From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Why not on Wikibooks? An atlas is a book, isn't it? I think WB has all the instruments to develope an atlas with hypertextual features. --Massimiliano L. 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It's like saying wikipedia should be a wikibook, since encyclopedias are usually books. drini [es:] [commons:] 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support[edit]

As long as the pages also contain a short description of it, along with a link to Wikipedia if appropriate - that would make it much more useful than an ordinary atlas. TheFearow 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why we shouldn't do it in Wikibooks? It, obviously, would be much more useful than an atlas, thanks to the hypertextual features, but the question is: are there serious reasons because it can't be built like a Wikibooks' book or section? --Massimiliano L. 19:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the atlas structure is not the same as a traditional books structure. Granted, traditionally atlas are books, but also quotation books (wikiquote), encyclopedias (wikipedia), photo albums (commons), etc. Let's not get carried away with the physical-representation to organize things. Your argument implies there should be only one project, wikibooks. drini [es:] [commons:] 01:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikibooks can justify a cookbook within its bounds, it certainly seems feasible to incubate this there, if only to provide a testbed for demonstrating its potential. -- Adrignola 01:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Commons:Atlas[edit]

What would WikiEarth's relationship with Commons:Atlas be? —Benn Newman 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WikiEarth would effectively duplicate this existing project. Judging from the proposal and the existing test project, I cannot find anything that goes beyond it. However, I'm not sure whether Commons is really the best place for such a project, if my understanding of its mission is correct. --Johannes Rohr 19:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be a separate project, as Commons is not meant to have an atlas. Commons host files, and has some basic search and organization data. But an atlas may need more than just hosting and lsiting images, so separate project would be appropiate (think of wikispecies vs wikipedia). drini [es:] [commons:] 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I suppose this should be a fully multilingual project (rather than creating a host of language subdomains). --Johannes Rohr 06:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel that "wikimaps" or "WikiAtlas" would make the purpose clearer. --Johannes Rohr 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do people think the WikiMap or WikiAtlas would be a better name than WikiEarth? If so, why don't we have a vote. WikiEarth 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about trademarks/confusion with other wiki based mapping projects? For example, I think that having a "wikimaps" project is a bad idea as long as there is a distinct and separate Wikimapia project. --Jeremyb 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Would it be possible to turn Wikimapia into a Wikimedia Foundation Project? I think it would be quite possible as Wikimapia is already looking for an investor. --Jan Winnicki 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I like this idea a lot, but the comment that there wouldn't be rail maps, bus routes etc... That doesn't make sense to me. I would like to see this project go into detail. It would be good to, say, look at Oceania and then zoom into Australia and then into Queensland and then into say Brisbane and see all the relevant local information. Aliasd 23:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By zoom I don't mean like in google maps, I mean, a state or province or district should have links to it's towns and cities if they also have pages. I just don't see why certain maps should be excluded. Aliasd 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this project is describing is a GIS - geographic information system.


I suggest creating visuals on each page using Google Maps and the Google Earth plugin. So you'd have a dynamic web page. And hey, the main page could have a Google Earth visual in the center. 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any comments specifically for me, put a talkback on my Wikipedia talk page where I will be more likely to notice it. Thanks! 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, it's again. The skin should be different from other Wikimedia projects, perhaps the new Wikia look with a photo of Earth in the background? 20:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this would save energy because it uses a black background, as opposed to the standard annoying white background associated with the Vector skin. So we combine the Vector skin with Wikia's skin, and POW! 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree old cap. 19:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I know. I,, am starting to get annoying. But I'm exercising my freedom of speech as an outsider IP address.

Maybe the logo should be identical to the Wikipedia logo superimposed over a picture of the Earth, with the hole in the top being a cross-section of Earth so you can see the layers. 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An open source 3D Globe?[edit]

There already exists OpenStreetMaps for a free and open 2D map, but what doesn't exist is a free and open-source 3D representation of the globe like that of Google Earth.

There's so much location data on Wikidata, would love that to be used to power a 3D representation of Earth. It could have community provided 3D models for buildings too if Commons could be adjusted to handle 3D models that could then be linked to items in Wikidata. The challenge of course, is I don't know that there's much in the way of free and open aerial and satellite footage. Google/Microsoft own a lot of it. El Dubs (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]