This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
I'm set to do create some simple *ahem* mapping of Wikipedia pages relating to "map" as the word occurs in numerous titles. The chronology of this exercise is as follows:
This would not be helpful. The point of disambiguation pages is to list pages with confusable titles, not to list every topic out to several steps from some core topic. The latter is what categories, list pages, glossary pages, nav boxes, etc. are for. jacobolus(t)23:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing this article's hatnote to say, "This article is about cartographic maps. For the study and practice of making such maps, see Cartography. For maps that portrays the geographic pattern of a particular subject matter (theme) in a geographic area, see Thematic map. For other uses, see Map (disambiguation) and Maps (disambiguation)." Note:The previous hatnote indicated "For other uses" without specifiying the topic of map article itself. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The previous hatnote was entirely fine, and your replacement is inappropriate – please read Wikipedia:Hatnote before making further edits to it. Thematic map should be linked from within the lead section if you like, but does not belong in the hatnote. Saying what a map is in the hatnote is completely unnecessary, since we also say what we mean by a map in the first couple sentences of the article (and anyone who doesn't already know what a map is isn't going to be helped by "cartographic maps"). –jacobolus(t)15:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree that the previous hatnote was fine. My replacement was flawed in its shotgun approach but for reasons that IMHO differ from what you've just argued. Namely, Wikipedia currently treats Cartography and Mapping (cartography) as identical phrases. Under the Wiki hatnote guidance, we should "mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind."
You'd likely be right to think the average reader probably doesn't arrive at the map page having cartography in mind, but many such readers might well arrive at the page with mapping in mind as a process versus the tangible result of a process. The article indeed comprehends how the two topics are interrelated as mapping is mentioned once but not linked in the body of the article.
Next, a reader might well come to an article with maps other than cartographic maps in mind. The consensus on this talk page overwhelming supports limiting the article's scope to cartopgraphic maps rather than other types. That limited scope definitely belongs in the hatnote to alert readers to look elsewhere if they landed at the article having other types of maps in mind.
Friendly suggestion #1: consider emending an edit in a way that addresses your concerns rather than merely reverting the edit. Doing so would obviate so much back-and-forth on the talk page. In this instance, the previous hatnote had a glaring omission in providing "For other uses..." without poperly indicating any stated use regarding this article. To that end, feel free to change "product of cartography" to the more concise "cartographic maps" in the new hatnote.
Friendly suggestion #2: Navigate the phalanx of links at the Map (disambiguation), Maps (disambiguation), and Mapping (disambiguation) pages before emending the current hatnote here. If you're inclined to elide Cartography from "other uses" in the newly-rendered hatnote, fair enough. But don't merely delete it. Instead, demote it to the lede, e.g., "Maps are created via cartography. Many maps are static, fixed to paper or other durable medium." Otherwise, since cartogrophy isn't specifically linked anywhere in the map article, the History section troubles a reader to perform a two-step process (i.e., clicking the History of Cartography link and then searching for cartography) to find out what it's supposed to mean. Kent Dominic·(talk)17:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kent Dominic The article Thematic map is neither helpful nor appropriate to include in this hatnote, since readers looking for information about thematic maps specifically are going to either navigate directly to Thematic map or to a sub-article such as Choropleth map or Cartogram (or else are going to start skimming the Map article looking for information about more specific types of maps – improving the article to include more information about these topics is certainly worthwhile). Likewise Cartography is not appropriate for this hatnote. Including this type of wikilink in hatnotes is a misuse of the hatnote feature. Instead, directly relevant but not confusable links should be linked from within the prose of the lead section or the article body. (I agree that both Cartography and Thematic map are worth prominently linking from this article, and have no objection to including wikilinks to those and possibly other related topics from the prose of the lead section.)
(As you point out Mapping (cartography) already redirects to Cartography so isn't going to mistakenly land readers at Map. If you want to add a link to Mapping (a disambiguation page) from the hatnote here at Map, that would be fine with me, though it is also linked from Map (disambiguation) § See also.)
While we are doing friendly suggestions: It is ordinary Wikipedia editing convention for an editor to revert edits that seem unhelpful; then the stable version of whatever part of an article can remain pending discussion. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for one common pattern. Do not edit war to restore your new changes when someone reverts them: this is unhelpful for establishing consensus, disruptive to the project, and can lead to a block from editing. See Wikipedia:Edit warring for more. –jacobolus(t)19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no mention of the Thematic map article in the hatnote you just reverted. You offered no reason reason for the premise that "Cartography is not appropriate for this hatnote." By contrast, I gave specific reasons why it is quite appropriate. Whatever your rationale, yours may rightly be (currently) deemed to be a minority view since Just plain Bill and Ehrenkater both edited the article subsequent to the hatnote indicating the article is about cartographic maps, but neither editor took measures to edit or emend it.
Moreover, GeogSage presumably had ample opportunity to read and review the hatnote including indicating the how this article's topic is limited to cartographic maps contrary to any desire for the article to be more broadly composed, yet Geog also has of yet taken no measures to edit or emend the hatnote.
Friendly suggestion #3: Refer to WP:STATUSQUO and provisionally acknowledge how the hatnote, before your your recent reversion, is what Just plain Bill, Ehrenkater, Geog, and I consider to be reasonable. If they or any other editors object to the hatnote as I've composed it, I'll correspondingly revert myself in deference to their comments.
Friendly suggestion #4: By all means read if not re-read and apply the recommendation in Friendly suggestion #2, paying special attention to the word "don't". Kent Dominic·(talk)19:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for reverting your additions of Thematic map and then Cartography is that including these links is an inappropriate misuse of the hatnote feature. Please don't do that. (And perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Hatnote § Examples of improper use in specific, when you go read that page.) Hatnotes are for discriminating between articles with confusable titles, not for linking to every article closely relevant to the topic. This is not a matter of discussion or local consensus, but is a basic question of Wikipedia policy and standard formatting. If you want to challenge this policy you can take it up at Wikipedia:Village pump or a similar venue.
In the particular case of a hatnote at the top of an article entitled Map, extra summary is completely unnecessary: every reader who arrives at this page knows what the most common and ordinary definition of the English word map is, and that meaning is reinforced by the first few sentences. (But if you think these sentences are unclear, improving them is a separate topic, already under discussion here.) The text "This article is about cartographic maps" does not add any information which will meaningfully help readers decide whether to click through to Map (disambiguation) or not, over and above what the first few sentences say. As such adding that text does nothing but add distraction and waste space; doing that based on our unrelated dispute here about definitions of map is self indulgent and disrespects readers. See Wikipedia:Hatnote § Summarize or not?
Aside: Your invocation of Wikipedia:Reverting § Avoid reverting during discussion is improper: the stable version of this article can be found at special:permalink/1247707724, where you will find a hatnote containing: "For other uses, see Map (disambiguation) and Maps (disambiguation)". As your link explains, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion." You edit warring to restore your preferred novel version is disruptive, please stop. If you like we can revert to the hatnote from v. 1247707724 directly; I don't care strongly about the inclusion of Mapping.
Cartography is not appropriate to include in the hatnote because people do not commonly call the subject of cartography by the name map. The two words map and cartography are not confusable, and nobody looking for the article about cartography is going to accidentally wind up at Map. However, the topic of cartography is clearly relevant to the topic of maps, therefore a Wikilink to Cartography from the prose of the lead section of this article is a good idea, please feel free to add one. See Wikipedia:Hatnote § Linking to articles that are related to the topic for an example and explicit explanation of why this link is inappropriate, and while you are at it also look at the discussion in the following section Wikipedia:Hatnote § Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous, though the specific example given is a slightly different case.
As I already tried to explain above, in response to your previous comment, the wikilink Mapping is already a disambiguation page which links to Cartography at the top, so someone who navigates to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping is not going to end up here, and does not need to be redirected, therefore the word mapping having a meaning substantially overlapping with cartography is already dealt with and is irrelevant to which links appear in the hatnote here at Map. However, I think it's fine to add Mapping to the hatnote here, since many of the articles linked from that page could plausibly generate artifacts called "maps", so a reader looking for one of those could conceivably end up here. But again, it would also be fine to leave that link out, if people prefer.
Otherwise, since cartography isn't specifically linked anywhere in the map article ... – feel free to add it to the lead section or elsewhere: such a change would be completely fine with me. Just don't put it in the hatnote where it definitely does not belong. –jacobolus(t)21:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that linking Cartography in the hatnote goes against Wiki guidance. My most recent edit to the hatnote demonstrates our agreement. The interim edit reflected a hurried cut & past snafu.
You say "This article is about cartographic maps" does not add any information which will meaningfully help readers decide whether to click through to click through to Map (disambiguation) or not. I disagree. The article's title is merely "Map". It doesn't indicate what kind of map among the gobs of Wiki pages with titles beginning with "Map". The "This article is about" phrase immediately alerts a reader not to dive into the article in search Mind maps, Map Fusion, Map of Hell, etc.
I would agree with your point if this article were titled Map (cartography). Yet, that's not the case since Map (Cartography) is merely a redirect. Changing the titleof an article involves a much bigger rigmarole than changing a hatnote.
I further agree (sorta) with Just plain Bill's sesquipedalian comment that the sesquipedalian state of the hatnote stands to be improved. Again, changing the article's title to Map (Cartography) would obviate any need for a "This article is about" template. Any takers?
With so many comments here and intervening edits, you might not have seen that I took your suggestion to mention & link cartography in the lede after you mentioned it the first time, yet you've reiterated the suggestion twice more nonetheless. I'm not one to marvel at my own edits, so have a look at what's there and tweak it if you think there's a need.
Next, you expanded the "For other uses" template to include Mapping. In my view, it's not needed for all of the reasons you said Cartography wasn't needed regarding the "For other uses" template. WHile I believe it's unnecessary, I also think it's unobjectionably harmless.
Finally, an alternative solution to including Cartography in the hatnote or in the ham-handed way I put it in the lede paragraph: Deleting both of those mentions and changing the lede to say, "In cartography, a map is blah, blah, blah. That's the way we do it in a host of articles that deal with overlapping linguistic topics. Kent Dominic·(talk)22:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't indicate what kind of map" – Yes it does – right in the first few sentences where people expect to find it.
I challenge you to poll 10 random people you encounter on the street (not in front of a math or philosophy department of a university) and ask them "What is a map?" My guess is 10/10 will give you an answer consistent with the topic of this article. Then ask them "Have you ever heard the phrase 'cartographic map'." My guess is that 10/10 will answer "No." Go find several general purpose encyclopedias and look for "Map". You will find articles about the same type of map as here. Go look up "map" in any dictionary: the first definition will almost certainly be consistent with the sense of map employed here.
Random readers are not confused about what the word map means or what they expect to find at an article called Map whose first few sentences start talking about graphical representations of geographic places, etc. This is just not a point of confusion that needs clarification. Throwing in "cartographic map" does nothing to clarify or explain, and adding it is purely gratuitous navel gazing by Wikipedians.
you expanded the "For other uses" template to include Mapping. In my view, it's not needed for all of the reasons you said Cartography wasn't needed – that's fine, we can leave it out. The reason to potentially include it is that the linked pages: Animated mapping, Brain mapping, Projection mapping, Spiritual mapping, Texture mapping, etc. involve artifacts which might plausibly be called "maps" (in context), so it's at least conceivable that someone might accidentally end up here looking for one of them. But if so, I'm also fine with leaving those people to click through to Map (disambiguation) and find Mapping under § See also. If you are bothered by including this link by all means we should leave it out. –jacobolus(t)23:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strenuous objection to "is what Just plain Bill, Ehrenkater, Geog, and I consider to be reasonable." Cleaning up lint says nothing about what I "consider to be reasonable." I probably saw the sesquipedalian state of the hatnote and thought something like, "enh. Plenty of active eyes on this page just now, why not let someone else have the pleasure of fixing it?" Remember, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. To be clear, "cartographic map" looks like a pleonastic neologism, or a recently made-up usage jamming too many (i.e. one is enough) words together. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In relevant context, I asked Jacobolus to "provisionally acknowledge how the hatnote, before your recent reversion, is what Just plain Bill, Ehrenkater, Geog, and I consider to be reasonable." Such a provisional acknowledgment says nothing about what we four actually believe. That's why I pinged the three of you and went on to say "If they or any other editors object to the hatnote as I've composed it, I'll correspondingly revert myself in deference to their comments." Capiche? Kent Dominic·(talk)22:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the "provisional" deflection, the insinuation is still there, and still scarcely defensible. Capisce? It's been a few days since objections have been raised. I will now save you the effort of reverting yourself. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add my own strenuous objection, both to the original reasoning that concludes some majority has implicitly agreed, for the purpose of isolating another editor, and now to this justification. I will refrain from spelling out my detailed thoughts about this behavior, but do those thoughts color how I perceive and interact with this editor? Yes. Yes they do. Strebe (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding my own objection and pointing out that I don't think it should only be about "cartographic maps," as stated before the definition could easily be broad enough to include all abstractions of spatial data with minimal effort. Maps are models of reality, abstractions of spatial information, which is what I believe the article should reflect. I've been taking a break from this talk page because I have not felt the conversation is productive and repeating myself is an exercise in futility when I could spend the time working on improving other stuff. I don't believe there is anything I could present that would cause anyone here to change their minds and would rather be civil then continue to engage with "cute" comments (see above). I also have real like obligations to keep up with and assuming I've "had ample opportunity to read and review," much less use silence as indication of what I believe, in less then 24 hours seems a bit excessive. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected the hatnote wouldn't suit you, but I it was out there for anyone to revert or emend. What do you think about deleting Cartography from the hatnote and instead editing the lede to say, "In cartography, a map is blah, blah, blah. That would allow further qualification of "map" in ways you prefer as applied to discrete disciplines. Kent Dominic·(talk)23:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kent Dominic: Regarding this edit and prior ones of the same motivation, I have two observations:
1) between | bəˈtwēn | preposition
indicating a connection or relationship involving two or more parties: links between science and industry
— negotiations between the two companies are continuing, the relationship between Pauline and Chris.
• with reference to a collision or conflict: a collision in midair between two light aircraft above Geneva, the wars between Carthage and Rome.
• with reference to a choice or differentiation involving two or more things being considered together: if you have to choose between two or three different options.
— New Oxford American Dictionary, and similar entries in many dictionaries;
2) Even accepting, purely for the sake of argument, that “between” necessarily indicates two ends, the relationships {(A and B), (B and C), (A and C)}, each of which is between two entities, is a complete set of relationships among {A, B, C}, and is what is meant by saying “between” them, and therefore is perfectly correctly generalized to n things.
I’ve seen a lot of edits on this page that I find uselessly pedantic, but this one is wrongly pedantic. Pedantry is for making things clear that can be, and need to be, clear, not for forcing conformance to a self-selected set of rules of dubious fitness. Strebe (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate from my 21:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC) reply from above, the revision "accurately employs 'regarding' in 'relationships regarding,' whose sense is semantically clear in a way that doesn't merit argument except to say 'between' primarily entails two (etymologically derived from be + twain) while 'regarding' is contextually pertinent to two or more." Yep, the observation is admittedly pedantic, but I'd say it's not needlessly so. Eduacated pedants are aware of thhe following:
Between is literally applicable only to two objects; but it may be and commonly is used of more than two where they are spoken of distributively, or so that they can be thought of as divided into two parts or categories, or with reference to the action or being of each individually as compared with that of any other or all the others. When more than two objects are spoken of collectively or in divisibly, among is the proper word. [Century Dictionary] ~ Etymonline: between
Positing, purely for the sake of argument, that {(A and B), (B and C), (A and C)} are a complete set of relationships among {A, B, C}, then relationships is semantically infirm in the statement that "A map is a symbolic depiction of relationships, commonly spatial, between things within a space." It should be "A map is a symbolic depiction of interrelationships, commonly spatial, between things within a space."
So, I'm undoing your reversion since what for one editor may be deemed a uselessly pedantic change from "between" to "regarding" is what another editor deems to be constructively pedantic. Feel free to revise the sentence to say, "interrelationships... between". Kent Dominic·(talk)19:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement "regarding things" will not make sense to many if not most readers. Feel free to rephrase this sentence if you don't like "between" but remember who we're trying to serve here. –jacobolus(t)19:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading in Joshua 18, and it looks like these people didn't know what a map was. When were maps invented/developed? This article as it stands doesn't tell us much. Friendly Person (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how another political map is relevant to the so-called "better projection" excuse that led to the recent change. If the idea is to show the "equal-area projection" than the physical one does that, but if it's just an excuse to introduce some more US political pov, then that's another story, because a "professionally produced" fringe view is still fringe. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the article, different map types show different sets of information. One easily displayed difference is the one between maps showing physical and political data. Minutuae of projection don't matter for that. That this map choice serves to "introduce some more US political pov" is a distraction, seemingly ginned up out of whole cloth. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any political world map necessarily will take a position on various disputed borders. It is better to just avoid the issue when possible. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK,I just restored the map without a label for the disputed bit between Israel and Syria. I care about the lead showing two types of map covering the same ground. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had an entire discussion on this that spiraled out of control on the Geography talk page, you can see them in the Archive 3 from the page. We didn't come up with a good solution, even after an extensive rfc. The result was "there should be no a priori acceptance, nor a priori rejection, of the validity of maps produced by the U.S. Government and the use or non-use of any specific map should be done on a case-by-case basis taking into account relevant policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:PRIMARY, WP:PERTINENCE, and WP:NPOV." @M.Bitton was highly involved in that discussion, largely because they disagree with views expressed on the current official U.S. maps. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous maps are outdated, and as I've stated on other talk pages, on Wikimedia the source and date on those maps does not accurately reflect the source. The previous map was using 2016 boundaries but claimed to be a 2021 map published by the CIA. As before, I believe you're pushing your POV by insisting on an outdated set of boundaries and blocking attempts to update the maps. The 2023 one is the one currently on the Geography page. There has not been a better map using a different source uploaded as far as I know. I'm sorry I didn't answer your question in 5 minutes, this, and the deleted comment, are ridiculous. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about where you managed to inject your POV (with complete disregard for the NPOV policy). All I'm asking is why the 2023 and not the 2016 or the 2025 (the latest and greatest US political pov)? It's a simple question. M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 2025 map uploaded? The 2023 one is the one used on the Geography page, the previous ones were more out of date then the 2023 one. If you want to upload the 2025 one, go for it! There is no reason to use the 2016 map when we have newer maps, and definitely no reason we should use a map that erroneously claims to have been created in 2021 while using the 2016 boundaries. My POV is that we should use the most up to date map available from the source. This was discussed on the geography talk page already, and you are engaging in the same tedious behavior of blocking updates. I understand you have a strong POV on Western Sahara, but that is not justification to misrepresent the official CIA World Factbook maps, or use out dated maps, to reflect your POV. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly, in this article, was misrepresenting the official CIA World Factbook maps? The caption just reads 'Political map of Earth' which appears to be entirely accurate. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Maps in question on the Wikimedia page state they were created on 13 April 2021 and that they are "Derivative of CIA WorldFactBook-Political world." It lists the author as "US Government, Central Intelligence Agency." @M.Bitton used the 2016 boundaries and listed them as created 2021, while attributing them to the CIA. I'm not sure about any changes made in this process, but they do not reflect the official boundaries used in 2021. This problem was discussed in detail on the Geography talk page, and went all the way to a RfC involving these specific maps, because @M.Bitton insists on the outdated boundaries, and accuses anyone who tries to update them of injecting their POV. Specifically, M.Bitton disagrees with the status of Western Sahara, which is why they don't want to change to the updated boundaries. The boundaries used in a map are like an exact quote, and the maps used on the Map page are misquoting the CIA. I'm appalled at the state of cartography on the project, as people are fine with "good enough" when misinformation is spread via cartography when they would absolutely not accept the same information written out. At least the page on Maps avoid such blunders. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The files both claim to be created by the "US Government, Central Intelligence Agency" on "13 April 2021." This is inaccurate if they are exact copies of a 2016 source. Previously, you updated these to update the capital of Kazakhstan, and the history shows several versions of this file that have had changes. Why did you update that small detail, rather then update the map to reflect the most up to date set of boundaries? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is particularly a problem for this article. Lets try to keep discussion focused on this article and not rehash the dispute from elsewhere. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The geography discussion was directly related to these exact maps, and involved you blocking updated versions of the maps. It is literally the same discussion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, bad maps on Wikipedia are a problem and should be disputed everywhere, especially on the article about maps. The current issue is that there are more up to date sets of boundaries, but we are not implementing them and are instead keeping an outdated map that has dubious metadata. We have maps that use the same source but with more up to date boundaries, the only reason we are not using the more up to date boundaries is that M.Bitton disagrees with the changes made in those updates. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All we need here is an example of a map. We could put up a map of Narnia and it would be fine, or the Mercator 1569 world map. I don't think I accept the premise that our map here needs to be 'more up to date' - we just need a good example. The article on cars doesn't have a photo of something from the latest model year and that is also fine. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several example maps on here, an up to date one would be nice to include on top of historical examples. As it doesn't matter if it is Narnia or Mercator 1569, I don't see why using a 2016 CIA world factbook map is preferred over a more current version. The POV of editors on the changes made to official maps does not seem like a good reason to choose one over another. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple: one has been around for a while and is closer to how the majority of the maps present the world; while the other is fringe. Hope that helps. M.Bitton (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple: one has been out of date for a while. You're blocking the update and demonstrating ownership behavior because you don't agree with the changes made. You are using the word "fringe" as a slur, the opinion of the United States government on international boundaries is not "fringe." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the maps? I tried looking but didn't find the 2025 one. Until we get that though, I don't see any reason not to use the 2023 one besides you blocking it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're still evading the question.
we have newer maps.. for a start, "new" means diddly squat as far as NPOV is concerned. Second, there is the 2025 that you can upload should you care about the latest and greatest (which you keep using as justification for injecting the POV), so why did you add the 2023? That's the question that you need to answer. 21:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your question above when I said "Is the 2025 map uploaded? The 2023 one is the one used on the Geography page, the previous ones were more out of date then the 2023 one. If you want to upload the 2025 one, go for it!" I did not take the time to hunt down and upload the 2025 one, just added a better one then the ones that are on the Map page now. Please, feel free to upload the 2025 one, rather then insisting on your outdated derivative products. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand you well: basically, you care about the latest and greatest, but only if others do the work for you (i.e., upload it for you). Please don't tell me this is your excuse for injecting that POV (that violates the NPOV policy left, right and centre). M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used an existing map that another user uploaded. You are blocking it because you disagree with it. I have not hunted down the 2025 one, but if someone does I'll support using that one. If you agree that it would be fine, why don't you upload that one? Failing that, if I uploaded the 2025 CIA World Factbook map, would you be okay with using it? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I heard it all before. If you still believe in the "latest CIA pov", then the answer is simple: get the 2025 CIA maps (they have been around for months) and start a RfC about them. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the link to those, and don't really care to find them at the moment. You're free to get it and update the image yourself. Why are you insistent on the 2016 boundaries? They are almost a decade old at this point. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the link to those, and don't really care to find them at the moment ask someone to help you get the latest and greatest CIA pov (sine you're the one who cares about it, not me).
For the same reason that you're insisting the 2023 boundaries. Did a new country emerge or did one cease to exist since 2016? M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm insisting on using a more up to date source, which is reflected in the 2023 map I included. There are changes to the U.S. interpretation of international boundaries in the official maps between 2016 and now, yes. You don't like those changes, so you are insisting on using the decade old source. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would explain that you prefer the 2025 map over the 2023 map. Why are you blocking the 2023 map in favor of the 2016 one? Why don't you hunt down the 2025 one, as you know where it is apparently, and update the Wikimedia maps you uploaded? You are pushing your POV regarding international boundaries. Updating maps when the underlying source publishes updated content should not be controversial. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
injecting that POV (that violates the NPOV policy left, right and centre) — This claim was never the consensus of any of the discussions or RfC surrounding the never-ending arguments over a couple of boundary lines. It is a personal viewpoint, and it is being repeatedly used to cudgel others into backing away from this editor’s crusade. The rigidity of position and the hyperbole attending these proclamations, including calling sizable viewpoint “fringe”, does nothing to convince me of the merits of these claims. Quite the opposite. The behavior demonstrates bludgeoning, ownership, and personal agenda. It’s something we’ve seen repeatedly from this editor.
The article here is about maps as a concept, craft, and artifact. It’s not about specific boundary lines or specific territorial claims. Strebe (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your those maps violate the NPOV policy has been substantiated at the NPOV board. Casting aspersions won't work, and if repeated, will earn you a trip to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don’t consider myself under any obligation to believe you. I looked. I didn’t find. “NPOV” with respect to contested boundaries is a fantasy. It may be that some referendum or decision that I was not privy to agreed that maps containing the material you objected to were not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, but if you can’t cough that up, then I’ll stick with the ones I do know about, which is that none of them reached any clear agreement with you. It’s particularly interesting that you didn’t just cite the decision up front but instead were willing to argue ad nauseam before mentioning it. Strebe (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less if you do, and what you find interesting is, frankly, neither here nor there (like I said, I have no time for those who hide behind aspersions just because they can't defend their position using the policies and the guidelines). Stick with whatever you want as long as you understand that you don't have consensus to add the latest CIA map to this article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did. In fact you added it to the Geography article and quoted (above) a comment of mine that was specifically about it.
As an side: while I didn't participate in that RfC, I did leave a very relevant note that explains what happened there. I still don't understand why after creating a storm about the US latest, you opted for the 2023 (rather than the 2025, which was out by then). M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2025 one isn't uploaded to Wikimedia, and I haven't seen the source online. Another editor uploaded the 2023 one. You have failed to provide the link to the 2025 one. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m talking about this article, this discussion, these recent edits. I don’t care about the wretched CIA map or its boundaries or world view and I certainly don’t pay attention to what dates the CIA drops new revisions to it. The reason for the April edit was because it was the consensus. I would love to replace the CIA map with something more professional and free of copyright—which someone did, you reverted, I reverted your reversion, and now we’re back to CIA maps. If you object to the boundaries on the Equal Area map, you are free to modify them, and as long as they represent some non-fringe world-view, I would be just fine supporting their use. Where, you know, “fringe” means something close to the dictionary definition. But you would have to somehow overcome the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH challenges, which, well, personally edited maps are rife with, but I tend to think that if a few editors all agree that the changes are WP:SKYISBLUE then challenges would be surmountable. Strebe (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that on this issue, there is a pattern of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling to block any change, on any Wikipedia page, to maps that do not reflect M.Bitton's preferred worldview. I disagree about being free to modify boundaries, as I believe that a Wikipedia editor modifying boundaries themselves would be original research. We should use the published boundaries of a reliable source without modification, just like if it was an exact quote. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that the 2016 map is outdated and should be updated, and that you have blocked any attempts to update this on multiple pages, for several years now. I believe that you have employed multiple tactics listed on Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, including "Refusing to continue to discuss," "Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't," "Moving the goal posts," "Ignoring good faith questions," "Accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing," "Suggest a third option without actually proposing one" (specifically, you propose other maps without providing those maps). I believe this is because you have a strong point of view regarding Western Sahara, and that for political reasons you are blocking any map that does not conform to your world view. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is baseless (boundaries don't become "outdated" just because the president of the US says so).
I believe this is because you have a strong point of view by that measure, you have a strong anti-SADR, anti-Syria, anti-Palestine, pro-Israel and pro-US point of view that you can no longer conceal. This also explains why you keep personalising the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Can you give some evidence for this extraordinary claim? From what I can tell GeogSage's edits seem to mostly be focused on explaining the topic of geography as a technical discipline at articles like Geography, GIS, Geographic information system, Choropleth map, Spatial analysis, Geostatistics, Technical geography, Waldo R. Tobler, Cynthia Brewer, etc.; I didn't do a deep investigation, but I don't see much that looks political (there was one proposal to shorten and simplify the lead section of Hunter Biden; I didn't look too carefully at the discussion), and I can't find anything that seems to indicate any personal beliefs about Palestine or Syria.
By comparison, @M.Bitton, a large proportion of your editing seems to be related to various politically contentious topics, especially related to Jewish–Muslim relations and the political history of northern Africa. I haven't looked carefully at your edits on these topics, but based only on the subjects themselves, are you sure you aren't just projecting?
@M.Bitton, from my perspective your preferences with respect to this specific map question do not seem consistent with your stated goals of best following Wikipedia policy, which is why other people are confused, and wondering whether you have some ulterior unstated motivation.
There's no a priori obvious reason to prefer a map from 2016 vs. 2023 or 2025. It does not seem likely to be any inherently more "neutral". After all, there have always been a variety of territorial disputes in the world, and essentially every map pisses someone off, and picking a frozen-in-time map from 2016 doesn't seem like an obviously principled decision.
Can you explain more concretely why you think that a 9-year-old map is better than a 2-year-old map, all else equal? Are there some specific changes that you thought were non-neutral? Is there some good reason to believe that the folks preparing a map in 2023 were more politically biased than the folks preparing a similar map in 2016? –jacobolus(t)23:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You must be reading another discussion, or perhaps you're just reading what you want to read. In any case, if you're here to cast some more aspersions (which I assume is because of our previous disagreements elsewhere), then I suggest you find someone else to discuss whatever you're here for. Please don't ping me again from this discussion. Everything that needed to be said has been said (here, in another discussion linked above and at the NPOVN board). If some editors feel that the latest US pov deserve a prominent position, the they know what RfCs are and how they work. Those who don't want to get involved in contentious subjects shouldn't get involved, because when they do (regardless of how), then they are fully involved and their pov will be exposed (whether they like it or not). M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, no you will not provide any evidence whatsoever for your extraordinary claim of GeogSage's supposed political bias, nor will you explain how your behavior is consistent with your stated goals.
I can tell you why I'm here: at some point I started watching this page, and I mostly ignore it, but the back-and-forth is blowing up my watchlist so I came to see what the fuss is about.
What I found was a back-and-forth between you on one side and basically everyone else on the other; all of them seem to be calmly discussing content and policy, while you keep lobbing personalized and emotionally charged accusations about.
As you say, we have had a similar kind of interaction before, when I tried to make improvements to the articles about Hindu–Arabic numerals you have spent years guarding, and you led with an edit war and then used every bit of wiki-lawyering you could think of to prevent any changes, keeping those articles in what remains a very undeveloped and politicized state, not reflective of academic consensus or comprehensive as explanations. All at readers' and other editors' expense. –jacobolus(t)00:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, a number of users have been personalizing the dispute from their first posts in this discussion. Rather than doing that, or endlessly arguing about Map A vs Map B, it is time to start thinking about other options that perhaps everyone would be happy with. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I have all the diffs necessary to prove who started personalizing the dispute and kept at it. That said, you're right: time to start thinking about another option. M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. I came to build an encyclopedia, and found I had waded into your personal warzone. It seems to be the same here, and I assume at other pages you engage with. –jacobolus(t)01:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Which is why I was disappointed but not surprised when, after I led with direct questions about the discussion here, you changed the subject and immediately dredged up a past conflict. –jacobolus(t)01:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So am I. When you quote someone's comment, you better make sure you know what you're doing, especially when referring to other discussions (which you undeniably did). There was no consensus there (it a couple of editors who battered the others until they stopped responding).
MrOllie proposed it is time to start thinking about other options. Indeed, it seems like the immediate thing to do is remove the disputed political map, pending discussion; it seems unsupportably outside consensus to keep it, and it's plausible that no more recent variant will be agreed upon as a replacement. In that case, an illustration at the top of the page should perhaps be something old enough that the controversies about disputed territories are no longer so raw. As MrOllie suggests, there's no reason the map must show anywhere close to current political boundaries.
As a separate matter, this controversy highlights that this article is woefully lacking in discussion of the politics of maps. It would be nice to have a full section discussing that topic, perhaps showing something like dueling British vs. German maps from WWII (or pick some other example) where there will be clear differences that can be discussed concretely without seeming like anyone is pushing a currently active POV. –jacobolus(t)01:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than propose a removal (that others clearly disagree with), I suggest you propose an alternative. This is how consensus building works.
The problem with Mercator's map is that it's hard to make sense of at thumbnail size. Some other possibilities of maps to include somewhere in this article (I frankly am not sure what would be most useful as a top image) of wide variety. Folks should feel free to throw more onto this list. –jacobolus(t)06:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A map that was made to illustrate the concepts of a map without the historical or political baggage. There are more modern ones, and in English, but I haven’t tracked down good specimens in the public domain.
We can include all manner of maps, and we do. We should be able to include a properly cited contemporary map that is up to date with current sources. There are other pages with current world maps, we can and should decide on an appropriate source, and use it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to include a properly cited contemporary map that is up to date with current sources. I’m not sure why that’s important for this article, and I’m even less convinced of its importance as the lede’s illustration. The lede’s illustration should clearly demonstrate the properties of a map, labeling those properties for instructional purposes. The highly detailed specimens we’ve been arguing over are poor representatives in the thumbnail. Readers shouldn’t have to open up a new page and then zoom way in just to see some map properties—properties that they already have to be able to recognize as properties because they are not noted on the map as map properties. Detailed, up-to-date maps of the world are readily available and they don’t need to be repeated across many articles. Just my two cents. Strebe (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the lede, I don't have a strong opinion. Somewhere in the article I think we can and should include an up to date, well cited, map that includes political boundaries. I don't think updating such a map should be controversial. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would defeat what we're trying to achieve here, as well as falsely insinuate that the current ones are not "up to date"; and besides, we already have the UN map in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the lead it might be even better to do some kind of montage showing portions of various maps, to give some indication of the range of possibilities and not focus too heavily on a single type.
I think a constructed map of an invented place used to show off map features would be great idea to include in the first section after the lead, which could explicitly discuss some map types, concepts, and design features. I think it's less useful in the lead, where there's not much space to discuss the illustration concretely in more detail.
Overall, this page could use significantly better sourcing and probably considerable reorganization/rewriting, if any of the geographers around here want to take on a big project, perhaps as a group effort (folks like user:GeogSage, user:Bplewe, et al., have done some excellent work in the last few years on more specific cartography page, but some high level pages like Map still seem kind of neglected). –jacobolus(t)21:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like everyone in this discussion is forgetting a crucial detail: there is already a second map in the lead. The perfect compromise solution, therefore, would be to omit the political map completely and use only the physical map in the lead. If we decide that we need a political map, I don't have a strong preference between the 2016 map and the 2021 map. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two maps in the lede, but both show political boundaries. These boundaries are from 2016, and the only reason we aren't updating them is because the user who uploaded the maps currently in the lede disagrees with changes in the updated official versions. I agree, we should remove the two maps until we have an agreement on something better, if only because at this point I believe they are only being kept to make a political statement on the issue of Western Sahara. This exact same situation, involving these same maps, became a tedious multi-year mess on Talk:Geography, I'd like to avoid that. When we did RfC on geography, I had brought up that failure to resolve this once there would lead to the situation playing out on other talk pages, which it has. One idea I have that could be fun would be creating an animated map of the CIA World Factbook maps over time. I don't have the original files, but I have done some work with Animated mapping in the past. Animated Dot Density map of COVID-19 cases in Connecticut between March 21st 2020 and May 21st 2020. Data Published by the Connecticut Department of Public Health. Including an example I created a while ago. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, there isn't a single word about the US political fringe POV that you insist on injecting into various articles (because, according to you, the US is a superpower). Anyway, this is repetitive and frankly, tiring, so I suggest you forget about that POV map of yours and concentrate on finding an alternative. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say what they say. The opinion of the US government is not "fringe", regardless of how much you disagree with it. Your argument would mean that the maps you've added to various articles are injecting 2016 U.S. POV, and you're blocking editors from adding new maps because you no longer agree with that POV. This is tedious, I'm not seeing any argument to keep the existing maps in the lede, and I've seen more then one editor suggest omiting the political map until we find a better solution. Going to delete the existing ones until such a compromise is found. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have consensus for that. Again, I suggest you refrain from wasting your time and ours with silly edits and concentrate instead on finding an alternative.
"Any political world map necessarily will take a position on various disputed borders. It is better to just avoid the issue when possible." -@MrOllie
"There should probably be a current world political map at World map, but I don't think it's especially necessary for Map." @Jacobolus
"The perfect compromise solution, therefore, would be to omit the political map completely and use only the physical map in the lead. If we decide that we need a political map, I don't have a strong preference between the 2016 map and the 2021 map." @QuicoleJR
"I would love to replace the CIA map with something more professional and free of copyright—which someone did, you reverted, I reverted your reversion, and now we’re back to CIA maps." @Strebe
"That this map choice serves to "introduce some more US political pov" is a distraction, seemingly ginned up out of whole cloth." @Just plain Bill
Including me and you, I see 7 editors in the discussion. Multiple editors have suggested removing political maps entirely from the lede. I only see you defending the status quo, and blocking changes unless they somehow satisfy you while you fail to provide any alternative. You've discussed multiple options, even claimed to know where they are, but have failed to actually provide them for discussion. You do not have consensus to keep. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you and nor do those who restored those maps. Falsely claiming that the current maps are "controversial" is not helpful in the slightest, so please choose one of the proposed maps so far or propose another. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this is controversial. As you've said, the maps are injecting U.S. POV. It just so happens you agree with the 2016 POV. You are actively blocking any attempts to update these, and are declaring a false consensus to keep the status quo where none exists. I don't see anyone but you advocating to keep the status quo, and multiple editors have stated we should remove. I believe you are Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you've said what I said is written and doesn't need your misleading interpretation.
At this stage, either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
At this stage, either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem. Per Wikipedia:Advocacy "Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization."
You are not the arbiter that gets to choose what maps are acceptable or not. You have unilaterally blocked multiple maps from replacing the current ones. I do not care much about the map we are using, but don't believe we should be blocking updates because of your POV. Multiple editors have stated that a possible solution is to remove the current map, and I believe the current one is being kept as a means of advocacy for a specific political issue, and that it should be removed until we find an alternative. I would support the arguments for any of the maps you've reverted, and I don't see anyone but you defending the current status quo. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Please stop immediately with the sarcasm and aggression. Phrasing like "silly edits", "either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem", "Fascinating stuff", etc. is extraordinarily rude and has no place on Wikipedia. –jacobolus(t)23:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was not intending to "ping" you against your wishes. Next time I will simply state your username as plain text without using the "@" feature. It is neither "aggression" nor "harassment" to ask you to immediately stop with the insulting language. You should strike your comments above and strive to maintain a standard of basic respect here. Blatant rudeness is strictly unacceptable on Wikipedia talk pages. –jacobolus(t)23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am (not you) the best judge of what part I see as harassment from you (because of the blatant grudges that you have been holding against me). Anyway, your comment serves no purpose other to inflame the situation.
Disapproving of your pattern of edit warring and rude comments in two separate discussions targeting multiple other editors is not a "grudge". If you want me not to call you out for rudeness, you can maintain a minimal standard of civil behavior, and you will get no complaints from me. –jacobolus(t)23:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "want to personalize this discussion". I want you to immediately stop making rude, aggressive, or sarcastic comments directed at other editors. As for "why", I will tell you directly: because rude behavior makes Wikipedia an unfriendly and unpleasant place, violates community norms, and blocks meaningful progress toward finding consensus. –jacobolus(t)23:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already personalised the discussion from the get go (we both know why), so please, refrain from insulting my intelligence. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me earnestly telling you that I disapprove of your rudeness because I dislike rudeness per se is not intended as an "insult", but if you misunderstand me there's not much I can do about it, nor is it really my business. As long as you refrain from further rudeness, we're done on this side topic. (Though I would still recommend you strike your rude comments above.) –jacobolus(t)23:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disapprove of the fact that you personalised the discussion because you have been holding grudges against me, though I couldn't care less what you do with those comments.
Note: I'm the editor who keep reminding everyone to choose an alternative so that we can put this to bed and move on to other things. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think that's a great map to use as a single top image in this article, but I do think it would be a good map to include somewhere, e.g. in the history section (which should be moved further down the page).
I say we use this map. It has no political borders but also has the benefit of being a map of what the world actually looks like, which is my main issue with using an ancient map in the lead. It is recognizably a world map and contains no political borders. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I must disagree. The satellite image is projected, but it is missing many of the elements that make a "map" a map. Specifically, generalization and symbolization. We generally separate the products of remote sensing and cartography, even if the lines get blurred a bit (I've stopped using ERDAS and ENVI for remote sensing classes, and just use ArcGIS Pro). From an academic perspective, a projected satellite image is not the best example of a map. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure most people think of a composite satellite image when they hear the word "map", and if that's the primary image it doesn't really fully illustrate the topic, but this is another good image to include somewhere on the page. –jacobolus(t)04:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the Babylonian map as not recognizably a map. It would confuse readers. We should have it in the History section, but it makes a horrible lead image. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a montage would be suitable: There is hardly enough space for even one representative sample of a map, let alone several. I do not think the Babylonian map is suitable: It does not adequately represent “mapness”. I do not think satellite imagery is suitable: It also does not adequately represent “mapness”. I do not think the physiographic map is suitable: It also does not adequately represent “mapness”. All of those artifacts are maps, but they are not at the center of mapness. Something near the center of mapness ought to be what is in the lede. Political boundaries are a primary element of the modern conception of a maps. I think it needs to be a world map so that projection, another primary element, is obvious. I think it needs to avoid controversy. I think that adds up to an older but recognizably modern world map. (That is not to say that an older map’s boundaries were not controversial at the time, or even that someone today would not object to the historical portrayal, but at least it will be clear to most readers that the map is there to teach about maps, not to advocate a geopolitical view.) I do not think it is the job of this article to provide readers with a functional, current map of the world such as is already available all over the place. Strebe (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A map of the world produced in Amsterdam back in 1689
In a similar vein, we have Nova totius terrarum orbis tabula Amstelodami. If we're going for a historical and recognizable map, this one is pretty on point. The map was "picture of the day on Wikimedia Commons for 7 February 2007," and seems to be fairly stable, high quality, and uncontroversial. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A hemispheres-in-circles map from a few centuries ago is a fine enough illustration, though it's not entirely clear to me why a political map of the whole world has more "mapness" than a road map, a nautical chart, etc. –jacobolus(t)23:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main benefit of a world map is it very clearly demonstrates Map projection. This is one of the major elements of traditional cartography, a mathematical transformation to convert the 2D curved surface of the globe into a 2D plane. Most world maps and nautical charts are at a scale that is going to make the projection less immediately obvious. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has made some up some new map projections, I'm all for promoting the topic, but I don't think it's such a fundamental feature of "map" as a concept that it is a requirement to emphasize it at the top of the page, nor is a typical reader necessarily going to recognize/consider that there's projection going on just from seeing a top image, unless we belabor the point in the caption/text. Again, a world map would be fine enough at the top, but there's also plenty of room to unpac the related topics later in the article. –jacobolus(t)00:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just basing it on the concept of "mapness" discussed by @Strebe. There are various ways we could go about that. For example, an academic example of a map would likely need to have the "essential" map elements such as indication of scale, indication of north, projection, legend, title, author, source, date, neatline (I may be missing one). If we want to avoid tedious controversy, going old is likely the only safe option, and a world map does good enough. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: The Rhetoric of Archival Exploration
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2025 and 5 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkhatch (article contribs).
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
Note: I'm the editor who keep reminding everyone to choose an alternative so that we can put this to bed and move on to other things. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2025 and 5 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkhatch (article contribs).