This is why, in all honesty, that map is probably going to be the very last one I'll post in any map thread. I can handle constructive criticism. I can even handle the non-constructive criticism this board loves to hand out in limited quantities. However, when the majority of responses to my maps (as has been the case the last several times) are either pedantic criticisms over minor details that will be fixed anyway or asking obvious questions because they can't be bothered to read a description longer than a couple sentences (namely, when answer to said question is IN the description), then it's time to go.This is an awful lot of concern for some minor river and place names.
Just a little somethin' I whipped up in an hour or so; based off a game of Vicky 2 where Estonia of all places is able to colonize Shikoku, and actually made it to around 3% Estonian.
This is why, in all honesty, that map is probably going to be the very last one I'll post in any map thread. I can handle constructive criticism. I can even handle the non-constructive criticism this board loves to hand out in limited quantities. However, when the majority of responses to my maps (as has been the case the last several times) are either pedantic criticisms over minor details that will be fixed anyway or asking obvious questions because they can't be bothered to read a description longer than a couple sentences (namely, when answer to said question is IN the description), then it's time to go.
Your comments are valued if they're at least nice about the criticism, like the post above yours, or try to at least help instead of the endless parade of nitpicks I get every time I make a map. Also, if you'd care to notice, I actually went ahead and fixed the names anyway, including renaming the Amazon, with help from Reagent.OK, I was in the middle of a reply when I happened to preview and see this. Forget it then, clearly my comments weren't valued.
The only difference between "constructive criticism" and "pedantic nitpicks" is that the person using the terms likes the former and dislikes the latter.
Your comments are valued if they're at least nice about the criticism, like the post above yours, or try to at least help instead of the endless parade of nitpicks I get every time I make a map. Also, if you'd care to notice, I actually went ahead and fixed the names anyway, including renaming the Amazon, with help from Reagent.
The problem is less that people point out the history, but how they do it. If you were honestly interested in it, a post like "Oh, that's interesting, why are there Portuguese names on those rivers? Are the Portuguese still around, did the Brazilians just keep it, was it a map error?" works fine and I'd be happy to answer. The problem is, maybe it's just fatigue from posting all my maps over time or something, but most of the comments come across more as "You're so stupid, why would you even do that? Change it now, moron." Hence my ending of posting maps on here. It just gets tiring. Even if it's not what people mean, it'd be nice to at least word it in a kind way, or offer suggestions for help.The problem is that this is AlternateHistory.com, not PrettyMaps.com. The whole idea is that people here should care about the history and timeline behind the map, not just the map itself. So you shouldn't be surprised that a question comes up like "Why does a Brazil that's been English-run for 200 years still have Portuguese river names?" I don't even care if it's a mistake, but if there was a reason behind it I'd be interested to know. And if there isn't then maybe I'll have pointed out something that could be changed to improve the alternate history behind the map, as you have done.
I'm well aware that's it's rich coming from me, since I've often cared more about the looks of a map than the history behind it. I just don't think you should be surprised if someone picks up on the history over the map itself - that's the sort of place this is (or at least should be in my opinion).
The problem is less that people point out the history, but how they do it. If you were honestly interested in it, a post like "Oh, that's interesting, why are there Portuguese names on those rivers? Are the Portuguese still around, did the Brazilians just keep it, was it a map error?" works fine and I'd be happy to answer. The problem is, maybe it's just fatigue from posting all my maps over time or something, but most of the comments come across more as "You're so stupid, why would you even do that? Change it now, moron." Hence my ending of posting maps on here. It just gets tiring. Even if it's not what people mean, it'd be nice to at least word it in a kind way, or offer suggestions for help.
I'll still post my maps in my Artwork Thread (which gets plenty of critical comments on its own), plus my own website and deviantart (which can be even MORE pedantic).
Actually, no there is a difference. Constructive criticism does just that, construct. I.e., present alternatives or suggestions that still allow for the growth of a creative endeavor (like artistry). Nitpicking is just pointing out petty grievances or perceived errors without anything to remedy it from their point of view. IMO, if you're going to offer unsolicited critiques of someone's work, either provide useful feedback or shut up and move on.
I haven't read the TL, but if Brazil was English, with English-sounding cities, why do the rivers still have the same Spanish/Portuguese-sounding names as OTL? Sure the ones that start in Spanish territory like the Paraguay could stay called that, but the São Francisco and the Tapajós stand out like a sore thumb. Even if they were discovered by Portuguese explorers the names should have at least been Anglicized, if not outright changed.
EDIT: If the PoD was in the 1580s then there's no way some of those rivers would have the same names. The Amazon itself had only been explored and named 40 years before.
Most of the rivers are based on indigenous names (Tapajós for example - though the accent would probably be dropped)).
Which are all in the territories acquired from Mexico in the 1840s by the United States, not a colony acquired by Britain in the 18th Century. I assure you that while some major rivers may retain their name- the Colorado and the Amazon for example- minor rivers are very likely to get spelt differently or end up with new names as new people move in and want something that makes more sense to them.
Those were with the very generous help of Reagant, whose Portuguese skills are far better than mine. From his explanations:I have an example of the former question type: out of curiosity, what led you to use the "Tea" and "Red" River names on the map?
Well, for one, Reagent wasn't nitpicking but, rather, helping. For another, they aren't constructive criticism because they offer no help beyond "fix this". Further, the criticisms of both Martin and Alex aren't even correct, since as Martin pointed out the Amazon wouldn't even be called the Amazon (as Alex believed) and as Reagant pointed out to Martin many of the river names aren't Portuguese at all but derived from native names, which the English IOTL were fine with using throughout their colonies.How are any of these not constructive criticism? Hell, TS even had Reagent assist her in improving the map (and the idea that it "will be fixed anyway" makes no sense - how would it be fixed without being pointed out?). While I agree that in theory there can be a difference between criticism and nitpicking, in practice almost whenever anyone complains about nitpicking they're just unwilling to accept the criticism and thus use a more negative-sounding term for it.
(And "unsolicited"? This is a discussion board; the very act of posting something here is soliciting critique.)
SNIPPAGE
Those were with the very generous help of Reagant, whose Portuguese skills are far better than mine. From his explanations:
"The Negro River could simply be called "Black River" due to the dark color. It could also be called "Tea River" since one of the first explorers remarked that the River resembled the color of Tea"
"The Araguaia River is based on a Tupi word for "river of (red) macaws" - accordingly, if you want to change it you could call it the Red River or the Macaw River."
I admit, I went for "Tea River" because I love the idea of an English colony having a whole river called tea and "Red River" because I live close to OTL's Red River on the border between Oklahoma and Texas, so I couldn't resist.
For another, they aren't constructive criticism because they offer no help beyond "fix this".
Further, the criticisms of both Martin and Alex aren't even correct, since as Martin pointed out the Amazon wouldn't even be called the Amazon (as Alex believed) and as Reagant pointed out to Martin many of the river names aren't Portuguese at all but derived from native names, which the English IOTL were fine with using throughout their colonies.
Also, I hardly think I'm unwilling to accept criticism since you can actually go see that I did, in fact, adjust the river names to fit the history more accurately while still being accurate to the overall feel of the region and the Anglo-Portuguese heritage of Brazil ITTL. I hardly think I am just trying to paint criticism as nitpicking.
I'm fine with criticism. I call it nitpicking when the poster makes no attempt to do anything to help and takes on an aggressive tone over a relatively minor detail to the map.
All this salt from a bunch a rivers.
Reagant's post wasn't criticism, and it was made after I sent Reagant a PM asking about better river names; a fix made because of Martin's post. I didn't ignore his post, I just didn't like how it was worded as it seemed to me to be overly-hostile and lacking in constructive criticism.You accepted Reagent's criticism, but you (pretty arbitrarily from what I can tell) more or less ignored Martin's and Alex's.
ITTL, the British settle the area around the Mississippi watershed in North America, starting near OTL New Orleans. This is due to the fact that England gaining Brazil early gave them more incentive to colonize North America, particularly a region rich for trading and close enough to keep contact with Brazil. Since the name "Mississippi" IOTL is a French rendering of the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe or Algonquin) name for the river, Misi-ziibi (Great River), the name isn't set in stone, and English settlers eventually bastardize it into a more Anglicized and pseudo-classical kind of name. Messipia, being in a good position and gaining a number of colonists with a high birth rate, quickly grows and they take over the Florida peninsula from Spain to better secure their growing control over the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Most of the peninsula was unsettled anyway so it was easy to take, and remains so for some time, though there are trading outposts around the outer edge and St. Augustine (renamed St. James by the Brits) remains the primary town in the peninsula.Anyway, back to discussion of the map instead of metadiscussion: Where'd the name "Messipia" for Florida (or is it a broader area? The map only barely shows it) come from?
The WIP continues. I really need to decide what to do with North America and Sub Saharan Africa.
Well, for one, Reagent wasn't nitpicking but, rather, helping. For another, they aren't constructive criticism because they offer no help beyond "fix this". Further, the criticisms of both Martin and Alex aren't even correct, since as Martin pointed out the Amazon wouldn't even be called the Amazon (as Alex believed) and as Reagant pointed out to Martin many of the river names aren't Portuguese at all but derived from native names, which the English IOTL were fine with using throughout their colonies.