Talk:Map

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TabulaRogeriana upside-down.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead pics

User:Strebe I found that the world map pics are too detailed to be shown in such a resolution. What are the other alternatives? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point: when it comes to images, the relevance is more important than everything else. Most of the article is about our planet and how it's represented, so what makes you think that a map of planet Mars would be more representative of the subject? M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You are right. I will try to find maps of Earth locations instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't create another issue. There is absolutely no need to replace anything. M.Bitton (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There is, for those that print or read the article offline. They won't be able to see the labels and legends – crucial components of maps. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with your opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't push my argument further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane gets at a problem that I’ve been aware of for years but haven’t done anything about. I wish people in the cartographic profession — especially academic — would take an interest in this article. The selection of maps we show in the article is arbitrary and therefore open to endless contest — not to mention, not being the most educational. I think the first map presented ought to clearly illustrate the primary elements of a map, instead of it being some 17th century piece of art that’s neither informed by modern cartographic thought, nor a dominant work cited by historians. (The only reason the van Schagen map is even there is because someone didn’t have a better article to put it into.) Maps have been constructed whose purpose is to teach about maps, rather than teach about the mapped geography, and that’s what we ought to be using if we can find one in the public domain. Most of the examples I can find are actually about teaching elements of geography instead of elements of maps (such as [1]), but there might be enough overlap for one of them to make do. Strebe (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Maps-for-free Sierra Nevada.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

big ones

Under "Extremely large-scale maps", worth mentioning U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bay Model? —Tamfang (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems at least as notable as the others. Strebe (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

lede reversion failure

Argument 1: "Item" is superfluous: a depiction is an "item".

Rebuttal: Refer to Hypernymy and hyponymy re item as a hypernym and visually symbolic depiction as a hyponym. An item and a depiction aren't synonymous. Thus, "A map is an item [what kind? one that...] that provides a visually symbolic depiction..."

Argument 2: "Visually" is superfluous.

Nope: Here, visually characterizes "symbolic depiction" because not all symbols are visual, not all depictions are visual, and we can neither assume that readers will click the symbolic link nor can we rely on that article as a reliable source. Any alleged superfluousness is remedied by substituting representation for depiction.

Argument 3: Spaces are not limited to three and do not need enumeration.

Sorry, but... The edited lede doesn't assert such a limitation. Instead, it identifies objects within 2-D and 3-D spaces. Any shortcoming in the edited lede is obviated by substituting "objects" for "objects".

Misc.:

1. The "emphasizing" vebiage is an interpolation; maps don't inherently emphasize anything.
2. The "some space" verbiage is too contextually vague to pass encyclopediac muster.
3. The "such as objects, regions, or themes" modifying phrase is misplaced and wrongly punctuated as a parenthetic item that characterizes "space".
4. The "region" referent is too limited since maps can correspond to locales as small as a backyard, treasure hunt route, etc.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Item" could be a hypernym of anything within a wide universe of discourse. As such, it conveys a vanishingly insignificant amount of information about the article's topic. It is a needless word to be omitted, according to Strunk's familiar maxim.

Geographical maps emphasize some things and suppress others; see cartographic generalization.

The link in your signature is malformed. I will leave it to your own erudite perspicacity to see why. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point re "item". Context is key. In this case, including "item" was a stylistic way to enable keeping "symbolic" in the lede. I'll beat you to a work-around.

All maps emphasize something or else it wouldn't be on the map. Emphasizing "emphasizing" in the lede is superfluous.

The links work fine for me.

Note to all: I just posted my latest and final edit of the lede. I had wanted to link my own work to this article but couldn't justify doing so with the lede written as horridly as I initially found it. Feel free to tweak or revert the current lede to suit your own predilections as my own work now has its own, more colloquially-worded definition, i.e., "a visual representation with text and symbols that thematically depict relationships regarding elements within a given locale, region, or space." In this article, "elements" can't be substituted for "objects" since Wikipedia has no way to characterize element in the foregoing sense and elsewhere defined. The closest other words might be things or items or stuff. Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Try using that signature link to navigate directly to your talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Works on my end. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not on mine. —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The present state does not match anything in the literature, contains superfluous words, and doesn’t conform to obvious usage. A map doesn’t necessarily contain text; the reference to two or three dimensions is spurious since a map may represent a space of more dimensions and an object may be of more dimensions; a visual representation is a graphic; thematically depict does not convey anything clear; regarding is the wrong word in relationships regarding: the clear, normal, meaningful term is between. I’m reverting to the original state. Meanwhile, I note that (a) the definition of map has no scholarly consensus; and (b) the definition should be one from an expert source, not a disputable contrivance of Wikipedia editors. I will search for some candidates in the meantime. Strebe (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at some of the desk literature I have at the moment:

Michael DeMers Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems 4th edition has a definition of maps on page 59:

"The map is a model of spatial phenomena-an abstraction. It is not a miniature version of reality that is meant to show every detail of a study area."

Maribeth Price Mastering ArcGIS Pro 2nd edition on page 19 has a definition of maps as they apply to GIS:

"Maps are views that display GIS data sets together using specified symbols, labels, and so on. A map may be two dimensional or it may be visualized in three dimensions, in which case it is called a scene."

US Army Field Manual FM 3-25.26 defines maps as:

"A map is a graphic representation of a portion of the earth's surface drawn to scale, as seen from above."

William Bunge "Theoretical geography" generalizes maps as "a subset of mathematics." on page 71.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines map as

"a representation usually on a flat surface of the whole or a part of an area"

Therefore, I present the definition:

A map is an abstract model that represents spatial information for an area of interest. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Strebe:

The verbiage in the reversion:

• Doesn't match anything in the literature, which is immaterial, because the point is to be descriptively accurate.
• Contains the equivocal if not superfluous word emphasizing.
• Doesn't conform to obvious usage.
• Omit's the word text. Show me a map without text and I'll hand it back as picture, diagram, or illustration.
• Contains "some space" wherein (1) "some" is a candidate for the Weasel Word of the Year award, and "space" is a rightful nominee for the Leading Polysemist in this year's Golden Raspberry Awards since space is an inaccurate link and "space" might well be mistaken as a nightclub in Ibiza.
• Eliminates the reference to two or three dimensions without a corresponding talk page comment that acknowledges the article's hidden note about how a map may represent a space of more dimensions. The fact that an object may be of more dimensions is a moot point in the current reversion and in what was reverted.
• Righly omits the reference to the point that "a visual representation is a graphic," which was a moot item in what was reverted.
• Rightfully contains a reference to "themes," but does so in a way that is less cogent than "thematically depict," whose sense is semantically clear in a way that doesn't merit argument.
• 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. NOTE:The word among wouldn't suffice since its usage applies primarily to three or more while a map may apply to only two things. :::Reverting to the original state is unhelpful in the ways detailed above. Meanwhile, I (a) also acknowledge how the definition of map has no scholarly consensus, and (b) disagree that the definition should be one from an expert source unless the source and resulting lede is reasonably worded. The reversion satisfies neither of those premises. It's a disputable (i.e. because I, for one, dispute its efficacy) contrivance of Wikipedia editors' original research that lacks any accredited or cited source. Original research and a lack of cited source doesn't dismay me, but the current shortcomings of the lede sure does. Yet, as I mentioned above, I've remedied my own work with a practicable definition for map. I leave it to others to emend the current lede or eventually I might renege on having posted my latest and final edit on that definitional matter.

That being said, I'm tempted to undo your reversion even as I speak. Why? This is one of the rare instances where Just plain Bill and I seem to have reached a consensus on a lede. If so, that makes us two editors versus your one.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We seem to be in the midst of a reasonably congenial work in progress with the lede. I would not call it consensus just yet. The context and application of emphasis still needs some cognizant scrutiny, for example. For the most part, for now I am content to sit with the version Strebe reverted to.

I have used orienteering maps without text. Omitting text on those maps is about avoiding giving any advantage to competitors familiar with the local language, in an international sport. Of course, that is a niche case, but the maps used are high-quality scale depictions of the terrain, sometimes including symbols marking individual boulders. I once showed one to an old field artilleryman, who said it was like getting a chopper ride over the ground in question, compared to the topographic maps he was accustomed to working with at a scale of 1:62500, or about an inch to a mile. Just a factoid for the amusement of the multitude here assembled... Just plain Bill (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

An internet search results in this example of an orienting map. I'm loath to call it a map rather than an illustration or graphic.

IMHO, the current lede sucks for the reasons given in my immediately previous post. Encyclopedia Britannica provides a much better version that defines a map as a graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features — for example, geographical, geological, or geopolitical — of an area of the Earth or of any other celestial body. Thus, no "symbolic depiction" or "emphasizing" or "some space" verbiage. Its only shortcoming is its omission of theme or thematic, since the concept of a map is broad enough to include a mind map. On that score, I'd expect the map article to include a headnote along the lines of:

This article is about XYZ (e.g., graphic representations of an area of the Earth. For other uses, see Map (disambiguation).

The Related topics section should include a link to mind maps if an emended lede excludes theme or thematic. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Problems with the Britannica definition:

• Maps are rarely "drawn" now.
• Maps are not always to scale. There can be a variety of distortions for a variety of reasons, particularly in advertising and art.
• Most maps to day are digital, so they are "on" computer storage and presented on a screen.
• They don't have to be of a celestial body or the Earth, you could have a map of a space station or virtual world.

The point IS to be descriptively accurate. You ensure accuracy by basing the writing on the literature, otherwise it's original research. I could definitely make a map without text, although it would rely on the user being familiar with some symbols. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Britannica definition isn't a panacea, it's just much better than Wikipedia's lede.

• Change "drawn" to "created."
• Change "scale" to "variable proportions."
• Maps are typically depicted on a flat surface regardless of how they're created yet many maps are affixed to a globe, which isn't a flat surface despite what Flat Earthers would have us believe.
• While it's true that you could have a map of space station or virtual world, this article doesn't address those topics, hence a hatnote to exclude them is appropriate but currently omitted.

Be bold and offer your own alternative lede. It could hardly be any worse than what's there now. Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I DID offer my own alternative lede sentence at least, along with several sources. "A map is an abstract model that represents spatial information for an area of interest." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "drawn" does not necessarily mean a pen was involved. You could replace it with "described" though the appropriate sense of that word is slightly dated, or maybe "marked". "Created" is not really a substitute. –jacobolus (t) 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec) This shows part of an orienteering map before the course is marked on it, often by the competitor after their start, in the form of circles around the control points, connected by lines to show their sequence. Typically a runner will fold the map so it shows the immediate area of interest, for convenient in-hand access while bashing through e.g. the understory in a patch of woods.

"Thematic" seems abstract, diffuse, vague, adjacent to what British speakers call waffle. Not sure how to put it in clear particular language fit for this article. I do not think the current lede is so broken that it needs immediate fixing. I do keep an eye on this page. More later, Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thematic map is a type of map, and a very common one at that, so it isn't a particular problem in my opinion to include. I think the lede can be improved, and also have it on my watch list. I dropped by to offer sources and a proposed definition based on them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, good to know there is a named category for maps like that, with a Wikipedia article and all. Thanks for bringing attention to it. If the lead ends up including "themes" or "thematic", then a link to that article will be useful. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Thematic maps" are among the most common types of maps in existence. Formal maps produced by cartographers are, broadly speaking, going to either be reference maps or thematic maps. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Show me a map without text and I'll hand it back as picture, diagram, or illustration. – As far as I can tell this is an idiosyncratic personal definition unrelated to the ordinary English meaning or common technical definitions of "map". (It is however the case that every map is also a type of picture, diagram, and illustration, all three of which are broader categories.) –jacobolus (t) 06:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Mental mapping to me demonstrates that a map does not have to be a picture or illustration. Maps are models of the physical world. That's about it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

While the concept of a "mental map" or "cognitive map" (I don't understand what the difference is supposed to be between those – seems like the two articles should be merged) is named by analogy, I don't think it is essential that an article titled "Map" has a definition which encompasses people's internal non-graphical representations of their local environment. Likewise we don't need to encompass every kind of mathematical function, even though these are often called "maps"; the associative arrays in computer programming, which are called "maps" based on the mathematical sense of the word; or mind maps, drawings used for generating ideas when problem solving or crafting a narrative. I think the current lead's mention of such loosely and abstractly related topics as "brain mapping", "DNA mapping", and "computer network topology mapping" seems like a serious mistake leading to a poor scope for this article. I would cut these out and focus on maps as graphical representations intended for humans to look at, primarily of geography. A section near the bottom of the article can talk about wider metaphorical applications of the word "map", but is unlikely to be relevant to the vast majority of readers coming to this article title. –jacobolus (t) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

From a literal stand point, the mental map is a precursor to what we find in paper maps, much the same way that spoken language is the precursor to written language. People were able to first intuitively know where stuff was in relationship to other things, and then we learned to communicate those relationships to others. Later, we found various ways of recording that. For example, the Marshall Islands stick chart are not drawn and are instead used to communicate the idea to the navigators before a trip. The navigator would use their internal mental map for navigation without consulting the chart at all. This example is important because it highlights both that maps might not be "drawn" and that the purpose of some maps is to help pass one individuals mental map to another individual.

I point this out because I know the path we are on, trying to define a map, ends up in the weeds. When it comes to the map as they relate to cartography, the method used to record them is unimportant and ultimately semantical, which is why I propose the definition of "A map is an abstract model that represents spatial information for an area of interest." After that first sentence, we can get into examples, types of maps, and most common methods for creation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

mental map is a precursor to what we find in paper maps, much the same way that spoken language is the precursor to written language – not really, no. Written language is a permanent record of spoken language (a verbal utterance), and both are means of communication. A "mental map" seems to be entirely internal and personal, not a form of communication at all. There's not really a "precursor to what we find in paper maps" analogous to spoken language, but you could argue that verbalized spatial instructions or a crude sketch in the dirt with a stick might qualify; the former of these (something like "go to the big tree, then turn right and walk ten steps") is not a "map" by common definitions. A stick chart (which is a picture, diagram, and illustration) is clearly a map, in just the same way that the state of an abacus is a kind of number representation, or a rebus is a form of writing. –jacobolus (t) 17:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The concept of the map comes directly from our attempts to communicate, and then record, our mental maps. The first "maps" would likely be completely orally passed down and maintained in the minds of community members, and the directions like ""go to the big tree, then turn right and walk tens steps" are products derived from the model maintained in the mind of the person who is giving the directions. Think of turn by turn directions you get from Google Maps, while the directions themselves are not a map, they are the product of a model that exists in machine memory. Organic memory is no different, and the map that exists in the brains of humans is no less "real" then the map that exists on a computer. The diagrams and drawings seem to have started largely as tools for teaching those relationships and concepts. The relationship and concept though is a model that can be expressed through a variety of means. Today, actually visualizing the map is only needed for humans, machines don't necessarily need to render a visual representation to have a map of an area. The map is fundamentally the model of reality that represents spatial information. How that model is depicted is variable, and attempts to nail down an all inclusive definition will struggle with being overly specific. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

while the directions themselves are not a map, they are the product of a model that exists in machine memory – and neither of these is a "map". The first is a list of directions, and the second is a geographical computer database. The reason this matters is because encyclopedia articles need a clearly defined and moderately constrained scope in order to be given a readable narrative structure and usefully present information readers are looking for. This particular article should limit its scope to graphical representations because if we lead with "experts disagree about definitions of 'map' so we're going to include any kind of information stored using any possible representation", then the article's scope starts overlapping with knowledge, information, data, data storage, etc., and the expanded scope doesn't help to explain to readers what maps are, or their history, usage, design, etc. An article called "Map" can possibly support short sections about maps of imaginary places, maps of non-geographical subjects, computer geographical databases, non-graphical "maps" as a generalized concept, "mental mapping", etc. at the bottom of the article, but they are not necessary or particularly important, and should not influence the basic description in the lead and top few sections. –jacobolus (t) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Here we get into semantics of what makes a map a map, but I assure you mental maps are maps. Kenneth Fields Cartography defines them as "Intangible maps that we form with our minds." Much of the research that has gone into cartography over the past several millennia has been on how best to convert our mental maps into physical ones, which is reflected when you search "mental map" on Google Scholar. Again, I see no reason to avoid mentioning maps as objects in the lede, but the unifying definition of a map when you reduce it down is that it is a model of spatial information. Those models are abstractions of reality that can make use of a variety of symbols and text to convey the underlying information. They can be used to depict places of interest, such as the surface of Earth or other celestial object, can be static or dynamic, and on 2D or 3D surfaces. Please let me know where you're getting your definition, cause I've presented several that I based mine on. If we look at the ESRI dictionary and look up map, it seems to me like you're using something along the lines of their 2nd definition "[cartography] A collection of graphic symbols used to represent a place." I'm likely using something closer to their first one "[geography] A spatial representation of a location." Search for "a map is a model" and you'll see sources that back the word choice of model. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You can personally consider that a "map" if you want to, and a comprehensive dictionary might include a sense of the word "map" encompassing such usage, but defining every basic term in such a broad and hand-wavy way that it also includes every vague imaginary example is misleading and unhelpful to encyclopedia readers. We don't need the definition of "friend" to include my imaginary pet unicorn, the definition of "dwelling" to include my unicorn's stable on the moon, the definition of "law" to include my proposal that every child in the world should be legally entitled to ice cream once a week, the definition of "food" to include my beautiful mud pies, etc.

Wikipedia articles should be contained to each be about a single topic with a clear scope, and topics should be matched to titles in a way that helps readers understand the topic being discussed. In the current case, the article's scope is clear and more or less fine, matching readers' expectations, so the obvious way forward is to adopt a definition based on expert discourse which matches that scope, and then optionally discuss alternative definitions in the article (perhaps in a footnote).

Language in general is much more fluid than Wikipedia article titles/lead sections, and you are of course welcome to adopt whatever idiosyncratic definitions you like for every term when you write your own book. –jacobolus (t) 23:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion is really not what matters, I'm literally saying that the literature on cartography and maps considers this topic in excruciating detail. I'm offering some suggestions based on that literature, while you have given me your opinion on what you personally consider a map. Like my personal opinion on the matter, yours does not matter. Back your assertion with citations. For example, the book Map Use: Reading, Analysis, Interpretation (which is one of the best textbooks on the topic in my opinion) divides maps into "Mental maps" and "cartographic maps" on the literal first page of the introduction. This book defines maps as:

"a spatial representation of the environment that is presented graphically. By representation, we mean something that stands for the environment, portrays it, and is both a likeness and a simplified model of the environment. The definition encompasses such diverse maps as those on walls, those that appear ephemerally on a computer screen and then are gone, and those held solely in the minds eye."

Search "maps are models" on Google Scholar and you'll see the word choice is not coming from thin air.

To be blunt, I don't think you really know what you are talking about. Please cite sources and present counter definitions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a cute direct response to your suggestion about "mental maps": Andrews, J. (1996). "What Was a Map? The Lexicographers Reply". Cartographica. 33 (4): 1–12. doi:10.3138/nj8v-8514-871t-221k.

"Almost throughout its history the word 'map' has been used in a metaphorical sense by poets and other imaginative writers, and regular sub-uses eventually became established in technical and academic writing for various classes of non-geographical phenomena. Some of these were also metaphorical: a cognitive psychologist's 'mental map,' for instance, is no more truly cartographic than the black sheep of a family is truly ovine."

–jacobolus (t) 06:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A mental map is not a cartographic map, as I stated, Map Use: Reading, Analysis, Interpretation divides maps into "mental maps" and "cartographic maps." This does align with the quote you give, a "a cognitive psychologist's 'mental map,' for instance, is no more truly cartographic than the black sheep of a family is truly ovine" in that mental maps are a distinct category from cartographic maps. This does not change that mental maps are in fact a type of map, and that modern literature includes them as part of the understanding for how users interact with cartographic maps. Without a mental map, you would struggle to make sense of a cartographic one, and could likely never produce a cartographic one at all. It was a cute response though, you're right! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Definition of Map

The International Cartographic Association defines map:

A map is a symbolised representation of geographical reality, representing selected features or characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author’s execution of choices, and is designed for use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance.

This Wikipedia article is about cartographic maps, not other kinds, as we can see by its content. The ICA is as authoritative a body as exists for the subject. The ICA has already done the work of distilling the definition as a consensus of thousands of authorities. (The membership numbers in the thousands, and while they did not all contribute directly, the definition was adopted by their collective assent.) I see no value in arguing about the definition, both because anything we come up with as editors is irrelevant as WP:OR and because a more plausible authority is nothing we will identify. For the lede, I suggest,

A map is a symbolised representation of geographical reality, representing selected features or characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author’s execution of choices, and is designed for use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance. While there are other kinds of artifacts that are called “maps” (see disambiguation), this definition originates from the International Cartographic Association and pertains to the kind of maps described in this article.

Strebe (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would use US spelling, though, given the article’s convention. Strebe (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If the article's topic remains limited to cartographic maps, then it should be pointed out in the hatnote or, alternatively, in the lede paragraph in some iteration of what you suggested. The ICA definition, however, impresses me no more than the current lede. Specifically, I cringe at (1) the redundancy of "representation" and modifying phrase with its "representing" verbiage; (2) the "representing..." phrase is semantically infirm as it grammatically corresponds to "reality" contrary to the implicit intent of inarticulately characterizing "representation"; (3) the run-on nature of the sentence makes no easy work of determining that "its" refers to "map" rather than "reality"; (4) the definition is limited to "geographic reality," which excludes its application to a virtual world, to echo jacobolus's concern; (5) the "designed for use" verbiage is pretty dispensable; (6) the "when spatial relationships are of primary relevance" verbiage would be useful if there were an indication of relevance to XYZ [i.e., the users? the author? a certain purpose?].

Alternative wording: A map is a symbolised depiction of selected features or characteristics within a geographical area or place. It is designed to portray spatial relationships that are of primary relevance to a cartographic purpose. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of "symbolized depiction," I'd use the word "model" and move symbolized depiction to the second sentence, so alternatively: A map is a model of selected features or characteristics within a geographical area or place. They depict spatial phenomena through the use of symbols, and are usually presented graphically. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Model" is equivocal. It evokes a precursory template or a scaled down replica. Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

So is "depiction," as it excludes mental maps, which are not an insignificant portion of the literature. A model is not a replica, and if something is scaled down it is not a replica. Model is the precise term, and if you look above I can offer a significant amount of literature to back that, check Google Scholar for "maps are models" or . Wikipeida has pages for "Scientific modelling", "Conceptual model", "Scientific visualization", that would be relevant to what a map is. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Your reply serves to emphasize how "model" is polysemic in a way that isn't particularly useful. "Depiction" is the right word pertinent to any kind of map whether of the cartographic, mind map, fingerprint ridge pattern, or building evacuation route variety, to name a few. "Representation" is a hypernym of depiction, so it's less precise and could be mistaken to mean a map is "a statement or account made to influence opinion or action" or "a dramatic production or performance". Pity the reader who does a Wiki search on "representation" (or, moreover, on "model"). Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delayed reaction: I'd be fine with "A map is a modular depiction..." type of qualification.

Note: Somewhere there's a Wiki guidance that says a lede definition isn't subject to the WP:OR rule. Since there's no consensus among published sources re what a map is in a hypernymous sense, its the Wiki editors' job to say what this article comprehends concerning its discussion of maps in whatever broad or narrow manner is agreed.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Modular is defined as "employing or involving a module or modules as the basis of design or construction," while module is "each of a set of standardized parts or independent units that can be used to construct a more complex structure, such as an item of furniture or a building." These are not the same thing as a model. If model is to vague, it could be preference as "abstract model." Cartographers are making models of reality, using scale, projection, and symbols to simplify, store, analyze, and represent spatial data. When the word model is used in reference to mathematics and statistics, no one is worried about it being polysemic. I'm using it in the same way. The definition of "depiction," "a representation in words or images of someone or something," even excluding mental maps. Tactile maps exist, and a map can be stored on a computer drive and not be depicted at all until a user pushes it. Automated systems use maps that don't have any depiction that would be meaningful to a human. In all these cases, the map is a model of reality, a simplified abstraction that is missing many details but which contains enough to be useful. The reference to model is particularly useful in maps when it is combined with E.P. Box's quote "All models are wrong, but some are useful," as it helps to communicate to the users that all maps lie, something we need to assert more clearly. Models are central concepts in science, and the maps as models are part of how we define cartography as a science. Other scientific disciplines are not concerned with the word model being polysemic, it is the accurate word choice, and in the case of cartography I can cite several sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither map nor modular nor model, etc., has any intrinsic meaning. They only mean whatever they're agreed to mean. Accordingly, the hardcorp semanticist in me disagrees that "a map can be stored on a computer drive." Digital info re a map is encoded & stored. The map depicted on a screen vanishes when not in use. There's no "map" in your computer drive, only 0,1 sequences.

Before offering any substantive language as an alternative to the current lede, you might want to consider the linguistic difference between a map or a model (i.e., as tangible nouns), and mapping or modeling as gerunds (i.e., as the carrying of processes or activities relating to a noun).

The "maps are models" assertion is every much a false flag as is maps are depictions or maps are representations or maps are portrayals or maps are things or even, corresponding to my first edit of the article, maps are items. Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This just in: a map is an illustration; a map is an object; a map is a symbolic depiction; and so it goes. Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Words have no meaning and everything is subjective, yes. The concept of making a model is very deeply ingrained in cartography and GIS. A map stored on a hard drive exists in the same way that a map stored on a printed piece of paper that is rolled up in an archive exists. The paper in the archive is just smudged pigment on plant fiber until a human looks at it and gives it meaning, and just like words are subjective, the smudges on the paper are as well. When a cartographer creates a map, they are creating a model to represent reality, in the scientific sense. The model can be represented in a number of ways, including visually, through tactile representations, and in ways only interpretable by machines. The cartographer makes choices that can be understood by the intended user to, and there isn't necessarily one correct way to do this. The finished products are only one of many possible outcomes from the same model, and the model is only one of many possible for a given area. We might as well just exclude all dynamic web maps and say it needs to be printed on a printing press in the Champaign region of France to be a map, otherwise it's just sparkling cartography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Champaign region is in Illinois! —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that starting an article with a direct quote, that isn't in quotations, is a good move. There are plenty of sources out there that can be brought in on this. I disagree that the article should be limited to "cartographic maps," otherwise the article should be renamed to "cartographic maps." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

So far, the article is limited to cartographic maps. Whether it should be is a matter of consensus.

Your comment about quotes is spot on. Strebe's suggested lede may be tantamount to copyright infringement that runs afoul of afair use exception. If not, it's clearly an instance of plagiarism. Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It is neither copyright infringement nor plagiarism to quote a cited source. –jacobolus (t) 15:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue from above related to Geog Sage's disagreement with starting an article with a direct quote, that isn't in quotations. I seconded that diagreement in opposing Strebe's suggestion to put an unattributed quote in the lede, which is a copyright infringement liability if not properly quoted and cited. Putting such verbiage in quotes and citing it, however, runs afoul of the Wiki guidance re WP:UNDUE since the quote is merely one of 300 or more conflicting map definitions out there. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Quote marks are not a legal matter. As I gave it, the source is attributed. The WP:UNDUE reasoning seems incoherent to me: Any definition would be “undue” by that reasoning. I don’t see how any solution could better conform to Wikipedia’s guidelines (or basic sense) than to quote the largest professional body on the topic. Meanwhile anything synthesized by Wikipedia editors would merely contribute to the “undue” profusion, be the subject of endless arguments, and violate policy by through WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because there is no professional agreement for us to paraphrase. If we were to manage somehow to agree on an extant definition but paraphrase it, that also seems highly likely to result in endless arguments, since, for example, I have not agreed with any points that Kent Dominic has made here, whether about content or word choice, and this appears to be due to durable differences in beliefs and thought processes.

While I do not think it is necessary, I am happy to petition for explicit consent from the ICA to use their definition. As an educational body, I’m sure they would be pleased to grant it. Strebe (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For the lede, you suggested:

A map is a symbolised representation of geographical reality, representing selected features or characteristics, resulting from the creative effort of its author’s execution of choices, and is designed for use when spatial relationships are of primary relevance. While there are other kinds of artifacts that are called “maps” (see disambiguation), this definition originates from the International Cartographic Association and pertains to the kind of maps described in this article.

The first sentence is quoted material absent quotation marks. The second sentence's verbiage re "originates from" doesn't make it clear that the quote is a verbatim rendering of ICA's definition. Wikipedia doesn't need ICA consent to use its definition. Fair use doctrine obviates such consent. Not using quotation marks is the problem. It gives the appearance that it's Wikipedia's original work. Yet, making it a direct quote with a proper cite (rather than a link to the source) solves the infringement issue but doesn't cure the shortcomings of the quote itself. Paraphrasing the quote, with a proper footnote, would do the trick.

You offer a unique perspective on what WP:UNDUE means. It requires a fair representation of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." (Italics in original.) Whether ICA is the largest professional body on the topic isn't on point. There are countless other reputable sources whose conflicting definitions have varying degrees of merit. I'd have the same complaint about quoting any source in the lede. It gives the impression that Wikipedia is picking sides or promoting a particular viewpoint.

Since the ICA definition is grammatically infirm in the ways I pointed out above, editors here would be right to paraphrastically tweak it so that it makes good semantic sense. That's our job. Citing the ICA as the source is part & parcel of the Wiki guidance against WP:OR. Rest assured that if a Wikipedia article quotes the largest professional body on a given topic, and the quote itself is semantically or grammatically flawed, I have at it when the flaw comes to my attention.

By way of analogy, it seems you'd be pleased with a lede in the Wikipedia article on Health Care by saying 'Health care is a fundamental human good because it affects our opportunity to pursue life goals, reduces our pain and suffering, helps prevent premature loss of life, and provides information needed to plan for our lives", and citing the American Medical society for that quote. To that I'd say the current lede in Health care is infinitely concise, as synthesized by Wikipedia editors, in summarizing what the article is about. Our editing task here is to do the same re whatever the consensus map article is or winds up being.

Wikipedia's second pilar is to avoid advocacy. Quoting and citing the ICA in the lede gives the appearance that the article is about what the ICA considers maps to be exclusive of the other 300 definitions by other putatively reliable sources. It also raise the question - if not the suspicion - that an ICA agent, employee, or other affiliated entity had a hand in composing an article consistent with its perspective. That's a Wikipedia no-no.

In short, ICA's run-on sentence, narrow comprehension of maps as corresponding to reality (i.e., excluding Geog Sage's concern obout virtual worlds) and the dicombobulated syntax that involves "reality... resulting in" is more than enough to make say writing isn't the ICA's strong suit in this case, to say nothing of the WP:UNDUE issue involved. Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

otherwise the article should be renamed to "cartographic maps." – I think you fundamentally misunderstand how titles and articles' scope work on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Article titles especially § Precision, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation especially § Naming the specific topic articles and § Is there a primary topic?. It is entirely reasonable for an article scoped to discuss "cartographic maps" to be called "Map", since map is the common name for them and they are the most common referent for the word map. Wikipedia articles are not dictionary entries, and do not need to interpret every title expansively as a word, but only need to clearly cover their topical scope.

If you want to make a new separate article about non-cartographic or more general subjects that might possibly be called maps, you are welcome to make one called Map (cognitive science) or Map (philosophy) or whatever, or even to add a (hopefully not too long) section somewhere near the bottom of this article explaining how more general kinds of artifacts or concepts are sometimes considered "maps" by analogy by cartographic theorists or philosophers. –jacobolus (t) 15:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Among the editors who've commented on what the scope of this article should be, Geog Sage seems to be the only one who favors a broad brush treatment of whatever a map is defined to be. Such an opinion currently conflicts with the article as currently constituted since the History section deals with only History of cartography, not derivative categories of maps.

From an encyclopediac standpoint, Geog Sage's preference is the hardest road to hoe. It might be reasonably managed, however, by a lede paragraph along the lines of:

"A map, in its broadest sense, is an ABC that represents XYZ. There are various subcategories of maps, including cartographic maps and various other maps that use analogous mapping ABCs [i.e., strategies, processes, etc.].

Types of maps______________________________________________

Cartographic maps

Main article: Cartographic map

Blah, blah blah in summary of the current article moved to the newly created Cartographic maps article.

Mind maps

Main article: Mind map

Blah, ,blah blah in summary of that article.

XYZ maps

Main article: Map (cognitive science)

or

Main article: Map (philosophy)

or whatever.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The cartographic process

I agree with this approach more or less, but I'd rather expand here then make a bunch of spinoff pages. It isn't really as broad as it seems, just a perspective on cartography that is a bit more dynamic then a pirate with their rolled up map that has a big red X. While this may not be in the same school of thought pushed by modern critical cartographers (we don't want to open that can of worms), I lean towards the Map communication model. Essentially, Cartographic maps are used to communicate information and are used to inform a users mental map. The mental map is used by a cartographer to help them construct their cartographic map. This process informs the Cartographic design process. As I stated, the Map use and analysis textbook includes both types of map on the first page in the construction of a broad definition, which is largely because both are necessary as long as humans are the ones using our maps. As we already have a page for cartography and mental map, we would just need some sections here. Of bigger concern to me on this page is that it is lacking a section on thematic map. I believe we can propose a move some content on the Cartography page to satisfy this, specifically the section "map types." Then just elaborate on it. That or we could borrow from it.

I would suggest:

"A map, in its broadest sense, is an ABC that represents XYZ. There are various subcategories of maps, including cartographic maps and various other maps that use analogous mapping ABCs [i.e., strategies, processes, etc.]."

==Types of maps==

===Mental maps===

Main article: Mental mapping

===Cartographic maps===

Main article: Cartography

====General vs. thematic cartography====

====Topographic vs. topological==== GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This whole "broadest sense" text would best fit, if anywhere, in a section near the very bottom of the article called something like "Broader definitions". Displacing the current article to the title Cartographic maps in favor of an extremely vague and high-level category is in my opinion inappropriate and seems very unlikely to achieve consensus of Wikipedians. –jacobolus (t) 23:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you're committed to asserting the definition of maps as you understand them. Please understand that your understanding is a bit narrow. Maps are more then just ink on paper or pixels on a screen, and it is very simple to reflect that. The page needs a lot of restructuring, and probably should be expanded to cover more then just western 20th and 21st century ideas on the matter. The "types" is pretty haphazard. It could stand for a few different sections on theoretical approaches to them, for example as much as I personally don't like it, Critical cartography has it's own views on what a map is that are not the same as most cartographers that make maps for industry or quantitative research. Map is a high level broad topic, and narrowing it down serves very little purpose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The point is not choosing between, "asserting", or exploring definitions of words (wikt:Map is ready for your contributions), but rather making an article about each encyclopedic topic, keeping the scope of each encyclopedia article clear, giving each topic a clear name which describes it, and associating each name to the topic readers are most likely to be looking for with hatnotes pointing at a disambiguation page containing other articles which might be confused with it.

Everyone here agrees Wikipedia should clearly have an article about what you call "cartographic maps", so the question (inre your personal proposals) is what that article should be titled, and the longstanding consensus (and I think clearly correct choice in light of Wikipedia policies and consensus conventions) is to title that article Map. You are welcome to make a separate article about what you have already admitted is a separate topic. If you think "Map" is also the best title for that article, then you can add a parenthetical qualifier, as I recommended above.

Since the scope of this article is "cartographic maps", a definition employed should be one which describes "cartographic maps"; alternate definitions describing other types of things (mathematical function maps, graph theory maps, computer programming maps, mind maps, mental maps, DNA maps, analogical map–territory relation, &c. &c.) belong at other article(s). If you think other topics are encyclopedic, then you should get started writing new articles about them, instead of proposing taking existing articles about obviously encyclopedic topics and rewriting them to change the topic. –jacobolus (t) 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well-stated. That brings us back to how my initial edit's "thematic elements" verbiage was ill-considered as I hadn't then read the full article. To reiterate, my initial interest had less to do with defining map in its broadest sense but to emend the lede's grammar and carry forward its topical statement, which included themes. The reversion of my initial edit restores the initial lede's incompatibility of the unqualified mention of "themes" and the article's limited treatment of cartographic maps.

If you missed it, I had wanted to link my own work to this article but couldn't justify doing so with the lede's syntax as horridly as I initially found it. My own work now has its own, more colloquially-worded definition, i.e., "a visual representation with text and symbols that thematically depict relationships regarding elements within a given locale, region, or space." That definition pertains solely to my work's one mention of "map" in the sense of a road map, not to all cartographic maps, and not to maps as a hypernym for every variety of maps.

Beyond defining map for its one-off mention in my work, I have little my interest in characterizing maps in either the narrow or broad sense of the word. My prolixity on this talk page pains me as much as anyone else who reads the entirety of the comments I've posted here, and I leave it to editors empassioned on the topic to address all of the shortcomings I've ID'd. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Everyone here" is like three editors, and the opinions of editors don't matter when it comes to topics in the outside literature, sources do. The current article is extremely limited, and likely does need a massive overhaul. The scope of this article is "maps." "Cartographic maps" are definitely what most people think of, but what I've tried to say repeatedly is when understanding cartographic maps, the map reading process, and the cartographic design process, mental maps are important. When you read a map, you are informing your mental map. Without the ability to visualize things in your minds eye, visualizations are worthless. Symbolization, text, and the mathematical relationships all exist to further the understanding of the users of a map. Furthermore, cartographic maps are a not as clear cut as most people think, especially as they include dynamic and static map. This isn't an issue of "an article for cartographic maps, an article for mental maps," the issue is to understand the history and theory of cartographic maps mentioning mental maps would be important, and this can be easily included with minimal effort by using a broad rather then narrow definition of map. The theory around maps has a lot of content that extends beyond "Ink smudged on a paper by a Great Ape." Increasingly, what constitutes a map in public perception will change, as can be seen in Robotic mapping, where the map isn't necessarily rendered for a human to look at. There are other cultures that have their own cartographic traditions, and this article is heavily Western centric. It doesn't even discuss multiple Western theoretical views on a map, instead it really does none of them justice and seems to have its own original approach. In the past century, we have made massive strides in thematic maps (these include ALL choropleth maps, cartograms, Proportional symbol maps, Dot distribution maps, and Flow maps), which are not reflected in this article. The "types of maps" listed are definitely haphazardly included, Electronic, Climatic, Extraterrestrial, Topological, General, and Extremely large maps are included, but I don't know why these are the examples and they seem to just be grabbed at random. This list should be updated to mirror some literatures list, and could be much more comprehensive. I don't really understand the resistance to making an article better to reflect literature. It looks like it was written by someone from 1950 wrote the bulk of it, and someone from the 1950s without a strong understanding of cartography at that. This suggestion is perfectly clear, and more importantly accurate to what the outside literature says, and well within the scope of the term "map." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Although I largely agree with Jacobolus about limiting the scope of this article to that of cartographic maps (especially since it obviates a link to map from an article like globe), you make tons of admirable observations why this article would be improved by adding sections that discuss the conceptual and strategic elements regarding cartographic maps.

To you I say, be bold: fix the article yourself instead of just talking about it! You and Jacobolus and Strebe have considerably more interest in the direction of the article than I have. My primary interest isn't the topical direction of the map article(s); it's that the resulting phrasing is semantically cogent, syntactically accurate, and readily intelligible from a grammatical perspective.

If I had greater time, interest and enterprise, I'd read the entire article and give it a linguistic makeover. Ater just now analyzing the semantics, syntax, and grammar of the article's second and third paragraphs, these errors stand out:

• Although the earliest maps known are of the heavens, geographic maps of territory have a very long tradition and exist have existed from ancient times. < Grammatical tense usage. >
• In their most simple form simplest forms, maps are two dimensional constructs,. however since Since the age of Classical Greece, however, maps have also have been projected onto a three-dimensional sphere known as a globe globes. < Number agreement; run-on sentence; adverbial syntax; superfluousness re globe. >
• The Mercator Projection, developed by Flemish geographer Gerardus Mercator, was widely used as the standard for two-dimensional projection of the earth for world maps until the late 20th century, when more accurate projections were formulated. < The earth wasn't projected. >
• Mercator was also was the first to use and popularize the concept of the atlas as a collection of maps. < Adverbial syntax. >

I'll let the first taker do the honors of editing the article accordingly. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a few projects in the works right now but am starting to gather literature for this page. I redid Geography a few years ago, even though it still needs work. I don't like being overly bold when there is an active talk page dispute, especially when the part I'd like to be bold about is disputed. Once I have some more time here will make some bold changes in my sandbox and see what can be done here. I'll make the changes you suggest if no one gets around to it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that “I don't really understand the resistance to making an article better to reflect literature,” is neither supported nor correct: I haven’t seen any examples of that. The article is gravely deficient in practically every measure that I can think of. The reason it’s that way is not because anyone designed it that way; it’s because no one designed it. It’s accretion of stuff injected, mutated, partially deleted, re-inserted, moved around, and otherwise modified by well-meaning editors who, for the most part, appear to have little expertise in either cartography or editing. I have made occasional appeals in cartographic circles for experts to get involved, but have been met with silence. I can understand why: Wikipedia’s protocols are daunting; its editors not always considerate or even competent; an article in good shape is subject to entropy that’s kept under control only by sustained vigilance of competent editors; and so on for the other dynamics we are all too familiar with. Hence, by chance, no one proficient in the field of this particular article has climbed on and stayed on board. I strongly agree with jacobolus’s point that we should not rewrite the article to change its topic. The points you make, GeogSage, are salient, but I would separate them into (a) The current article is deficient even within its topic; and (b) There are other kinds of maps. I would propose to deal with those separately without changing the purview of this article. I understand that there is some gray there due to the fact that experts would disagree on which bucket some of the matters you bring up belong to. That’s fine; they are matters for discussion, and hopefully no one argues too ardently over something that experts themselves don’t agree on. That’s not our job. Strebe (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. My frustration is mostly that I don't see the suggestions I've made as changing the articles topics purview, but instead bringing it to a broad and elementary starting point for an entry on maps. Expert disagreement on this topic can itself be a section, where we can discuss "maps as a mathematical theory," and "maps as a social constructs," etc. I currently want to tear into this problem (I have a lot of literature on this already in hand as it relates to some IRL work I've recently been working on), but the talk page discussion should be resolved before I begin major overhauls. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My frustration is mostly that I don't see the suggestions I've made as changing the articles topics purview, but instead bringing it to a broad and elementary starting point for an entry on maps. Perhaps it would help, then, to get sorted out the scope you mean for these proposals. Mental maps, for example, while deserving mention, does not strike me as needing much more than that, particularly because there is already a full article on it. I definitely do not agree that that article should be folded into this article. You write about the theory of cartography in your earlier paragraph describing your vision. I don’t agree with including that in this article’s purview. This article is about maps, not cartography, which already has its own page. And so on for others of what you have proposed, much of which I view as “cartography”: the study of maps and mapmaking, and not “map”, a cartographic artifact. Yes, I agree it is good to briefly describe how cartography results in a map and what goes into it. This article sort of does that and sort of doesn’t, but it’s a mess, and in any case I do not support the idea that it’s this article’s job to elucidate that topic.

I’m a little puzzled by your repeated comments about dynamic maps. The ICA definition (and most people’s conception, I would claim) does not preclude them; nor does anything already in the article: Indeed, it repeatedly mentions them. I’m similarly puzzled by your mention of Robotic mapping; that, also, is not precluded by this article’s implied purview or what I understand about people’s conception of a map — though, again, I don’t think it merits more than a reference to the extant article. And so on: I get that you are frustrated by the haphazard state of the article, but as far as I can tell, everyone already agrees with that. Hence, for my own part, I want us solidly identify what this article is and is not about, and cleanly separate that from criticisms about how bad it is at fulfilling whatever job it implicitly intends to. It sounds like that is going to be a long slog if we disagree on whether the theory of cartography belongs in this article. Strebe (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, on the robotic mapping, a mental map is really just a robotic map for us organic brained carbon based lifeforms. We are rapidly blurring the line between the human mind and our software/hardware as it is. In the context of a "map," they are just the models of spatial information we employ for a variety of purposes, and there is some suggestion that the first "maps" as objects were really teaching aids to better equip another persons mental map, essentially a communication tool for complex spatial models. Maps as this article frames them are the very modern, very western, concept of them as an external product to the user and cartographer. Maps were something you memorized and kept with you. I suspect you have a copy of Map Use: Reading Analysis and Interpretation handy, The first three pages of the introduction are how I would like to base an approach to including "mental maps," and then move on. It doesn't require more then a small blurb and a broad definition.

This talk page got split into multiple parts somehow. The comments on dynamic and computer maps come back to this statement above: "The map depicted on a screen vanishes when not in use. There's no "map" in your computer drive, only 0,1 sequences." I'm of the opinion that unplugging the monitor from a computer does not cause the map to stop existing, which is especially true for web and dynamic maps. A new map is not generated every time I open a dashboard, and every user of a dashboard does not have a unique map in front of them on their screen.

While cartography is the art, science, and technology of making and using maps, there is a lot of theory on the maps themselves that comes from cartography. Much of the discussion in cartographic literature is on the nature of the maps themselves. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

housecleaning

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:

1. Adding "Mind map, a visual diagram" to the Map (disambiguation) page. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Editing the Cartography article so that its lede says it's "the study and practice of making and using cartographic maps" instead of "the study and practice of making and using maps.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Reverted by User:Jacobolus, per --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

   No this is a confusing, unnecessary, and not consensus based change. –jacobolus (t) 23:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

   Not confusing but now no longer necessary due to the subsequent hatnote in this article. Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

3. Adding "Cartography, the study and practice of making and using cartographic maps" to the Map (disambiguation) page. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC). Reverted by User:Jacobolus, per --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC).

   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)

4. Adding "Robotic mapping, a discipline related to computer vision and cartography" to the Map (disambiguation) page. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

   Deleted Robotic mapping from the Map (disambiguation) page as it's already in the Mapping (disambiguation) page. Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

5. Adding "Map–territory relation, the relationship between an object and a representation of that object" to the Map (disambiguation) page. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
6. 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)

   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)

   @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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   "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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   @Strebe: Please adhere to the task of creating an encyclopedia. Bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles. Per Wikipedia is not a forum. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

7. Various syntax, grammar and semantic changes as noted above. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

   If you want to flesh out the disambiguation page, you can also take a look at Special:AllPages/map. –jacobolus (t) 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

   That's a great link. I'm going to add it to the See also section of Map (disambiguation). Anyone who cares should consider adding it also to the Maps and Mapping disambiguation pages. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

hatnote/history of maps/cartography nexus

The article's section titled History has a link to Main article: History of cartography. This article is about maps, so the appropriateness of the hatnote's "This article is about" phrase demonstrably favors its catrographic maps complement. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you started a new discussion instead of continuing the previous one, but I don't see your point here. That we include a hatnote in § History to History of cartography as a main article about that section's topic seems irrelevant to the top-of-article hatnote.

The problem with this Map article is that it is mediocre throughout (like many Wikipedia pages about common topics) and gradually accreted contributions from a wide variety of authors without any clear vision or much expert attention, not that it has an insufficiently verbose hatnote at the top. Editing and arguing about the hatnote is a waste of time which would be better spent reorganizing the article, adding important undiscussed topics, rewriting or cutting poorly written or unsourced material, choosing or making better illustrations, finding the best available sources and carefully citing them, etc. –jacobolus (t) 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear.

@Jacobolus, @Strebe, @Just plain Bill, @Ehrenkater, @[[User:GeogSage: which option(s), whether both, either or neither, do you prefer:

1. Map (cartography)

For other uses, see Map (disambiguation) and Maps (disambiguation)

A map is a symbolic depiction of relationships among objects and elements within the ambit of a given location, region, or space.

==versus==

2. Map < new page >

A map is a symbolic depiction of relationships among the objects and elements pertaining to any physical or conceptual topic. For example, a map may pertain to X, to Y, or to Z. Blah, blah, blah.

The word "map" comes from the medieval Latin: Mappa mundi, wherein mappa meant 'napkin' or 'cloth' and mundi 'of the world'. Thus, "map" became a shortened term referring to a two-dimensional representation of the surface of the world. Nowadays, however, map has come to apply to wide-ranging topics beyond its original association with geography.

Section A [ edit source ]

Blah, blah, blah.

Section B [ edit source ]

Blah, blah, blah.

See also [ edit source ]

• Map (disambiguation)
• Maps (disambiguation)

Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand this proposal, but I’m sure I prefer neither. Strebe (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, both of these are worse in my opinion. The current scope of this article is fine. (And if someone wants to write a different new article about a different topic it should be titled something else.) It just needs more work on the content, organization, style, illustration, and sourcing.

If someone has the bandwidth (dozens to hundreds of hours of work) to tackle fixing this article up properly (say with the goal of a "good article" badge), one good approach is to start by finding the best several survey sources available (e.g. textbooks, reference books, survey papers, other encyclopedia articles, ..., aiming for sources which are highly cited or written by widely acknowledged top experts in the field) and figure out which topics most often show up among those sources and what kinds of organization other authors have found to be clear and coherent, then try to roughly copy some synthesis of that as an article outline, adjusting it for the context of an encyclopedia article which sometimes has different needs from other kinds of sources.

Once such a high-level organization is figured out, it is helpful to find the best secondary sources available about each separate section topic (which might be separate books or papers, or might be chapters in a larger work), and read them carefully, making notes about what different authors consider important about that topic and getting a broad sense of how they think about it. Each section will take significant work to write a clear summary with specified sources supporting each claim.

After some of these sections are drafted and sourced, it's then time to go hunting for (or make new) illustrations relevant to the text of that section. Sometimes this can take considerable amounts of work, or sometimes suitable illustrations already exist. –jacobolus (t) 02:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

“Between”

@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)

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)

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)

Strebe's most recent edit moots the point at hand. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

More info on maps in early history

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)

There is a link to History of cartography at the head of the "History" section. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)