Category talk:Maps by subject

Related category discussions

Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted. Category:Maps by theme This category is a subcategory of Category:Maps. This category, Category:Maps by theme, adds nothing. It just confuses people going to Category:Maps. I believe that Category:Maps by theme should be eliminated, and its contents recategorized to Category:Maps. Category:Maps is where stuff is supposed to be organized by theme. Many people go to Category:Maps to try to get an overall picture of the map categories. They may not even notice Category:Maps by theme. I didn't at first. So I missed many of the available map categories. Category:Maps by theme is a form of over-categorization. --Timeshifter 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) The reason for why I think Category:Maps by theme is a suitable subcategory is because when it comes to maps the main subdivision is by geography. /Lokal_Profil 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) All the map categories in both Category:Maps and Category:Maps by theme are geographically based. I checked them all. Non-geographically-based maps have been removed. They are linked from a note at the top of Category:Maps. It says This category's subcategories are for geographical maps. For other types of maps, such as mathematical mappings, please use another category, such as Category:Architectural plans or Category:Diagrams. For genealogical maps see: Category:Genealogical maps. Since Category:Maps by theme is just more geographically-based map categories it is very confusing. And why did you do this. History maps are a common geographically-based map subcategory. See w:Category:Maps of Egypt for example. It has a history map subcategory. See also w:Category:Maps of the Middle East. It has a history map subcategory. See also w:Category:Maps. It also has a history map subcategory. So at all levels history maps are an integral top-level subcategory. I categorize a lot of maps. Please note the subcategory system at w:Category:Maps. It does not have a "Maps by theme" category. It just puts all the themes (topics) at the top level, and then subdivides from there. It makes a lot more intuitive sense. --Timeshifter 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry I was a bit uclear. Obviously all of the maps in the category are geographical maps. What I meant was that the main subdivision is by geographical subdivision i.e. Maps by continent, Maps by cities, etc. The by theme maps are different in that they present mor then mere geographical information. Also not that the en.wiki maps category also doesen't have Maps by cartographer, Maps by century made, Maps by century shown, Maps by language, etc. /Lokal_Profil 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Please see w:Geography. Geography covers much more than borders, boundaries, and topography. All the topics covered by Category:Maps by theme are also geographical categories. Follow w:Category:Geography down the subcategory tree, and see the vast territory covered by the name "geography". For example; history maps are oftentimes just old mappings of borders and cities. They would come under your more narrow categorization for geographical maps. But some of the history maps have battles marked, etc.. So how does one categorize history maps, then? At the top level Category:Maps, or by the history theme? How do we categorize Maps by century made, Maps by century shown, etc.. Those are also on the history theme. They are currently categorized under Category:Maps. See the problem? If geography was a narrow category with a narrow definition, then I would agree with you concerning the need for Category:Maps by theme. But it just adds another confusing layer. Basically, you are using political geography at the top level. What about Category:Climate maps and Category:Religion maps? Those are also part of the broad definition of geography at w:Geography.--Timeshifter 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (Unindent) OK. I can see some benefits from having a "Maps by theme" category. As long as people know to look for it. I edited the introduction of Category:Maps. Here is part of the current introduction: This category's subcategories are for geographically-based maps. The top level categories are for basic geography maps of countries, cities, continents, regions, seas, etc.. See the subcategory Category:Maps by theme for many additional, geographically-based maps covering history, archaeology, economics, politics, military, battles, flags, linguistics, sports, religion, population, ethnography, geology, geographic features, bio-geography, fisheries, disease, topography, protected areas, site plans, transport, bridges, communications, celestial maps, time zones, weather, music, etc.. See also the Atlas index. Atlases are organized and commented collections of geographical, political and historical maps. See also: Category:Satellite pictures. So readers can now easily find any type of map. --Timeshifter 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Although the list of examples might be shortened down a bit I like the way you sorted it out. Especially with Category:Maps of geographical features. =) /Lokal_Profil 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps by theme

This discussion is copied here from Category talk:Thematic maps by Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is already Category:Maps by theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I created this cat because it seems to me there is a difference between "Map by theme" and "thematic map". As far as I know thematic maps are a specific main type of maps. That is confirmed in the multiple English, German, Dutch ... Wikipedia articles about thematic map.

Now I already noticed this category has been deleted before May 2006, because it was replaced by Category:Maps by theme. I created this category any way, because in my perception the "thematic map" is a "map by type", and should be listed in the Category:Maps by type. And I guess most maps in the Category:Maps by theme could be considered thematic maps.

I wish you would have first made this remark before clearing this category. This procedure is clear here. If you want to have a category removed, you first propose it and wait with removing all content. I will restore soem of it for now, to give other an impression were we are talking about here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I created this category in the first place is, because I was improving the w:Thematic map article in the English Wikipedia and was wondering, which content in Wikicommons relates to thematic map.

Now based on my own intuition, I have narrowed it down to three categories:

• Category:Cartograms (3 C, 54 F)
• Category:Flow maps (12 F)
• Category:Maps by theme (55 C)

The German article however gives a much longer list. This makes me wonder, what should be considered a thematic map.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) As a native speaker of English I believe that "Maps by theme" means the same thing as "Thematic maps". So it is a mistake to create a duplicate category in my opinion.

I believe Category:Flow maps belongs in Category:Maps by type because a flow map is a type of map that can have different themes. The same is true for Category:Cartograms. A cartogram is a type of map that can have different themes.

So a map can be categorized both by type and theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be that the two generally mean the same for an outsider. As far as I know both in English and in other languages, for example Dutch, the "thematic map" is a specific type of map. Why else is there a specific article about it?

I think Flow maps and Cartograms can be considered both thematic maps and type of maps. The other type of maps in the Category:Maps by type can't be considered to be both.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

From reading w:Thematic map it seems that the 2 categories mean the same thing: "A thematic map is a simple map made to reflect a particular theme about a geographic area. Thematic maps can portray physical, social, political, cultural, economic, sociological, agricultural, or any other aspects of a city, state, region, nation, or continent."

Those are the same maps found in Category:Maps by theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point here that, as far as I know, the "Thematic map" is considered a specific kind of map. You are right that the given prescription could also relate to the images listed in Category:Maps by theme. That is why I added that category here in this category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any special meaning of "thematic map" that would distinguish the 2 categories. As far as I know the categories are exactly the same. Maybe you are trying to create a new meaning for "thematic map"? Please see:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:%22thematic+map%22

In both categories there are maps with themes. They are thematic maps.

A flow map does not have a theme until the theme is named and there are labels for the arrows. So a flow map is a type of map. It is not a thematic map. It is a type of blank map until there is a theme that the arrows are illustrating. Such as the number of people in a migration, or the amount of goods being traded. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe your are right. Maybe flow maps are cartograms aren't generally considered thematic maps, and then the Category:Thematic maps is redundant. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and will move the Thematic maps intro here to the Category:Maps by theme, and make the Category:Thematic maps a redirect.

Then we can close this discussion for know. I want to experience first, if this solution suits me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:MetaCat

{{MetaCat|64}} versus {{MetaCat}}

Why is a number being added to this template? As far as I know it does nothing. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It does something. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Template:MetaCat does not say anything about adding a number. What does the number do? Why that number? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Never took a look at the source code of the template? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are not going to answer the question, then I will remove the number. I doubt you are using the correct number anyway. Why would the number of subcategories matter to the use of the template? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you remove a number from a template if you don't know the function? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you make many mistakes. You have a poor understanding of English at times. I believe this is the relevant source code:

{{Autotranslate|1={{{1|}}}|base=MetaCat}}<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{PAGESINCAT:{{PAGENAME}}|R}}|{{{1}}}||[[Category:Non-empty meta categories]]}}| }}[[Category:Meta categories]]</includeonly>

I don't understand complex wikitext like this very well. I don't think it is asking for the number of subcategories. You added the number "64" which is the number of subcategories.

I see that adding anything after the |bar| adds this hidden category:

Category:Non-empty meta categories

{{MetaCat|*}} does the same thing. So I was correct in saying that you were not doing it right, and that adding the number of subcategories is not correct. You could have just answered my question, and told me about the hidden category. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not do the same thing what is straight forward to find out. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. It adds this hidden category:

Category:Non-empty meta categories --Timeshifter (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How many reverts from you is it gonna take till you realize that if the number matches the number of cats and when there are no files in the cat than it gets categorized into empty meta cat and if it does not match it gets categorized into non-empty meta cat? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not work that way. It is the number of files at the top level that matter, and not the number of subcategories. The number of subcategories does not matter. The category is considered empty when there are no files at the top level. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Count of reverts: 1

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Documentation for Template:MetaCat

Template:MetaCat

Please see: Category talk:Non-empty meta categories#What is the correct way to put a meta category into this category? --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)