Category talk:Maps
 | This category was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maps category. |
|
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
2004 question
[edit]Would maps of the Moon, Mars, and other places we have explored also go here? Also, should there be a link to information about map projections and spheroid survey models? Do we have pages for the various projection types? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.65.28.237 (talk • contribs) 15:34, September 21, 2004 (UTC).
- Absolutely! Anything that has to do with maps belongs in this category or one of its sub-categories. As for information on projections, models, etc., I would say that they would do best in a sub-category, maybe Category:Map projections. Good luck, I hope you create that. All the best, Blackcap | talk 00:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The International Map of the World
[edit]12/29/05
The International Map of the World is an interesting additional topic under maps. This was a serious undertaking by many countries of the world from 1913 to the 1980's to create a standardized format map of all countries of the world, including UN sponsorship after WWII. It finally ran out of steam but a noble attempt nonetheless. It was also called the Millionth Map of the World in reference to the scale used (1:1,000,000).
A good description of this topic in in About.com - http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa070599.htm
- coppied from User talk:White Cat
Hi, what is the scope of that category? -- Cat chi? 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. In answer to your question I found this earlier today: Kurdistan#Geography. --Timeshifter 15:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well... Kurdistan is also a wannabe defacto country and lacks any definition of borders. If you google for "Kurdistan map" you'll see what I mean. What falls inside and outside of Kurdistan (or its very existence for that mater) is disputed. So it is a problematic term. Perhaps you may want to categorize the maps as being relevant to the Kurdish people as these maps are always about them (weather its Kurdish homelands or ethnic composition). It would have a definite scope and non-controversial title at the same time. -- Cat chi? 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? --Timeshifter 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am uncertain. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Maps related to Kurdish people. You may be able to have a better wording in mind since you deal with such categories in bulk. :) -- Cat chi? 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe along the lines of how the commons is dealing with it. Please see commons:Category:Maps of Kurdistan and commons:Category:Kurdistan. --Timeshifter 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats different. On Commons "Kurdistan" refers to Iraqi Kurdistan. Thats possible as a subcat of "Maps of Iraq" in a non controversial manner. Your edit however made it highly controversial :) -- Cat chi? 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that the commons is supposed to use the English wikipedia decisions on naming. In order to avoid repeating all the naming battles. I don't care either way how the Kurdistan maps are categorized. So I linked to the relevant wikipedia and commons categories and articles. I figured I'd let others discuss it first before I changed anything. Maybe you can ask at the various commons talk pages and see what others say. Let me know what you find out. I suggest asking at Category talk:Maps. Also, there is no need to reply on my talk page. Please reply here. I have your talk page watchlisted. --Timeshifter 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Commons is commons. Commons often use English naming schemes but not always. For instance all plants and animals have Latin names. It may be better for you to post this there, I'll comment after you do. -- Cat chi? 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to copy this there. Please let me know if you do. --Timeshifter 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Commons is commons. Commons often use English naming schemes but not always. For instance all plants and animals have Latin names. It may be better for you to post this there, I'll comment after you do. -- Cat chi? 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that the commons is supposed to use the English wikipedia decisions on naming. In order to avoid repeating all the naming battles. I don't care either way how the Kurdistan maps are categorized. So I linked to the relevant wikipedia and commons categories and articles. I figured I'd let others discuss it first before I changed anything. Maybe you can ask at the various commons talk pages and see what others say. Let me know what you find out. I suggest asking at Category talk:Maps. Also, there is no need to reply on my talk page. Please reply here. I have your talk page watchlisted. --Timeshifter 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats different. On Commons "Kurdistan" refers to Iraqi Kurdistan. Thats possible as a subcat of "Maps of Iraq" in a non controversial manner. Your edit however made it highly controversial :) -- Cat chi? 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe along the lines of how the commons is dealing with it. Please see commons:Category:Maps of Kurdistan and commons:Category:Kurdistan. --Timeshifter 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am uncertain. Maybe something along the lines of Category:Maps related to Kurdish people. You may be able to have a better wording in mind since you deal with such categories in bulk. :) -- Cat chi? 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? --Timeshifter 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well... Kurdistan is also a wannabe defacto country and lacks any definition of borders. If you google for "Kurdistan map" you'll see what I mean. What falls inside and outside of Kurdistan (or its very existence for that mater) is disputed. So it is a problematic term. Perhaps you may want to categorize the maps as being relevant to the Kurdish people as these maps are always about them (weather its Kurdish homelands or ethnic composition). It would have a definite scope and non-controversial title at the same time. -- Cat chi? 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
User space categories
[edit]I feel it is not approp to have user space categories in the article space. User talk:Rarelibra/Maps and assoc cats should be removed. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 07:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)