Talk:Map

Talk:Map

Improving this article to Good Article status?

Latest comment: 1 month ago17 comments2 people in discussion

I'm thinking of working on this article and improving it to Good Article status. I notice there is a rather extensive discussion above at Talk:Map#August_2025. I gather that the debate revolved around the inclusion of a political map that showed controversial/unsettled international borders ... is that correct? If so, my plan would be to simply avoid that whole issue by refraining from including any political maps that showed such borders. If there is more to the issue that I should be aware of, I'd appreciate any illumination. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've been looking at sources that cover maps in relation to border disputes, and RS's do indeed discuss that topic. The article already has a section touching on the topic at Map#Legal_regulation. The coverage of the RS's suggest it might be appropriate for this article to include maps that cover disputed regions ... the purpose would be to illustrate how such border disputes are manifested in maps. Of course, any such material needs to conform to WP guidelines such as WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV ... but that could be handled by, for example, displaying two maps of the same region, prepared by two different nations. Or by sufficient explanatory body text accompanying the map(s). Of course, the article cannot contain a map that displays a disputed border without prominently discussing the dispute and alternative borders. Noleander (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This was a wide spanning debate that crossed multiple pages. I believe we resolved it adequately on Geography with a note section. I suggested somewhere that this be the default for maps showing political borders, but the result was that it should be a case by case decision, not general policy. If this is a problem here, I think the same solution could be implemented. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I see the map in the Geography article, and the solution there. I think that answers my questions. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
One note, generally I think Wikipedia:Further reading sections can be collapsed and the sources incorporated into the text. If the article is moving towards good article status, I'd like to see that section reduced/removed and replaced with inline citations. Just saying as I saw you expanding that list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries. The sources I'm placing into the Further Reading section are the sources I'm using for the GA task. I'm putting them in Further Reading since they are not yet used. As I use them for citations, I'll move them up into the official Sources/Refernces/Bibliography sections (I'll use the sfn/harvnb templates for inline cites). Most of my Feature Articles and Good Articles do not have Further Reading sections ... I figure if a source is important enough to be mentioned, it is important enough to be used as a source. Noleander (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clarifying! I'm not sure if you'd want help on this at all, what your timeline is, or if you have any major visions for how the page should change, but if I can be of assistance let me know! There are some general changes I think should be made from a theoretical perspective, specifically I think we should absolutely get into some of the academic discourse on what a map actually is. There has been debate on this before on the page, but I could expand it a bit (with sources) if needed. Fundamentally, there are two main schools of thought that are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
  1. Maps are models of reality. This approach goes pretty far back and notably has some strong roots in William Bunges book Theoretical Geography. This approach has strong roots in Quantitative geography and Technical geography.
  2. Maps are a subset of graphic design. This approach is probably more traditional, and has some strong citations within Cynthia Brewers work. This is a more traditional definition that narrows what a map is significantly. It does not account for things like Mental maps, which the first approach does.
There are also different ideas about how maps work, such as the Map communication model, which has a lot of literature. Importantly, this one is not incompatible with critical geography or the Quantitative revolution.
One other note, most of the See Also section should probably make its way into the body of the article. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you need sources, I made a list article a while ago for Mark Monmonier bibliography. Mark Monmonier is one of the single most notable authors on the nature of maps today, although probably not quite as significant as Robinson. Might be worth skimming his bibliography. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the offer of help and list of resources. I worked for a cartography company for 20 years ... but only in the satellite/photogrammetry/GIS/digital realm, so I'm a bit weak in the historical topics. As I move forward with the article, I'm sure I'll encounter various puzzles and roadblocks .. and I'll definitely reach out if I have any questions! Noleander (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Awesome! I'm teaching a remote sensing class now, it's a fun topic I unfortunately haven't been able to explore much professionally. I've done some very niche work with remote sensing, and of course worked with DEMs a bit, but I'm a bit weak on the applied portion of the topic. One thing I was thinking that could help clean the article a bit is to move the references to reference section, rather then having the full markup embedded in the body. You can see this on Template:Reflist, and an example on the page Richard E. Dodge I just published. I think it makes it look a bit neater, and easier to work with. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Article Richard E. Dodge looks very clean and professional .. you should nominate it for WP:Good Article status!
Regarding the suggestion of {{Reflist}}, I agree that all the source markup should be down in the References section, and not in the article body text. There are a few templates that support that goal; my preference is to use {{sfn}} and {{cite}}, as seen in my articles Nile, Bridge, and James Cook. The reviewers in the Featured Article project seem to favor it.
Also, I prefer to bundle citations as recommended in WP:CITEBUNDLE ... that way readers see only a single superscript like this[1] even when there are two or more sources for a given sentence. Soon I'll post a note here in the Talk page proposing some conventions to use in the article, such as cite bundling, DD-MM-YY (vs MM-DD-YY), US spelling (vs UK), metric (vs imperial units), etc. Nothing controversial, but it is good to get them documented. Noleander (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I think it needs some work still before I try to nominate it. I'd want to chew on it for at least a year to let other editors have time to make improvements and come back fresh to evaluate what I did. Then I'd want a peer-review. Biographies are really difficult to get nominated, and I'd rather focus on filling out the list of missing articles I have then improving one to that status.
There are definitely several templates out there that could be used. The issue I've found is that using the more complex approaches to citation long term leads to the page getting messy. New editors will come in and not look at the page citation methods, and just use the easiest approach. Also I'm not generally a fan of separate footnotes for citations, it looks sloppy, and adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to the page. That is just preference though. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GeogSage - Regarding the two interpretations of the word "map" (reality vs graphic design) you mention above ... I was not able to find any secondary sources that contrasted those two approaches. The main source I found that contrasted multiple definitions of "map" was History of Cartography vol 6. That book goes into detail about the definitions of "map" provided by about 10 primary sources ... but none of them are Bunge or Brewer. That book does mention Bunge, but it presents his views not as a definition of the word "map" but rather a view or interpretation of maps as fundamentally mathematical or logical constructs. It would be contrary to WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SYNTH guidelines for an editor to single-out the primary sources Bunge and Brewer and contrast their views. Is there a secondary source that contrasts them? In any case, it may be worthwhile to create a new sub-article (per WP:SUMMARY STYLE) that encapsulates all the views/interpretations/approaches to maps & cartography, since the map article certainly won't be able to mention them all. Noleander (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh boy, time to break out the books to answer this. Looking at the way I phrased it probably isn't the easiest to support here, might be a bit of a gap in the literature, although I suspect I'm missing the comparative analysis that is probably hidden behind a paywall somewhere. You might find it easier to focus on the International Cartographic Association definition of cartography, "Cartography is the discipline dealing with the art, science and technology of making and using maps" and 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." You can find them here. The divide stems from people who view maps from the art and technology side first, or the science and technology side first, focusing either on the creative efforts or the spatial relationships themselves.
Bunge is going to be hard for you to find a copy of, it took me over five years to find a copy of Theoretical Geography, and then only by coincidence after I had given up looking (literally found a copy hidden in a supply closet I was cleaning out). If you want to read a good summary of the concept within the book, you can check out Cartography and Geographic Information Systems by Phillip Muehrcke, which discusses Metacartography a bit (probably want to look at that anyway). For more in depth discussion on Bunge's work, there is Classics in Human Geography revisited. Essentially, Bunge viewed Cartography as a subset of mathematics. This made a lot of people angry and was widely regarded as a bad move. Regardless, over time, that approach really stuck out as GIS became much more commonplace.
As for the Graphic Design, I skimmed over Brewers (and other related authors) literature and am struggling to find where I read the statement "subset of graphic design," although I know it exists somewhere (my personal cartography library is more extensive then my universities, it's a bit to go through). One place you can find it is in Spatial Literacy in Public Health: Faculty-Librarian Teaching Collaborations chapter 4, where it states "Maps are a form of graphic design, and humans have made them since at least 6000 BCE." Robinson has a statement on it in one of his books. You can see Geo/graphic mapping where it states "I became interested in cartography, as it is the intersection between geography and graphic design." Generally, this is not something most people are discussing at a higher level, it is the framework that some research is hung on though. You have the data science that is mostly concerned with what exists in the data frame, and the graphic design side which is more focused on how that information is portrayed to the end user.
Another topic is analytical cartography, which focuses on how the process of making a map is a way to gain new insight. This term isn't as widely used anymore, but is the basis for a lot of how remote sensing image analysis is conducted. This is from Waldo Tobler's body of work.
If you can get a copy, the single best book for sources on maps is probably The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation. This is one of my top 3 favorite books in my collection, the description is, "The Map Reader brings together, for the first time, classic and hard-to-find articles on mapping. This book provides a wide-ranging and coherent edited compendium of key scholarly writing about the changing nature of cartography over the last half century. The editorial selection of fifty-four theoretical and thought provoking texts demonstrates how cartography works as a powerful representational form and explores how different mapping practices have been conceptualised in particular scholarly contexts." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I found an online copy of the Bunge book ... so that should help provide coverage in that area. Noleander (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Really? Awesome! The internet archive one linked for the Wikipedia page is a limited preview, is the copy in a reliable place we can replace that link with? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The copy I found is not available to the public. I'm not aware of any link better than the the Internet Archive preview currently in the article's References section. Noleander (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Style conventions for this article

Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Per WP:CITEVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, WP:ENGVAR, etc the article should adopt stylistic conventions and use them uniformly throughout. Some are already clear in the article (date style DDMMYY) but others are not yet defined. I propose to implement these conventions: Noleander (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • American spellings
  • Date format: 15 July 1975 (DMY)
  • BCE / CE
  • Length/distance units: Metric (with imperial in parenthesis); volume and area use metric only.
  • Sources: no sources defined in the body text: put into the References section
  • Citations use "sfn" or "harvnb" template; use "sfnRef" template for anonymous sources
  • Dashes use n-dash (not m-dash or hyphen)
  • Use Oxford comma
  • ISBN: omit hyphens
addendum 28 June 2026:
  • Spell-out numbers twelve and smaller
  • Sources do not display "location" field/city.
  • Italics for foreign language words; Single quotes around the English word when translating a foreign word into English via a gloss; Double quotes for MOS:WORDSASWORDS (not italics, because italics are used in this article for foreign words);
  • All sources: Include publisher & link to publisher, even if red link
  • Do not use false titles (MOS:PSEUDOTITLE)
addendum 30 June 2026
  • Align all images aligned on right side
addendum 19 July 2026
  • Sources: include author-link, if available
  • Source URLs: Internet Archives is preferred, if available, due to its permanence
  • Use DOI for journal aricles; only include BibCode if DOI is not available.
  • Journal & magazine sources: include ISSN, if available (format nnnn-nnnn)
  • All page numbers (or ranges) end with a period.
  • Titles of all sources use Title Case (regardless of how the source capitalizes itself)
  • All images aligned on right side (except for galleries, which are centered)
  • Follow WP:Summary style and use subarticles to keep this article consistent with WP:SIZERULE
  • Spell-out number s twelve and smaller
addendum 3 August 2026
  • Multiple authors or editors: Authors: name only first author plus "et al." Editors: name all individually.

Noleander (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I'm a bit concerned about the citations using a more complex template then the default in terms of long term page maintenance. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I understand your concerns. My first 5 or 6 Featured articles did not use the {{sfn}} template, but several reviwers at WP:FAC recommended it. So I've used it for my past 4 or 5 FAs. I'd never go back. It is no coincidence that many of the large FA articles use sfn. Typically, if the article is on current events (such as pop music, or sporting events) where the vast majority of sources are websites and news articles, then sfn is not used. But if the article is on more weighty topics where most sources are academic (journal articles and books) then sfn is used. I think map falls into the latter group. I'll keep this article on my Watch List forever and help with any maintenance or citation work :-) Noleander (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good, thanks for hearing me out. Not trying to be difficult, just wanted to make sure it was considered. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Under construction" box added to top of article

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added an "Under construction" box to the top of article. Noleander (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Removed section "Extremely large maps"

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I removed the section "Extremely large maps". I did that based on my survey of the major sources: none of them mentioned these unusual maps. These obscure maps do belong in the encyclopedia ... perhaps in some sub-article (e.g. Relief map of Guatemala). But this map article is a top-level article, and per WP:SUMMARY STYLE it needs to stay at an overview level. If anyone knows of a major, reliable source on maps that does define and discuss extremely large maps in any meaningful way, let me know and we can restore the material. Noleander (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree, each one of these notable maps should probably have it's own entry in the encyclopedia, but are probably not super notable here. I've wanted to make one for a very particular terrain model in China for a while now, might be a fun set of articles to go through. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposed top-level section outline

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been reviewing source material ... in particular, looking at many of the sources in the Further Reading section (in particular, looking at the Table of Contents of those sources). It is apparent that the article's current outline is not ideal. I propose the following top-level sections:

  • Lead
  • Definition & etymology
  • Applications / purposes / functions: geology, geography, transit, weather, navigation, trade, exploration, military, politics, propaganda, resource management, city planning, weather, climate, stars, planets/moons, education, economics, history, etc.
  • Types / Classifications [other than by purpose/function]: by scale; general vs thematic; chart vs map; by design/graphics approach (cartogram/choropleth); approach to visuals/graphics; by medium (paper vs digital); to-scale vs abstract/not-to-scale (topologic); fantasy vs reality.
  • History of maps
  • Map design principles (applicable to digital and printed): Scales; Projections; Orientation;Coordinates: reference spheroids; state plane etc; Symbolization; legends; colors; Toponymics, Nomenclature, place/object names; Typography: fonts, Name overlapping; Aesthetics and overall layout; Visual Hierarchy; Generalization of detail
  • Map production: (a) Traditional (printed map) production process; (b) Digital & interactive maps
  • Professional organizations; legal frameworks; profession
  • Society, ethics, and culture: Border disputes; national restrictions on maps etc; Biases caused by selection of projection; Gerrymandering; Accuracy issues, Ethics; Misuse; "How to Lie with Maps"

Some of these proposed top-level sections are already in the article, such as "History" and "Types". New top-level sections include "Purposes / Applications", "Definition and etymology", "Design principles", and a few others. Noleander (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest types go before purpose, with a better heading for purpose being "Applications". You have Robinsons Reference map vs Thematic map as the main two, but also things like Mental map. I feel like Traditional (printed map) production process and Digital & interactive maps could be grouped together under the "Types" section, or as part of a "Map production" section. You can also list out various other traditions for map-making, most notable is probably Marshall Islands stick chart, which ties closely with mental maps. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Excellent ideas, thanks! Noleander (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Material without citations?

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently has a large amount of material without citations. In fact, there is a tag at the top of the article dating back to 2017:

"This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations."

That tag has been there for nine years :-) Glancing through the article, much of the uncited material looks valid; on the other hand, some looks rather obscure, bordering on WP:OR. As I read sources on this topic, I'll do my best to find sources for the uncited material (at least, for the valid, appropriate material). However, if I cannot find sources, then some of that material may need to be deleted. If there are specific uncited facts or sentences that anyone feels should be retained, identifying a source (with page number) would be appreciated. Noleander (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I noted above that one of the single best sources you'll find is a book called The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation. It's a bit on the pricy side, but the table of contents lists out the publications it includes (either in their entirety, or snippets from them). You might be able to find these individual publications, or a copy through a library. I also imagine there is a PDF somewhere on the seven seas if you sail hard enough. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You might also look at the Dictionary of GIS terminology from Esri Press for some very specific terminology citations. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the price is a bit much. I'll see how far I can get without it. We can always come back when I'm farther along in the article-building process and see if any key points have been missed, then fill in the gaps. Noleander (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you need, I can email you some PDFs. Just let me know if there is any in particular you need access to, or specific statements that need citations, and I'll see if I can get it. Don't want to step on your toes while your editing. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Government regulations content

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

So new content is up on regulations. "Official maps produced by government agencies are typically regulated to ensure accuracy, consistency, and conformity. Each nation maintains its own quality and accuracy standards."

Sadly, in the United States at least, this is not an accurate statement. For example: "While holding all GIS users to professional standards is impossible, and we can forgive middle-school book reports and personal social media pages for cartographic errors, mapmaking and GIS lack occupational licensure in the United States, resulting in poorly made maps being published and distributed by federal and state governments" Mapping COVID-19: Applying Ethical Strategies in Web Mapping Decisions

There may be some set of standards for USGS official basemaps, or specific agency requirements, but this is not typical of most maps produced by the U.S. government. Other countries may have different legal requirements. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips ... I'll update that section accordingly. It is in rough draft form at this time. Noleander (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are a lot of issues with regard to regulations/cartography. There ARE standards for surveying, however once the data is in the hands of the map mapmakers, it is largely the Wild West. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly, Mark Monmonier had some drama in his career because of this:

"I have made no secret that I am stepping down principally because of a strong disagreement with those now in control of ACSM over the importance to the profession of federal personnel qualifications standards which recognize the value of a comprehensive cartographic education to those accepting the title and responsibilities of Cartographer. But I have few regrets for having worked with The American Cartographer since 1977"

— Former Editor Protests Censorship

This quote comes from the 2nd letter he wrote to the American Cartographer after resigning. He lost a vote calling for support for mandatory federal personnel qualifications, and when he wrote the above quote in the first letter explaining his resignation, the editor censored it. The 2nd letter was written in protest of that censorship, hence the title. Fun cartography drama. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Types of maps

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just looking through the recent changes, I believe mention of some common map types could be useful but not sure where they might fit. For example, most qualitative maps are going to be chorochromatic maps, but for quantitative you have Flow map, choropleth map (also Dasymetric map linked with this), cartogram, Proportional symbol map, and Dot distribution map, among others. Two maps that could probably be included are Minard's map of the 1812 Napoleon Campaign, and John Snow's Cholera map

Charles Minard's 1869 chart showing the number of men in Napoleon’s 1812 Russian campaign army, their movements, as well as the temperature they encountered on the return path.
Snow-cholera-map-1

, as these are fairly significant early thematic maps. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestions ... I agree that including additional map types such as those you name above would be useful. Without such examples, I don't think readers will get a proper feel for how broad the field of cartography is. Noleander (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll see if I can whip up a single figure with examples of each type I mentioned using the same data and same location. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gerrymandering section

Latest comment: 25 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not sure how to go about this, but the Gerrymandering section is a very specific case that is fairly unique to the United States. From a more sterile perspective, the Modifiable areal unit problem is probably a better thing to dive into. I'm not saying Gerrymandering can't be mentioned, just that if it is, it should probably be as an example of the MAUP, rather then stand alone. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 11:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point about gerrymandinging being US-centric. I've removed the section. Modifiable areal unit problem sounds interesting.
Regarding overall size of the article: The WP:SIZERULE guideline suggests a target size of 9,000 prose words for this article, and the WP:FA reviewers generally will not promote articles over 10,000 words. The article is about 4,000 words today.
Since the article is a high-level article on a topic with a huge number of sources, the size will almost certainly reach 9,000 to 10,000 prose words simply by including the important concepts that multiple major secondary sources mention. At that point, WP:SUMMARY STYLE guideline kicks in and some material will need to pushed down into sub-articles. That may include material like:
  • Country-specific (like Gerrymandering)
  • Material that is too technical to be of interest to a general audience (WP:TECHNICAL)
  • Material mentioned only in primary sources
Does that make sense? Noleander (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Makes sense to me! The MAUP is pretty important to note when it comes to maps (I cover it in lecture two or three in my intro class, and again later in the class, as part of my ethical obligation to make map users/makers informed skeptics), but could probably be mentioned briefly under the design section, specifically under generalization, as aggregation is part of the process used for that, and the MAUP appears when we aggregate. Could also go under "Bias and disinformation." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 12:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"SIZERULE" is an arbitrary and artificial "editing guideline" made up by a few Wikipedians without really any evidentiary basis, and doesn't necessarily reflect consensus or best practice. Article size should be evaluated case by case, and the goal should be to write the best possible article that thoroughly covers a topic in a reasonably self-contained way, while keeping the narrative clear and well organized, and keeping explanations tight and focused. Some topics inherently need short articles and others benefit from long articles. Some can easily be split into summary sub-pages and others cannot. Etc. The word count is really not worth worrying about too much, unless an article starts to veer way off topic, go into extreme unnecessary detail, spend more space on minor subtopics than centrally important ones, or just start rambling incoherently. Plenty of tight and carefully written articles just have a lot to say, and that's completely fine. –jacobolus (t) 06:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The term was coined in America, but is applicable wherever legislators are elected from single-seat districts. Have no governments elsewhere been accused of manipulating the boundaries of such districts? —Antonissimo (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The term was coined in America and applies to election districts. The underlying phenomena is called the Modifiable areal unit problem, and extends to any spatially aggregated datasets in multiple contexts outside politics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think these are substantially different. One is about determining political representation (for which there's no inherently correct answer), and the other is about the purely statistical problem of estimating spatial distributions using measurements aggregated into regions. –jacobolus (t) 21:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I assure you, they are exactly the same thing. The MAUP comes into play whenever you have an area that needs to be divided into aggregate units. There is not a correct answer to how we divide the area up, and depending on how we divide it, the results will be different. If you are counting COVID-19 cases, food sales, big foot sightings, or votes, the problem is fundamentally the same. Gerrymandering is the result of the MAUP, the way we divide up electoral districts can impact the final outcome of the election. I can use electoral districts, county, census tract, or my own invention to aggregate data, and with each the final result could vary dramatically. There are some ways to possibly approach the MAUP in a way that biases the final results less, but there isn't a correct answer. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not the most academic source, but here is one that discusses it, stating "Gerrymandering is a strategic exploitation of the MAUP for political gain. It reveals the inherent instability and potential for bias in analysis or decision based on arbitrarily defined geographic units: especially when those units are drawn with political intent." If you want one a bit more academic, there is The MAUP Effect: Spatial Scale and the Reliability of Segregation Indices which states the MAUP is "a phenomenon that can be exploited in gerrymandering." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I followed these suggestions and expanded the Gerrymandering section: (a) included link to MAUP article; (b) cited the Wildfang MAUP source; (c) added as sentence relating Gerrymanding to MAUP; and (d) added a prominent "Further" link to MAUP at the top of the section. I initially tried to change the "Gerrymandering" section to "Gerrymandering and MAUP" but - after reading thru all the cartography sources that discuss gerrymandering - that was not possible. Reason: the cartography sources cover gerrymandering extensively, but never mention MAUP. Conversely, there are MAUP/statistics sources that mention gerrymandering _and_ MAUP, but that is not dispositive for the map article per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." I think the new sentence, link, and citation strikes a good balance. Noleander (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

en dash

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There are more then 30 en dash's (–) within the body of this article. While these are not em dashes, they appear to be used in the same way (possibly inappropriately). Ideally, we should try to minimize these to avoid any AI accusations. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

MOS:DASH says that en-dashes are permitted, and even required in some circumstances. My preferred writing style is to use en-dashes for many (but not all) parenthetical phrases (as opposed to commas or parenthesis). That usage is authorized by MOS:DASHVAR which says:
"Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas) or singly (perhaps instead of a colon). They may also indicate an abrupt stop or interruption in reporting quoted speech. In all such cases, either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes can be used, with consistency maintained throughout a given article:" [bold emphasis added]
I documented that style preference above in the talk page at Talk:Map#Style_conventions_for_this_article. MOS:STYLEVAR says that stylistic choices should not be changed unless there is a compelling reason. I realize that em-dashes are considered by some to be a hallmark of AI writings, but I've never seen en-dashes characterized that way. I've never had any reviewer at GA, PR, or FA lodge any complaints about en-dashes in the eleven articles I've promoted to WP:FA status. I'm not worried about AI accusations ... my writing style is rather prosaic and would never fail an LLM test :-) Noleander (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that an en dash is "The en dash is used to represent a span or range of numbers, dates, or time. There should be no space between the en dash and the adjacent material. Depending on the context, the en dash is read as “to” or “through.”[1]" An em dash would be the more appropriate dash in most of the cases I believe. Also, MOS:SPARETHEDASH states we should use them sparingly, and I don't know if more then 30 within the article would be "sparingly." Odd the MOS doesn't really differentiate between the two, as the difference between when to use em dash, en dash, and hyphen have been stressed in various courses I've taken. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The WP Manual of Style often deviates from standard English style guides, and the en-dash vs em-dash is an example: WP permits both dash kinds, and (except in a few situations) says that editors can use one or the other. And once the choice is made, it should be uniform throughout an article (that is, do not mix em-dashes and en-dashes within an article). MOS:STYLEVAR says that once an editor as definitively made a stylistic choice, it is not debatable from that point forward (that rule was established to prevent massive time waste in Talk page discussions). MOS:SPARETHEDASH is referring to number of dashes within a sentence, not within an article. I'm sorry that you find the dashes annoying, but I'd ask that you tolerate this one peccadillo of mine :-) Now, if any material I put into the article is incorrect or not consistent with the sources, that deserves immediate correction :-) Noleander (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
MOS:STYLEVAR was created in the early 2000's because there used to be massive Talk page debates about American vs UK spelling; metric vs imperial; DDMMYY vs MMDDYY, etc. After MOS:STYLEVAR, those debates are nearly nonexistent.
To give an example of how MOS:STYLEVAR works: Last year I decided to get James Cook article up to FA quality. I noticed that it referred to ships as "her". WP MOS permits "her" or "it" (but whichever is used, it must be uniform through the article). I re-wrote 95% of the article, and at one point I suggested changing the "her"s to "it"s. A single editor, not involved with the article, said "No, I like 'her'". That was the end of it. I did not reply, and did not try to persuade that editor. To this day, the article still uses "her", even though I don't like it. (I did get the the article to FA status). That is the essence of MOS:STYLEVAR. Noleander (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Using spaced en dashes is entirely typographically correct and very common in all kinds of literature. (Unspaced) em dashes and (spaced) en dashes are two typographical alternatives, neither of which is generally preferred in high-quality typography in English. The choice of which to use is down to personal preferences, and in such cases English Wikipedia policy is to keep consistent intra-article style but not bother enforcing consistent inter-article style, since the resulting arguments are a tedious waste of everyone's time. –jacobolus (t) 20:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Temporary image (with Dutch words) ... work in progress

Latest comment: 22 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm working on the Generalization section. I've inserted the only decent map generalization image from Commons I could find. Unfortunately, the overlay words are in Dutch. I'm making a new, improved version of the image in SVG format. It might take me a few days to finish it. I'd prefer to keep the Dutch version in the article so I can see how it looks next to the body text and use that inform the layout of my new image. Noleander (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The new image, with English labels, is complete, and is now in the article. Image is File:Map Generalization simplification cartography.svg. Noleander (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Polandball image

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@~2026-39155-64: - Please stop adding Polandball images to the article. If you really think it is important, please post a note here in Talk page first, and supply some sources that discuss the image. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Citation style: use sfn template

Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The style convention for citations in this article is to use {{sfn}} tempalte (or {{harvnb}}) ... as opposed to using bare "ref" data in the markup. See Talk:Map#Style conventions for this article. The plan is to get the article to WP:GA status, and the GA reviewers will typically require uniform cite style. And if the article goes to WP:FA a uniform style is absolutely required.

I noticed a new paragraph in the "Definition" section that included some bare "ref" citations:

In the 1931 book ''[[Science and Sanity]]'', [[Alfred Korzybski]] argued that "[[Map–territory relation|A map is not the territory it represents]], but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness."<ref name="Korzybski1994">{{cite book |last1=Korzybski |first1=Alfred |title=Science and Sanity |date=1994 |publisher=Institute of General Semantics |isbn=0937298018 |page=54 |edition=5}}</ref> ...

Pinging GeogSage. If anyone needs instruction on how to use the {{sfn}} template, the existing cites in the article should serve as good models, or ask and I'm happy to show how. Noleander (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, added text and put in the edit description that citations needed to be formatted. The Sfn method is a lot of extra manual work (manually type the SFN template, manually add the reference to reference section, rather then just filling out the fields in the ref generator) especially when you are not editing the entire page at once and looking at one section at a time. Mentioned in edit summary and intended to come back later and clean up if it wasn't gotten to by then. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries. I can take care of formatting those citations. {{Sfn}} is definitely a bit more work, but it makes WP:FA nominations go smoother, so I've gravitated towards using it. Noleander (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I went thru that new paragraph in the "Definition and Etymology" section, and read the sources cited. I also went thru major sources on maps, and looked for additional citations related to Bunge and Korzybski. The Bunge material is marginally relevant to the map article, but is more appropriate to the "History" section, so I moved it there. It now reads:
" In the mid-20th century, the study of cartography shifted to a more rigorous and quantitative foundation, emphasizing the fundamentally mathematical nature of the discipline."
With a footnote:
"Geographers William Bunge and William Warntz were leaders of the effort to promote the mathematical essence of geography and cartography."
Both of those sentences are now sourced to History of Cartography volume 6, pages 867-869 § "Mathematics and Cartography". I removed the Korzybski material because I could not find a single major source on maps that mentioned Korzybski. For example, his name does not appear anywhere in History of Cartography, including in the section "Definitions of Map" (pp 798-800). I realize that his famous quote "A map is not the territory it represents..." includes the word "map", but that does not mean he impacted the field of map-making or common definitions of the word "map". Korzybski is more appropriate for articles on Geography or History of geography or philosophy articles related to semantics. Since the map article can hold only about 900 facts, it is limited to high-level, map-centric facts that are mentioned in multiple, secondary map-centric sources. And Korzybski doesn't quite rise to that threshold. Noleander (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Will nominate for Good Article soon

Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I will nominate the article for WP:Good Article status in the next few days. If anyone has any concerns, or think the article does not meet the GA criteria, please let me know.

After the GA, I will then request a WP:Peer Review. At that point, I'll solicit input from the WP Geography project and the Maps project, and ask for inputs on the article's technical completeness and accuracy. If anyone has any technical suggestions, you can wait for the PR request. Of course, you can always suggest anything, anytime. Noleander (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated this article for Good Article status at WP:GAN. I may ask around to see if anyone wants to review it. Noleander (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

GA review

Latest comment: 12 days ago45 comments2 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Map/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 17:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 16:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I'm taking in part in this review as part of WT:GARC#108. I've never reviewed a geography topic before, nor an article this broad, so please alert me if I screw anything up! Pamzeis (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lead

  • Is there a reason governments, military and security organizations are in a separate paragraph to the other purposes?
A minor reason: sources treat government mapping separately from commercial mapping (the vast majority of maps are made by official govmt agencies). But mostly I split the paragraph to break up a large paragraph into 2 smaller ones. Noleander (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • There are three sentences in a row that begin with "X use maps", which feels a bit list-y and monotonous. Can they be reworded?
Done. Changed the middle sentence of the 3 to start with "Maps are used by governments for ..." Noleander (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead mentions In the 5th century BCE, Greeks were drawing maps of their known world, encompassing the Mediterranean Sea and most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. but the body only mentions on Greek drawing one map during that time
Done. Added the following footnote to the body text: "An earlier Greek cartographer was Anaximander (c. 610 – c. 546 BCE) who may have been the first to create a map of the world, and also created a globe." There were others as well. I have not added anything to the lead because, well, it's the lead. But if you think I should, let me know. Noleander (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Definition and etymology

  • or from French mappemonde or Latin mappa mundi (both 'map of the world'). — the double "or" makes it confusing for me, even if the comma sorta clarifies—can it be restructured?
Done. Changed to "It originated from the Late Latin word mappa ('napkin, cloth') originating in Classical Latin. Alternatively, it may have originated from French mappemonde or Latin mappa mundi (both 'map of the world')." Noleander (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • as in the 1938 definition by Erwin Raisz (in the first major book on cartography in the English language[b]) "a conventionalized picture and as in the brief 1976 definition by Arthur H. Robinson "a graphic representation of the milieu". — is there a word or punctuation missing in here?
Can you be more specific? Is the issue with the phrase "... as in the ..."? That reads okay to me, but I can change that to something else in both those sentences. If it is a different issue, please specify. Noleander (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

History

  • No one knows when or where humans created the first maps — seems a bit journalistic to me—perhaps "It is unknown when or..." would be better?
Done. Noleander (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • so fundamental to human nature, it is likely that maps were produced very early in human history — contains a comma splice
Done. Changed to "The desire to preserve and share geographic data is so fundamental to human nature it is likely that maps were produced very early in human history." I removed the comma. I could not convert the comma to a period because the word "so" in the first half means the first half not a stand-alone sentence. Noleander (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • An early Chinese map that is still preserved from about the 4th century BCE, which shows more sophistication than contemporary maps originating in Europe. — is not a full sentence; also, could it be expanded slightly to tell the reader what the map depicts?
Done. Expanded to "Early Chinese maps that are still preserved include one from the 4th century BCE engraved on a large bronze sheet, showing the location of five mausoleums,[8] and a set of silk maps from the 2nd century BCE, which show more sophistication than contemporary maps originating in Europe." Noleander (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • as Christianity dominated much of medieval society – many of them incorporated religious themes — is it possible to include a short example here? As someone who's seen very few paper maps, I'm having a hard time understanding how a religious theme would be incorporated
Done. Added footnote stating "An aspect of the religious emphasis was that Jersualem was placed at the center of many of these maps." From looking at the maps, there was also a lot of religious symbology drawn in the margins, but I don't see that highlighted by the sources. Noleander (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Scholars refer to some of these maps — does "some of these maps" refer to all of the types of maps mentioned in this paragraph or just maps of the world?
Done. Changed to "Scholars refer to some of the mappa mundi as T-O maps because they depicted the ..." Noleander (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • who created the Mercator projection in 1569 which proved valuable to navigators — can it be explained how so?
Done. Changed to "... proved valuable to navigators because they could draw a straight line on the map pointing to their destination, and follow the indicated compass direction." That simple method of finding a compass direction to follow was not possible in other projections. Noleander (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • innovative schematic design that was more useful than a geographically accurate layout — more useful to everyone? Or to a specific demographic/groups of people? Also, I feel as though the claim it's more useful would be a subjective opinion rather than a fact
Done. Changed to "... an innovative schematic design that was more useful for passengers than a geographically accurate layout." Regarding the statement "more useful" .. that is clearly stated (in roughly the same wording) as a fact by many sources, so it is probably best to leave it as is. Noleander (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • A couple times in this section, there are a few statements that have a bit of a laudatory tone towards maps or don't feel completely neutral, e.g.:
    • the desire to preserve and share geographic data is so fundamental to human nature
    • Humanity's impulse to create maps was illustrated when Europeans encountered indigenous peoples in Central and South America and in Oceania
  • I know that maps are a crucial part of human life, but can such statements potentially be reworded to sound more neutral?
Done. Changed 1st to "The fact that maps are found in the historical records of so many ancient cultures suggests that maps were initially produced early in human prehistory." Changed 2nd to "When Europeans encountered indigenous peoples in Central and South America and in Oceania, they found maps ...." Noleander (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Applications

  • Perhaps the most common applications of maps in everyday life relate to navigation and route planning. Maps are useful for finding nearby restaurants, hospitals, gas stations, hotels, parks, and other points of interest. — "perhaps" is editorialising—perhaps (pun unintended) this statement could be attributed?
Done. Could not find a source for "most common", so changed it to "Common applications of maps in everyday life are navigation and route planning: maps are useful for finding nearby restaurants". Noleander (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • including monitoring forests and wildlife habitats; monitoring climate change, floods, wildfires, and pollution. — the list after "including" lacks parallel structure—is there a reason it isn't a single parallel list?
Done. Changed to "Environmental protection and management is an area where maps are used to monitor forests, wildlife habitats, climate change, floods, wildfires, and pollution." Noleander (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • This section can feel a bit list-y at points. Initially, things are grouped together in a logical way, but it eventually turns a bit into X uses maps for Y and the groupings feel a bit random—for example, I don't understand why the bit about government using maps for policy decisions is not a part of the previous paragraphs, which discusses government-related applications
Done. Put all government applications into a single paragraph. Made a few minor copy edits so it reads more fluently. Noleander (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Design

  • Occasionally, I feel as though this section reads a bit like a WP:HOWTO guide, particularly the occurrences of "should" and the absolute phrasing at points. At times, the article seems as though it's implicitly informing someone designing a map, not neutrally describing how maps are designed; some examples:
    • A map's design should visually distinguish key elements in a map from less important elements
    • even a small amount of color can significantly improve the readability of map
    • Positioning textual labels in a manner that is helpful and attractive is a difficult, but important process
Done. Changed section text to be more more encyclopedic & neutral - including the three items above. Attributed two of them as "Cartographer XYZ suggests that a maps design should ...". Noleander (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • This section also reads a bit choppy at times because of the short paragraphs
Done. Merged five short paragraphs into most appropriate neighboring paragraph. Noleander (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • For example, assuming one can resolve locations within half a millimeter on a paper map, that determines the map's resolution. — the structuring is a kinda clunky
Done. Changed to "Some cartographers define the resolution of a paper map as the distance represented by half a millimeter on the map. For example, a 1:10,000 scale map has a resolution of 5 m; and a 1:1,000,000 scale map has a resolution of 500 m." Noleander (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The projection has been criticized for its large distortions in the higher latitudes, as well as for inaccuracies in coordinates when zoomed-in — by whom?
Done. Changed to "The projection has been criticized by the European Petroleum Survey Group and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for its large distortions in the higher latitudes, as well as for inaccuracies in coordinates when zoomed-in." Noleander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • A lot of the examples in this section comes from European or North American countries—is this simply a reflection of how sources cover the design of maps?
I agree that Euro-centrism or US-centrism is a concern. I made a special effort to include examples (both in body text and images) from around the globe. The major secondary sources in cartography write in English, and tend to be from US and Europe, apparently due to the tradition of having active Cartography/Geography departments in universities. There are a large number of primary-source journal articles written by authors that appear to reside outside the US or Europe, and I would surmise that they contain many examples from outside the US/Europe; unfortunately - most of those sources tend to be hyper-technical (that is, too detailed for this article). Also, many are written in a language other than English, so I'm unable to read them. That said, I've made a determined effort to make the article representative of many regions of the world, and I think the maps displayed are very widely distributed. The body text examples are perhaps not as spread out, but I can continue to work on that as I go towards FAC. Noleander (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Types

  • A few subsections, like #Topological and #Topographic and planimetric, appear pretty choppy because of the short paragraphs. Can they be merged?
Done. Merged 3 smaller paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • At the end of #Topological, geographic accuracy is sacrificed to improve comprehension seems to simply repeat their graphical depictions promote comprehension by sacrificing geographic accuracy that is said before. Pamzeis (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Removed the 2nd instance of the repetition. Noleander (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cartographic data

  • Such orthorectified images are suitable for use in a map, and will properly align with other geographic elements in the map. — can this be reworded so "in a/the map" isn't repeated?
Done. Changed to "Such orthorectified images will align with other geographic elements in the map." Noleander (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • When preparing a map, it may be difficult to locate relevant data within a database, especially if the database contains vast amounts of information. Databases can help with that process if they contain indexes which support efficient retrieval, searching, and sorting. — leans a bit too how-to-esque rather than encyclopaedic for my taste
Done. Changed to "During the map design process, cartographers must locate relevant data within a database. Databases support that need with indexes, which provide retrieval, searching, and sorting functions." Noleander (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Vector data stored without topological relationships is sometimes disparagingly referred to as "spaghetti data". — is this bit necessary? It seems trivial to me
Done. Demoted that into an efn footnote. At least two major source mention it, so it is not entirely trivial. Noleander (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Is explaining precision and detectable size in #Terminology needed? They don't seem all that relevant in #Accuracy, aside from Geographer Paul Longley suggested a rule of thumb that horizontal positional errors are roughly equal to a map's precision., where I feel it could just be a footnote
Partially done. Demoted "Geographer Paul Longley suggested a rule of thumb .." from body text into footnote. Regarding the terms discussed in the section: there are three concepts: Accuracy, Precision (aka Resolution); and Detectable Size (or Detectable Width). They are very important terms that are defined (and contrasted with each other) by multiple major sources. I don't think the article can eliminate any of the information about them. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Cartographic data used for critical applications should include error estimates for all important data — the "should" makes it feel a bit how-to-esque to me
Done. Deleted the entire sentence. The source's wording was a bit vague anyway. Noleander (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The accuracy of crowd-sourced data may be poor — seems to state an opinion as a fact
Done. Changed to "Cartographers that use crowd-sourced data may need to assess the accuracy of the data to ensure it meets quality requirements." Noleander (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Publication and distribution

  • This section feels a bit choppy due to the short paragraphs—can they be merged?
Done. Noleander (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Profession and regulation

Good

Society and culture

  • In 1985, politician Shridath Ramphal appealed to geographers to combat bias implicit in maps, particularly related to the north up orientation and the implication that northern countries are superior. — is there any through line to this? Any notable impact, etc.?
Done. Expanded this material; it now reads "Another source of potential euro-centric bias is the north-up orientation used by most maps. Indian politician Shridath Ramphal appealed to geographers to combat all bias implicit in maps, particularly related to the north up orientation and the implication that northern countries are superior. Australian Stuart McArthur created a south-up world map in 1979 which placed Australia in a position of prominence. The map was titled "McArthur's Universal Corrective Map of the World". " Noleander (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • An example of misinformation that is deliberately inserted into a map is a copyright trap, which is a fictional object or place inserted into a map (in an unobtrusive manner) by the mapmaker, that will help them detect unauthorized copies. — seems to fit with the first paragraph, rather than being by its lonesome at the end after discussing biases and projections
Done. Noleander (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing

Version

  • footnotes o, s, u, z, aa, ae, af, am, ao, ap, aq, aw and bb are unsourced
Done. I added cites to a couple; and removed the remaining footnotes that did not have cites. Except: I left these two without cites:
  • "Topological relationships between data in a cartographic database should not be confused with topological maps.
  • Precision is sometimes called resolution.
Noleander (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Spotchecks:
    • 1: Doesn't seem to support that The word "map" first appeared in English around 1120 CE.—says: The earliest known use of the noun map is in the early 1500s. OED's earliest evidence for map is from before 1527, in the writing of R. Thorne.
Done. Thanks for catching that. Changed date to 1527. The erroneous 1120 date was also from the OED, in the etymology section: ".. from c. 1120 in British sources ..." but that was referring to use of the Latin word "mappa" found in British documents. Noleander (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    • 15: checkY
    • 86: checkY
    • 169: seems to be just an image of the map; explains The map's top is to the northeast. but not Although most modern government-produced maps are north up, some maps intended for recreational or tourism use may employ an unusual orientation if the region being depicted is an unusual shape.
Done. Changed body text to "An example of a modern map with an unusual orientation is this tourism-oriented map of the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is a 755 km (469 mi) long road that runs diagonally from southwest to northeast. The map's top is to the northeast." Noleander (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    • 186: checkY
    • 237: checkY
    • 297: checkY
    • 300: checkY
  • Several image captions have "citation needed" tags
Done. Supplied cites for the three images that had "cite needed" tags. Noleander (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The GeoNames web app lets users interactively view and manipulate maps. and Nautical charts – such as this one of the seas around Culebra – are essential tools for mariners. in the captions are also unsourced
Done. Noleander (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Images

All good.

I think that's it from me! Placing On hold now. Pamzeis (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pamzeis - Thanks for the excellent review ... the article is better for it. I believe I have addressed all the issues you mentioned above, except for a couple that I explained in the reply. If you think more work needs to be done, let me know. Thanks again! Noleander (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look

Changes look good! Passing the article. Pamzeis (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 1 day ago9 comments5 people in discussion

(
)
Mercator projection
Mercator projection
  • Hook 0 ... that the Mercator map projection (pictured) was accused of "cartographic imperialism" because it erroneously depicted Europe larger than Africa?
  • Source A: Monmonier, Mark, ed. (2015). Cartography in the Twentieth Century. The History of Cartography. Vol. 6. University of Chicago Press. pp. 1099–1101. ISBN 9780226534695.. Source B: Riffenburgh, Beau (2015). The History Of Cartography - Mapping The World. Carlton Publishing Group. p. 157. ISBN 9781781773536. Retrieved 22 June 2026. Quotes "cartographic imperialism"
Van der Grinten projection
Van der Grinten projection
  • ALT 1 ... that some maps contain non-existent towns, inserted by the cartographers to detect copyright infringement?
  • ALT 2 ... that many early maps had their top pointing in various directions – including south, east, and west – in addition to north?
Sea serpents
Sea serpents
  • ALT 4 ... that maps made for aircraft or sea travel are called "charts"?
Improved to Good Article status by Noleander (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

Noleander (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC).Reply

  • Comment: Personally, I'm not a fan of the first hook. It is true, but the Mercator projection controversy is pretty cliche, and an extreme over simplification. First, it is a common example of an inappropriate use for a projection in most cases, which is a common problem not limited to Mercator. Mercator is basically only good for navigation, and it is more useful at scales not showing the entire globe. The problem came from cheap publishers not wanting to buy more maps for their printing press more then intentionally skewing the size of areas, the size problem is secondary, and there is limited evidence to show it was intentionally done for this reason. A criticism of "cartographic imperialism" that is rarely talked about is that the Mercator was used in ship navigation, and facilitated colonialism/imperialism. It was invented in 1569, and was a major tool of a lot of the ugliness that Europeans did in the subsequent centuries. This is a lot to say, Mercator projection being a problem is pretty cliche, has reached the public consciousness, but the actual story is probably more complex then we can contextualize in a DYK. The second hook is better, but still one of the most well known cartography fun facts. Would like to see something that is maybe a bit more advanced, I've seen both of these taught in high school AP Geography classes. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GeogSage: Thanks for the input. Don't forget that hooks are not supposed to be widely known facts, or important facts ... rather they must be AMAZING, ASTOUNDING, INCREDIBLE facts calculated to get the readers to click on the link and visit the article. What is cliche for WP editors may not even be known to typical lay WP readers. If you have a favorite extraordinary fact from the map article, let me know and I can turn it into a candidate hook. Noleander (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
My main concern is that these two are not something I find particularly amazing personally. I teach cartography/GIS and generally the new students are aware of the Mercator projection being a problem before I lecture on them, so it's probably just a bias based on experience. One that is pretty interesting to me, although I don't know if it is in the article yet, is that Mark Monmonier predicted a paradigm shift in his book Technological Transition in Cartography where we would shift from "traditional cartography" to "computer cartography" (stating, "In the decades ahead, though, the digital map will displace the paper map from its dominant position"). People were initially skeptical of this, however according to Michael Peterson (geographer) in his book Mapping in the Cloud, sometime in the 90s this was realized, and more maps were transmitted through the web then printed on paper. Needs to be boiled down if it were a DYK, but the transition from "Most maps are printed on paper" to "Most maps are distributed digitally" is very recent and something not many people think about. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GeogSage @Noleander: Why not go ahead with ALT1? It is a very interesting and unusual fact. NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think they're all OK, but I like the Sea Serpent hook best cuz of the picture. I'm waiting for a DYK reviewer to come by and start a review ... I'm sure they'll have an opinion. Noleander (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh I like the sea Serpent one, but the most interesting part of that is WHY they included those. Generally, these were included to mark "unknown" areas of the map. We have a page on this Here be dragons GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1 ALT1 is definitely interesting. I know that fake towns exist on maps, but didn't know why, until I saw this nomination (yes this is a drive by comment). Oh, and @Noleander: congrats to your successful Level-3 importance GA! Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 05:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You really don't see vital articles be nominated for DYK, let alone ones on level 3. Impressive work on improving it to GA status! Note that for picture hooks, it's best to put (pictured) somewhere in the hook.
As for the review, it was promoted to GA status new enough and is obviously long enough. Appears so that there are no copyvios present. Sources look reliable to me. Article is not a BLP and no neutrality issues are present. All hooks under 200 characters and are cited. All hooks are interesting to me (preference towards ALT1 and ALT3, ALT0 has preference over the other hooks but is not top priority). Images should be good, but the sea serpent image is a bit unclear to me. QPQ done. Again, impressive work on improving the article to GA, everything should be good to go. Beta Beta Beta - talk 01:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dasymetric map

Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Steps in the creation of a dasymetric map of Utah Valley, Utah

I don't believe that our example of a Dasymetric map, nor the definition, are particularly accurate. They are very much over emphasizing the isarithmic portion, however most Dasymetric maps are combinations of Chorochromatic map and choropleth map. See example. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sources:
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GeogSage - Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I went thru the sources again (incl those listed above) and changed the article:
  1. Removed the "dasymetric" image
  2. Replaced the "isopleth" image with one that does not use color, to minimize confusion
  3. Changed the body text to:
    • Colored areas (choropleth map) – A thematic map of an area composed of multiple regions (for example, administrative boundaries), each region colored with a single color, and the color variation (hue or lightness) indicates the value of the datum being represented. Choropleth maps often use areal borders that rigidly correspond to political or administrative data-collection boundaries.
    • Colored areas (dasymetric map) – A dasymetric map is similar to a choropleth map insofar as both represent data as areal regions of various colors. However, the dasymetric areal boundaries are based on multiple data sources, so the resultant areas may be more accurate and insightful than areas based a single data set. Additionally, areal boundaries of dasymetric maps typically do not rigidly adhere to administrative data-collection boundaries.
The body text now more accurately reflects what the sources say. Unfortunately, to make the definition more precise would require more words; but the importance of dasymetric really doesn't warrant too much more space. That is, if the definition gets any larger, it may mislead readers into thinking dasymetric is more important than the sources indicate it is.
If the new wording is still not accurate, let me know. Noleander (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! With all that is happening on the page at the moment, I did not want to step on toes editing. I was just skimming to fact check and that jumped out. You're right that dasymetric mapping is not something to spend to much time elaborating on, the page for it exists in case anyone needs more info. Just wanted to make sure the bit that was included was accurate enough to convey the basics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Peer Review started

Latest comment: 7 days ago9 comments2 people in discussion

A Peer Review has been created for this map article, as part of preparation for a WP:FA nomination. Any feedback would be appreciated. Noleander (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GeogSage: - If you have any time, any assistance you can provide identifying factual errors or significant omissions would be appreciated. Those kinds of issues must be detected and resolved before the Featured Article nomination, not during. You don't need to spend any time finding sources or providing text. All I need is "Paragraph XYZ is misleading because..." or "Section ABC could use a sentence about .. " and I can take it from there. Noleander (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Will do! I did a first pass already and the main thing that jumped out you already resolved on the talk page, but I'll check again. First thing: there are a few style issues in the lede that jump out if you're trying for FA. Specifically:
  1. MOS:OPEN states, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." I'm not sure, but I think diving into the controversy surrounding Mercator projections in the fifth sentence might be a bit too much detail too soon. It could likely also start with "For example" following the sentence on projections, however, in first paragraph, a more general "All maps rely on compromises and distortions to represent reality, and therefore users need to be aware they are not perfect depictions of reality" might be better. Include projection at the end of "A cartographer must make many decisions..." and move the rest to the body or later paragraph. The reason is that while projections are a "critical choice in map design," so are all the other things mentioned. Color has a huge body of literature around how it can be misleading, for example.
    Done. Removed Mercator from lead. Noleander (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  2. I think paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lede can be merged.
    Done. Noleander (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  3. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are both discussing the history of maps, and might be able to merged as well. Might not be as easy to do though.
    That may result in a rather large paragraph, so I'd prefer to leave them separate. Noleander (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  4. While GIS is important, when it comes to maps Computer cartography should probably be mentioned alongside it in the lede. All (or most) GIS can do Computer cartography, but not all computer cartography needs GIS (think about using Adobe or Paint to make a map, not GIS). The difference is highlighted in Michael N. DeMers Britannica article on GIS (I make my students read this article first week of class), as well as his book on GIS Fundamentals. Computer cartography was pioneered by Waldo R. Tobler in his 1959 paper [Automation and Cartography]. GIS came about in 1963 (coined by Roger Tomlinson).
    Done Noleander (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 09:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the feedback. If you have any additional suggestions, consider posting them in the Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Map/archive1 so other reviews can benefit from them. Noleander (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No problem, will do! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 10:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Peer review

Latest comment: 13 hours ago132 comments5 people in discussion

Map

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


I've listed this Level 3 Vital Article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. Any feedback is appreciated: prose, Manual of Style, factual inaccuracies, additional sources, whatever!

Thanks, Noleander (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


Comments by A.Cython

Fascinating article, well sourced, and certainly vital for WP. Not an expert so this review from a casual reader.

  1. Jersualem spelling?
  2. has been criticized for depicting European nations enlarged compared to developing countries nearer to the equator → has been criticized for depicting European nations enlarged relative to developing countries near the equator.
  3. maps were initially produced early in human → they were produced early in human ("initially" and "early" create redundancy)
  4. in 1569 which comma before "which"
  5. everyday life are → everyday life include
  6. use maps as part of their reporting → use maps in their reporting
  7. to map scale of → to a map scale of
  8. the amount of generalization → the degree of generalization
  9. effectively performs its → effectively serves its
  10. The meaning of the graphics are → The meaning of the graphics is (you are talking about the meaning)
  11. as an sphere → as a sphere
  12. the readability of map → the readability of a map
  13. of city or → of a city or
  14. many city streets and building → many city streets and buildings
  15. Middle Ages Europe → "medieval Europe" or "Europe during Middle Ages"
  16. Wood, Denis; et al. (1992 is not cited in the main body, perhaps move it to "Further Reading" section?
  17. points-of-interest remove dashes
  18. a cartographer is able to → a cartographer can
  19. photogram of town → photogram of a town
  20. in the map → on the map
  21. in 1990 including add comma before "including"
  22. You have a lot of commented material, perhaps you need to clean this up if it is not needed anymore
    • My preference is to leave comments in through the FAC nomination in case a reviewer asks for a change that would benefit from from the material in the comments. That is, the comments contain some important details that could be very time consuming to recover if the need arises. I believe all the comments are sensible and potentially useful. Comments are not seen by WP readers are they? They're only visible to those who edit the article, correct? Noleander (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Not a problem by if this helps, but keep in mind that I was told that an article needs to be clean of comments even at GAN. A.Cython(talk) 20:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  23. Avoid using et al. and instead list all the authors, unless they are too many, i.e., more than six. Also you have not applied uniformly creating inconsistencies. For example, Roberts, S.A.; et al. (2016). there are only two authors, but here Harley, John Brian; Woodward, David you included them both.
    • The style convention used in the article for multiple editors/authors is:
    Multiple authors or editors: Authors: name only first author plus "display-authors=et al." Editors: name all individually.
I found a couple of sources that were not following that style, and I fixed them. WP guidelines do not require naming all authors, and instead simply require uniformity. Listing all the authors of sources cited within a primary or secondary publication is appropriate, but is not necessary (and perhaps even overly verbose) for sources cited within tertiary sources like encyclopedias, IMHO. Noleander (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure consistency helps, but still I do not see the benefit of not mentioning so many of the authors. Sometimes people remember the first two authors and might be confused. In academic setting it is strongly discouraged the use of et al. in the reference section. My 2 cents. A.Cython(talk) 20:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  1. one of the most advanced how? this is not even explained in main body and it is a bit subjective, better remove it
  2. most influential early maps explain how it was "most influential"
    • Done. Added footnote (with cite):
    According to the classicist Oswald A. W. Dilke, "The remarkable influence of Ptolemy on the development of European, Arabic, and ultimately world cartography can hardly be denied. Through both [his works] Mathematical Syntaxis ... and the Geography ... it can be said that Ptolemy tended to dominate both astronomy and geography – and hence their cartographic manifestations – for over fourteen centuries." Noleander (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  3. Gallery, avoid figures with different heights as they look awkward. Set equal height.
  4. Acronyms, first define then use. UTM for example is used first "Coverage area" and then defined in "Coordinate system" subsection much later.

A.Cython(talk) 05:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@A.Cython - Thanks for the excellent feedback. I implemented all of the suggestions except for a couple where I provided explanations. Noleander (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The article is improving considerably. Well done! I am looking forward to the time you bring it to FAC. Good luck. A.Cython(talk) 20:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

MSincccc

Definition and etymology
  • It originated from the Late Latin word mappa ('napkin, cloth') originating in Classical Latin. Alternatively, it may have originated from French mappemonde or Latin mappa mundi (both 'map of the world').[1]
    • Could we avoid repeating "originated"?
Done. Changed to It originated from the Late Latin word mappa ('napkin, cloth') arising in Classical Latin. Alternatively, it may have stemmed from French mappemonde or Latin mappa mundi (both 'map of the world'). Noleander (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • In Raisz's book General Cartography.
    • Do we need the full stop here?
Done. Enhanced that footnote to a full sentence, so it now reads Raisz's definition is in his book General Cartography. Noleander (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Noleander (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

MSincccc (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

History
  • The fact that maps are found in the historical records of so many ancient cultures suggests that maps were initially produced early in human prehistory.
    • How about replacing the second "maps" with "they" to avoid repetition?
Done. But I hope readers dont think "they" refers to the cultures. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "created a map of his known world" → "created a map of the known world"
Not sure about that. Around the world, every culture had their own world view. So that map was only his view, not - say - the view of scholars in China or India. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "were for political and administrative purposes" → "were used for political and administrative purposes"
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • That year, Martin Behaim created the Erdapfel ('Earth apple') – one of the first globes.[32]
    • We could replace first with "earliest" to avoid repetition.
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "because they could..." → "because it allowed them to..."
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

An unusually short but insightful History section. I'll continue later. It's been a good read so far. Best, MSincccc (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Applications
  • I found an article on everyday life. Not sure whether it should be linked in a potential FA.
Done. May be overlinking tho. Noleander (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Do we need the link to "journalists"?
Left that one in. Noleander (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • airplane traffic relies on aeronautical charts, and water traffic uses nautical charts.
    • Do we need the comma before "and" here?
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "social and education services" → "social and educational services" (parallelism)
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "Maps are sometimes considered to be things of beauty..." → "Maps are sometimes considered things of beauty..."
Done. Noleander (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's all for today. A fine day. MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the excellent feedback. All caught up on the above. Noleander (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Design
  • How about introducing Arthur H. Robinson as a cartographer on first mention, i.e., under "Definition and etymology"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The background graphics of a map are called the basemap, and its purpose is to provide context for higher-priority elements.
    • Hyphenate "higher priority"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "co-ordinates" → "coordinates"
Done already by another editor? Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    • I suppose this is the American spelling or am I wrong since I mostly use British in my writing?
Un-hyphenated is correct in US. Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "Aggregation is grouping several distinct objects together into one." → "Aggregation is grouping several distinct objects into one."
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Examples are grouping multiple point objects into one; or multiple point objects into an areal object; or multiple areal objects into one.
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    • Could we avoid repeating "or"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The degree of simplification depends on how many features should appear on the final map, and how densely they should be placed.
    • Do we need the comma here or could it be dropped?
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • ...the scale of a map always varies through the map.
    • How about "varies across it"?
Done. Changed to "the scale of a map always varies across the map." Not sure changing 2nd "map" to "it" is wise: some may think "it" refers to to the scale. Noleander (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Given the length of the Design section, is it possible that the History section could be expanded? No worries if not, since the article already feels comprehensive.
I don't have a strong objection to expanding the History section, but my plan is to wait until all inputs for the PR are completed. E.g. An editor may suggest adding a new, large section on an overlooked topic, which might take the article up to 9,000 words. So, I don't want to waste any time on expanding the History section if it may need to be undone. If the PR finishes, and the article is still under 8,500, then it may be okay to expand History a bit. Noleander (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@MSincccc - The article is now up to 8,720 prose words, so it is probably not wise to add any more material into the History section. Also, the History section has a subarticle History of cartography and that reduces the pressure to make map History section more detailed. Noleander (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • I've read midway through the "Design" section. We'll proceed tomorrow.

I left geography as a subject a couple of years ago, but I hope I will try to do a decent job moving forward. It helps that you are the author. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Types
  • "orhtophoto" → "orthophoto"
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    • From the glossary.
  • "special purpose map" → "special-purpose map"
DOne. Noleander (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "a single kind of information" → "a single type of information"
A good idea, but I'm reluctant to do that because it is within the "Types" section (and near the "Types" title) so I don't want readers to think the two uses of "type" are referring to the same thing. Noleander (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "Examples include precipitation maps, population density maps, and pollution maps." → "Examples include precipitation, population density, and pollution maps."
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Linked to Isobar (meteorology). Noleander (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • A notable modern topological map is the official London Underground map.
    • Could we avoid repeating "map" here? How about A notable modern example is the official London Underground map.
Done. Noleander (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Some cartograms may be considered to be topological maps
    • Could we drop "to be"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "shows two distinct data" / "shows three data" → "two variables" / "three variables"
    • Since data cannot be preceded by cardinal numbers.
Done. Good catch. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • A qualitative map depicts data that can be categorized as two or more kinds, such as a climate map that divides the region into 15 different climate zones; or a map that divides the region based on 20 different religious affiliations.
    • I'm not sure about the semicolon usage here. Thoughts?
Done. Changed semicolon to comma. I'm a big fan of semicolons, but some don't like them. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The invention of computers in the latter part of the 20th century
    • How about "latter half" in place of "latter part"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • What's the reason behind using both "Earth" and "earth" in the article text?
Done. The intention is to capitalize Earth, unless a strong reason not to. Changed about six from lowercase to upper. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Interactive maps are often used, especially on mobile devices, to provide location-based services to users, such as providing navigation directions.
    • Could we drop "to users"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "electronic visual display" → "electronic display"
    • Is there a difference between the two?
I'm not sure. But the associated WP article is named electronic visual display and I presume the authors use that name because the sources do; and the sources use that name because "electronic display" is too broad/generic and includes lots of stuff totally unrelated to computer/phone screens. Noleander (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noleander That's all for now. I've read till the end of the "Types" section. I look forward to your response. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@MSincccc - Done with above. Noleander (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Noleander My Android will be unavailable until at least tomorrow evening, so I'll hold off posting additional comments here, although I may continue making revisions if necessary. I assume the review will remain open? MSincccc (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@MSincccc - Yes, this PR will remain open until no more feedback is arriving. At least several more days, 12 August or later. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Noleander I can hold off making copyedits if you're working through the article. In that way, it minimises the number of edits that would be made to the article and allows us to make only the necessary changes while preserving quality. I look forward to your thoughts. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't bother me if we change the article simultaneously. I'll be working on it, sporadically, for the next few days. Noleander (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fine, then. I will continue to make minor grammar revisions and tweaks as and when I spot them. Thanks for your response. MSincccc (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cartographic data
  • Cartographers who use crowd-sourced data may need to assess the accuracy of the data to ensure it meets quality requirements.[290]
    • Drop the hyphen?
Done.Noleander (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Geographic data used for mapmaking may include imagery, scanned paper maps, surveying data, geographical features, and terrain (elevation) data.
    • Are they not included in most cases?
Done. Changed to "includes". Originally the "may include" because the sentence was trying to describe the data for a single (undefined) map-making project. But it is ambiguous. Noleander (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Imagery or photos from airplanes or satellites
    • Do we need both "imagery" and "photos" here?
Done. Removed "photos". Added footnote with some details/background. Noleander (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • A database that is dedicated to storing data suited for mapmaking is called a cartographic database.
    • Drop "that is"?
Done. Good catch. Noleander (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Another type of database that contains cartographic data is a geographic information system (GIS), which is a computer system that stores and analyzes geographic data.[239][ak]
    • Drop "which is"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • With the terrain data, imagery can be resampled to generate a view as if the viewer were directly above, looking straight down.
    • Is there a way to rephrase this sentence?
Done. Changed to "The orthorectification process uses terrain data to resample the imagery and produce a new image that approximates what the viewer would see if they were directly above, looking straight down. This process will remove terrain-related tilt and foreshortening (as illustrated in the adjacent diagram)." Noleander (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Could you please let me know if it's "Shapefile" or "Shape file" in reference 296?
Done. The official term is "shapefile" so I changed "shape" and "shape file" both to "Shapefile". Noleander (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "how close the viewer will be to the screen" → "viewing distance" or any alternatives
Done. Changed to ".. distance between the viewer and the screen ...". Noleander (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noleander That's all for today. A few more suggestions. I will try to wrap up soon. Best, MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. Caught up with the above items. Noleander (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Profession and regulation
  • The Canadian Cartographic Association publishes the influential journal Cartographica.
    • I couldn't access the source—does it support ‘influential’?
Done. Removed the word "influential". It is a major journal, but the source does not come out and say that explicitly. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "seek to promote the advancement and dissemination of" → "seek to advance and disseminate"
Done. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "agencies that are responsible for" → "agencies responsible for"
Done. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Society and culture
  • Indian politician Shridath Ramphal appealed to geographers
    • Ramphal's article describes him in the opening sentence as "a Guyanese politician".
Done. Thanks for catching that. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Maps can be used to skew election results by establishing voting district boundaries in a way that favors a particular outcome – generally the political group in power creates electoral maps that are designed to keep the group in power, by diminishing the representation of other groups.
    • Split after "outcome"? Also, how about a comma after "generally"?
Done. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "usually topographical" → "usually topographic"
Done. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "is not considered to be a useful projection" → "is not considered a useful projection"
Done. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "that will help them detect unauthorized copies" → "that helps detect unauthorized copies"
Done. Noleander (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lead
  • Made a couple of minor revisions there. None for the time being.
Bottom line
  • Noleander That's all from me after a comprehensive read. Do let me know if you would be expanding the article significantly. I might make a second pass here at PR or meet you again at FAC. A fine Noleander piece. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not planning on expanding it any more, unless some reviewer points out missing material. The article is at 8,741 words now. The History section is missing lots of interesting facts, but there is a whole sub-article containing those details, so I don't think that is a problem. Thanks for the useful and detailed PR! Noleander (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

RoySmith

Wow, props to you for taking on such a huge topic. I usually shy away from reviewing long articles (I just don't have the attention span), but I'm fascinated by maps so I can't resist. I've been using maps all my life, from when I learned how to read a topo map in the Boy Scouts to later on as a sailor and a pilot so I'll be looking at this from a technical aspect rather than my normal prose quality approach. Be patient, I'll probably come back to look at this in dribs and drabs as I find time. I suspect the challenge here will not be finding enough material but rather figuring out what to exclude to keep this from growing without bound. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • Somewhere around where you introduce triangulation (16th century to present), you should mention that the word "geometry" comes from the Greek "geo" (Earth) an "metron" (measurement), so measurement of the Earth.
Done. Added footnote where triangulation is introduced:
The English word "geometry" originated in the Greek word geōmetria ('measure the earth') from geō ('earth') + metron ('measure'). Noleander (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Example of a neatline exception from the July 9, 2026 edition of the FAA Washington Sectional aeronautical chart
  • Where you talk about neatlines, you should say something like "Geographic features are sometimes shown outside the neatlines when it is advantageous to do so". I've uploaded a good example. I'm not sure how you want to handle the sourcing, so I'll leave it to you to put that in as you see best.
Great idea. I've seen that in lots of maps, and it is always a treat, because one can tell the cartographer was making a difficult decision. I'm searching for sources now. So far, nada. I'm sure cartographers have an obscure word for it like "excursion" or something. Noleander (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
One informal (not RS) source is a blog:
Noleander (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This video is awesome. RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • In the late 18th century, the accuracy of maps increased dramatically with the perfection of clocks that could keep accurate time for extended periods This is certainly true, and while I understand the relationship between chronometers and longitude, I suspect the significance will be lost on most readers. So I think there needs to be a little bit more of an explanation here.
Done. Added details to the article about chronometers & longitude. Noleander (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • A bit of trivia: while most navigation charts are updated on a regular basis, NOAA used to produce a series of "training charts" which just kept reprinting the same revision of the chart year after year. This was intended (as the name suggests) for classroom use, as it makes sure that everybody in a class is working from exactly the same chart, which matches the teaching materials. See https://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/search.php?searchType=Nautical%20Chart--Training
  • Under "Colors and patterns", you should mention that color palettes are sometimes chosen to be readable under poor lighting conditions, and especially under red light which is often used ships and aircraft for night lighting. I haven't found a good WP:HQRS for that yet, but this covers the basics.
this, page 7.
here page 3-6
Yes, design for low-light conditions is an interesting topic. I just did a pretty deep search for sources on "map design for low-light conditions" and similar, and I'm not coming up with any high-quality sources. Unless some rock-solid sources are found this may not meet the threshold for inclusion in the article. Noleander (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Modern maps generally orient maps north up. This may be getting into the weeds a bit much, but many aeronautical charts are oriented in whatever direction follows the most often flown routes. See here for example, especially the charts that cover the Boston-Washington corridor. If you think that's worth mentioning, I could upload some examples to commons for you. RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    @RoySmith - Yes, a modern map that is not north-up would be useful. The section Map#Orientation covers that topic, and it has two images, but they are older. I was not able to find a modern map (say, after 1980) that was not north-up. If you can upload a map that is modern, that would be great! Ideally, it would be (a) kinda squarish (not too skinny; in any case it cannot be tall and skinny); and (b) is not aligned on the 4 cardinal directions (e.g. has up = northwest) because that would make it even more interesting. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • You don't necessarily need to use these as sources, but the two classic texts on navigation are Dutton's Navigation & Piloting and The American Practical Navigator (universally just called "Bowdich"). The full text of both are available on-line. Both are worth at least perusing for ideas. Trivia: In The Hunt for Red October (film), in the scene where Jones is explaining to the captain how he tracked the Russian sub, you can see a copy of Dutton's on the bookshelf. I don't know if a nuclear sub would really be carrying a copy or if it's just an easter egg, but funny either way. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I glanced at those two sources, and they look fascinating. I could not find any new material suitable for the map article, but I'll keep them in mind. Noleander (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    It took me longer than I anticipated, but I did find a good example of a "not north up" map, or actually a series of them, here. They're all "north down and to the right", which is really confusing. I had to hunt around a bunch on Google Maps to get myself oriented (the last map is where the Little Miami enters the Ohio River, just east of Cincinnati). The intent is (as with most not-north-up maps) to follow the general axis of the river, but why they didn't flip this 180 degrees and make it "north up and to the left" I have no clue. That would have (IMHO) made more sense.
    The other examples I can think of are the aeronautical charts showing the IFR routes along the east coast of the US. Go to https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/ifr/, scroll down to the "Enroute High Altitude (U.S.)" section, and click on the PDF/Zip link for EHUS12. What's odd about this one is that while the boundaries of the chart are catty-corner, the writing is all aligned with a north-up orientation.
    The example I was really thinking of appears to have vanished from the face of the Earth (and the internet). NOAA used to produce a series of charts they called "Small craft charts", which generally came in whatever random orientation allowed them to fit all of a harbor, bay, etc on a piece of paper. Unfortunately, these are no longer produced and as far as I can tell, they were never digitized so there's no PDFs that I can find. A variety of aftermarket vendors are selling reproductions of these (here for example) for non-navigational purposes, but obviously they don't have any interest in making the rasterized versions available for download.
    Anyway, hope that's useful. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for finding those non-north-up maps. The Ohio river ones look super informative for readers, but I don't see a "Free to use" license, so copyright concerns may prevent using those. The "IFR Enroute Aeronautical Charts" ones look promising. EHUS12 one may be too busy, but maybe it can be cropped. These aero charts don't appear to be truly oriented "not north up": the graphics & words are oriented north-up, and is only the printing process that is rotating the entire map to another angle (for printing/formatting convenience). That is not the same as a map where the text labels and graphics are 100% not-north-up. I'll look into those aero charts and see if they will help the article. Noleander (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
    PS, I suspect the move away from "random direction up" to "always north up" has been driven by the move to digital maps. When maps were on paper, there was a strong incentive to fit specific geographic features onto standard size paper. Now maps are just databases of features which are rendered on the fly at whatever level of zoom and pan the user commands, with no hard divisions between pages.
    Most mapping software offers the user a choice of "north up" or "heading up" mode, the latter being orienting the map in whatever way it takes to show the motion of the vehicle towards the top of the screen. As the vehicle makes turns, the map orientation changes. This makes it much easier to figure out when you're following a fixed route if you're going to have to make a left turn or a right turn when you get to the next waypoint. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comments by GeogSage

I've already given several comments elsewhere, but will give a few more here. I'll focus more on content, and will go one section at a time.

Definition and etymology
  • The main issue here is the emphasis on "graphic representation." From a theory perspective, there are several sources that do enforce this, and it is the literal thing most people think of, but it is missing some of the point from a deeper theoretical perspective. For example, defining a map as a "graphic representation" would be like defining a Narrative as a "written account of a series of related events or experiences." The best way to show how this falls apart is by considering a "mental map" (the page mental mapping exists, but needs work). The map is the mental conception of a place/space, the graphic depictions of maps came long after humans were using (and communicating) mental maps with each other. The Marshall Islands stick charts for example " unlike traditional maps, were studied and memorized prior to a voyage and were not consulted during a trip, as compared to traditional navigation techniques where consultation of a map is frequent and points and courses are plotted out both before and during navigation." These were made to help build a navigator's mental map. Autonomous vehicles rely on similar digital concepts that do not need to be rendered graphically to function. Maps are models of reality, simplified abstractions to convey relevant spatial information. These can be depicted graphically, and that is what most people think of, but graphic depiction is not a pre-requisite for a map and more then writing is necessary for a narrative. I had added content by Korzybski that seems to have been removed: "The map is not the territory," referencing Map–territory relation, as well as a bit on Bunge and his interpretation of maps as a subset of mathematics. That all might have been be a bit too dense, but stating "maps are models" would be a simple enough resolution without getting into the weeds.
Thanks for the feedback. Regarding "... stating "maps are models" would be a simple enough resolution...". That is a good point, and I added this new sentence into the Definition section:
  • Later definitions widened to encompass maps as abstract models, such as the 1992 definition "a representation or abstraction of geographical reality: a tool for presenting geographical information in a way that is visual, digital or tactile".
Regarding "I had added content by Korzybski that seems to have been removed...". I removed that material, and I posted a note in the Talk page at the time (23 July) in section Talk:Map#Citation_style:_use_sfn_template. To recapitulate:
  • The History of Cartography: 20th Century (HoC) does mention Bunge, and I moved the Bunge material from the map article "Definition" section into the "History" section: see new material "In the mid-20th century, the study of cartography shifted to a more rigorous and quantitative foundation, emphasizing the fundamentally mathematical nature of the discipline." with the footnote: "Geographers William Bunge and William Warntz were leaders of the effort to promote the mathematical essence of geography and cartography."
  • Major sources that discuss post-1980s, post-GIS definitions of "map" do not use the word "model", instead they use words such as:
    • OED: representation, correspondence, pattern, conceptualization, embodiment, diagram, plan.
    • HoC (p. 800): representation, abstraction.
  • The HoC does not mention, anywhere, Korzybski nor his "a map is not the territory" quote.
  • Based on the lack of Korzybski in major cartography sources I searched, I removed the Korzybski sentence from the "Definition" section (on 23 July 2026).
  • I just now added the new sentence (described above) that includes the word "model" into the "Definition" section.
Thanks for the suggestions, and please post any other ideas you have! Noleander (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Definition of maps is a bit in the weeds when it comes to literature, and probably more meta then most are used to playing with. I'm so deep in theory that I am starting to worry I'm losing my edge on practical research, so my suggestions might lean much more towards whatever theoretical mumbo jumbo I've consumed. Tried to give at least two current sources though, the literature review chain goes back to the 1920s and I don't think that is helpful. Korzybski is cited, and then the works citing him are cited, until the original source of the idea is almost lost. Not surprised its not in the ones you mention, you'd probably have to read the navel gazing stuff from the early quantitative revolution, critical cartography, and the quantitative geography/GIScience response to critical cartography in the 90s and early 00s for that to jump out. Much of the more practical literature focuses on what professional cartographers need to know to do their job, and for them a map is most easily thought about as a representation or diagram. You're right that more detailed discussion is probably unnecessary here, and I'm happy as long as the word "model" is included. That is one of my personal professional hills to die on. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thematic maps

Looking broadly at the article, something that jumps out at me is how thin our section on thematic maps is. In the past 50 or so years, thematic maps have become a major element of cartography (The first cartography class I took back in 2014 focused almost entirely on thematic maps, using the book Cartography: Thematic Map Design. While we did cover basic digitization and a few minor geoprocesses, the bulk of the course was focused on thematic maps. I've taken something like 15 GIS/Cartography classes; this is pretty common.). The section Symbolization includes most of our thematic map types, and I think it might better fit under the section specific to thematic maps. Symbolization could be replaced with a short blurb on symbols themselves, but instead of looking at types of maps, tone, pattern, color, and well, symbols could be elaborated on. For example, convention would be for a star to symbolize a capital city; the color blue is often reserved for water; we can use hatch marks instead of color to convey the same thing, etc.. Just a thought. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 13:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. I agree that there is too much overlap between the Map#Symbolization section and the Map#Thematic_and_general_reference section. And that the Symbolization section emphasizes thematic material at the expense of other aspects of symbolization. I think moving all the thematic material into the Thematic section is a good plan. I'll take care of that soon. Noleander (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GeogSage - Thanks for the feedback on the symbolization & symbols material. I have resolved all the concerns, I believe:
  • Most material and images related to thematic maps are now in the section Map#Thematic_and_general_reference.
  • The material on thematic maps is fairly robust now.
  • The Symbolization section now focuses on describing symbolization and symbols, including an image and body text that lists some sample symbols (stars for capital cities, etc) ... tho it does still mention thematic maps as a major place where symbolization happens.
If you notice any significant errors or omissions in the article, please let me know. I'll be nominating it for FA status after the PR, and it would be embarrassing if major omissions were detected during that process :-) Noleander (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! One lite omission in this section is the Chorochromatic map. The term isn't very well known, but everyone knows what they are. Significantly more important then Dasymetric mapping, they are the other major type of thematic map that relies on color/tone. Choropleth maps are quantitative maps, and have specific things they need to do like normalize the data. Chorochromatic are qualitative maps. The other minor concern is Cartogram is mentioned briefly in Topological section, but not explained. Cartograms were a huge deal in the early quantitative revolution, from my reading, I believe the Space Cadets Department of Geography (University of Washington) were having a bit of fun with them while they messed around with novel projections. Unfortunately, cartograms aren't as widely used as I think they should be, but probably warrant an inclusion. We already have an example of one included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, those both certainly need to be highlighted. I'll get started on that. Thx. Noleander (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you need sources for choropleth or chorochromatic, let me know. What we have should be adequate though, but there are a lot of sources on the choropleth map page. If you want to get into some more content to flush things out, there is the concept of representing time in cartography, specifically change over time. Animated mapping would be a good place to start, I made a GIF for that page here, but others are available too if you want to spice things up with some dynamic images. If you do, it is an excuse to cite Tobler's paper A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region for something other then the first law of geography. For sources on mapping time in general, Mark Monmonier wrote one of my all time favorite papers Strategies For The Visualization Of Geographic Time-Series Data that dives into detail on this. I've been wanting to make pages for some of the map types he includes, particularly "chess map" and "cartographic cross classification array." Cross classification arrays are one of my go to moves if I want to really flex in a paper or poster, think they need more love, but would understand if this is too niche. Both of these types of map could be covered in about three sentences, as a cross classification array is just chess maps lined up in a grid where rows are a variable, and columns are time intervals. Not sure if this is too in the weeds, but figured better to mention so you could consider then keep silent. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agree it is better to error on the side to "too much" when considering candidate material for any article. This article is currently at 8,600 prose words, which is a bit shy of the 9,000 word limit suggested in WP:SIZERULE. So a few more sentences or paragraphs can be squeezed in. of course, the article still needs to conform to the WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION guidelines which say that the article needs to represent topics in a manner proportional to the emphasis found in the major, neutral sources. So including a sentence on an obscure fact is generally discouraged in a top level article like this. Such material is better suited for sub-articles such as cartogram, thematic map, etc. Noleander (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cartographic data

Looking at the cartographic data section, one thing that jumped out was missing mention on classification methods, like Jenks natural breaks optimization. When writing a paper, I tend to try to make sure I'm citing Jenks, Tobler, Brewer, and Monmonier at least once. Could be an opportunity to get one of them cited with Jenks natural breaks. Tobler wrote a paper on unclassified maps as well. Classification is one of the fundamentals taught in intro cartography, and unfortunately it looks like the only pages we have approaching the topic are Cluster analysis and Data classification (data management), both of which are a bit broader then this and not really exactly the same thing. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, that looks like important material to include. I created a new subsection Map#Classifying_data and explained the classification process, and mentioned Jenks and his algorithm. I included a link to Classification article ... which is different than the Data classification (data management) article you mentioned above. Classification seemed more appropriate, but I might be wrong. If you see any errors or omissions in that new section, let me know. Noleander (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.