File talk:EnglandAdminstrativeMap1086.png

I think Osgodcross should be Osgoldcross. Also, have you transposed North and Middle Holderness? Dadge (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dadge, well spotted and thanks for letting me know. Have fixed it now. XrysD ^TALK 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the file to remove the grey colouring of the non-Domesday counties. This map is purely to show the counties and hundreds around the time of Domesday. It is not meant to indicate which counties where part of the survey and which weren't, that is covered in this map. The same is true of this map which just shows the counties but doesn't show whether they are in Domesday or not. So in my view adding that extra information here clutters the map unnecessarily. User:DogOfDoom if you disagree, please discuss below, thanks. XrysD ^TALK 09:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:DogOfDoom Concerning your latest reversion of this to your edit. As I have stated above this map shows the Kingdom of England in 1086, not the Domesday survey areas. You continue to assert that the grey areas weren't part of the Kingdom but have not produced any sources to back up your claims. This is post Harrying of the North and certainly William's regime now controlled the areas, and considered all these areas to be part of his Kingdom, which is what this map shows. So please provide evidence that the grey areas were not legally part of England in 1086. XrysD ^TALK 08:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Source of Abbreviation and Contraction ; resolution UX feedback

Thank you for making this map. I understand that was already a lot of work, and that maintenance may continue over time via peer review. Good job.

However, You may benefit from an actual thumbnail with fewer illegible labels.

I have two constructive criticisms for you as a cartographer.

First, the smaller versions of the map appear "washed out" and blurry. User can see there are detailed boundaries and label words on the map but not read them. On the larger file sizes the words are legible but edges of characters and lines still not sharp (slightly blurry) on my devices. Consider having different files rather than only different sizes of the same file. This would allow you to make more appropriate design and cartography decisions based on the effective resolution, for example to omit hundreds or feoff labels that are certain to be illegible (but also visible) an detract from the the effectiveness of the map. It is not effective to entice the user to attempt to read illegible labels on smaller file sizes. This is ultimately an unsatisfactory byproduct of the WikiPedia convention to host an array of file sizes for graphics like this, of which some are intended to be used as small thumbnails and some in essence as vector art with infinite zoom and infinite legibility. Good idea in theory. Doesn't work all the time in practice. You may benefit from an actual thumbnail with fewer illegible labels.

Second, what is the source of the many seemingly arbitrary, awkward, and a-anglo abbreviations and contractions you are using as labels? What is your methodology or heuristic for generating new (eg two-letter) labels? For example are you using first letter last, or first-second, or first-caps for multiword hundreds and feoffs; or taking these verbatim from Domes

Lastly, and this is a little thing in passing, about prior edit request here on the Discussion. There was little (arguably no) consistency or standardization of spelling of these place names at this time, or for centuries. (Even Hen VIII complained about this, and it's evidenced circa Shakespeare or Cromwell the elder.) So if somebody tells you that you typo'd one holding or manor by leaving out an "l" or "oo" vs "o" and other such silent letter that has only spelling ramifications not audible impact or semiotic meaning, consider they may be inappropriately projecting later name words back in time (eg from today if they live there) or cherrypicking one alternate spelling when contemporary records evidence many and inconsistency. So correcting from one valid inconsistency to another valid inconsistency would be arbitrary; and edit work over time goes infinite if there is no guiding principle for how to avoid loops and bit flips with no determinism.

Regards and good luck. Nice work! 2600:4040:5AEF:B400:1749:3AC0:79E9:DA1 10:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind words :) To address your criticisms: the thumbnails are all generated automatically by Wikimedia when the file is uploaded. We have no control of this and can't replace the auto-generated thumbnails with ones of our own AFAIK. The text label size was chosen for counties densely populated with hundreds (mostly in Wessex). This means for other counties it seems small and consequently illegible on thumbnails. The map is really only meant to be viewed full size. This is a limitation of how WP handles images - obviously GIS tools do a better job. The only convention with the two letter names of detached parts was to be able to easily visually distinguish on the map which hundred they are part of. Finally the main source of names is The Landscapes of Governance Project so any naming conventions are theirs not mine. For any names not in their source data (e.g. ridings of Yorkshire and parts of Lincolnshire) these come from the other sources listed. XrysD ^TALK 18:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)