be an authority figure. Many firearms owners own multiple, which makes purchasing data unreliable as one household with 30 guns may skew the results. This is before the fact these studies are generally 3rd party, and fingers get pointed about bias and agenda.
• Finally, if you are going to label the values for each enumeration unit, you don't need to use color to symbolize it. It is generally going to just be more map clutter.

I recommend reading the book How to Lie with Maps if you haven't already. Approachable and timeless when it comes to cartography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage: I used a template, but I am not the template creator. cmglee created the US choropleth template. I wrote most of the instructions. You guys should talk elsewhere so this already long thread stays on topic. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why, when QGIS is freely available, are we making maps like this? It's like seeing someone try to do photoshop with Microsoft paint. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 09:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage: We were looking for a way to make US choropleth maps with visible numbers and state names that wouldn't require being an expert in map creation, learning how to use a software program, etc.. I just wanted a way to paste in a list or table of 51 state-value pairs (US states and DC).

cmglee came up this method with some help from others.

Convert a US list/table to a state-by-state data map. With examples and step-by step instructions. Example:

See: List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate.

Simpler methods are always welcome. I looked at several online map-making sites, and couldn't find anything I liked. Especially for adding the lines pointing to the smaller states.

If I were to use QGIS starting from zero knowledge what would be the exact steps to get the same result? And once I have that result could I use it to create more maps just by using a text editor to plug in a different state-value list, and labels, into the svg file.

I could put those instructions on a user subpage, and link to it from a choropleth section here:

• c:Commons:Map resources

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging cmglee again since the last ping here did not work due to my last reply being combined with the copy-and-paste. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! I've been screaming into the void in various places like the village pump for a while trying to get some people interested in working on maps on Wikipedia. Choropleth maps are an interesting topic, they are by far the most popular thematic map type employed, but have significant limitations and requirements. Of the thematic maps, it is likely the one with the largest body of literature on their use, including topics like class break, color choice, enumeration units, and more. Unfortunately, enabling people to make maps without having that knowledge often results in bad maps, like all the misleading maps in this category. I'm torn on the democratization of cartography, largely because while I believe everyone should be able to make maps, I think they should take the time to learn how to do so appropriately. There is a pile of public literature on how to make a Choropleth map on QGIS, if a person isn't willing to take the twenty minutes or so to learn that, they probably haven't taken the time to learn how to properly make a Choropleth map. It is better not to have any map at all then a bad one. Some fun reading if you're interested in the problem of "bad maps" on the Internet (all links should be free):

• The Convergence of Spatial Technologies
• The Web, Cartography and Trust
• lying with maps
• Ethics and Map Design: Six Strategies for Confronting the Traditional One-Map Solution
• Borden Dent is one of the big names in terms of thematic map design if you're looking for a body of literature to explore.

The main solution I can think of is creating a manual of style for maps that is fairly conservative in its approach. Maps are like written language, they convey meaning largely through established conventions. When people who are not experts make maps, they often ignore these, and make the equivalent mistake of grammatical errors or misusing words. One example on the maps you're using as examples is the divergent color scheme, which really is not appropriate on most choropleth maps that are univariate. It is generally considered something that is done to bias the reader. Another is the lack of scale indicators for the contiguous U.S., Hawaii, and Alaska, and I'm not sure what projection you're using, but I suspect it is three different ones for each area shown. Projection information should be included on the map itself.

Another solution is actually part of the cartographic design process in Maribeth Prices book "Mastering ArcGIS Pro," which is to establish objective, select data, arrange map elements, symbolize data, review the map, make edits based on feedback, and repeat the process, all while considering the objective at each step and the 6th strategy in Mark Monmonier's Ethics and map design linked above; some sort of peer-review for maps. Ideally, this would be based on a MoS specific to cartography on Wikipedia. We teach GIS students to seek out and give critique like the one I wrote on the other page that you copied here. It is an essential part of making a map, a sanity check, proof read, and suggestions for improvement.

In terms of the software for maps, there are several free options that can produce Choropleth maps, and I think we should try to encourage using better quality software over quantity of maps. The easiest free option is GeoDa, but the maps produced by it are a bit simple, and I think it lacks a lot of the essential elements discussed by Dent. The best free option is QGIS, but it has a steep learning curve. That learning curve serves as a bit of a filter though, it forces people to actually learn the ABCs before trying to write a college essay. I believe ArcGIS Online free accounts can make a choropleth map, but you can't change the projection from Web Mercator, which is a bit of a problem when you're making choropleth maps as they are also known as "map by area," and Web Mercator famously distorts area. To quote the Wikipedia page "For all these reasons, the United States Department of Defense through the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has declared this map projection to be unacceptable for any official use." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me throw it back at you. Make a perfect US SVG choropleth map with visible state names and values.

Then try to put a spot in the SVG where people paste in a state/value list all at once. I can list the line numbers for the labels. Then anybody could make a new map in a few minutes with a free text editor such as Notepad++. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why? First, that is a fairly ineffective way to make a map, and second, I don't want to make it easier for "anybody" to make a new map in a few minutes. That opens the door for people to produce maps without thought about the data and underlying symbolization. The symbolization will also be pretty poor, for example, I believe I have no idea what the class breaks are on the maps being generated, and suspect they are a continuous color ramp with a graphic that suggests they are binned. There is not a one size fits all solution to data binning, a common default is Jenks natural breaks optimization, but there is also equal interval, standard deviation, continuous, and others. For example, I have two maps showing the same dataset in 2020 attached here, one is using a continuous color scheme and the other is using Jenks natural breaks. They were both made to illustrate the data classification methods, and you can see that there are different visual patterns between the two (although subtle). There has been a lot of arguments in the literature about how to do this properly, and there is not a one size fits all solution. Why would I want to make it even easier for people to make maps without considering things like this? It would produce bad cartography that a normal reader probably won't think twice about.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of putting the maps side by side to keep the thread more compact. Feel free to revert it. I did it in a separate edit so it is easy to revert it.

Perfect is the enemy of good. I think this applies here.

You could create a plug-and-play US choropleth map for each variation. Right now I am only looking for states, not counties. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Any body can publish any kind of a map, however bad, and get away with it. Ordinarily' a field is subject to the law of natural selection-the things that are bad or inadequate fail to survive. But in cartography this law does not operate effectively because the ability to dis criminate among maps is not widespread in this country."

— Richard Edes Harrison (1950), Cartography in in Art and Advertising, The Professional Geographer.

"As cartographers, therefore, it is our responsibility (though not ours alone) to ensure well-designed, data-rich maps are part of any online geographic visualization system, and to be "Internet activists" in developing good content. It is now, while the web is relatively young that we have the most opportunity to shape it."

— Jeremy Crampton (1998), The Convergence of Spatial Technologies, Cartographic Perspectives

All models are wrong, but some are useful. Maps are models of reality, and are therefore simplifications and will always be imperfect. That said, Cartographic design has established conventions and best practices to make it so distortion and simplification is systematic and communicated to the user. In the Map communication model, we view "mapping as a process of transmitting geographic information via the map from the cartographer to the end-user." A map that doesn't follow these is like a paper with bad grammar, spelling, improper word choice, and handwriting; inadequate at conveying the information to the user in a meaningful way. Arthur H. Robinson, the "Father" of academic cartography, believed that a map that was poorly designed "will be a cartographic failure." I'm not concerned with getting more amateur maps on Wikipedia that fail to follow even the most basic cartographic conventions, which at this point the bad outnumber the good significantly. A misleading map is worse then no map at all. I am certainly not wanting to Jury rig something that is fundamentally inadequate so people can make the problem worse, enabling anyone to throw together a choropleth map without a second thought of the underlying data and design criteria would be irresponsible of me. The two maps you link use inappropriate color schemes, are missing information related to scale, orientation, and projection, have no authorship information or source included on the map, and use a system of class breaks that I'm not sure I understand (They look like a continuous color ramp with pseudo class breaks thrown on top, the class breaks are unlabeled as well). There was a famous retracted paper that used the letter T on top of bar charts to make it look like it had Error bars. This was hilarious, and likely caused by the author trying to copy what others had done without understanding what the reason for doing it was. Bad choropleth maps look like those error bars, however most users don't actually know enough to catch the mistake. These bad maps serve as bad examples to others, allowing them to point and justify their decisions. There are plenty of free and relatively user friendly map software out there, I'm fairly certain you can make a basic layout with a free ArcGIS Online account for example. I'm pretty sure you can use geopandas and matplotlib.pyplot in Python to do it. I know you can use ggplot2 in R to do it. QGIS is free. GeoDa is free. There are options, if someone is not willing to use free software to properly make a map, they are probably making a mess. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: The two maps you link use inappropriate color schemes, are missing information related to scale, orientation, and projection, have no authorship information or source included on the map, and use a system of class breaks that I'm not sure I understand (They look like a continuous color ramp with pseudo class breaks thrown on top, the class breaks are unlabeled as well).

I don't think Wikipedia readers need to see an orientation image or arrow for a US map. It's rare to see one on this particular type of 2-D US map anywhere. Because we are looking at the standard US map that points north at the top.

Could maybe squeeze an arrow under the caption. Then we wouldn't be adding white space around the edges. The bane of maps on Wikipedia if you want readers to have any hope of learning something from the thumbnail map without having to expand the image. On pages with many images I like to scroll down the page and not stop to enlarge an image. Thumbnails can go up to 400 to 500px depending on what the editors decide.

Scale is not important on the 2 maps I added here.

There is no need for a legend for class breaks when the numbers are on the map. On most choropleth maps without numbers on the map the legend is one's only hope of having a clue about the numbers. And only in a range. Exact numbers on the map are much better. The shading on the map is helpful for seeing patterns.

The colors were chosen mainly because we were limited to black text if we didn't want to make it much more difficult for average editors to make maps with the template. Choosing background color schemes, text colors, and safe combinations can be a colossal waste of time. So we provided one scheme. People can change it in the SVG code, and the instructions tell how. But there is no built-in way to easily add white text as needed.

It would be nice to have one line of space at the bottom of the map to name the source. Maybe cmglee can add optional space for that to the SVG template.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stretching the notion of lying, I’m convinced that inadvertent fabrication is far more common these days than intentional deceit. Moreover, because most maps now are customized, one-of-a-kind graphics that never make it into print or onto the Internet, prevaricating mapmakers often lie more to themselves than to an audience. Blame technology—a conspiracy between user-friendly mapping software (or notso-user-friendly geographic information systems) and high-resolution laser printers that can render crisp type and convincing symbols with little effort or thought. There’s a warning here I’m sure Darrell Huff would applaud: watch out for the well-intended mapmaker who doesn’t understand cartographic principles yet blindly trusts the equally naive software developer determined to give the buyer an immediate success experience—default settings are some of the worst offenders. Because lying with maps is so easy in our informationrich world, infrequent mapmakers need to understand the pitfalls of map generalization and map readers need to become informed skeptics

— Mark Monmonier, Lying with maps

• Exact numbers on the map are much better. ^{[citation needed]}
• You're relying on the convention that North is at the top, that users know that, and that users know the orientation of the U.S., Hawaii, and Alaska. It is bad form. In my intro classes I do an experiment every year where I have them label a compass rose; roughly 2% can't do it.
• I suspect you're using three different projections, and no indication of which ones. This likely means your map has three different norths.
• You have three different scales on your maps but no indication of scale for any of them, you are relying on users knowing the relative size of Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S..
• Having numbers labeling your map when you have colors is redundant clutter, not having labeled class breaks (and what I suspect is not actually class breaks, but like the T on the error bar is probably a color ramp with boxes set on top) obfuscates the pattern. Different classification methods result in different patterns of color, it is important to know what is being used.
• You chose a scheme that is not appropriate for most univariate choropleth maps. It is not only overly complex, but potentially misleading. Divergent schemes should really only be used when data diverges, such as a map showing negative and positive change between two time periods, or when there are multiple variables. See example of one I created to be an example of a bi-variate map.

Did you actually consult cartographic literature, do you have any education in cartography, or do you just assume you know everything? Bad maps are a serious problem, and the maps you are making are not particularly good. I'm interested in introducing basic cartographic standards, not spamming stuff I would fail my students for and tell them to do again. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: Thanks very much for responding to GeogSage and for your great work to date. I suppose it's possible to have white text by putting a white outline around the black text; on light backgrounds, it's barely visible but on dark ones, the outline "becomes" the text.

I'm not too keen to have the source on the map itself; it's sufficient to have it as a reference in the caption or on the file description page. (In the event that the data for each state has a different source, the list might be larger than the map itself!)

Cheers, cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 04:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the map of Alaska has been compressed. But that is pretty standard for this type of US states map.

People usually can recognize their own state on a US map. But may not know the names and locations of many other states. Which is why we labeled them. cmglee is from the UK if I am remembering correctly. And I confuse the New England states if they are not labeled. We could use zip codes, but then who knows all the zip codes? Especially non-Americans. Later note: I meant 2-letter state abbreviations.

In my intro classes I do an experiment every year where I have them label a compass rose; roughly 2% can't do it.

Is that true for continental US only? If so, then I am surprised. But it is still not what these maps are created for. These maps for showing rates for states, and patterns. But if a compass rose can be added, then I have no problem. It looks small enough on your map of counties. Maybe cmglee might put one in just under Alabama. That would not increase the size of the map thumbnail.

Putting 3 side-by-side scales (Continental US, Alaska, Hawaii) on the bottom of the map would require the equivalent of 2 more lines of text. Followed by a line for the source. Text for the source could be smaller text, and more source lines could be squeezed in that space. It might be possible to add all that in a compact way. We have to remember that images are usually stacked on the right. The taller the images the less images in a section.

I am still not sold on the need for the projection name on the map. Or the user name. That can go on the file description page. Multiple users work on some maps over time. That should be in the file description.

And I am surprised that you prefer colors without numbers for the states. Most people I have communicated with like the numbers on the state maps. Along with the shading.

I can see why you would prefer colors over numbers for counties since there is no space to add numbers.

OWID provides numbers via hovering:

• https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-healthcare-expenditure-per-capita

We haven't gotten that far yet for the OWID interactive maps on the Commons and English Wikipedia yet. See the interactive healthcare expenditure map to the right top of this page:

• c:Category:Interactive data graphics by Our World in Data

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage: you seem to be an expert on maps. However, most Wikipedia readers aren't, and would probably not care about scale, orientation or projection. For them, it's likely rough comparisons of the degree of the variable illustrated that is more important.

I would think of these choropleths as simple block diagrams in which their shapes approximately resemble the shapes of the territories. I would definitely not try to measure distances or areas from such diagrams! For this reason, I'd rather have a smaller Alaska than forcing continental US to be smaller to accommodate a full-scale one.

That said, I'm fine with including an arrow pointing north. Can GeogSage recommend a simple style to use as I'm aware there are many possible representations?

Cheers, cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 03:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. regarding the inappropriate colour scheme, can you explain why it's inappropriate and recommend another which both supports colour blindness and is reasonably aesthetic (i.e. not monochrome)? cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 03:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the class breaks, though. They were supposed to be deciles but I'm unsure how to label them. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 04:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter:

• Yes, the map of Alaska has been compressed. But that is pretty standard for this type of US states map. Yes, it is also standard to include an indication of scale so you know what the actual size relationship is, ESPECIALLY with a choropleth map. So a choropleth obviously needs normalization, however one thing about them is they are "rate by area" maps, to understand the problem you need to look at cartogram maps. A choropleth is obviously showing the value you are using to shade it in, however it is also showing the area that value is for (why normalization is important). This can be changed by using a cartogram, which changes the underlying area of the enumeration units based on another variable. This IS an effective way to map totals. This is why you should use equal area projections, rather then something like the Mercator, when making choropleth maps. Changing the size of Hawaii and Alaska changes the relative area, which is fine on reference maps, but not as fine with a thematic map. If you are going to use three different scales on a thematic map, you should at least indicate what the three scales are.
• People usually can recognize their own state on a US map. But may not know the names and locations of many other states. Labels can be fine, generally I find they get in the way of the data though and if needed provide a separate, smaller Locator map when I can get away with it. Labeling the data AND the states is a bit much.
• Is that true for continental US only? If so, then I am surprised. I teach in the U.S., I don't have enough of a sample size yet to make formal claims though about other populations. I use it for an anecdote in lecture, to tell my GIS students that they need to indicate North on their maps because there are lots of people who don't know where North is. This is important not necessary for a casual viewer, but for someone who is discussing the map. When referencing a map in a lecture, a person may say "As you can see, on the East coast." Having these directions labeled gives people a quick reference to look at and understand what is meant. The utility offered by the map element vs the space they take up is well worth the trade off.
• We could use zip codes, but then who knows all the zip codes? Especially non-Americans. So you can actually see a discussion about it on this talk page above in the section marked "External links." Short version, ZIP codes are not units we should be using for making thematic maps. Very bad. Not good. There are many reasons, many listed above, not going to go into it here. If you need citations, I have an embarrassing amount.
• Putting 3 side-by-side scales (Continental US, Alaska, Hawaii) on the bottom of the map would require the equivalent of 2 more lines of text. Usually, when I make a map with Hawaii and Alaska and need to have them separated out, I use an extension inset, and place them in boxes with their own outlines to clearly separate them from the main data frame. The scale bars then can be quite small within these separate boxes, you have plenty of white space in the maps here to include them in a way that is unintrusive. See the map of Australia for an example.

  

  . Another solution I experimented with recently was just using one projection, although that isn't ideal either. I used the U.S. contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (likely what your contiguous U.S. section is using) for the entire U.S. when I made the map of Regional divisions of the AAG. There is likely a better projection, but for the Chorochromatic map it seemed to work. Again, experimental map, but there are more projections out there that could simplify this.

• Most people I have communicated with like the numbers on the state maps. Search for "Choropleth map" on Google images, and you will see this is not common practice. Labeling enumeration units is defensible, but redundant information is generally just taking up space that could be used for other things. Putting to much on a map actually makes it harder for people to use.
• I am still not sold on the need for the projection name on the map. Or the user name. That can go on the file description page. Multiple users work on some maps over time. That should be in the file description. The reason the projection information is needed, in this case, is because the maps are extremely likely to be removed from the context we intend. If these were figures in a book or journal, I may agree on the projection information being included in a note. As stand alone figures on Wikimedia, I think all information needs to be as self contained as possible. The User name is the same reason, accountability. You can see a reason why in this article, which used the choropleth map on this page with Jenks natural breaks. I made that map for the pages Jenks natural breaks optimization and George F. Jenks, but it ended up being used outside Wikipedia. This is a good thing, obviously they can freely take it, however it provides accountability if anyone has questions, and a road back to the original data'
• I can see why you would prefer colors over numbers for counties since there is no space to add numbers. That is certainly a part of it, however you can see the same problem start to happen in New England on the examples you have. Generally, including extra information just overwhelms a user and gets in the way of seeing a pattern. It is actually a listed method for making misleading maps, overwhelm the user with information. Think of it like a Bar chart, Pie chart, or Line graph, we don't generally put the value of each bar on or above the chart. Multivariate maps are another reason though, you can add other things onto a choropleth map that are more meaningful then the individual numbers and compare multiple variables. To accomplish something like what you're doing in a few papers I've written, I had separate tables for the raw values.
• OWID provides numbers via hovering Dynamic maps have a lot of extra functionality, and pop-ups/hovering is a huge one. Trying to bring all the extra functionality of a dynamic map into a static is going to make a mess. For example, choropleth maps are map by area, so why not include the area of each unit as well? Why not show the raw total value AND the raw population used to calculate the rate? Why not add _____? You can make cases for all of those, and more, but including all of them is going to be a mess. That is the problem, there is always more data you can add to a map, but the goal is to include the least amount possible to achieve the objective. Better to let the symbols do their job in as clean a way as possible.
• See the interactive healthcare expenditure map to the right top of this page: Is that made with R (programming language) leaflet? If so, its a good start. If not, it would probably be worth looking into.

@Cmglee:

• I'm not too keen to have the source on the map itself; it's sufficient to have it as a reference in the caption or on the file description page. (In the event that the data for each state has a different source, the list might be larger than the map itself!) As stated above, it is important to list sources on the document if it is likely the document will leak outside the original context. Including to many sources on a map would be pushing the boundaries of WP:SYNTH, and we get away with a lot making maps that wouldn't fly in text. Different sources likely have different data standards, dates, error margins, collection methods, etc. Putting them together onto one map and representing them together is not going to always be appropriate even in an academic situation where original research is the goal, not something to be avoided. Boundaries being cited is a must, as those are essentially political opinions.
• you seem to be an expert on maps. However, most Wikipedia readers aren't, and would probably not care about scale, orientation or projection. For them, it's likely rough comparisons of the degree of the variable illustrated that is more important. Thank you for the compliment, however my qualifications are not public here, so there is no need to respect my opinion more then another user. I do have sources though, it is actually pretty funny I've done a bit of theory work pretty closely related to this topic of discussion, so I have a few literature reviews I can get if you need any for a specific topic (Not trying to be sarcastic, literal). A major area of focus in cartography among academics is actually how to communicate information with non-experts, as well as various other issues like what happens when a map has a misleading symbolization. I linked it above, but you can see this emphasis in the Map communication model. Anyway, the emphasis of a choropleth is obviously the comparison of the variable under investigation, however as maps are models of reality, it is really important that we document how we made that model in an open way that facilitates reproduction (so others can check the work). While a general user might not care, we can use different labels of text so that the projection, user name, the date a map was created, source, etc. appear in fine print. I tend to limit myself to four font sizes: The title (largest), the legend title, legend elements and labels, and misc. information (smallest). A common one might be having the title at 20, the legend title at 16, the legend elements and labels at 12, and the projection/source/date/author name at 8. The important thing is that it is there if the person needs it, but out of the way. Think the fine print on the back of a prescription pill bottle.
• I agree about the class breaks, though. They were supposed to be deciles but I'm unsure how to label them. *Sigh* Generally in a choropleth map, odd numbers are preferred (so there is a clear "middle" value), and more then 7 classes is discouraged (hard for the human eye to distinguish more then that), so 3, 5, and 7 are the common ones. Often, a zero class is added separately and colored differently, or no-data. See ColorBrewer.org: An Online Tool for Selecting Colour Schemes for Maps, Choropleth Maps Without Class Intervals? : A Comment .

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. regarding the inappropriate colour scheme, can you explain why it's inappropriate and recommend another which both supports colour blindness and is reasonably aesthetic (i.e. not monochrome) A divergent color scheme implies a central point that the data diverges from, not the median/mean of a dataset. It splits the data into two categories, rather then a continuous high/low distribution. Think about a number line, negative and positive numbers diverge from zero, you could reasonably make white, negative blue, and positive red. If you plot your data on a graph, you can have a dataset that starts in the negative quadrant and crosses into the positive, and change colors when the line crosses the axis. If the line starts at zero and then only stays in the positive quadrant, a divergent color scheme is an odd choice at the least, such a divide (likely arbitrarily somewhere in the "middle") is not an appropriate representation. Then you have cultural perception of color, by splitting it into two distinct colors, you're leading the reader to think one side may be "Good, safe, beneficial" and the other is "Bad, unsafe, harmful," or other things. The split in colors makes the reader immediately split the dataset into two categories, and makes it harder to use the map to compare spatial relationships without looking at the legend. ColorBrewer has a good selection of color ramps, and the different versions are all suitable to different situations. There isn't really a one size fits all solution to this, you choose the colors based on a variety of factors. In the West, we tend to avoid Red if we are trying to present our data objectively, as it immediately invokes hazard. COVID-19 choropleths published in the U.S. tended to favor blue ramps, which are generally more neutral, however they do run the risk of clashing with symbolization that is meant to represent water. Green can be used, however people often immediately think of vegetation when they see it, and it has a bit of a positive connotation that might not be desired. Grey scale is safe for color blind individuals, is a bit more neutral, and is easy to print without the need for color ink, however a lot of people don't find it as nice to look at. Black also can invoke the idea of "death" in Western cultures. You can read Brewers documentation on the different color schemes here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out "zip code" in my last post. Brain fart. I was probably tired. I meant 2-letter state abbreviations. More to come. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate possible problems with insets for Alaska and Hawaii see below. cmglee and I worked for years on 2 templates and instruction pages. We managed to make the state names and values legible at thumbnail sizes. And we did some serious study of contrast and color blindness to make them legible for more readers. But the main thing is that Alaska and Hawaii are below and not to the side. All this to say that it is no wonder you don't see state names and values on most US choropleth maps of states. It's not easy to do and maintain legibility at smaller sizes. It is much easier now with the template.

To maintain legibility in the map sizes below insets can't extend past the width of the continental US. White space to the sides was minimized.

I think inset lines could be drawn around Alaska and Hawaii as they are placed now. They wouldn't be straight lines. Then the scales could be squeezed in just below via the small text you mentioned. Scale text for continental US could be a little larger.

See c:File:Map of US minimum wage by state.svg#Tests

From en:Help:Pictures#Thumbnail sizes is this:

220px:

250px:

300px:

upright=1.35 (requires thumb,
thus the border and caption space):

I have added source info at the bottom of various charts and maps. So I have no problem with that. I use whatever text size will fit. For the choropleth maps I created I used the same sources for the continental US, Hawaii, and Alaska. So I could squeeze in the source info without problems. But the SVG template would have to be adapted first to allow that.

I like the current legend consisting of just a range. It conserves space, and shows the endpoints. I don't know if the lines on the range are accurate. The lines could be removed if not accurate. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Choropleth maps are maps by area, and they exist to demonstrate spatial relationships in data. The size of the enumeration units, and ability to compare them at a glance, is part of the utility. Throwing non-contiguous areas into a map is stretching the utility of the map type, doing it at a different scale is undermining the comparison of area that is part of the utility of choropleth maps, not indicating the different scales of the areas being mapped crosses the line into misleading, although falling into the category of "inadvertent fabrication" and not"intentional deceit", as described by Monmonier. I have to stress, there is not a one size fits all solution for creating choropleth maps, there is quite a bit of literature on them, a large portion of that is on issues with them, or on best practices for various types of data/distributions. Before creating choropleth maps, or maps in general, how much did you read up on cartography basics? Would you dive into doing statistics without reading stats literature on the limitations and assumptions of the statistics?
• I like the current legend consisting of just a range. It conserves space, and shows the endpoints. I don't know if the lines on the range are accurate. The lines could be removed if not accurate. There are times that just a range can be fine, however it makes the legend less useful and makes it harder for users to grasp the values of the bins. If you remove the lines, you are using an unclassified choropleth map (with a divergent color scheme). There is a lot of criticism of this, although Waldo R. Tobler was a champion of them. I linked one of my favorite articles on this above, Choropleth Maps Without Class Intervals? : A Comment. This paper is a direct response to Tobler's paper Choropleth Maps Without Class Intervals? and I like it because it is a very obvious way to highlight formal academic discourse.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]