A line is really a sentence
My earliest Culture Atlas sketches were dots and lines. A real festival made me realise the line needs meaning too.
“Ganesha Chaturthi → Maharashtra” is not enough. I should be able to read the line as a sentence, such as “has an important regional practice in.” A line to a story needs a different meaning.
Why does that matter?
If I cannot explain a connection in ordinary words, I probably do not understand it well enough to add it.
The graph can also remember confidence. I think of that a little like pencil and pen: not every researched connection has exactly the same certainty.
The source can support the line
A source may support the description of a festival. But a specific connection is also a claim. Otherwise I could have well-sourced dots joined by poorly sourced lines.
Connections can show variation
The verified source set points beyond one version of the festival. That reminds me not to turn the version I know best into the only version.
A neat sentence can still hide a weak connection
Being able to describe a line in words is only the first test. “This festival is connected to this place” can sound perfectly clear and still be too broad.
The next test is evidence: what exactly supports the relationship, and does the wording say more than the source actually proves?
A line has direction and meaning
This is where my maths-style thinking and English thinking meet. A line can show a relationship, but I still need to define what that relationship means. Then I have to express it as a sentence that is precise enough to test against evidence. Geography and history help me check whether the relationship changes across place or time.
Every line needs a reason
The graph is not useful because it has lots of lines. It is useful when the lines help me ask and answer meaningful questions.