User talk:Ty's Commons

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ty's Commons!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

History maps

Hi Ty, I couldn't help but notice your participation in "Maps of Yth-century X" (like "Maps of 14th-century England" and so on). There have previously been talks to move all such categories into "Maps of X in the Yth century", which would mean less misunderstandings and also a harmonization because "Maps of England in the 14th century" would be a subcategory of "England in the 14th century". The proposed category structure would also enable a template to connect all maps of (major) countries in the same century. See here: Template_talk:Subject_by_century#Allowing_a_prefix-suffix-combination?. This idea has not moved forward for some time, how is your opinion? Best, --Enyavar (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Enyavar, thanks for your note and for reaching out. I both agree and am happy to help to the extent that I can. A principal interest for me has been to try to facilitate what I think many users can benefit from with respect to historic maps, which is to first focus the category on the subject (i.e. what is being depicted in the map), and then secondarily on when it was produced. So, for example, if my interest is to learn about and be able to show what the territory of Belgium looked like at a particular period in time, the category should ideally reflect that, e.g. the territory of present-day Belgium as it was in the 16th century. That's of interest for Wikimedia and Wikipedia for sure - as well as for other projects I assist such as WikiTree, which is attempting to connect all people (including descendants of Belgians and other Europeans) to a common genealogical database - which very much depends on knowing time-appropriate location information in order to enable research and appropriate description.

As we know from this and many other examples, however, the first issue is that a map actually produced in the 16th century would have had a different name and in fact combinations of names (since Belgium wasn't yet organised and called that). The second issue is that while overview maps might show the history of Belgium, they're often so generalised that they're of little use if the interest is Belgium itself and/or its localities rather its large-scale history or borders. The third is that the placing of maps into many different narrow "drawers" - especially when it's by their date of production rather than depiction - makes it even worse: the seeker of a basic map of the Belgian territory as it existed in the 16th century would not normally think to (and shouldn't have to) search through many categories of 17th-, 18th-, 19th- and 20th-century maps in order to find (if they happen to be both persistent and lucky), that the 16th-century Belgium map they're looking for happened to be filed away in a category of "maps produced in the 1910s." So I've tried to improve on that while also following the general guidance of first trying to get a sense of the "lay of the land" - seeing for example how the British Isles have been handled to date - and then build in something very close to what you're suggesting.

Putting both of those principles together, I've tried to adapt to the existing pattern of "Maps of Yth-century X" (which seems most common) - and added succession categories and cross-links so that one can easily go from "Maps of 15th-century England" to: 1) Maps of 14th-century England and 16th, 2) Maps of 15th-century other countries (since they show in the box), 3) England in the 15th century (linked), and 4) 15th-century maps of England (also linked). The key objectives are to facilitate focus on the main subject (by rescuing at least key maps from obscure drawers), while also providing links to related categories of potential interest.

Your suggestion of a new unified terminology such as "Maps of X in the Yth century" is also consistent and makes fine sense. I would suggest two things to minimize potential disputes and facilitate searches. Firstly, continuing our Belgian example, I would suggest something along the lines of what I've been doing which is to indicate that the maps are showing the territory of the present-day country of Belgium as it was in the Yth century - which tracks exactly what many if not most people are looking for - but doesn't offend the historian who notes that "Belgium" didn't yet exist as a country per se at the time (even though the territory of Belgium clearly did exist and can be depicted as such - to the benefit of many interests and uses).

The second suggestion, which I've also already tried to reflect, is that when average users are looking for maps of Belgium as the territory existed in prior times, it would be most helpful if the subcategory - such as "Maps of 16th-century Belgium" (or in your proposal "Maps of Belgium in the 16th century") - belongs to at least the two most relevant parent categories: 1) "Maps of Belgium by century" and 2) "Belgium in the 16th century."

As for the choice between "Maps of 16th-century Belgium" and "Maps of Belgium in the 16th century," I think either can be very clear, especially with an explanatory note that it's the territory of present-day Belgium as it was in the 16th century. The former standard seems more in line with what's already been widely used on Wikimedia Commons - but if you think there's a strong reason for shifting it could well be worth the effort (I tend to think both are fine with appropriate explanation).

Hopefully that's helpful, and you'll also have experience with how best to implement - in particular whether it's reasonable to adapt and improve the current approach or if we should try to change it. No doubt the former is easier - but I'm happy to brainstorm, and more importantly, to help further!

Best in return from your partner cartophile - and presumably fellow history buff, Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

True to both the cartophile and the presumptive history buff (I wouldn't actually call me that "buff" myself). The whole proposal was intended to make the difference more clear between "16th-century maps of Belgium" (i.e. produced back then, topic is 'Belgium') and "Maps of Belgium in the 16th-century" (from any period, topic is 'Belgium in the 16th c.'). That is the most important distinction in my eyes. The "Maps of 16th-century Belgium"-pattern was also what I found existing, it seemed not too bad to me and I then contributed on top of that, creating probably more than twice as many categories following that pattern than I originally found. I have since come to the conclusion that the pattern may not be bad, but at least flawed and inconsistent with the "Belgium in the 18th century" pattern that exists outside of the maps.

On the example of Belgium, that is an interesting subtopic: should we use historical territory names or the current ones? In case of Belgium, for example, I don't think I have seen many history maps earlier than the 16th century showing "Belgium" (under any name) as its own geographical entity. There are maps for example of "Flanders", "Luxembourg", "Holland" or (zooming further out) of "the Low Countries" as the wider area. Only with the 16th century, there were "Spanish Netherlands" vs. "United Provinces" etc. See for example Category:Maps of the Roman Low Countries, most maps there also include modern North France and German Rhinelands into the depicted area. I think that care should be applied to all historical areas that once had different names, and that categories should be as neutrally descriptive as possible. And that includes to shift terminology in some cases. To me it seems more straightforward to say that "Belgium was called Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century" (and so we call the history category "Belgium") than to insist on "There was no Belgium back then, only Spanish Netherlands", which leads to a multitude of historical territory categories, that are only understandable to history buffs. From your response, you seem to agree with that. But the sparse history maps of Belgium previous to (~) the 80-years war, I would still prefer to categorize under "Maps of the Low Countries in the 12th century".

Now that you put this is on the table, I'm uncomfortable for having created Category:Maps of Benelux by Gerardus Mercator. The man himself called it "Belgii inferioris" (or also "Inferior Germania") in his Atlas, and I found both terms unfitting to group the ten map designs by Mercator, so I went with "Belelux". I am aware that the term "Benelux" is just a convenient modern term that one can retroactively apply to maps showing the whole Low Contries area, but now I think that "Maps of the Low Countries by G.M." is more appropriate. Right? --Enyavar (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree re the importance of the distinction and I think the pattern generally works. Many average users (who won't be either locals or historians) simply want to see or find out what a country looked like at various times in the past. Such users often wouldn't know all of the various names, historic entities and prior borders that for most countries changed and evolved over time (especially in Europe but also elsewhere). And even current locals are often interested in seeing maps showing the territory of their own country (along with historic names, key towns, borders, neighbouring territories etc.) at various periods in time.

The great thing is that our maps, if organised in a few complementary ways, can not only easily provide that info but can also help educate by cross-referencing and often depicting the historic entities in roughly chronologic order. That's of course also helpful for parallel uses such as Wikipedia articles, as well as research uses such as for WikiTree and the like. And the most helpful maps could also be added to the corresponding atlases - some of which have large gaps.

I raised Belgium since it's a somewhat more complex case (vs. Ireland for example). But it seems that the basic organisation can still be applied: making it clear that one set of maps is tracking the territory of the present-day country going backward in time - and including time appropriate cross-refs to associated territories (so for Belgium: Gallia Belgica from Roman times, then parts of the Holy Roman Empire / Spanish Netherlands etc., to modern Belgium). I think your idea of cross-referencing as one of the Benelux countries (or Low Countries) also makes sense - since the territory itself often crossed over in the past and some users will think of the three together, as they are in Benelux.

So far I've continued with the same basic pattern. One advantage is that a parent category can combine the various maps in an orderly sequence: maps of the territory backward in time, old maps of the territory, and the constituent countries, as in: Category:Maps of the British Isles by century. I've also started to organise country maps so that they link to the other countries forming the group, and display at least key maps showing the territory in something approaching chronological order, to make it easy to both find and learn from the history, as in: Category:Maps of 19th-century Scotland (in progress). That's as far as I've gotten but I think it's consistent with the pattern already started - and seems helpful from multiple perspectives.

I'll actually be "off-grid" for almost 3 weeks but will back in when I return. Best till then, Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ty, I've been doing a lot of reshuffling of categories, and moved most of "Maps of 1Xth-century country" into "Maps of country in the 1Xth century" for the region of Europe. While doing that, I found out that you also uploaded some history maps yourself, and did fine work with "enhancing" them. Pretty neat! Some things for you to consider for future uploads:

Even if you brushed them up digitally - you're not the author of Droyen's, Shepherd's and Johnston's history maps: Please credit the original authors of old maps, give the original publication date, and license their maps under "pd-old" (or other licenses for material that is in the Public Domain because of age). You're certainly not the first to make that error, but I want to point it out.

I also hope that you didn't manipulate the maps other than cropping and color correction. There are a few uploaders who did do some research and began changing the borders that Shepherd/Droysen/Johnston & Co. got wrong a 100+ years ago. Using photoshop to change the content of the original maps, I kid you not. I don't think you ever did that, but I just wanted to mention it before it ever happens. To create more accurate maps based on newer historical understandings, we must make new maps, not retouch old ones.

Also, there is this great cropping tool here on commons. You can upload a complete map, and then crop details out of the map into new files. This has some advantages: It is super easy and you don't need external programs like Gimp of Photoshop. The tool automatically links the new files and the original file (like here in the image description). The tool also copies the whole original file description into the new cropped map, too; so you only need to change parts that are different. I noticed that you did this whole thing offline with File:C. 1650 Europe.jpg, and I had to manually create all these links.

(I have to say though, that I'm not a big fan of cropping too many detail frames out of any map, unless you have an immediate practical use for the new crop in some articles: The cropped details are usually lacking some context. But that last point is just an opinion.)

Anyway, keep up the good work! --Enyavar (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Enyavar - I've been meaning to reconnect for such a long time and I hope you're well!

I wanted to follow up on the discussion we had started last Fall about the already-established categories that contain maps corresponding to the territories of our European countries across prior centuries. I do believe it remains a good approach since there are many times that there can be an interest in simply seeing what a particular territory looked like in the past. It's a neutral and easy-to-apply standard for categorising - and importantly also benefits the many visitors and users who will have no idea of the border changes and naming complexities that permeated the Holy Roman Empire and other territories. The cross-links that were already created also make it easy to navigate; e.g. maps of the territory of France in the 12th century to the adjacent 11th and 13th - and to the territories of other European countries in the same era.

To serve these and related objectives, I'd like to tighten the language a bit. Using our example, and probably where I'll start, for France we have in maps of France in the 12th century: "English: This category is about the subject of France 1101-1200 CE: History maps showing all or a substantial part of the territory of France as it was in the 12th century."

Rather than "subject of France" and "history" etc. - which can be interpreted far more broadly - this can be made more direct and specific to provide clear support for recategorising some files:

"This category is directed to maps of all or substantially all of the territory of modern-day France as the territory existed in the 12th century (i.e. 1101-1200 CE)."

There will then be no need for the somewhat confusing statement regarding "contemporary old maps" (which sounds very strange in English). The primary focus of the category is its subject matter, again tightly defined - and for this group, e.g, "Maps of France in the 12th century" that would be the subject matter of a map rather than when it was produced - although I see no problem leaving the old cross-referenced subcategories such as 12th-century maps of France - which are already in place. [As an aside: this becomes more relevant for later centuries. In particular, "Maps of France in the 16th Century" and "16th-century maps of France" are clearly two very different things (and already have separate categories). But regarding the former (our topic here) that does not mean that 65 year old maps of France in the 16th century should be separated from 75 year old maps of France in the 16th century, An average researcher, Wikipedia contributor, genealogist etc. will generally be much more interested in the former - to see what the French territory looked like in the 16th century (for any of a variety of purposes). Their choice of maps of interest likely relate to level of detail, authenticity (based on an identified and published creator), scope etc. In many if not most cases, that map of interest will more likely not be one produced in the 16th century (but for most purposes whether it was a detailed map from 1930 or 1970 would be of only secondary interest if at all). The 1930 map may well provide what one needs - the later one not - and later svg maps may be from unknown sources (of even if a source is noted it will often be difficult to discern whether it was followed accurately). For these and other purposes there are few maps as useful as those of the historian cartographers who produced finely detailed maps that were carefully based on predecessors and subject to scrutiny and review. As you've also noted, such detailed maps are also ideally suited to derivatives because the areas that they contain are often so finely detailed that they provide information about all of the various regions they contain as well.]

In sum, this approach takes advantage of the existing framework based on the countries of Europe - which I think has a number of advantages as one complementary framework for categorising such maps:

1) Easily defined subject matter that is also precise (see above)

2) Supports navigation backward and forward by century for each country's territory

3) Provides easy cross-links from one country to another in the same century, not only its neighbours but across Europe

4) Sub-categories are easily established for regions within the territory and in many cases these already exist (e.g. Burgundy or Savoy in the case of France), as well as territorial cross-references (e.g. United Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands etc.)

5) Perhaps most importantly - this approach (which is already largely set up structurally) does not require the main catgories to change back and forth and sideways across the intricate patchwork of historic entities that many Europeans may not fully appreciate for their own country - much less across all the countries of Europe - and even less likely familiar to all of the non-Europeans on Wikimedia

Since I'm fairly sure you've got enough on your plate as always, I'm foolishly volunteering to undertake the tweaks to the language and to start parsing through the corresponding categories, but I might need help or have further questions. Best, Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ty, I have objections to part of your redefinitions. Sorry that this is going to be nitpicky.

• "is directed to" seems to be a strange choice of words, at least as far as I understand them. One can direct (lead) people as a director, one can direct (steer) cars when given directions, one can direct movies as a regisseur, one can direct (address) a message, once can direct (aim) a bullet. There may be even more meanings of "direct" that I am not aware of, but it seems to me that all require control of the subject that gets directed. Anyone can direct (categorize) a file away from or into a category, for example. But the category does not direct (control) its content. Nor is there a gremium, like a "directorate of historical categories" that determines whether files get directed into the category. Categories are hierarchical catalogues/folders that include files because the files were categorized in them. Clearer academic options would be is intended for, is dedicated to, should contain, and others. For multilingual Commons, I would prefer the most simple wording possible: is about.
• I don't see why territory needs to be marked in bold, or even mentioned. It's redundant since the subject country is also mentioned.
• I have to argue against "as the lands were in...", too, but more on that further down.
• I don't see why "modern-day" needs to be part of the description. To mention just a few examples, there are history maps about Burgundy, Prussia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Neither of these states exists today, but these are not Maps about France, about Germany or about Lithuania in their modern-day territory. A third of the territory of modern-day Poland was an integral part of German territory for centuries. This insight leads to my following suggestion for all "maps-of-country-in-century":

This category is about maps showing the history of Poland in the 13th century (1201-1300 CE).

That's the definition. Given how it is the combination subcategory of "maps of the history of Poland" and "Poland in the 13th century", it is the straightforward description. The modern day plays no role here. It also makes no difference if a map doesn't show all territories of then-Poland, or maybe just one battlefield of Polish history, and this is clearly a map of Poland in the 16th century despite not showing all the territory of today.

So far, I've been going on about the simpler case of one-country-by-century. There are lots of history maps about regional groups of countries however, for example the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, HRE, to name just a few. Also Scandinavia that we quarreled over yesterday.

People can make pedantic arguments about Scandinavia, but the geographical definitions are the problem of each geographical grouping. Whether or not Hungary and Bulgaria belong into "maps of the Balkans" is not my issue here. The fact is, there are lots of maps showing the whole Balkans or just parts of it, and I think you should see the problem with "as the lands were": These maps show the Balkans as historians interpreted the sources, or as hobbyists on the internet interpreted the historians. This bit is also the case for singular nations, but the Balkans are a prime example where neutrality and objectivism usually fly right out the window. Commons is supposed to be a neutral platform that hosts all these often contradictory files (although we reserve the possibility to delete outright fraudulant entries).

Anyway, it makes no sense to even have a category for "maps of the Velbazhd Duchy in X century". It also makes no sense to duplicate the history categories of the entire Balkans for each modern country ("maps of Greece/North Macedonia/Albania/Bosnia/Croatia/Slovenia/Montenegro/Serbia/Kosovo/Bulgaria/Romania/Turkey/Hungary in X century"). Intead of 10+ categories, this is where "maps of the Balkans" comes into play to fully replace each of the individual countries. But it would also come into play when the map focuses only on the southern or only the central part of the Balkans, or even on just three of the modern countries. My definition for these history maps took the Overcat-problem into consideration:

This category is about the subject of the Balkans 1301-1400 CE: History maps showing substantial parts of the Balkans as they were in the 14th century. - Maps showing single countries belong into "Maps of <country> in the 14th century".

Now here it makes sense to argue about the geographic extent of the area, and about parts/territories involved. I suspect that your own definition including "substantially all territories" might have been in some way derived from the above formulation, which I later adapted further for other regions and also single countries. I formulated

• A history map of the whole Balkans but with Serbia clearly highlighted, would belong into "Serbia" and "Balkans", and not any of the others.
• A history map showing just a small area of then-Bosnia and now-Croatia, would belong into "Bosnia" and "Croatia", and not "Balkans".
• A history map of Austria-Hungary's occupation of Bosnia and Croatia, would belong into "Austria-Hungary" and "Balkans", but not Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia.
• A history map about the whole of Lapland in some century belongs into "Scandinavia" and not Norway, Sweden and Finland. It is still Scandinavia despite Denmark and Iceland not shown.

All the above examples would of course also receive the other relevant categories depending on their content. To make the regional-definition similar to the proposal for the country-definition, my proposal for the change is:

This category is about maps showing the history of the Balkans in the 13th century (1201-1300 CE), either of the entire or a substantial part of the region. Maps showing single countries belong into "Maps of <country> in the 13th century", if that category exists.

Now, onwards to your disdain of the word "contemporary". I regularly find that other people confuse "historical=old depiction of <subject>" with "historical=about the history of <subject>". That was the whole point in renaming all these "historical maps of..." back in the day. Thanks to the community back then, this distinction was recognized which led to the creation of Template:TFOMC. But that does not stop misunderstandings. Take for example 1850s maps of Italy and Maps of Italy in the 1850s. The former means a map that was produced in the 1850s and thus naturally shows Italy as it was in the 1850s, the time it was produced. It is a contemporary to the subject it depicts, and it is part of the "old maps of Italy" category tree. The latter' means a map that was produced after the period it depicts, and that is intended to show the historical situation that is no longer the case by the time it was produced. (I make that point about intention so that nobody can argue that a 1640s reprint of the 1600s [[c|Maps of the Ottoman Empire by Mercator-Hondius|Mercator-Hondius map of the Turcic Empire}} belongs int "Map of the Ottoman Empire in the 1600s".) The latter is also part of the "maps of the history of Italy" tree.

Since people DO misunderstand the important difference between contemporary maps and history maps, I think we need to point out that difference in the category description. It is a necessity. If you have a better word choice for "contemporary" in plain English, I'm open for it, but my proposition is to have a text like:

Contemporary old maps belong into Category:19th-century maps of Italy and its subcategories.

Wow, what a wall of text. All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Enyavar, I'm sorry that we have any remaining issues either nitpicky or otherwise, especially after our email exchanges regarding the proposed and now implemented revisions at the beginning of September. I don't believe these remaining points are anything unresolvable, especially for two dedicated Wikimedian cartophiles - but I think we should review the over-arching rationale for this particular (and not yet much used) category set that you asked me about last Fall. I was enthusiastic to pick this project up, believing it can be useful, and I still am, so I've put increasing time into it - but frankly I also want to avoid the development of problems that I know you're still dealing with in earlier-established categories related to old maps. (Ty)

First Insertion Enyavar: Oh right! When I read your response above to mine, I wondered why I couldn't see my response to it. I forgot that you contacted me by E-mail, and I regret that I have not seen that you had proposed the same thing here on your talk page. I have by now added your page to my Watchlist, but if you really want to grab my attention, just {{ping}} me. To lay out anything in the open for others, and also for myself, I will post my reply in full right below. So it was this September when I replied to your previous answer from 12:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC) in this way:

Hi Ty,

I see no problem in rephrasing the hat-note (category description) of the history map categories. Please note that I often changed the phrasing of the hat-note based on the subject - without checking the current hat-note in the France history maps, I can't even point a finger on what you changed in your suggestion. So, no objections.

I am currently more involved in "old maps" than in "history maps", and I am aware that there are thousands of history maps not correctly sorted by region and century. But I am still interested in both subjects. I also think that these two subjects need to be clearly separated throughout Commons, and that there needs to be a warning in the hat-note, to discourage people from putting history maps into old-map-categories. It happens shockingly often.

There are lots of different cases, and I am not entirey sure from your suggestion if you would agree or disagree with any of the following:

• Modern-day history maps should never be mixed with old maps, not for the 12th and not for the 19th century.
• Old maps should be categorized by their subject, and subcategorized by century/decade if necessary (see for example the "Old maps of Lyon", on Commons)
• Old maps that show history are a bit tricky. There are 1920s map of the French Revolution, and these are history maps just like our modern history maps, except they are also old. They need to be categorized doubly, once under "1920s maps showing history" and once under "maps of the French Revolution" or "maps of France in the 1790s" (this category does not exist yet, but if there is enough material, it should be created). That same map would of course NOT be a "1920s maps of France". ... Well, in my opinion, the rule to strictly divide history-vs-old maps can be handwaved a bit if the history map is created shortly after the event (like 1820s maps of the 1812 invasion of Russia, that is what I mean with "contemporary"), but the farther the event and the cartographer are removed in time, the stricter we should be.
• Sometimes maps are just reprints or reproductions of genuine old maps: These should in my opinion be treated just like the old maps themselves. A 1959 reprint of a 1789 map of Paris, would itself be a "1780s maps of Paris", despite the 170 years difference. This also applies in my opinion, if the cartographer has brushed up the map a bit, or changed an old-timey type-font against a newer reader-friendly script. But once additional information enters the reproduction, it should be treated as a history map.

I have not yet fully made up my mind about the ugliest form of history maps in my opinion: Genuine old maps that are used as the canvas to digitally smear some blue arrows and red circles on top. I generally sort them under "old maps of..." based on the original map production year, and also add the history-map categories.

I appreciate your thoughts, and welcome your efforts in trying to categorize all the maps. - My warmest regards, -- Enyavar, 2025-09-09 at way-past-midnight-o'clock.

Which means that yes, I have given my consent for you to change the hat-notes in all these many categories. I do appreciate that you're striving for a more unified hat-note that is the same all over the categories. However, given how the results have turned out, I still reserve objections, but will state them further down, again. --Enyavar (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Larger issues first. As we've discussed, a fundamental purpose of categories is to make it easy for average users to locate items of interest; and secondarily, to have a reasonable framework so that categories don't tend to become too populated but if they do can be easily and logically partitioned into sub-categories (if and as necessary).  

In the present case (i.e. maps of our European countries), every country in Europe of course has a defined territory - and every one of these territories is known and universally reflected across all databases. The territory of Belgium, for example, is approximately 30,689 km2 as reflected in its principal Wikipedia article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium Belgium].  

Displaying (through maps) the evolving "pictures" showing such territories over the prior centuries is a foundational aspect of every country's history. Indeed it is the foundation of national atlases from which many of our historic maps derive. Equally clearly, the history of essentially every European country's territory will reflect a complex variety of names and controlling entities over the centuries - including both larger entities that controlled all or parts of their territories at various times, as well as smaller regions that became parts of their territories. Those various prior names and entities will accordingly appear among the associated maps - and are also appropriately cross-referenced in associated categories. Indeed, the associated maps and categories showing the territory of a country such as Belgium backward over the centuries is an effective and useful tool because the principal subject of focus (the Belgian territory) serves as a basic and universally-recognized organizing framework.

If we instead uncouple these particular European country categories from each European country's existing territory, we will have lost that organizing framework, and the alternative "time-varying" and/or "entity-based" categories will become just as complex and chaotic as European history itself. Furthermore, the vast majority of these categories would simply not exist - with political entities like Belgium and Italy extending back only to the 19th century - and many others not much longer or with disputes over when they "arose." In fact, the territories of course did exist and were populated - and they all can be seen in maps of varying sizes, scopes and detail.

When the subject is maps of Europe, average users include in particular non-historians, non-Europeans, and many others with little if any knowledge of the numerous intricacies that fairly continuously impacted the many evolving jurisdictions and political entities leading to the nations of modern Europe. A basic and illustrative question of relevance to such average users would be the following: I'm interested in Belgium (my ancestors are from there, or I'm visiting and interested in its history, etc.) and so I'd like to see what it looked like at various points in the past. Territory of interest: Belgium; time of interest: 17th century. Category: Maps of Belgium in the 17th century. Very simple, very direct, very easy for novices - and also very simple, direct and easy for everyone else.

It should be equally apparent that alternative approaches can be and often are much more problematic - especially for average users without detailed knowledge of the innumerable aspects of European history. As in the example, such a user is interested in maps of Belgium extending back over prior centuries - but that won’t work if there is no corresponding organizational category. Without it, they need to first find out about the history of Belgium and then figure out various prior and alternative names and jurisdictions as well as their borders for any period of interest: So, when was Belgium formed and called that..?; it had Roman origins as Belgica etc. but when did those start and stop..?; Wasn't it part of the Carolingian Empire at various periods..?; Was it part of Middle Francia, Lotharingia, and over what period, as a kingdom or a duchy..?; Was it later part of West Francia or East Francia. or divided into parts..?; What about the Holy Roman Empire..?; What about the Low Countries..?; What about the Spanish Netherlands..? Was that the same as the Habsburg territories..?, etc.

All of such evolving and ever-changing political entities will naturally be reflected in various maps - and many of them will be noted in appropriate cross-references within categories ("See also: …") or as linked categories. But allowing the basic organizational framework noted above and reflected in the categories (i.e. the territory of European country X shown backward in time) to become altered and reshaped depending on the associated political entities will undercut the principal aims of this organizing framework and will rather become a complicated mess, with ever-changing and often debatable names, borders and territorial scopes affecting every century and often multiple times within it. I think such a system tends to undermine many goals of making Wikimedia both intuitive and easy to use, including and arguably especially for those without detailed historical knowledge. (Ty)

Second Insertion Enyavar: Thank you, from this preamble it seems that we share the same goals and aspirations: to structure/order maps on Commons so that others can access and search for these maps more easily. I have no issues with any of what you wrote above. --Enyavar (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

An added and I believe very beneficial feature of the improved organizational framework is that it enables easy-to-appreciate and standardized navigation geographically across the maps of all of the other European countries - and temporally over the two millennia of European history. For example, in our example Category:Maps of Belgium in the 19th century, users can easily navigate to any of the other European countries for that century, and to the prior centuries for the Belgian territory.

So I believed when you asked me about this type of categorization for history maps a year ago, and I still do believe, that this framework can be a very useful one - provided it is precisely defined as has been developed.

Finally, I note that the framework as now applied is essentially consistent with the over-arching framework for atlases - and also for history maps as accepted and implemented by Wikimedia Commons, in particular as prominently featured in Wikinedia's Atlas of the world. In particular, every country's section of "History maps" features a version of the following foundational definition - as illustrated by Wikimedia Commons for our favorite example Atlas of Belgium#History maps:

: "History maps - This section holds a short summary of the history of the area of present-day Belgium, illustrated with maps, including historical maps of former countries and empires that included present-day Belgium."

This "history maps framework" is essentially the same framework as is being applied to our maps of countries by century - and for many good reasons as noted above.

Wikipedia employs an analogous basic approach for its histories of nations. For example, in the Timeline of Belgian history, which tracks the centuries of the history of Belgium back to Julius Cesar, it is noted that: "This is a timeline of Belgian history, including important legal and territorial changes and political events in Belgium and its predecessor states." (Ty)

Third Insertion Enyavar: I heard before of this "Atlas of the World" as a Commons project, but have not given it any deeper attention, since it consists of pages that are in active maintainance by some editors. The project seems to be quite aspirational. However, with the enormous amounts of maps that are by now available on Commons (most of them not properly categorized), I doubt that the Atlas of the World with its rather narrow focus will become more important for Commons and Commons-users in the future.

Quite importantly: the "Atlas of the World" has strictly nothing to do with the category system. I will continue to not get involved with the Atlas project. --Enyavar (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course, that is not to say that there should not be - and indeed there already are - other relevant categorizations of varying levels of geographic scope and complexity (including, for example, maps of various empires such as the Carolingian, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire; collective regional maps such as the Balkans or Scandinavia; maps of entities within or overlapping such territories such as Bavaria, Burgundy, Prussia, the Papal States, etc.). Such categories exist, in abundance (which is part of the issue) - but can be (and are) easily addressed by cross-referencing and nested categorizations.

Hopefully we are in agreement regarding all of the foregoing - and the review helps to underscore the need for the precise definitional language.

Turning to related interests of "implementation," I'm not sure how often and in what contexts you have approached Wikimedia as a user in need of various maps (rather than a categorizer) but if you have I think you would quickly appreciate that the organization of many of these maps in other categories (such as the "old maps" that I know you struggle with) often makes them difficult to find. (Ty)

Fourth Insertion Enyavar, just to make clear where my motivation began: My categorization work on Commons began when I couldn't find maps that I was searching for. So yes, I appreciate whenever I am able to quickly find the maps for a topic I am searching for. One big problem in that regard are categories that are too broad (the hard limit on page loading is 200 files, so any category with thousands of files makes it very hard to quickly browse the available content) and the other big problem are a plethora of categories that are too specialized and narrow (i.e. "1822 maps of Liège", "1823 maps of Liège", "1824 maps of Liège"... each with no more than just 1-2 files in it. A current example is Category:maps of Brest by year: Maps of the same subject, but needlessly split up by a quite arbitrary factor.). Both things need to be amended, i.e. too broad categories need to be split up in a sensible way; and too narrow categories need to be merged together in a sensible way. A big issue is of course: But what is sensible? Anyway, from here on I will not insert any further stuff into your response, I regard the next part as your counterargument to my three proposals above. --Enyavar (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

A key issue in that regard does relate to over-categorization - but of a very different sort than you referred to. As noted, the fundamental key to these categories and others is what is the focus of the subject (e.g. Maps of France in the 15th century). Among those maps, some may have been produced in that or any of the following six centuries. If the category is precisely defined (e.g. Maps showing all or substantially all of the territory of France in the 15th century), then there are often not that many - and, as with all categories on Wikimedia, if and when there are then they can be sub-categorized to the extent necessary. With the basic interest being maps of France in the 15th century, one would generally like and expect to see what is available of those in order to select potential maps of interest. Seeing an appropriately targeted group, secondary selections might include when a map was made - but more likely (at least initially) would be focused on the subject matter and its depiction (its level of detail, its overall scope, which if any cities are included, which regional boundaries are included, which neighboring territories are included, etc.). Taking the maps of France in the 15th century and then removing numbers of them into various drawers based on when they were made or published makes the search harder and in many cases unnecessarily frustrating. (It's a bit like going into a store trying to find sports clothes and being told that the staff have removed them all into separate warehouses based on when and where they were manufactured because that helped the inventory workers).

Moving from temporal to geographic scope, there are two issues that I think underlie many of the problems and combine to create categories that are overly populated - leading to re-categorizations that make maps difficult to find.

In the first type, an already complex situation is made worse if at the same time we include what are (as you well know) an endless variety of sub-divisions of a territory within the main category (which is the overall territory). These generally belong as sub-categories for obvious reasons (including distracting from the main subject and tending to cause the categories to become over-populated with images).

An associated issue is reflected in several of your recent comments and re-categorization. While sub-divisions belong in sub-categories, the fact that a map also includes one or more neighboring countries does not negate its being a map that shows the territory of the country of interest. In fact many historic maps naturally depict neighboring countries or groups of neighboring countries - especially for smaller countries but often for larger ones as well. Indeed, showing the names, extent and borders of neighboring countries at the same time is a very important part of appreciating the territory of interest in its broader context at the time.

As a simple example of the prior two concepts, a map of Antwerp is not a map showing the territory of Belgium (where is Bruges, where is Ghent, etc.?). But a map of the Low Countries showing the territories of both Belgium and the Netherlands is certainly a map showing the territory of Belgium (there is Bruges, there is Ghent, Charleroi, Brussels, etc.)

With all of that background rationale, I hope you will more fully appreciate the need for precision in this set of categories - and, as noted, I am essentially following and intend to continue following the Wikimedia Commons approach for history maps.

We can now turn to and hopefully resolve any remaining technical points. In response to your "nitpicky" points, I would note the following:

- "is directed to" maps showing X is, at least in English, a common means of introducing any such specific scope or definition, which is essentially a "direction" (not as in compass point but as in an instruction or guidance). An alternative of course is to use should, but to achieve our aims it would then need to be something like "should only contain X" More loose terminology such as "about" tends only to undercut the precision (e.g. "this map of Paris seems like it's 'about' France - what could be more French").

- emphasis that the maps are directed to the territory (of current country X) is far from redundant since it clarifies that its scope is the land (again of current country X) rather than various and varying political entities or jurisdictions (again for important reasons as noted above).

- the use of the phrase "the lands as they were in (century X)" - in the second part of the definition - is a simple but effective means of indicating and distinguishing that the territory in the first part (current territory of Belgium) existed as parts of various lands in the past.

- the use of the phrase modern-day is critical to identifying the territory that is the subject (again for reasons noted above and reflected in the Wikimedia Commons framework as well); e.g. the territory of modern-day Austria is clear - and of course far different than areas claimed by the Habsburgs at various points.

Your comment about Poland and Lithuania is in fact illustrative of many of these points - and underscores the need for the precision reflected. It should seem rather absurd to suggest that maps of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are not maps of the history of Poland or maps depicting Poland during the corresponding centuries - indeed they certainly represent relevant maps of the history of Poland and its territory during the period. Again, the fact that there are parallel categories directed to political entities, such as maps of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, do not detract from or undermine the basic framework for maps of territories of the European countries as noted above. On the contrary, these various parallel political entities can be and often are called out. This has already been implemented in many cases as part of the "See also:" sections (and associated categories) - and those are in themselves both helpful and an informative cross-reference - for the centuries in which they are relevant.

Your final comments related to the term "contemporary" are not relevant to the definition for reasons noted above. But to the extent it appears in other contexts, my reported "disdain" for the phrasing "contemporary old maps" derives from the fact that the word contemporary is most often used in English to mean current or modern. I would add, of relevance to the "old maps" categories you're referring to, that "1850s maps of Italy" definitely does not mean the same thing as "Maps showing Italy in the 1850s" - nor does the fact that a map was made in the 1850s mean that it is depicting the 1850s. As the wordings clearly imply - again at least in English - 1850s maps of Italy means maps that were made in the 1850s depicting Italy at some time (i.e. from the 1850s or prior). This may be part of the reason that the old maps categories often seem to have problems and could use updating. The over-inclusion problem is another.

In summary, returning to the present case, the categorization using the territories of the existing European countries provides an easily appreciated, quickly navigated and universal framework - closely associated with the Wikimedia Commons project of national atlases and history maps worldwide. At the same time, it provides a framework for efficiently and effectively providing cross-references and links to the various sets of political and other entities that arose, fought over and lost territories, and in most cases changed names and borders over time.

Hopefully these points are clear, and again as these country categories progress there will be plenty of opportunities to add appropriate cross-references to already existing categories that are organized along a different approach (such as various empires and other collectives, as well as geographic groupings like Scandinavia or the British Isles).

If you should have any additional follow-up for now, you can reach me here or by email (I'll send a copy via our prior conversational thread). And all the best in return! Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

So, here comes the response to your counteraguments. I am not entirely sure what you mean with "a different over-categorization than <mine>". I was referring to COM:Overcat, which is part of a policy. What I described as well with the "old maps of Brest" example, and what you seem to be critical of as well, are sub-categories that are too narrow to be helpful. That is not really Overcat, but it is a related abuse of the category system and I do appose it. To take the example of Category:France in the 15th century: I am not the person who has split up that big topic into so many subcategories, and I am sure that some of these are objectionable, but this is how stuff is done here on Commons. Categories about subjects are split up into sub-subjects, and sub-sub-subjects. The categories are all arranged in a hierarchical structure. There is "history of France" with subcats "maps of the history of France" but also "France in the 15th century". The first one, maps of the history... is what I will from now on call "history maps", i.e. maps that depict history as it was seen by historians/people after that history was over. The second one includes all media that pertains to both the country and the century, like "15th-century paintings of France", which was defined by Commons-users as any painting that was created the 15th century AND in France. That means, 19th-century-made book illustrations about 15th-century France are not supposed to be in that category. Faksimiles and copies of original 15th-century works would be allowed, of course. Quite similarly, "15th-century maps of France" are all maps that we are assuming to be genuinely from that very century, created by con-temporary people back then. From here on, I will not use the word contemporary again, and just call these maps-made-about-their-present-time: "old". "Old" maps obviously deserve their spot in the category, because of the time they were made; and they depict geographical situations in a way how people of the time perceived them. "Old maps" and "History maps" are radically different things, and should not be confused or accidentally mixed with each other. They need to be kept in strictly different category structures. (I see that a different user, @Hornstrandir1: , accidentally linked the two, but that is not how it should be. ) That fundamental difference does of course not mean that there are no "old history maps" - those exist of course. But a 19th-century history map about 15th century France just does not belong among the "old (15th c.)" maps, it belongs among the "history maps". On the same note, a late-19th-century history map about early-19th-century history ALSO is a "history" map and not an "old" map. A history map from 1880 that shows France in 1811, belongs into at least three categories: "Maps showing 1811", "1880s maps showing history" and "maps of France in the 19th century". Depending on what exactly is depicted, it could fit into more categories as well. Meanwhile, a map that was produced in 1811 (without the intention to show history), belongs into "1810s maps of France".

And with all this said above, I hope you understand why I want to link "old" maps and "history" maps of the same century in some way, i.e. via a hat-note and description that helps other users to find the history maps from the old maps category, and vice-versa; despite these two map-types not mixed up in any way. That link/hint/notice needs to be there because there should not be any other connection.

Sidenote, this distinction will be hugely difficult to make for historians in the future: Is a map created in 2025 showing data collected in 2005, really a history map, or should it count as an old map? This is going to be tricky. But I see no reason to claim that this depicts the exact same thing as this.

...

So what is my vision? My vision is a category tree that principally follows the hierarchies: continents, (super-regions), countries, (regions/subunits), cities. To name examples, there would be "maps of Europe", "maps of the Benelux", "maps of Belgium", "maps of Flanders", "maps of Bruges". Let me explain on each level what this means for a 1868 map of that subject.

• an 1868 map of Europe is likely to be NOT in 1868 maps of Europe, in the end. Currently, that category only has three genuine maps of Europe that were actually produced in 1868. The modern history maps need to be removed, and the maps that are depicting locations in Europe but not the whole of Europe or at least a large part of Europe, need to be placed downwards the hierarchy, on the country-level or on the city-level even. Once all inapproriately-categorized maps are removed from that category, I think it should be redirected to the decade-level: Assembling all genuine old maps of that decade should neatly fill the 1860s maps of Europe with probably 20-50 maps, and all of them with the same subject. Sub-categories are the countries, of course.
• an 1868 map of Western Europe (but not the whole Europe) would probably be placed also in the 1860s maps of Europe category, unless there are more maps of that subject than I am currently aware of. On the subject of "central Europe" and "eastern Europe", there are many more maps that I am aware of, which is why I am slowly filling up those categories already.
• an 1868 map of the Benelux would be placed in 19th-century maps of the Benelux. I don't think that it makes much sense to subdivide that super-region by decade, though that may change when more maps are found. In my opinion, there should be at least ten maps of the same decade, to justify a new subdivision.
• an 1868 map of Belgium would be placed in 1860s maps of Belgium. Since the Benelux is a rather small-ish super-region and because it is not yet subdivided by decade, this categury currently also holds 1860s maps of the Benelux, but also maps that are dedicated to only Belgium, and also lots of topographical maps that would form a complete map of Belgium if one pieces them together.
• a 1868 map of Flanders would be placed in 19th-century maps of Flanders. That category currently doesn't exist yet, but I think there is enough material on Commons to fill that category already. The old maps of Belgium are currently categorized rather hap-hazardly, I think Commons will eventually be able to do better. Please compare 17th-century maps of Flanders, but there is one issue that needs to be adressed: Flanders was historically considered "one" region until 1831, and it just makes no sense to create "17th-century maps of East Flanders". If there is enough material to go with "19th-century maps of East-Flanders" and "19th-century maps of West Flanders", with maps that show these regions more or less separated, that split-up would be indicated. Otherwise, it would not be indicated. Certainly with the 21st century, we can make these distinctions, please see OpenStreetMap maps of Belgium where I did exactly that. Please note that a topographic map that stretches (for example) over both Brabant and East Flanders, would obviously be placed in both "Brabant" and "Flanders"... but not in the category "Belgium". That again is, obviously, because "Maps of Brabant" is a subcategory of "Maps of Belgium".
• a 1868 map of Bruges would be placed in Old maps of Bruges, or hopefully in a by-century subcategory. Right now, old maps of Bruges are not sorted by creation date (sort-keys to indicate years would solve that problem), but instead many of them are sorted by creator. At some point years ago, I went and sorted these creators chronologically with sort-keys, but that still doesn't tell me in which century each of them flourished and created their own maps of the city.
• after having gone down from Europe to Bruges, let me quickly explain how these levels are still connected with each other: "19th-century maps of Bruges" would be a subcategory of "19th-century maps of cities in Belgium", "19th-century maps of Flanders", "Bruges in the 19th century" and "Old maps of Bruges"; "Old maps of Bruges" is in turn a sub-category of "Old maps of cities in Belgium", "Old maps of Flanders", "Maps of Bruges" and "History of Bruges". ("Maps of the history of Bruges" are, again, a different thing, but also in both of the two latter categories and not the two former ones).
• "19th-century maps of (East) Flanders" would be a subcategory of "19th-century maps of Belgium", "Old maps of Flanders" and "Flanders in the 19th century", with hopefully a neat navigation bar pointing towards all the other maps of provinces of Belgium in the 19th century. / "19th-century maps of Belgium" would be a subcategory of "Benelux" and "Europe", ... and so on, I don't think I need to repeat all parts of the scheme.

In total, my vision for the "old maps" is a hierarchical web of categories where a user can navigate up and down the geographical extent, as well as navigate the centuries (or, provided enough content, the decades). For areas where there are not enough maps to justify a subdivision by century, "old maps of..." will have to do. In my opinion, Old maps of New York City is currently a pretty good model of how that vision works.

...

So that vision above was on "old maps". Now, for "history maps", which is actually the substance of the matter. I would suggest a much similar structure, but one that remains more on the country level, because most history maps are more superficial than topographical maps. For many countries, we certainly don't need even need "maps of the history of...", because history maps of certain countries don't even separate them up by modern countries. Examples include the Balkans, the Baltics, Scandinavia, the Low Countries, or for example Arabia. The country of "Jordan" was invented in the 20th century; we don't need "maps of Jordan in the 13th century". The same goes for Belgium, I had quite a snarky dissertation on the subject, but I cut it out of this response. Instead, I would like to play Socrates and ask about what exactly are the differences here, and what is expected of the maps that will fill the category described that way:

• This category is about maps of the history of Poland in the 16th century (1501-1600 CE).
• This category is directed to maps showing all or substantially all of the territory of modern-day Poland - as the lands were in the 16th century (1501-1600 CE)

Can you show me examples for any country where either definition disqualfifies a map that would be included by the other definition, provided that the map does show the history of that country? Which definition is more distinct? Which is easier understood by non-native English speakers? Which is easier to translate?

I will stand by my earlier proposals: Categories are collections of similar items, not directions for users. Users can be guided by descriptions, of course, and since Commons is multilingual, it is best to simplify as much as possible.

We should not bend definitions to direct map categories towards user expectations (as we in our own bias expect other users to have them). Instead, we should direct users towards the maps that are systemized based on historical geographical definitions.

As I have made clear in my vision, I DO like the idea of more cross-references between the categories; and especially having them correctly put into the categoriy hierarchy and enable the navigation between them all.

--Enyavar (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC) (dark-past-midnight, again...)

Although we have a few different things we're "concerned about," I think those generally relate to different issues (or no pun intended ; ) categories) in connection with old and/or history maps. Regarding the key separation between the two, I don't know if I would go so far as to say that 'Old maps' and 'History maps' are "radically different things" - since they can be interconnected and some maps simultaneously fit into both - but I absolutely agree that they are conceptually different. More specifically than generalized terms such as "old" versus "history," it is certain that "15th-century maps of France" and "Maps of France in the 15th century" - while potentially related - are expressing or "tracking" as we say, two different concepts.

With the changes we started discussing a year or so ago, the basic wording also now more clearly distinguishes between the two. So I fully agreed with the proposed new system: replacing "Maps of 15th-century France" with the more distinctive new format: "Maps of France in the 15th century."

I also generally agree with your overall approach to the "Old maps" categories - and now appreciate that the over-categorization that can make such maps hard to find (in so many narrow 'drawers') is something that you're working to minimize, not promote.

As you know, I'm principally concerned with building out the newer system, i.e. "Maps of Country X in the Nth century." I think it's fine for you to generically refer to these as "history" maps - since that's why they're typically looked to - but the category itself appropriately specifies the subject matter (rather than the intended use, the type of creator etc.). Put another way, the two category sets ("15th century maps of France" and "Maps of France in the 15th century") reflect the two different concepts of subject matter, and they do so clearly and expressly in their very wording.

I believe that a remaining point relates to a subset of maps that might simultaneously intersect both categories, in particular what you were previously referring to as "contemporary Old maps." With the country-by-century "history maps" categories being now more narrowly defined as proposed, there should in fact be far fewer of these overlaps. However, if a particular map happens to satisfy the now-precise definition for the history maps category (e.g. a map showing all or most of the territory of current France as it was in the 15th century), then it should not be excluded from the group for the sole reason that it happened to have also been published in the 15th century (versus the 16th or later) - indeed that would seem to be both inconsistent with the clear names of the categories, and illogical. Again, the narrower definition applied to the categories for the histories of European countries should I believe keep the number of such "double entrants" reasonably low. I also strongly believe that when it comes to maps actually showing entire or nearly-entire territories of our European countries, it is particularly useful to have a group available to choose from since there are various interests from multiple perspectives - and the grouping together in a gallery allows users to quickly visualize the group and select one that best matches their interests (level of detail, size, cities included, regional borders, neighboring countries, coloration, etc.)

The importance of and interest in the countries of the world is in fact expressly recognized and reflected as being the principal exception to the general Overcat policy Commons:Categories#Exception for images with more categorized subjects:

"Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories."

As a related point (and a collegial request), please do keep the foregoing principles and categorization policy for countries in mind in connection with occasionally "de-categorizing" maps showing the territories of current European (or other) countries at various times in the past, including maps serving as the basis for some of these country-based categories. There are often very few such maps available - especially for earlier time periods and for less commonly represented countries - so it is particularly important that they be included among the relevant categories, and not generally an issue with respect to the categories becoming over-populated. As always, if and when that might actually occur, it can be handled by subcategorizations (to the extent necessary). If you do happen to notice any such whole-country historic map categories that have become so over-populated that they're in substantial need of subcategorization, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Returning to our case, the countries of Europe are - as previously noted and as reflected in the revised country maps categories - the current countries of Europe, with their existing territories being well defined.

Wikimedia Commons Atlases are likewise consistent. As previously noted, the "History maps" definition makes clear that they are referring to the territories of the present-day countries (see, e.g. Atlas of France#History maps) - again as reflected in the revised categories. Some of those maps are modern and some of them are old - but the key point is that they are reflecting the current territory in prior centuries.

In sum, the revised descriptions are fully consistent with these Wikimedia principles and policies - and appropriate cross-referencing and categorization can be provided as proposed - consistent with the recognition that the countries of Europe, and indeed the World, are of such general interest and importance that they fully justify being reflected and grouped along multiple perspectives.

Regarding the technical point and Socratic question at the end of your note, there are of course various "topical" maps related to the history of Poland (including some in the 16th century) that are not actually maps showing the territory of Poland. Examples of various sorts of such topical maps can be found, appropriately I would add, under the various subcategories of Category:Maps of the history of Poland.

With that I think we both still have much work to do along our parallel paths, but to quote one of my favorite Buddhist proverbs: "If we're facing in the right direction, all we have to do is keep walking" (although I might add: … even if some adjustments are needed along the way). With those perspectives, I'll continue to flesh out and populate these country-specific historic categories and if it appears that adjustments become needed can certainly consider them and refine as necessary. Your fellow Wikimedian and cartophile, Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

PS - Our conversations and a review of the associated categories has inspired an updated format, incorporating reference to the Wikimedia Commons country atlases (which provide a summary overview of each country's territory), and the "Maps of the history of country" category (which provide links to the other various subcategories).

An example of the updated format can now be seen at Category:Maps of Belgium in the 15th century. Ty's Commons (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I am truly horrified. I created Maps of the Low Countries in the 15th century exactly to prevent people from splitting up the region by modern boundaries.

You are talking about the southern part of the "Seventeen Provinces", a history-rich region that was part of Burgund until Burgund was swallowed by France and the Low Countries were swallowed by Spain. Cue the revolt of the United Netherlands who split off in the 17th century; while the Spanish Netherlands became eventually the Austrian Netherlands. The name of "Belgium" was (re-)established with an entirely new territorial meaning in the late 18th century, and was not codified until the mid-19th century.

Sure, we can say that "Belgium" did exist in the 16th century already, and cartographer Gerardus Mercator created the Belgii inferioris-maps in his Atlas, on the same hierarchical level as "Gallia", "Germania" and "Italiae". Mercator's Belgium stretched from Artesia (French Artois) over Lutzenburg (Luxembourg) over Brabantia and Flandria straigh up to Geldria (Dutch Gelderland) and Hollandia and Zeelandt. Which means that Belgium, "as the lands were" in the 16th century, was mostly identical with today's Benelux area; and the Low Countries were identical with Belgium, and so were the Netherlands. That means that all four categories "Low Countries"/"Belgium"/"Netherlands"/"Luxembourg" overlap so much that the Venn diagrams becomes circular. Checking the current content you placed there... Yes that is exactly what happened.

For no good reason, you quadruplicated one category into four categories which are looking more or less all the same, and apparently you'd like to get praise for that "inspiration"?

It makes a lot of sense to have "Maps of the history of Belgium in the 18/19/20th century" because we can expect different content than "...of the Netherlands in...". But the same idea is not true for any earlier centuries, especially not for... *gasp*, you went as far back as the 8th century? I am shocked. This is not justified by any geographical or historical background.

...

This turns out to be more than just finding the perfect wording for a hatnote. I have created a CfD on that matter. --Enyavar (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If there's anything shocking (I'm trying to maintain patience and not be "horrified") it is your suggestion that a parallel category you created (more on that below) should also be used to "prevent people" from recognizing much less organizing history maps according to the countries whose territories match the corresponding history. (Indeed the history of each of our European countries and their lands is essentially made up of the various entities and events that will be effectively reflected.)

We have also discussed the need for an organizing framework that is not principally much less solely dependent on an interested visitor or average user having to effectively know a priori not only background histories of various earlier entities and groupings, their variety of names, timings etc. - and further about possible alternative categorizations.

Your very example is an illustrative case in point - and indeed underscores why an organized and easy-to-navigate system is needed:

"You are talking about the southern part of the "Seventeen Provinces", a history-rich region that was part of Burgunduntil Burgund was swallowed by France and the Low Countries were swallowed by Spain. Cue the revolt of the United Netherlands who split off in the 17th century; while the Spanish Netherlands became eventually the Austrian Netherlands. The name of "Belgium" was (re-)established with an entirely new territorial meaning in the late 18th century, and was not codified until the mid-19th century."

While I certainly know about these various partitionings, renamings and other transformations (and of course there are many more for the history of Belgium and other countries) - should we assume or even suppose that average users or visitors who know little of European much less Belgian history would? On the contrary, these examples - and you're only talking about a relatively brief period for one region - underscore the need for a system that is both organized and easy to access and navigate for visitors and users not steeped in each local history.

Indeed a principal benefit of the system being developed is that users unfamiliar with the various details, name variations and complex transformations can not only easily use and navigate the historic maps - but the resulting 'galleries' containing the associated maps directly and pictorially inform such users of the various entities, names, evolving borders and other aspects of each country's history over the preceding centuries. Cross-referencing as we've discussed to parallel regional and other relevant thematic categories is likewise facilitated because relevant connections can be included for each country. (Additional reasons for such an organized system, as well its basic framework and its consistency with Wikimedia principles and policies are included in my prior comments.)

As you know, the system is only just being developed since it was initiated but not significantly advanced before. Given its scope (and with distractions that have also been discussed) I have barely been able to focus on completing the corresponding categories much less advance the follow-on work of sorting through and selecting appropriate maps (which as discussed are often scattered across the old maps categories and elsewhere).

You misinterpret the updated format as well. As noted, each country's history category serves as a base for "incorporating reference to the Wikimedia Commons country atlases (which provide a summary overview of each country's territory), and the "Maps of the history of country" category (which provide links to the other various subcategories)."

Turning to your regional agglomeration of "the Low Countries," I am not saying that the term should not be used or reflected as a parallel grouping. We have several of these, including the Baltics, the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula and Scandinavia. What I am saying is that these potential parallel groupings of neighboring countries do not and should not undercut much less prevent the categorization of subjects by country.

The fundamental reasons for this should be clear but let me frame just a few obvious ones. In the case of our initial example, the Low Countries is neither a distinct cultural entity such as the Basque Country or Catalonia nor was it generally a single sovereign state. Indeed the name itself tells us that, even when the term was used it was referring not to a single country (as in the "Low Country" or in Dutch Nederland) but to countries, plural (i.e. "the Low Countries" or in Dutch Nederlanden). Nor was the term consistently or uniformly applied. It is also not historically a substitute for the territories of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Indeed, while it originally developed as name for the lower parts of the region, as the name implies, that extended into the Rhineland and was associated with "Lower Lotharingia" - as opposed to the upper regions that eventually formed southern Belgium and Luxembourg. Conversely Flanders, which was generally considered part of the lower countries region is not entirely within the Benelux region either.

As summarized in the article Low Countries, even in cases in which related terminology was used, the constituent countries and lands also varied depending on the time-relevant controlling entities:

"Historically, the term Low Countries arose at the Court of the Dukes of Burgundy, who used the term les pays de par deçà  ("the lands over here") for the Low Countries as opposed to les pays de par delà ("the lands over there") for the Duchy of Burgundy and the Free County of Burgundy, which were part of their realm but geographically disconnected from the Low Countries.

"The Netherlands is a country whose name has the same etymology and origin as the name for the region Low Countries since "nether" means "low". In the Dutch language, De Lage Landen is the modern term for Low Countries, De Nederlanden (plural) is in use for the 16th-century domains of Charles V, the historic Low Countries, and Nederland (singular) is the normal Dutch name for the country of the Netherlands. However, in official use, the name of the kingdom is still the Kingdom of the Netherlands Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (plural). The name derives from the 19th-century origins of the kingdom, which originally included present-day Belgium."

…

Another source of confusion is variations across languages - which is a further concern for databases such as Wikimedia that are intended to be and are translated across languages. For example, in many languages the nomenclature "Low Countries" can both refer to the cultural and historical region comprising present-day Netherlands and sometimes Belgium and Luxembourg (and potentially other areas depending on time) - and/or to "the Netherlands" alone, e.g., les Pays-Bas (i.e. the country name for the Netherlands in French versus Belgique for Belgium), similarly in Spanish (los Países Bajos meaning the Netherlands versus Bélgica for Belgium) and Italian (i Paesi Bassi and Belgio).

The terminology is thus varying, context-dependent, language-dependent and a source of recognized confusion. As summarized in Terminology of the Low Countries:

"The Low Countries - and the Netherlands and Belgium - had in their history exceptionally many and widely varying names, resulting in equally varying names in different languages. There is diversity even within languages: the use of one word for the country and another for the adjective form is common. This holds for English, where Dutch is the adjective form for the country "the Netherlands". Moreover, many languages have the same word for both the country of the Netherlands and the region of the Low Countries, e.g., French (les Pays-Bas), Spanish (los Países Bajos) and Portuguese (Países Baixos). The complicated nomenclature is a source of confusion for outsiders, and is due to the long history of the language, the culture and the frequent changes of economic and military power within the Low Countries over the past 2,000 years."

As noted then, I have not nor do I object to use of the term for a parallel set of categories - although that is fraught with issues for reasons noted here and elsewhere.

What I do object to is any suggestion that categories based on the territory of Belgium should be essentially linked to the Netherlands and both in turn should be subsumed into the "Low Countries" usage. You have gone so far as to assert in our parallel discussion that "the Low Countries were identical with Belgium, and so were the Netherlands" - which is not correct.

Similarly, from the perspective of maps, the territory of Belgium and its history is not the same as the territory of the Netherlands and its history. The fact that some maps portray the lands collectively (just as some maps portray Scandinavian countries together, or Spain and Portugal together) in no way implies or suggests that these are "identical" or merged entities - or that the various European countries therefore have identical or merged histories.

You also suggest in our discussion that 18th/19th-century Belgium did not exist earlier. But again you are talking about a particular political entity versus the territory of the country at issue (which is the focus of our map categories). Moreover, the same "argument" levelled against Belgium is applicable to many if not most of our European countries. Among other prominent examples, Italy was united as an entity in 1861, and Germany in 1871. So similarly, it would seem there should be no categories reflecting maps of the territories of the present-day countries of Italy or Germany prior to the 19th century. I don't believe that serves anyone's interest particularly well and is certainly not consistent with the presentation of maps in the Wikimedia Commons Atlases of the World's countries or elsewhere.

Such an approach is also inconsistent with other standard categorization across Wikimedia Commons. To cite just a few examples that you should be familiar with, the principal organizing category - Category:History of Belgium by period - does not just go back to 1830, but covers the territory of Belgium extending back to the Roman period and earlier (as "Prehistoric Belgium"). The same is true for Italy and Germany, and all the various countries of Europe you could like to 'cut short' or merge into various conglomerations of your choosing such as Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Ukraine, etc.

So the issue then is not really whether the category Maps of the Low Countries in the 15th century should or should not exist. There are clearly concerns with respect to it as noted above, but I am not opposed to keeping it, either as a cross-reference or parallel category. But that is not a basis to say that categories related to our actual European countries, their territories and their histories, should be merged. Just the opposite - to do so is to conflate the histories of our European countries and to effectively suppress their different pathways and compositions - both internal and external. Again, the fact that the territories are sometimes reflected together on the same map in no way suggests that the territories of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg - nor their respective histories - are "the same topic."

Finally but not unimportantly, the "regional agglomeration approach" does a disservice to all of the various individual provincial/regional and historic entities that combined to make up the various countries that exist today. To parse your example, a key significance of Holland, Geldria and Utrecht is that they were effectively combined to form parts of the Netherlands - whereas Brabant, part of Flanders and other areas make Belgium what it is. To effectively throw all of these together into a blended agglomeration is to thus to not only ignore the fact that the history of Belgium is different than the history of the Netherlands, but to obscure the historic relationships linking Holland, Geldria and Utrecht to the Netherlands, and Brabant and Flanders to Belgium. That is not only unnecessary and inconsistent with their respective histories but might rather be regarded offensive. It is also inconsistent with the organizational schemes of countries on Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere. Again, these respective histories are not "quadruplicated" versions of the same topic. While they are neighboring lands that were sometimes subject to the same or parallel external forces, they are unique - and those individual lands and associated histories are what makes each of the current countries unique from each other.

As a procedural matter, I have only just begun to populate the individual country-based categories - being repeatedly distracted by what might be regarded as efforts to obstruct them - including manipulations to remove maps reflecting the territory of certain countries in order to cause the category to become empty and then deleted. There are also as you know a number of key maps that have effectively been made very difficult to locate by being placed into an endless variety of separate narrow drawers. Your category Old Maps of Belgium contains just under 9,000 individual maps for example, but many are not in fact organized as maps of Belgium. In parallel, instead of the maps being effectively sorted into general categories, such as maps reflecting countries' overall territories, they are sequestered into drawers such as "Maps showing the 1640s" - in turn subcategorized into "Maps showing 1640, Maps showing 1644, Maps showing 1645, Maps showing 1646, Maps showing 1648 and Maps showing 1649." (And yet these are somehow all considered helpful categorization and subcategorization techniques whereas maps showing the territory of Belgium in the 17th century are not.)

Needless to say, these approaches make the identification of maps corresponding to these categories more difficult. And when initial maps are used simply to establish the categories and link them, you have removed them to obstruct the process or jumped in as here to distract from it by suggesting that the categories should be reviewed before they can even be finalized and populated. Please stop removing maps from the categories to which they fit so that these categories can be developed and the variety of individual countries can each have an appropriate place to include maps that reflect their territories over time, as well as incorporate cross-referenced to other categories of interest to each country.

Your CfD re Maps of the Low Countries represents yet another distraction of sorts - since again the question is not whether such parallel categories might and in some cases should exist. I will, however, both respond to the points raised and use it as an opportunity to flesh out and summarize the reasons for and basis of the country-based territorial system we are discussing here.

Finally, since despite all of our discussions and the clear emphasis provided in the desciptions, you at times continue to conflate the territory or land-based approach with an entity-based approach - I am assuming not purposely - I will plan to make the distinction clearer in the names as well. The revised language would read: Maps of Belgium (the land) in the Nth century - and the descriptions will continue to make quite clear what is referred to as well. I will plan to make adjustments via redirects since there may well be use for the original category names once these are populated more fully.

As discussed previously, once the country-based categories are populated we can then assess further what, when and in which contexts the additional related categories such as regional agglomerations remain as useful, and if so how the parallel categories are best cross-referenced. Ty's Commons (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I suddenly understand why people reply to me with "tl;dr" even when I try to break down complicated stuff into concise paragraphs. In In this instance, some of your paragraphs are copies of what you wrote in the CfD, but I noticed enough differences that I realized these are two different write-ups.

There are several points you bring up here, that were not part of the CfD arguments, and I'd like to address them.

One fundamental misconceptions that I see is that you regard categories as galleries akin to the world atlas. That is not the case, categories are boxes to collect files about the same subject - in triplicates even. The Atlas project is a curated page much like Wikipedia articles are: you are not covering the exact same subject twice, nor would you include falsified maps (marking falsified maps is a thing I care about; but these false maps are not excluded from categories). As far as I am concerned, the Atlas is also free to mix old maps and history maps together, or to show both next to each other for comparisons sake. That is why I say it again: The category structure is not a gallery, and does not exist to supplement or enhance the Atlas. In a similar fashion, the Atlas does not need to reflect the category tree. Burgundy, Savoyen or Scotland do not need to be represented in the Atlas, but these were real countries in the past, with real borders and real history that is distinct from their modern successor nations, and so they get actual categories that should be as valued as the categories about Belgium or the Netherlands. And I think I even saw you make that point with Russia at some spot, where you argued to be careful not to confuse Russia with its historical/regional entities.

Because there were not many categorized history maps until recently, one "history-of-category" was sufficient for most countries, for the longest time. It was for a better overview that I began to create subcategories by-century, but I followed a set example by others; only to call them and other collaborators after having done some countries, and arguing that we should switch the pattern. It does not seem as if you were trying to fault me for not having created a finished category system, but let me assure you nevertheless, I regard this all as incremental work. In the usual case, there is no need to hammer out a final category system right away. Instead, I look for patterns. If there are not enough maps for location-in-century, I usually just do not create new categories. You did the other approach: Pre-creating a lot of categories and then looking for maps to place inside, even sometimes desperately cropping out from larger history maps to have at least a single file to show.

That is, you mostly did the latter after I removed some misplaced categories from files. Above, you accused me of distracting your work, but all I did was removing categories that these maps just do not belong into. (I will refer you to point G+I in the CfD, maps of Scandinavia are understood to be maps of Sweden by their nature, thus Sweden-categories are Overcat.) When I saw how much you changed there in such a short time, seemingly unaware of how categories are intended, I asked and notified you; and then you just added the "Maps of Norway/Sweden/Denmark by century" categories on top. I hate to work at cross-purposes with others, so once you replied on the 28th, I largely stopped my editing on the Scandinavia branches despite the urge to weed out old maps from the history categories that you added.

Oh, one other point, on "History of Belgium by period". You did not point out the one map subcategory of that one. I have not edited in that branch, ever, I was unaware of it until just now. You will find it contains only maps of the modern period of Belgium. Because there are no maps showing Belgium in the middle ages or ancient times. Because Belgium in its modern definition did not exist until the 1790s. There are maps that show today's territories of Belgium in ancient times, but here we are again back to the bad definitions where you define historical countries by the modern territories of their successor states of today, just because the Atlas uses that approach.

That's all I could think of right now in response. Have a great week, I guess we will read more of each other. --Enyavar (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not in fact assert that our categories are "galleries akin to the world atlas" - nor did I suggest that the category structure "exist(s) to supplement or enhance the Wikimedia Commons Atlases." I do, however, believe that certain organizational methodologies and rationales used in the development of historical atlases - as well as in the curated Wikimedia Commons Atlases - have a number of attributes that are both related to and helpful in the organization of maps showing the histories of countries. Indeed, not only are historical atlases likewise collections of maps showing the histories of countries - but many of our most important maps showing the histories of countries were themselves actually developed for (and our images derived from) such historical atlases. The curated Wikimedia Commons Atlases likewise represent analogous rationally-developed frameworks for organizing maps showing the histories of countries. That includes, for each, a section entitled "History maps" which naturally addresses, e.g. for Belgium: "the history of the area of present-day Belgium, illustrated with maps, including historical maps of former countries and empires that included present-day Belgium."

Your point that "categories are boxes to collect files about the same subject - in triplicates even" is certainly relevant - but I have never suggested otherwise. On the contrary, as noted above and in the Wikimedia Commons Atlas texts, the selected maps can only represent a "short summary" of each country's history (naturally and necessarily so that each country's history can be briefly presented on a readily-loadable page). Indeed, I addressed these very points, including the distinction between the Wikimedia Commons Atlas pages and our categories of interest in the related Cfd:

Since each Atlas is a Gallery page intended to provide a brief overview of the history of corresponding territories, it features an overview of the country and its territory, as well as selected general maps and some historical maps highlighting the two millennia of its history. It cannot practically also serve as a repository for the many additional maps that more fully reflect the country's history.

I also emphasized that the overall categorization structure of Wikimedia Commons is likewise consistent with the organizational framework being applied:

·     Wikimedia Commons overall organization of maps: Consistent with the principles and practical points noted above, Wikimedia Commons likewise organizes maps (as well as many other types of files) by country - and these countries are likewise principally organized based on the set of current countries (see, e.g., the meta category Category:Maps by country).

Regarding the terms Scandinavia and Scandinavian, these raise issues not unlike that of the Low Countries because they are used in different ways at different times and by different people - and indeed the component countries differ in these contexts as well. Geographically, the Scandinavian peninsula is generally implied (which includes Norway and Sweden); whereas linguistically and culturally, the grouping is often used to refer to Denmark, Norway and Sweden; and, finally, because of some political connections, Finland and/or Iceland are sometime included. For these reasons, clearer groupings such as the Nordic countries, which unambiguously encompass all five (much as the Benelux region to unambiguously encompass its trio), would be preferable.

Regarding your suggestion that "maps of Scandinavia are understood to be maps of Sweden by nature, thus Sweden-categories are Overcat," that would be incorrect as a matter of fact, as well as applicable categorization principles. Regarding the former, the topic of Sweden is of course not the same as the topic of Scandinavia, and the territory of Sweden is not the same as the territory of Scandinavia (and vice versa).

Scandinavia or the Nordic countries or Nordic region can of course be used as a regional "grouping" of countries. Such regional groupings have been discussed before and are more the subject of the associated CfD.

Regarding individual maps, some maps depict multiple countries and therefore multiple subjects. This is quite natural since many countries may be conveniently depicted with their neighbors. Take for example a map showing both Norway and Sweden (there are a number of these).

Take this one for example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Collier%27s_1921_Norway_-_Map_of_Norway_and_Sweden.jpg

Is it a map of Norway? Yes, of course it is, since it shows Norway. Does the inclusion of Sweden make it a "non-map" of Norway? No, of course not, for the same reason (i.e. it shows Norway). Is it a map of Sweden? Of course it is, since it shows Sweden. Does the inclusion of Norway somehow make it not a map of Sweden? Again, no.

But now to the bigger question - which goes to the heart of a number of our discussion points, your tendencies (or "urges" as you sometimes rightly call them), and my sometimes annoyed reactions. Should such a map showing both Norway and Sweden be removed from a category directed to maps of Norway in the relevant period - and instead be exclusively shifted to a parent category such as Scandinavia?

The answer is again no, for several key reasons - and I do regard such decategorization and displacement as being both improper (i.e. inconsistent with categorization principles) and unhelpful (i.e. unnecessary and in some ways harmful).

Regarding proper categorization, several core principles are to be applied to categorization across Wikimedia Commons - and across users; as expressly stated at the outset of Commons:Categories :

·      "This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone must follow."

First, an approach of effectively merging subjects into a higher level of categorization is considered to be not in compliance with either of the following key categorization principles:

·      "Modularity principle": The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories).

·      "Selectivity principle": We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous.

Second, an approach of effectively merging certain countries or subsets of countries into a higher level of categorization is considered to be not in compliance with the universality principle applicable to all countries:

·      "Universality principle": Identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible.

Third, such an approach is not in compliance or furtherance of the over-categorization or "overcat" policy as it relates to images with multiple relevant subjects:

·      "A file that depicts only one relevant subject should not be over-categorized."

·      Files depicting "additional relevant subjects" are properly placed into those specific categories - as reflected in the Modularity principle above (the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)).  

This principle is further emphasized explicitly in connection with the overcat policy itself - to also cover cases in which corresponding subcategories do not yet exist:

·      "Where a file depicts additional relevant subjects, and the additional subjects do not have their own subcategories, consideration can be given to temporarily categorizing the image in both the subcategory and the parent category."

Fourth, the approach ignores the key (and again explicit) topic-based exception to the overcat policy - and that is the exception to the overcat policy as it applies to countries. In particular, the countries of the world are recognized as being of such significance that they are specifically called out as exceptions to the general overcat rules and policy:

·      "Exception for images with more categorized subjects - Countries: Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. For example, Category:India is in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia."

In the same way, Category:Norway is properly in Category:Scandinavia as well as Category: Countries of Europe.

Fifth, the approach leads to an under-categorization problem. If the map showing Norway is not included in its relevant subcategory of maps showing Norway, then a user viewing the Norway category does not see it, instead seeing only other maps of Norway that may or not be the best for the user's purpose(s), but naturally assumes that those were the complete group. This sort of problem is even more acute for smaller countries and/or countries exclusively displaced into larger regional groupings such as the Balkans.

Finally, the occasional problem of over-categorization - even for those situations in which it is (i) applicable, (ii) not in violation of broader principles, and (iii) not subject to an exception (such as multi-subject files and/or countries) - is essentially intended to based on need (i.e. required for addressing an actual problem). Again this is both expressly reflected and discussed in the Wikimedia Commons official policies related to over-categorization:

·      "On lower levels, the problem becomes less acute, since the number of images will be smaller — they can still easily reach into the hundreds, though."

In such cases,

·      "The result is that the top category fills up, making it necessary to go through hundreds, or in this case more likely thousands of images to find the one you want."

As noted in our discussions, such situations are unlikely because the tightly-defined categories and relatively limited numbers of relevant maps reduce the numbers substantially. However, if and when any particular category or categories should become over-populated, they can easily be addressed through appropriate subcategories.

Again let's see where I get to and we can then consider whether any such situations of over-populated categories either actually arise or seem likely to arise. I appreciate your recognition that this is "incremental work" and am continuing to do my best to advance it. While this project is being developed, and therefore the contents of various pages are likewise in development, I would appreciate your further recognition of another core principle related to categorization:

·      "For more appropriate categorization": Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents.

I am not as you suggest "trying to fault you for not having created a finished category system." While I have indeed approached this organizational framework with the benefits of hindsight and a prospective focus (i.e. planning its layout rather than reacting to various piles of maps) - I do also recognize that you are trying and adapting as well (and have a very large number of maps to address).

At the same time, please also respect my interest in and efforts toward developing a system that is not only easy to use and navigate but is also in compliance and furtherance of the Universality principle applicable to countries, including in particular:

·      (i) Identical forms of treatment for all countries: "Identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization");

·      (ii) Systematic structure: "The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible"); and

·      (iii) Analogic organization: "Analogic categorization branches should have an analogic structure.")

Thanks again for your help in these regards and as always I remain interested in working together in a collegial and cooperative manner. All the best, Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal...

...again, did not exist in the 5th or even 8th century. The Iberian Peninsula: Did. This is yet again more categories attached to files that will just need to be removed later. --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Similar sorts of comments have been made and addressed previously - and once again you're veering off-course rather than focusing on the actual categories at issue - and most importantly on the corresponding categorization policies and systems for addressing all current countries and their respective histories across Wikimedia Commons.

Spain like every other current country has a defined territory (its geographic area), that territory has a history, and that history is a key part of the history of Spain. Indeed it relates to much of the history of Spain, including the historic regions, entities and events that make Spain what it is. The same goes for Portugal. And the history of Spain and its territory is not the same as the history of Portugal and its territory (in the same way that the history of Belgium and its territory is not the same as the history of the Netherlands and its territory).

Those territories and histories are distinct subjects regardless of the fact that some maps (particularly in historical atlases) naturally included or reflected both together since they are adjacent to each other on the Iberian peninsula, and the subject matter of such maps thus includes both. The geographic area of the peninsula of course did not change in recorded history. So the focus and purpose of a series of such maps is not to depict the evolution of the peninsula per se but rather the evolving series of entities that controlled various territories within it. And those are the territories that reflect the history of Spain and the history of Portugal, respectively.

There are of course intersections between the history of Spain and the history of Portugal - as is true for virtually every set of neighboring countries in Europe - each of which has a territory with its own history (including tribal backgrounds, internal organizations and evolution, various series of external controlling forces and frequently conflicts). In the case of Spain and Portugal, should there be any difficulty appreciating distinctions between the history of Spain and its territory from that of Portugal and its territory, you can review them at the Atlas of Spain and the Atlas of Portugal, respectively - and of course their distinct histories and territories are likewise reflected across Wikipedia and essentially all other publications and databases.

The histories of Spain and of Portugal are likewise distinguished and treated in separate categorization schemes across Wikimedia Commons - which reflect their histories back through recorded time; see, e.g., the following Wikimedia Commons parent categories: Category:History of Spain and Category:History of Portugal.

Beyond Spain and Portugal (and the Benelux countries), should you have any remaining question or doubt regarding the application of categorization standards to any of the countries of Europe - or should you be unaware that Wikimedia Commons organizes the history of Europe according to the present countries of Europe - then please review the following meta category: Category:History of Europe by country.

Regarding every country's history, you will note that our community-wide categorization for the history of Europe by country is based on each current country of Europe - and then categorizes each country's history, which naturally extends backward in time through recorded history (including any and all time-relevant predecessor entities). So the history of Belgium, which among other things certainly includes the history of its territory or geographic area backward in time, does not extend only to 1830 (nor does Italy extend back only to 1861, Germany only to 1871, etc.). On the contrary, the entire categorization scheme extends back through history (and in many cases to the pre-historic period) for virtually every current country of Europe. Thus, in the case of essentially every country, its history therefore includes and reflects not only its current political state or entity but the various predecessor entities that contained or controlled all or parts of its territory over time.

In the case of Portugal, for example, you can readily confirm from the Wikimedia Commons parent category, Category:History of Portugal. that its history includes the various predecessor entities that made up that history, including not only the republics and Kingdom of Portugal, but various prior entities both within and beyond the territory, extending backward through the modern and medieval periods to the classic.

- The Wikimedia Commons metacategory Category:History of Portugal by period likewise extends from the modern period back through the middle ages to antiquity.

- The Wikimedia Commons metacategory Category:Portugal by century similarly extends back through the middle ages to antiquity.

- The Wikimedia Commons metacategory Category:Countries of Europe by century is again based essentially on the current countries of Europe, and their histories are extended back through the centuries, typically to the classic period and in a number of cases beyond. You will notice that the only exceptional additions to the uniform categorizations by current countries are for the parallel inclusion of prior empires and similar political entitles that spanned large regions (such as the Roman Empire, the Frankish Empire, the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, and entities such as Yugoslavia).

The same goes for maps reflecting the history of each country - which again are categorized according to the current countries of Europe and their corresponding territories - and then extended backward in time to reflect and encompass their history through the recorded era; see e.g., the metacategory Category:Maps of the history of Europe by country.

You will also notice that with respect to the Maps of the history of Europe by country, the earlier political entities are typically not included. So instead of maps of the history of Yugoslavia, we have maps of the history of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, etc. And maps showing the histories of these countries likewise extend back through time.

Finally, all of these global categorization frameworks by country - extending the history of each current country backward in time rather than merging or directing it into other countries, groupings or prior entities - is consistent with the overarching Wikimedia Commons categorization policy and corresponding principles. Among these, the separate and distinct categorizations for the history of any country and its territory are consistent with the "Universality principle" (providing for more specific categorization rather than simply placing into parent categories); the "Selectivity principle" (avoiding multi-subject categories); and the "Universality principle" (categorizing systematically and uniformly across all countries). As is clearly reflected at the very top of Commons:Categories: "This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons" and "is considered a standard that ''everyone must follow.''

In accordance with the foregoing treatments of the histories of countries, please do not substitute your own policies or categorization principles for those reflected in our official community categorization policy and principles - and as reflected in the global organizational framework for the histories of all current countries (which histories include their prior and associated entities back through recorded history). If you should have any concerns regarding adhering to these policies and principles, please let me know.

Going forward with these policies and principles in mind, please do not manipulate files or categories on the basis of your own policies and principles in place of official ones, do not obstruct categorization frameworks that are consistent with and in furtherance of official policies and principles, and do not interfere with categories for historic maps or other subjects that are established in accordance with our global framework of categories and metacategories related to the histories of our current countries. With respect to individual files, please do not remove categorizations related to the history of these countries from any maps or any other files pertaining to their histories - and do not do so for other countries.

Your cooperation is both expected and appreciated. Ty's Commons (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Ty, Commons is not your personal fiefdom, as much as your username claims otherwise. Your final statement of "cooperation is expected" sounds like you are speaking collectively for all users on Commons that have united behind your statement. I don't think that happened, or can you name any user who explicitly agreed to your text above? It is also ironic that you advise me to not substitute your own policies or categorization principles for those reflected in our official community categorization policy and principles when you do exactly the thing you advise against.

Now, it is you who claims that the current borders of countries are the only universally respected truth forever and that are present in maps of all history in the past, and that for that reason, we need country-categories for all centuries. That principle is flawed however.

When I say that Spain did not exist at some point in the past, my point is not about the Spanish Crown only existing since 1516, and that there would thus not be a concept of Spain further down the past. No. Instead, my point is that we do not have history maps that exclusively focus on Spain, for that point in the past. I did create categories for history maps that focus exclusively on what we call Spain today, like Maps of Spain in the 12th century. This category assembled all available maps that show history of Spain but not history of the whole Iberian Peninsula, because the latter results in Overcat. Regrettably, your your redefinition is now disqualifying all twelve maps I placed in the category (territory definition problem, see below).

On the other hand, your creation of Maps of Spain in the 7th century results in more Overcat because all these maps are showing the same territories as is expected of Maps of Portugal in the 7th century (red, but with content) AND as the Maps of the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo in the 7th century. The content of all these three categories belongs into the larger region, i.e. Maps of the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th century. As a result, no map focusing exclusively on "Spain" or "Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo" would remain in the subcategories, which means that they can be replaced with redirects to the regional category, to serve the purpose and prevents Overcat. That is the reason why I have advised against these superflues categories in the first place: All we have is history maps of the larger region, and not a single map that only shows Spain but excludes Portugal, or the other way around. --Enyavar (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Enyavar, as a foundational matter (and repeated issue) you've somehow developed quite the wrong notion about the significance of our official policy regarding categorization - treating it as if it's a matter for debate.

Commons:Categories is in fact our written policy that guides and and governs categorization across Wikimedia Commons, as is emphasized very clearly: "This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons" and "is considered a standard that ''everyone must follow.'' If my user name reflects a space on the Comnons and a commitment to act in accordance with our community's policies and principles then I am happy with it. In other words, we are living on the Commons and subject to its policies, not the code of Enyavar. That is the key reason why I have always tried to emphasize the applicable policy and principles.

Please also stop misquoting me and mischaracterizing discussion points for rhetorical effect - which you again do repeatedly in a manner that only deflects from and compounds issues rather than addressing them thoughtfully. I never stated that "the current borders of countries are the only universally respected truth forever and that are present in maps of all history in the past, and that for that reason, we need country-categories for all centuries."

Indeed I never suggested that maps must only be organized according to the history of our current countries. I did however point out that substantial organizational frameworks across Wikimedia Commons organize the history of each and every current country in a consistent and uniform manner. I didn't create any of our overarching organizational framework, metacategories, or parent categories, that extensively organize the history of Europe by country, beginning with our existing countries and then naturally extending each of their histories backward in time (which of course is what history implies). But - neither surprsingly nor coincidentally - they all appear to adhere to and indeed to be a direct application of the categorization principles applicable to countries, including the Universality principle, which expressly provides that: The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible.

In any case, the overarching framework for organizing the history of each European country in that manner is in place and it complies with the categorization policy and applicable principles - so it is cerainly a consistent basis for organizing related files including maps.

Turning to the follow-on points. As with Belgium and the Netherlands, I do appreciate the apparent recognition that the history of Spain and the history of Portugal each encompass and reflect various prior entities that controlled all or parts of their territories over time. Indeed I'm not sure why or how anyone would seriously suggest that Spain's history does not include its own tribes and peoples as well as various invading and competing entities such as the Romans, the Visigoths and the Ummayad Caliphate and various successors. In parallel, those and all other entities likewise have their histories. Each of these represents distinct subject and are appropriately categorized as such, with subcategorization and/or cross-references as appropriate.

I also now appreciate your having recognized and having previously applied the principle that our countries' histories extend back to prior periods of time. Indeed, you note that you initially created the category Maps of Spain in the 12th century and have taken steps to populate it - for both of which I applaud your efforts. But the history of Spain does not trace back only to the 12th century either, as is equally clear - and I now fully acknowledge that you are not suggesting that. Indeed I note that you also created the next prior categories for Maps of Spain in the 11th and 10th centuries.

While we are in general agreement on the foregoing matters, and I might even say I am largely following the path that you began (as our conversation beginning a year ago essentially reflects), Spain serves as a perfectly good example of how the remaining period of its prior history might best be addressed. You've essentially followed what would generally be referred to as an ad hoc approach. That is understandable and happens in many contexts - with so many projects to attend to, and the time it takes to organize in advance, it's easier to just wait. But there are several reasons for having a more systematic framework in place, including the following.

- First, among our vast collection of maps on Wikimedia Commons, I can't imagine anyone seriously doubting that there already are and will continue to be maps that reflect the history of Spain and the history of Portugal, and others that reflect one or the other (indeed you yourself have identified a number of them to be discussed further below). As you well know, I've only recently begun to set up additional categories and have barely begun to populate them. Having categories in place not only facilitates my activities in populating them with appropriate maps but also provides the easiest means for others to do so going forward.

- Second, as noted above and in other contexts, countries play a central role in the overarching hierarchy of subject matter across Wikimedia Commons - and both our countries and their histories are the subject of established and systematic organizational frameworks across Wikimedia and other databases.

- Third, our official categorization policy and principles expressly address categorizations by country in several pertinent ways, including calling for systematic and unified categorization.

- Fourth, our overall categorization framework for countries is likewise consistent with the organization by countries and their histories - reflecting prior entities and earlier centuries alike through appropriate categorization and subcategorization (rather than simply merging at various time and places into regional agglomerations or other entities).

- Fifth, and consistently, our official policy regarding categorization likewise distinguishes the signficance of country-based categorizations

These points should likewise not be in serious dispute, but you do raise certain additional points that should be addressed. You are effectively suggesting that maps reflecting the history of Spain and the history of Portugal should not be categorized as either but should instead only be categorized with reference to the Iberian Peninsula, suggesting that this is somehow mandated by our categorization and Overcat policy. But it is not - in fact it conflicts with them.

First and foremost is the overall categorization policy, for which the Selectivity principle clearly instructs that: "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category" - and that "multi-subject categories should be avoided."

The subsidiary overcat policy provides entirely consistent guidance with respect to files. In particular, the overcat policy expressly recognizes and provides two pertinent exception labelled as "Exception for images with more categorized subjects."

The first pertinent exception provides that while files depicting "only one relevant subject matter" should not be over-categorized, files depicting "additional relevant subjects" are treated differently. Moreover, it even provides express guidance for the situation in which corresponding subcategories do not yet exist. (The precise text of our categorization policy is as follows: A file that depicts only one relevant subject should not be over-categorized. Where a file depicts additional relevant subjects, and the additional subjects do not have their own subcategories, consideration can be given to temporarily categorizing the image in both the subcategory and the parent category.)

The second is that our official policy provides an exception related to countries, expressly providing that they may be categorized "as part of multiple overlapping categories" (including, e.g., within regional groupings as well as individually).

These are not considered debate points, the categorization policy is clear and applicable to all users.

However, your other basic point (which is essentially related to smaller regions) remains to be fully addressed since the focus has been countries rather than regions and localities. In your example, you note maps that relate to the history of Spain in the relevant time period but are limited to certain regions. These are of course another good example as to why the corresponding category exists - but the question is how best to handle these and other examples. (The answer should not of course be to push them up to a higher level category - such as dumping all such maps into an Iberian peninsula catch-all bucket - since they essentially relate to the history of Spain).

My principal interest in having the parent category definition be clear has been to avoid having the parent category become either overcrowded or cluttered - these being the key reasons for the overcat policy - and there being no corresponding exception applicable to regions and localities. I have also seen from personal experience how frustrating it can be to search for maps of countries such as France for example, only to have categories stuffed beyond useful searching because maps of localities are included in a category that is supposed to be maps of France. The unhelpful "solutions" were equally frustrating - reducing overcrowding by separating and sequestering maps - not by subject matter but by year of publication (which of course is not subject matter). In order to avoid having these categories becoming similarly cluttered, the most basic approach consistent with our categorization policies and principles would be to group them into an appropriate subcategory. For now, I've noted that "Additional maps related to the history of Spain (including larger entities comprising or controlling the territory, smaller entities within the territory, and colonial territories) can be found at Maps of the history of Spain" - but I can also make reference as I've seen in other parent categories to the inclusion of regions or localities being properly placed within subcategories as appropriate.

You can let me know your thoughts on that now or we can address it further once the categories are more fully populated with corresponding maps. Ty's Commons (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Territory definition problem

We also still have the "territory" definition problem. Can you please tell me how you intend to re-categorize File:Województwo lubelskie w drugiej połowie XVI wieku.jpg? After all, by your definition, it does not belong into "Maps of Poland in the 16th century". By the definition that I suggested to you above (This category is about maps of the history of Poland in the 16th century (1501-1600 CE).), it does. We must allow maps that only represent parts of a country, and we should not exclude history maps that fall outside of its modern borders either. --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no problem known or referred to in Wikimedia Commons regarding the territories of the countries of Europe since they are indeed precisely known, defined and referenced across Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere. Their histories are likewise organized, categorized and presented by country - based on the known and defined territories of the current countries of Europe. See, for example, the metacategories Category:Countries of Europe by name and Category:History of Europe by country.

You will note in the established metacategories that the countries of Europe and their histories are essentially categorized based on the territories of the current countries of Europe - the exceptional additions being for larger political entities that previously included or controlled the territories of multiple countries (e.g. the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire and the Soviet Union).

In response to your follow-on question, you need only look to the corresponding category (such as Category:Maps of Poland in the 16th century). If a map at issue shows the territory referred to, then it is within the subject matter. No one has suggested that a map that also includes additional territory should be "excluded." Indeed quite to the contrary, as has been repeatedly emphasized, using various examples, a map that shows the territory of Norway at a particular time does not somehow fail to show that territory because some or all of Sweden was also shown. In other words, indicating that a map shows the territory of Norway at a particular period does not mean that it must only show the territory of Norway and not show anything more than the territory of Norway. That is the very reason that a map showing both Norway and Sweden should be categorized as both a map showing Norway and a map showing Sweden, which are distinct subjects. Similarly, a map showing the territory of Poland or Lithuania does not somehow fail to show that territory because their area of control also included additional lands at certain periods of time.

As also emphasized previously, the official Wikimedia Commons Overcat policy is likewise both clear and consistent: "A file that depicts only one relevant subject should not be over-categorized."  Files depicting "additional relevant subjects" are properly placed into corresponding categories as reflected in the Modularity principle. Ty's Commons (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no problem known?? Ty, I have pointed out the problem to you, excplicitly and repeatedly, ever since you changed the definition. You exclude maps of the history of Poland, whenever they do not show all or most of Poland. Your talk about Norway and Sweden, above, shows that you have apparently still not even recognized that you are excluding Lublin Voivedeship from the Polish history. A map of Lublin Voivedeship does not show "all or most of modern Polish territory". I am bolding these words to make the point clear why I think your definition is awkward and bad.

To the matter at hand, your definition is an attempt to exclude this file from being a valid map of Poland in the 16th century, because this map fails at the showing all or most of the territory (geographic area) of modern-day Poland-part of your definition. Because the map only shows a fraction of modern-day Poland, your argument is that it does not show Poland in the 16th century, at all. However, I cannot even see you making a counter-proposal of what else this history map is really about, if not Polish history. I see only two possible solutions:

• Either, you must create new categories for each voivodeship by century. (Maps of Lublin Voivodeship in the 16th century, defined as Maps showing all or most of the territory (geographic area) of modern-day Lublin Voivodeship - as the lands were in the 16th century (1501-1600 CE). That is frankly ridiculous, given how many administrative reforms there have been since the 16th century. Also, it re-creates the same problem just one step further down the line, because any history map of Lublin Voivedeship that does not show the entire Voivodeship would be by definition not a history map of the Voivodeship. For example, File:Komarow.png. Do you want to create a category tree that goes down as far as Maps of Gmina Komarów Osada in the 20th century?
• Or, you must revise your definition to allow partial maps that do not "show all the territory". That would be my preference, and my proposal for the much less exclusive definition stands.

That is the issue here. Just because you still refuse to acknowledge that your definition causes a problem, does not mean that "there is no problem known" when your category hat-note contradicts the plain category title. --Enyavar (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It's now apparent that you're not actually referring to a "Territory definition problem" - but rather to the treatment of regions within the territory.

In particular, as noted, the word "territory" as used in the current categories - i.e. "territory (geographic area) of modern-day Spain - as the lands were in thre Nth century" - is "precisely known, defined and referenced across Wikimedia Commons and elsewhere." And we've also already addressed maps including additional territory or territories. A map showing the territory of Spain doesn't become a "non-map" of Spain because Portugal or France were also shown.

So the remaining point concerns the treatment of smaller regions that are part of a country's history at the relevant time but which show only smaller portions of its territory.

As I believe we've discussed previously, the principal interest in having the category definition be clear is to avoid it becoming cluttered. I've seen this regularly in other contexts in which, for example, categories that should be directed to maps of France are cluttered with maps of localities and regions, and of course a map of Lyon is not a map showing France.

As noted, the most appropriate solution is to use subcategories when and as appropriate. Not only is that the standard across Wikimedia Commons but it serves the very goals that the categorization policy and principles are organized around: placing files into appropriate subcategories rather than cluttering parent categories. Since the parent categories are relatively new and not yet cluttered, I'd intended that any issues would be addressed as the categories are established and populated. But recognizing that I've criticized ad hoc approaches in view of where they've taken things in the past - and that you're rightfully applying my own logic in return - I agree that it should be proactively addressed.

In that regard, I do appreciate your follow-on point regarding the naming and evolutionary complexities of the various regions - which as you note have the potential to "re-create" the same sort of naming and evolutionary complexities that are being addressed at the level of the countries themselves. But with the overall territory (geographic area) being defined, any smaller regions of the territory are readily addressible as well, i.e. as "regions" of the territory at the corresponding time period - in which case it can include any and all such regions.

This not only addresses your Polish "Voivodeship" sort of problem but also avoids having to colloquially address and in many cases argue about things like the names of various regions, or worry about their variations in naming or scope over time. Use of the well-understood and commonly applied word regions within the categories likewise satisfies and indeed furthers the Universality standard application to countries: "The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible. Analogic categorization branches should have an analogic structure."

I'm more than willing to make the corresponding changes across the various parent categories; and since these will be done in accordance with the Universality principle and systematic unified structure, it will be relatively easy to do and there will be no naming issues to worry about since we shouldn't need to create any subgroupings unless they become crowded. There are two ways of placing the word "regions": (i) Maps of Poland (regions) in the 16th century; and (ii) Maps of Poland in the 16th century (regions). Both of these would address the matter in a readily-understood and systematic manner. The former seems preferable at least in English from the perspective of having the word regions be as close as possible to the overall territory, but if you believe there is some compelling reason to prefer the latter then let me know.

As within any such subcategory of course, files within them can always be further grouped if helpful. But even in that case (such as a group of maps showing the Lublin Voivodeship), I don’t see any need or basis to also suggest that they should show all of the territory since these more local maps will already be sufficiently and appropriately defined. Ty's Commons (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Before you now go and create 20 new categories with one file each, could you please first create a CfD for "Maps of Poland in the 16th-century", to introduce that topic to the community? This is not an urgent matter for me, and I want the ramifications properly discussed. For example, how you plan to link these voivodeship-in-the-16th-century categories from the the Poland-in-the-16th-century category, when they cannot be subcategories by definition. Are you going to insert 20 new lines in the hatnote?

By the way, I do find it ironic that in this thread you argue in favor of hiding away relevant files in a series of complicated sub-categorizaties, while at the same time you argue in another threat against hidden files and "unhelpful categorization". --Enyavar (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Links to the Atlas project

You have now added additional links to the "Atlas of Country" into the definition hatnote of each country-century-category. I checked with "Category:Maps of France in the 8th century": there is no sub-page for some "Atlas of France in the 8th century". Instead, the added link leads to a general "Maps of France" page in the Atlas, and is not even anchored to the history maps section. Instead of applying that same link to each century-category, it should rather be included in the description of Maps of France, and a #History_maps-link to the Maps of the history of France. --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons Atlases of all of our countries provide information about the corresponding territories of interest, both current and past, as well as their evolution in European history, along with maps, references and corresponding technical and historic information.

The Atlas of France, for example, provides extensive information and maps related to the existing territory of France, as well as the evolution of the territory over two millenia of its history. In doing so, it introduces in text and files the various entities that were involved in the history of France, reflecting their names, extent, and corresponding time periods. It also reflects the periods of France's history - from its early history to the Romans, the Franks, the Kingdom of France, to the French Republic and the French Empire. As has already been discussed, it is not intended to be nor is it a category to collect all maps reflecting the history of France through the centuries (indeed that is a basic purpose of categories and subcategories). It does however include a representative number of relevant maps covering key periods and entities. Its curated collection is of course a work in progress as with all projects on Wikimedia Commons. Indeed a key value of cross-referencing is that both users as well as contributors can be apprised of relevant information and related subject matter, and can also readily find other files of potential interest to them.

Why you would find supporting and facilitating such informational interests and cross-referencing to be somehow undesired from your perspective is quite hard to fathom unless your goal is to make things harder to understand and/or to find. (That will in fact likely need to be the topic of separate discussions regarding unhelpful de-categorizations, and sequestering maps reflecting related subject matter into separate categories based not on their subject matter but on their year of publication.)

In the meantime, your suggestion to eliminate cross-references to the corresponding Wikimedia Commons Atlas for each country whose history is being addressed (or any other cross-reference to related subject matter) is considered to be both unhelpful and inappropriate. Indeed it would be quite surprising if there were some official policy of Wikimedia Commons suggesting that we should instead suppress cross-references to related information and subject matter. Not only would such a policy be unhelpful but it would certainly be of concern in a number of contexts across our community. Ty's Commons (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, first: The Category tree is not primarily supposed to guide Users to potentially useful files that have previously interested others. That kind of user guidance and advertizing is for Amazon, not for Wikimedia. "You appear interested in "Maps of France in the 8th century, are you looking for..."

Then second: "..., are you looking for a general overview about the history of the French Republic, starting with today's administrative divisions?" (If you check the "Atlas of France" page: The history section is far below the start of the page. So even assuming the users are interested in the Atlas, they will have to scroll down 13 screen pages to find... not a single map that shows France in the 8th century. Currently that very Atlas, while having lots of maps that may have been vetted by other users as helpful, does not satisfy the curiousity about France in the 8th century. The Atlas fails at the "further information available" part. You point out that it is a work in progress, but that just means that the Atlas is not yet ready to fulfill the role you advertize it for.

Now third: I pointed out above, that I find these links on the century-level misplaced and redundant. On the general history level, a link to the history section of the Atlas could be helpful. Lo, forsooth and indeed! --Enyavar (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Wikimedia Commons extensive and ongoing atlases of our country's histories (such as our Atlas of Spain) - which not only reflect contributions from many members of our community but which are quite closely related to categories of maps showing the territories and histories of these same countries - I was certainly very surprised by your suggestion that cross-references to the Wikimedia Atlases should actually be effectively suppressed from corresponding categories.

But I'm honestly even more shocked by your suggestion that the "Category tree is not primarily supposed to guide Users to potentially useful files." If the category tree and categorization in general is not primarily supposed to guide (and help) users to find potentially useful files, then I think we have much bigger discussions to have - and they should certainly be brought to the attention of other users - both in connection with the atlas projects and otherwise.

Indeed, if you truly believe what you're suggesting, then our overall Wikimedia categorization principles, which are in large part directed to that very goal of helping users to find what they're looking for, would need to be substantially rewritten. I'm assuming that what you wrote was another unintentional remark, but I do wish you would give more careful thought to these points before you dash them out - which I think would save a lot of discussion time and frustration.

Regarding the actual atlases, as noted they're not intended to be a category to collect all relevant maps - nor to fill every decade or century - but rather to reflect the overall entities (names, territories etc.) that came and went along the course of France's history.

Going forward (assuming I don’t have to continue wasting time on unnecessary distractions), I'll look forward to incorporating additional maps that have been effectively hidden away by unhelpful categorization as we've discussed. Those maps will be well placed additions into our categories - based on map subject matter rather than map publication year. And selected maps will also be added to our atlases. Ty's Commons (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, you complain that I may have misunderstood or misrepresented subtleties of your standpoints, and then you misquote me? I wrote "not primarily supposed to guide Users to potentially useful files that have previously interested others." The next sentence makes that reference to Amazon-level marketing clear as well. An hour ago, I created a category for a city atlas. You will see that I didn't place a link to "other city atlases by the same author are...", or "Additional maps related to the history of <city> can be found...".

The category tree is a hierarchical tree intended to hold files based on their properties, and not an advertising scheme for possible adjacently-related content. Category hatnotes are there to clarify category content. --Enyavar (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hidden files

You write about "effectively hidden away files". Do you have any examples? I have seen that complaint several times by now, but you never provide links, which makes it quite hard to understand your point there. Who has hidden which files where? --Enyavar (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)