Per the Wazeopedia USA Discord channel, a discussion came up for changing the order of the current numbering format (geographical) to alphabetical. This thread is to keep track of this discussion and reach a consensus for this change. The Main Page in question can be found here: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Main_Page. Also to be updated would be the Region numbering in the Regional Coordinator page found here https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Regional_Coordinator
Just to add: This would make the region lists on these two pages match with the side bar of the US Wazeopedia, as well as the region list on the Places page and might make it easier for newer folks to find their way. If there is consensus to support this change, I can replace the current numbered map with a map that shows each region’s abbreviation (GLR, SCR, etc) instead of the number with each region’s polygon being a clickable link to the region page.
The region list on the main page comes from the NavBox template, which is displayed in collapsed form at the bottom of every state page, so to reorder the regions on the main page would make them reordered at the bottom of all state pages as well.
I made two drafts: Regional Coordinator and USA Navbox (shows on Main Page and state and regional pages. The Regional Coordinator draft contains an image map, so clicking each region takes people to the wiki. The table has redundant abbreviations, because that’s how the RC/TableRow template was set up. I can change that after moving to main space, so as not to disturb how the current RC page looks.
As long as our RCs are OK with this, I think it makes sense to use the abbreviations in the map instead of numbers nobody uses. And then to make everything easier to find.
IMO, as long as it is uniform, I am good with it
I am ok with it, just need to make sure everything in the back-end is lined up also. (I thought there is stuff under the covers that might need to be adjusted also (I don’t code wiki, so I am not sure))
Thanks. Yes, the RC template suite is used on the RC page, but it does not use those region numbers. It uses different regional and state IDs to display the RCs for each region and whatnot; this would not be changed. I will make one small change, however, to RC/Region to remove the parentheses from the table display, so that the table doesn’t show the region abbreviation in two places on each row
I think it’s a sensible update for the sake of making the list more intuitive. No objections.
In general, I’m good with it. Of course, it’s hard for me to read that ancient text and not want to do some wordsmithing.
Suggestions on the map (thank you for the rework!):
I understand that the TLAs are placed at, essentially, the centroid of the given region. The NWR location was the first thing that threw me, but I understand why it’s where it is.
I’d like to suggest, for readability, that “GLR” be scooted down just a bit, so that it sits entirely over color, rather than having coastline underneath.
I’d like to suggest that “SER” be scooted up just a bit, for aesthetics.
In both cases, I think it’s pretty clear that the " land extensions" belong to the given region.
Not much we can do about NER, I’m afraid, but the coastline there does interfere with readability, as well.
The above are assuming that this won’t play some sort of havoc with the image map - I didn’t look to see how this image was constructed.
The directly adjacent colors for SWR and SCR are quite similar, no?
Even more minor ticky-tack: the colors for SER and MAR could maybe be lightened a little, to provide better contrast with the letters? These colors are significantly more saturated than the original ones.
Then, of course, I want to go to matching the regions’ colors on the grid below, at least in the first column, but that gets wacky, and results in some pretty bright coloring under text…
Finally, I wonder if the landing pages for each region should include the TLAs…
I agree, I would suggest switching the colors between one of the two with either NER or MAR, so the colors are more obviously different.
I would suggest switching SCR with SER to put the blue between the two "orange"s. Also, maybe switch GLR with NOR or NER, since NOR/NER are similar colors.
Much easier solution. I was probably over thinking it 
Ha, I actually wanted to rearrange more, but figure it is more my OCD speaking at that point. :lol:
It’s hard to pick 11 contrasting colors… I’ll see what I can do
You only really need five (four plus one to be sure the territories stand out as their own thing): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
This image was built using MapChart. I rebuilt some of it with some color switches and lightenings, and I moved the abbreviations to places that look a little better and more legible, even if they are not at the centers of the colored areas. I guess the SER color became the NER color. It was hard to figure out anything different while keeping 11 unique colors. Yeah I know you only need 5, but, at least to me, this shows how each region is its own region… I guess. As long as the pixel dimensions and places of each region remain the same, there is no rework of the link polygons in the image map. How does it look?
That link just goes to a generic map, not whatever you’re working on (but, now we know the secret ).
I know, I can’t save it there. Gotta download and work up locally
I misread and assumed you wanted us to look there for your current colors, rather than on your wiki page from an earlier post. It looks better in terms of colors that are next to each other, but muting them all would be better (less painful to look at). I would also suggest splitting ATR like the original map, so it doesn’t look like all of the Territories are in the Pacific.
OK, muted and split