Original - The animation shows the progression of how the majority of continental North American land was partitioned after European colonization
Reason
This image, one of several, which are also good, seems to meet all of the criteria: The creator has released it to the public, high res., the subject is very clear, obviously adds value to articles about North America and is definitely one of the best works on Wikipedia IMO because it's such a detailed animation of more than 250 years of North American history, and the page itself is loaded with historical information. I didn't create this image and don't know if Esemono will be willing or able to tweak its graphics, so as far as my part in nominating this it's 'take it or leave it'. WARNING: It has a very BIG filesize, so be careful when viewing it.
Support as nominator --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral Gif animations are great for small stuff or if you live in 1995, but in the modern world of the internet, something like this as a static liner gif does not work, It takes way to long to progress, huge file. This is something that should be a Flash file, and this is why Wikipedia needs to allow flash for illustrations like this. — raeky(talk | edits) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The file is only 500KB. The lapse between stages allows you to look at the detail (there are many in some). About flash, if Wikipedia does not use it (even if it should) how can we use it as an evaluation criteria? What is the policy of FPC about this? Is there any? franklin.vp 11:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me where, but there are ongoing discussions on that issue. Wiki support for flash seems to be weak because it isn't an open standard. Imo it is a defacto standard like GIF though and consequently should be supported. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well GIF isn't a free file format either, and for the most part so isn't JPEG. But the bigger issue is there isn't any free programs that I know of that creates flash files? If there is then there wouldn't be any reason to not allow flash. As far as browser support, pretty sure the vast overwhelming majority of browsers now support flash. — raeky(talk | edits) 16:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the modern world of of fast internet, huge files should not be a problem :-) --Muhammad(talk) 16:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent yes, but just such a large animated gif being scaled actually lagged my computer when it first displayed, that combined with the server doesn't create a thumbnail, so anyone who is not on a broadband connection, which is still a pretty significant % of the US population, 500k image is _huge_ for these people. Specifically when this exact same thing could be done as a flash file, giving you control to pause,rewind,speed up,slow down, and be 1:10th or 1:20th the size. I'm sure wikipedia is the only mega-visited website still in existence that uses animated gif's. — raeky(talk | edits) 17:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Neutral now that it's speeded up, and it may become support if Durova's concerns can be addressed, my Oppose wasn't on file format but on speed mostly (and some on the actual file-size, because animated gif's are not thumbnailed and display full size in the article.) The file format argument was just to illustrate how we still use such an antiquated file format. It is clearly holding much EV if it's properly sourced. — raeky(talk | edits) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arrows at the bottom are two big as to be distracting, heck entire bottom bar is poorly done, also too slow. Waiting on vote until format issue is resolved, but as it stands, would be an oppose. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupportI have no problem with the gif format but this is way to slow.Staxringoldtalkcontribs 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support now that the speed is more reasonable. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support This detailed and meticulously annotated animation is hugely informative, and exactly the sort of subject we ought to be featuring if we can. It's more than a little bit WP:BITEy to focus solely on the file format and neglect to review the content itself. Would love to give this strong support except for one missing criterion: the animation is currently sourced to Wikipedia articles. Please provide reliable sources (either online or book sources) for the information. If that takes a little while we could suspend the nomination during research. Durova362 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources (either online or book sources) have been provided for each slide of the animation on the Animation article page at, Territorial evolution of North America -- Esemono (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faster Faster! Now it is faster. Each frame lasts 1 sec. franklin.vp 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thanks for making it faster. I definitely understand Raeky and Staxringold's issues with it, it would be much better if it was flash and could move at different speeds and you could go back to different frames (I definitely am for adding flash as a Wiki filetype), however I didn't see anything in the criteria about images being too big/slow or what have you. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that if it moves at a pace nonconstructive to viewing, it detracts from Encyclopedic Value (EV). Nezzadar[SPEAK] 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has a particularly misleading title. It does not show non-Native control over North America, but non-Native territorial claims. The distinction is very important, as many of the early claims were not turned into de-facto control until the late 19th Century - as Native Americans were exercising sovereignty over their lands. Few would dispute this point. If an appropriate title and image label can be found, I'll support. Non-Native American Nations Territorial Claims over N America 1750-2008? Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought: Well, if it would be ok we could simply move the image to a differently titled URL. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Native American Nations Control over N America 1750-2008 is a terrible title. Since when are Russia, UK, France and Spain "American Nations". It is obvious that they are "Non-Native" since they are not on "N America". 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support having not read the above discussion much. I do agree with Durova though; I will accept Wikipedia as a source - for the US and Canada - if the current FPs are cited. That means someone needs to compare, because there can be no anomalies. Great file though; extremely informative. upstateNYer 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canada animation
US by state animation
Southwestern US and Mexico animation
Confederate States animation
Comment: Can the bottom two arrows be changed to a bar (preferably) or a single arrow? The two arrows look awful, to be frank. SpencerT♦Nominate! 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arrows seem to be a pretty big issue for some people. I personally don't mind them, they kind of match other colors so I don't really care about them, but... --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For several reasons:
The legend is extremely difficult to read.
The timescale bar at the bottom is unnecessary and redundant. It takes up valuable space and detracts and distracts from the animation.
There is no way to pause the animation and so any sort of information (as opposed to broad brushstrokes) is lost as we quickly move to the next slide.
Interesting in a catch-my-eye sort of way, but not a Featured Picture. MapMaster (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. What's wrong with the legend? It simply shows the "official" governing nation that the land was governed under and a scale of 258 years. "Extreme" is a very strong word. Also, I'm not just talking about image, the page the image is on has so much information on it; The criteria just said the image should have a nice caption, that page almost is a whole encyclopedic page, seems pretty feature-worthy to me. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what's said above that the arrows should become a bar and the legend should be enlarged. As for pausing, it's a gif, they don't pause. Nor do the other four FPs we have, which are shown above. upstateNYer 03:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two islands (St. Pierre and Miquelon) appear in only one frame of the animation (in the 1700s) despite the fact that they remain French possessions today. Also the legend doesn't mention that lighter shades indicate territories while darker shades indicate states/provinces. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done and high quality and very encyclopedic. Cat-five - talk 06:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per concerns raised by 75.41.110.200, UpstateNYer, and others. Main concern is the poor legend/no indication of what the cross-shaded regions indicate. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment - as the creator of this image I believe I can answer some of the issues involving this image.
Why isn't this a Flash file - Contrary to popular belief I didn't snub technology and create a dated .gif file. Nothing pains me more than watching this gif and not being able to pause the image, or rewind, or find out more information on a particular border change, and I made it! I would love to do this as a flash file but wikipedia doesn't support flash, them da breaks.
Arrows at the bottom - The godfather of animated gifs on wikipedia, Mr "Let's Animage" Golbez sets the standards on Animated gifs and the protocol, he created, is to have a time line bar on the bottom of the image. He uses the bar but when the image is thumbnailed like the ones in the Gallery you can't see the bar. That is why I increased the size of the, "slider".
Ooh, a title. :) Personally I did that because it's clean, and I don't care how thumbnails look for these large animated gifs; no matter what you do, they'll be inferior to a full view. --Golbez (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources - I based the image on User:Golbez's Animated images of Canada, Mexico and America. His animations are sourced on reliable sources and the articles based on those images have since become featured articles:
Reliable sources (either online or book sources) have been provided for each slide of the animation on the Animation article page at, Territorial evolution of North America -- Esemono (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to take a look at your new sources; I know for a fact at least two of the articles you linked of mine are out of date/downright incorrect, and the third is heading that way. :P --Golbez (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title - The title is clumsy I agree but best I could think of. Russia, UK, France and Spain were are Non-native powers that at one time controlled part of North America.
Legend - I contemplated just erasing a Nation from the legend when it ceased to exist in North America but then I thought that a list of all former nations would be useful information. So to distinguish former nations from current nations I used a grey font. To keep the image as uncluttered as possible I didn't add what the grey meant as I thought it would be common sense. But you know what they say about assuming...
St. Pierre and Miquelon - Are so small that to scale they wouldn't appear on the map. That is why they only appear in one image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemono (talk • contribs)
The title is okay. How about Territorial evolution of North America 1750-2008. It's impossible to put all information into the image title, that's what caption is for, of course. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a problem - these independent nations are not recognised on this map, it erases them. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Where's the rest of North America? Kaldari (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What part is missing?! — raeky(talk | edits) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumable the part between Mexico and Colombia. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only part of North America is shown in both of these animations, why is one titled "North America" and the other isn't? Neither of them show North America. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because central America isn't part of North America? -- Esemono (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the link to North America above. Which continent do you think Central America is on? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the part where it says, "The term North America may mean different things to different people in the world according to the context" When I did the animation I was thinking of terms of North America as the North America article says North America may be used to refer to the United States and Canada together often including Mexico (as in the North American Free Trade Agreement). -- Esemono (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and accord with Durova. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the grounds that it does not recognise indigenous nations who made claims to territory and were de-facto independent from the colonial powers. Including them would be a lot of work (and mean research); something I cannot demand of any user and would not try to, but their omission is too problematic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with creating a map of say Cantons of Switzerland without naming every surrounding nation. Just like there is nothing wrong with creating a map that charts non-indigenous nations in North America. What is a problem is if you name said map nations of North America instead of non-native nations of North America. -- Esemono (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the same issue would be raised over a map for native populations that did not include colonial powers. In my opinion this image fulfills its purpose. Having an image addressing MH's concerns would be of great value but as I understand it because there were not formal "borders" between first nations, likely of dubious veracity. Support per above. Cowtowner (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map currently implies that control over North America was maintained by the nations illustrated, in the way that is illustrated. This is completely incorrect. If it were changed to make explicitly clear that it was a map of territorial claims by European nations and their successor states, and made clear that it only examines their claims to territory and is only useful for this purpose but does not show their control or any countervailing control or claims by indigenous nations, it would be correct. Otherwise, it would have to be edited to show other claims and control. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The file name is now Non-Native American Nations Control over N America 1750-2008 as in only European nations and their successor states. The file name as it is presently makes it pretty clear that indigenous nations aren't included. -- Esemono (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the file name is wrong. Non-Native American Nations Control over N America was not established in the way the map shows. Various powers claimed from sea to shining sea well before they took the land off the indigenous inhabitants. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Hm. As the one who made the territorial evolution maps that part of this is based on, some comments...
I'm not sure we need to know the names and colors of former countries. They can be removed from the list.
I'm personally not sure that we need to delineate internal borders. That adds a lot of complexity that doesn't add to the focus of the picture, which is the national evolution of North America. If people want to see how the states of the US, or provinces of Canada, etc. evolved, they can go to those specific articles/GIFs. It seems cluttery to include them here. That said, it's kind of neat.
Which brings me to a further point: It's a nice tool for illustrating how the borders - all of them - moved across the continent, but I'm not sure it's entirely useful as a learning tool.
Needs dates. All that is given is years; are the changes in a year being combined?
St. Pierre and Miquelon changed hands several times between 1713 and 1814.
"United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" seem to be used interchangeably; in particular, the term "United Kingdom" is being used from the first map, where it didn't become that until 1801. Also, in one frame somewhere around the 1840s, the United Kingdom tag jumps a half inch right.
You seem to be marking things as *part* of France, the UK, etc., when they were colonies/possessions. I'm not sure Russian America was ever considered *part* of Russia, or St. Pierre and Miquelon considered part of the UK. Personally, I would have labelled each colony independently.
When I envisioned doing these kind of things (and started some prototypes), it would include neighboring continents, but greyed out so they weren't involved, but that would allow for expansion of things like the Fed. Rep. of Central America.
I strongly suggest this go to peer review, because while FLC is happy to deal with my nitpicking, that kind of stuff doesn't belong in an FPC; I would love to help get this better, but that has to be done in a PR environment.
Based on the above, and at minimum the factual issues concerting St. Pierre and Miquelon, I must vote oppose at this time, but look forward to helping improve it. --Golbez (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree more fixes are needed, in addition to the points made by Golbez I don't think the Spanish claims on the early frames are right - the straight line northern border of Mexico didn't exist until 1819, Spain claimed the whole coast, and there probably should be some internal boundaries in there if you're going to show internal boundaries. Regarding the title issue I think you could just change "control" to "claim" and you'd be fine. I'd be willing to help nitpick on this one further as it's a really cool map and I'd like to see it polished. Kmusser (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --ZooFari 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canada animation
US by state animation
Southwestern US and Mexico animation
Confederate States animation
