X2 (Every Colour Scheme Ever Colour Scheme) Colour Scheme
- Thread starter Ashtagon
- Start date
no, remove the stale red things that were only relevant before there were Caribbeans. I also am wanting little antarctic stages and extra Madagascars. that's the whole point of this.
Then you will have to explain it in a way that doesn't say "remove all the island states".
Sadly, as a former English teacher, deliberately using bad English of the type common in certain memes tends to create a strong barrier to communication. The foible is entirely my own idiosyncrasy. Nonetheless, both the foible and the barrier to communication exist when deliberately bad English is used to communicate with me.
In other news, I remain aware that the whole islands thing is a bit of a mess. But I remain disinclined to drop everything in order to fix it. I have a long weekend that is in desperate need of being enjoyed.
The original reason for having those multi-line blocks of red-shaded areas was to highlight that a) yes, I know they all exist, but b) not all of them are getting colours (specifically, the ones that are no more than colonies/protectorates/dependencies are not getting colours). I suppose I can split them out.
In other news, I remain aware that the whole islands thing is a bit of a mess. But I remain disinclined to drop everything in order to fix it. I have a long weekend that is in desperate need of being enjoyed.
The original reason for having those multi-line blocks of red-shaded areas was to highlight that a) yes, I know they all exist, but b) not all of them are getting colours (specifically, the ones that are no more than colonies/protectorates/dependencies are not getting colours). I suppose I can split them out.
Cool. Maybe add colours for the relevant and more likely to independentize half of 'em.
I think Ashtagon included them on the X2 because she plans on giving them a color, she's just had to work with more important entities and nations first. Now that all of the current sovereign states are included (except Cook Islands! So sad!), she can move on to finding appropriate colors for all the dependent territories.
Anyways, since South America, Europe and North America appear to be handled, can we move on to Africa? Ashtagon, what do you think of my suggestions for East Africa?
like, maybe not all, but afew of 'em wouldn't hurt. and definitely for the stpierre/miquelon, etc etc etc. faroe needs a colour, though.
edit: but what if?
Last edited:
Alex Richards
Donor
You know, I do try and stay out of raising this- but why does Barbados need a colour? I had to zoom down to city map scale to even find a minor islet. If it's just so that every country has a colour- well, why? What benefit do you actually get from colouring in Barbados?
Using that specific example, it's so that a) a modern world map *can* have every country coloured, b) for regional maps that are inherently at a a larger scale, these colours will tend to be more visible, or c) an ATL could involve a "Barbados" (either a post-colonial nation or a native state) that has become a widespread empire in its own right.
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, of those three:
a). Why is this actually valuable? What information does it actually convey? Especially considering that the use of individual colours (as opposed to a 4/5 colour scheme) is meant to highlight matters of interest, which is then obscured by everybody having one.
b). Again what information does it actually convey? For Barbados there's literally nothing else- this size is comparable to the largest basemaps we have, anything larger and you'll be labelling everything anyway.
c). Either of those examples is so different from modern Barbados that using the same colour for both implies a comparative relationship between them that is just absurd to actually make. You'd be better off just having an option for 'West Indies Federation' and using it for either of those cases, maybe even a 'Windward Islands Union'.
Oddly enough, if you find for your maps that there is no need to colour Barbados, then you are not obliged to do so, even if you are otherwise actually using this colour scheme (which in itself is not a requirement). For those who find such things useful in map-making, this colour scheme exists. For those who don't find this scheme useful in map-making, they are not obliged to use it. I fully acept that not everyone will want to use every feature of this colour scheme. But those features exist for those who want them.
No matter what scheme you are using (whether this or another), I would suggest that a key be included, in order to clarify, for example, whether it is the Empire of Brazil or the succeeding Republic of Brazil.
No matter what scheme you are using (whether this or another), I would suggest that a key be included, in order to clarify, for example, whether it is the Empire of Brazil or the succeeding Republic of Brazil.
Well, I need it for my CM revision 5, and it's working really well, as you can see in the image below. In my opinion, as a woman of science, I find the inclusion of colors for "furries" just as pointless as your reasoning behind including Barbados. But as we can see, Barbados clearly has a main color, as well as maritime claims and boundaries that necessitate its own color. Plus, since when did being a sovereign nation become unimportant?
Last edited: