Category talk:Maps/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Subcategory: Subway maps

I disagree with the name of the subcategory "Subway maps". "Subway" is a term mostly used in North America. A more appropriate international name would be "Metro maps" --Dominic Sayers 12:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

historical maps vs. History maps

In German there is a difference between these two words. Is it in English too?

  • historical map = old map / from a historic time. (e.g. a map from 1800)
  • history map = "modern" thematic map with a historical theme. (e.g. a map about French revolution)

Do we need a subcategory History Maps? --Langläufer 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of "Category:Maps"

Here is my proposal, on how we should handle all maps of every kind: First we have to turn the article Maps into a redirect to "Category:Maps". Then we put several categories inside of "Category:Maps" (we will have to rename a few)

"Maps of Europe", "Maps of Africa", "Maps of Asia", "Maps of North America", "Maps of South America", "Maps of Australia", "Maps of Antartica", "Maps per language" (for maps of the diffent languages), "Maps per religion" (diffrent faiths), "Maps of the Moon" (instead of Lunar maps), Maps of Mars (etc for all maps and images of all the planets and moons), "Old Maps" (for old maps, more than 100 years), "Maps per country", etc. There is simply NO need to have a sub called "Maps by continent". Let´s follow the example of Europe.

Inside of "Maps of Europe" we should have all maps and images which show Europe along diffrent views (geographical, linguistical, religious, etc). "Maps of Europe" would also have subs like "Maps of the EU", "Maps of Spain", "Maps of France", etc, "Maps of the Roman Empire", "Maps of the Byzantine Empire" (I know that these later states don´t exist anymore, but soo what? Ppl will still look for them following these links, so lets keep it simple).

Only IF needed (if there are simply too many maps) should we create more categories like "Maps of European Languages" and "Maps of European Religions" (let me repeat that: if there aren´t many of these maps, leave them under "Maps of Europe"). Let´s follow the example of Spain.

We have the geographic "Iberian Peninsula" (where Spain is located), today with 3 countries and a British overseas territory: Portugal, Spain, Andorra, and Gibraltar. According to history the Iberian peninsula (and therefore Spain) was inhabitated by the Iberian celts (or Celtic-Iberians or something like that), colonized by the ancient Greeks, the Carthaginians, conquered by the Romans, and invaded and colonized by the muslim Arabs. We had several countries at the time of the Reconquista like Portugal, Aragon, Castilhe, Navarre, and Leon. The later four joined into Spain. At the time of the Discoveries (or shortly after) Spain had a Spanish Empire and Portugal had a Portuguese Empire (alltough the later was never referred as such).

Lets assume the worst (best?) scenario: we have plenty of maps for everything (in fact it isn´t so, but this is only an example). Needless to say that "Category:Maps of Spain" should be a sub of "Category:Spain"

We need the following categories: "Maps of Spain", "Maps of Portugal", "Maps of Andorra", and "Maps of Gilbraltar". Then we need subcategories: "Maps of Pre-Roman Hispania", "Maps of Roman Hispania", and "Maps of muslim Iberia". All of them should be subs of "Maps of Portugal" and ALSO of "Maps of Spain", etc. We don´t need "Maps of Pre-Roman Portugal" or "Maps of Pre-Roman Spain" or "Roman Spain" these countries did not exist at that time (to make these cat´s would only be technical nonsense and add to the confusion). Maps of Roman Hispania should logicaly also be in the category of "Roman Hispania" but there is really no need to create a sub called "Maps of Roman Hispania" (unless there are too many images).

Maps which are (more or less) over 100 years old of these areas should be organized under "Old maps of Spain", "Old maps of Portugal", etc. A old map of Roman Hispania should be under "Old maps of Portugal" AND "Old maps of Spain" and certainly also be in "Old maps of the Roman Empire" and NO-WHERE else. There is no need to create another sub called "Old maps of Roman Hispania". Only if there plenty of maps of Aragon should we create "Maps of Aragon" which should be a sub of "Maps of Spain". Only if we have plenty of images of the Spanish Empire should we create such a sub ("Maps of the Spanish Empire") which should be a sub under "Maps of Spain". A image which shows a territory contested by Spain and by Portugal should appear in both of them, (there isn´t any, but there are plenty of countries which have such a thing). Maps of the city of Madrid should be in the cat "Madrid", and only if there are plenty of maps of Madrid should we create a sub called "Maps of Madrid" which should appear inside of cat "Madrid" and also would appear as a sub in "Maps of Spain".

Articles should be organized under the correct categories. For example: a article about Spanish Maps should be found in "Category:Maps of Spain" (duh). An article about the whole Iberian peninsula should appearin "Maps of Spain" AND "Maps of Portugal", etc. An Article about old spanish maps should appear in "Maps of Spain" and "Old maps of Spain".

Keep it simple as possible, avoid overcatagorization, and create as few subs as we can. Flamarande 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What about a recently made map of say, ancient rome? does this go into 'old maps'? --Astrokey44 05:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As it's recently-made, i.e. made in the past seventy years or so, it would use one or more "Maps of..." categories; for example, Category:Maps of the Roman Empire and/or Category:Maps of the history of Rome (which currently would need creation as a subcategory of Category:Maps of Rome along the lines of other "Maps of the history of..." categories). Best wishes, David Kernow 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps by continent

I don't know what the category looked like when Flamarande argued that there was no need for a category of maps by continent, but at present, I feel there is. 46 subcategories are a bit difficult to overview, and the Maps of continent categories are a major contributor. By moving these to a category that collects them all, the number of subcategories would be reduced to 39 (still too much, but a big leap in the right direction). What say the rest of you? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Flmarande seemed to disappear after a few weeks – and I have been dormant here for [a long time / too long a time], so for now all I feel able to say is (1) "Maps by continent" seems as viable as any other categorization at this level; (2) I see there's plenty of work that's accumulated...!  Aiming to return a little soon, David Kernow 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Commons:Category scheme Maps" proposal

Please comment/contribute to the following, intended as a "Commons:Category scheme Maps" page per Category:Commons category schemes. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is now mirrored from Categories/Maps (edit|talk|history|links)
where it has been made a sub-page of the Categories help page Categories (edit talk links history).
Categories/Maps
End included material
from guideline Categories/Maps (edit talk links history). // FrankB 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

  • I have some doubts about the category Old maps of the history of, I would include them in the map Maps of the history of.
  • There is already a category Maps of countries.

Electionworld 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer -- but of course -- there is no reason to make ALL NEW categories. What makes the most sense going forward is the mission and how all this started last spring. Adding uniformity to disorder in naming is another way to look at some of this proto-project, and there has already been a lot of effort put in place last summer that you have been navigating ever since. Those, alas were the easier changes, as many were by BOT shifts from bad names to sensible ones. But BOTs can't judge things, so now we come to firming up the system of inter-category schemes, documenting it so others can play the same tune, and then grinding through the work for each map we trip over. // FrankB 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Xpost from Template:Ute
David
Will do anon. Among (too many) other tasks, I should soon start addressing/incorporating your category information/observations above; for now, only paying a brief visit. Yours, David (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Something I meant to pass on before: In response to the draft Commons map scheme (Category talk:Maps), User:ElectionWorld has quickly identified that poser about whether distinguishing between "Old maps of the history of" and "Maps of the history of" is worthwhile or too subtle. I'm thinking of shelving that question for the time being and forging on with the rest of the draft (i.e. trying to resolving the other queries included in the draft).
Me
HI there Electionworld! As you can see there is somewhere a draft pending for your talk page Electionworld--I've been having some computer and time problems! // FrankB 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
SIGH!, I've never been able to get back there and finish that post either... nor a related post on Electionworld's page, I've now got various bits an pieces of partial work spanning something like a full week... when I went haring off on a side issue and hadn't time to go back. Ever wish the rest of the world would just stop and let you breath? Fixed up {{Interwikicat-grp}} good enough for now to go on with, so can use that to auto-list the matters I'm concerned with... assuming I can back through related bug stomping first... I think it's on THIS browser! (Get confused!) Note to self, don't edit talks on another tab when edits pending on the others. <G> I'll keep this tab here.
re: distinguishing between "Old maps of the history of" and "Maps of the history of" is worthwhile or too subtle.
Well to tell you the truth, I've never seen a lot of merit in any' 'Old maps of tagging' as one can immediately see such are not 'newish' save for copyrights needs, and those are already handled by copyrights tags.

On the other hand, it makes sense as a category for tracking them because they're old, I just don't see the point of having them separated from the 'new' maps group--which is meant to survey the whole, I'd think. Given that, 'Maps....', 'New maps ...', and 'Old maps ...' make some sense if the first aggregates the other two... or is just the key structural ribs, and one can hang an All maps of, Old maps of, and New maps of sub-cats off those.

Such is the distinctions made by the Maps showing periods, like Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages, and Maps showing the history of Pre-history (I hypothesized that name, but if dealing with people, and advances or phase lines, I'm sure there are maps out there that would fit!) Something showing historio-archeological early Civilizations would niche in there nicely. In sum, I don't see 'Maps showing the history of' as being a candidate for 'Old maps showing the history of', as it's an aggregation scheme, like Maps showing history of the 17th-century or the names in use Maps showing 17th-century history and parent 17th century

          Take note of that dis-juncture in naming for when a BOT is arranged. That damn hyphen is killing me, most times! -- that was three tries, gave up, put down the century cat to look it up! Danged inconsistencies!!! <big swear!>

Bottom line, as I've opined the whole scheme needs a good comprehensive tagging template (or a few with options by cases???) to auto-categorize these and help us humans keep things straight. I've used '#ifexist:' somewhere in my templates, and such can even alert a user that the new category needs initialized. Key word it off of a number of parameter things with different tests, and as I think I said on one of your talks, then it can help avoid inconsistencies in the Heirarchy1 we are defining together NOW and HERE.

Electionworld, you've been doing the most re-catting as David and I are currently peeing on other fires, but hang in there, and note that I've noted how hard you've worked at it. KUDOS... Lot's of good contributions! But don't knock yourself out either, before something like that is ready. One thing that can help you is {{Cat also}}, where the first thing listed is a common pipetrick for sorting... usually the magic word {{PAGENAME}}.

Right now the key work is to get a plan together that will work for most cases... so some test tagging and categorizing is definitely in order, and right now DK and I don't have the time to spend doing that here, save for isolated cases. We will though, in due course, so don't feel you've been abandoned or are working alone.

If you find a particular 'smaller' template will help some, ask me or David here or on en.Wikipedia if you don't feel confident writing your own. One thought might be an front end template that automatically adds PAGENAME for you... call it 'catthis' or 'catpage'. (See {{tlxw}} for a similar front end... that one provides a named parameter... just shift them and call the other template.)

What is key now in initial attempts to tag to the system is to note and document any anomalies or questions raised by tagging along one thrust of the scheme, and by all means note it here so we can group think it. Repetitive and tedious tasks should be templatized. Given a key word, an template can do a lot of the expansion to groups of categories.

We'll both be along fairly soon to give you a hand, as we were in this effort since June/July and both had RL interrupt last fall.

This is all in addition to comments I've for the moment lost in another brower... but something here is way over due! ttfn //FrankB 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
One foot forward?
  • One interesting problem with periodization categories versus over categorization came up for the by centuries versus by period type categories. I discussed it at length with User: LX, here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LX#Maps.2C_maps.2C_and_more_maps.

    I conclude that we need to refine which types in David's table are actually tagging categories, and which are administratively just holding the category tree structure and so are populated only by other category pages... Those are the nodes to define and put in place first, and would (if populated) give us a start on the appropriate branches and tree leafs. We should also tag them with some template like {{Tracking category}} which delineates their administrative purpose and discourages placing maps within. I went off to check a few things, and there already exists a template here for era/periods tagging of the main node pages like: 'Early modern era', 'Middle Ages', 'Industrial Revolution', and etc. // FrankB 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Old maps

I think maps newer than 70 years can also be old maps. Maps become old when the geography they depict changes. A map from the 1980s showing Germnay divided in East and West became old after the reunification of Germany. A map from 2006 showing the municipalites of Denmark became old in 2007 when the division of Denamrk was changed. It might be easier to use that as a definition of the old maps category. /90.229.135.239 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps showing history seems more fitting. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Maps showing the history of countries

I am starting a new section because I have been dealing with this "old maps" issue for awhile across various map categories on both the commons and wikipedia, and I want a fresh look from people. I think the current naming system for old maps is synchronized OK between the commons and wikipedia except for a few exceptions.

The commons has

The equivalent Wikipedia category is:

It would be confusing to use this wikipedia subcategory name:

So I suggest using the commons category names on wikipedia:

Wikipedia already uses the same name for one of the above commons categories.

So I suggest changing w:Category:History maps by country to w:Category:Maps showing the history of countries (that category is empty now).

I thought I would ask here also before going to w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I also asked at

Firstly, let's keep in mind that there is no such thing as the Wikipedia. I personally don't think we need to be overly eager to synchronise categories with any Wikipedia edition, English or otherwise, particularly in this case, as I don't really see why English Wikipedia needs to have map categories.
Non-free maps are specifically mentioned as examples of images which can't be uploaded to English Wikipedia with reference to fair use because they can be replaced with free alternatives, so those categories should only contain images which can either be moved to Commons or deleted. So I'd worry more about doing that and less about how English Wikipedia's categories ought to be structured. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The various wikipedia sites in various languages each have their own category directories. For many reasons. English wikipedia map categories do not need to see all the maps labeled in other languages, for example. Free images are continually being transferred to the commons. But only the English-language ones need to be classified in English wikipedia categories. Through transclusion of the image description pages. The images remain on the wikimedia commons servers.
I cover this in more detail on my user page in this section:
w:User:Timeshifter#Map categories on Wikipedia and the commons.
Let us not waste time on that discussion here. We can talk about that on our talk pages. I would like ontopic discussion here about the synchronization of the category names. It is helpful to have the same category names for several reasons. The {{commonscat}} template and other "sister links" templates for example. --Timeshifter 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How many

How many files in this category? Gridge 16:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Tidying up

maps of fictional places or locations

what to do with Category:SVG maps of fictional places or locations? --W!B: 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

star charts

see Category talk:Astronomical maps --W!B: 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

maps of..

is that identical to Category:Maps of geographical features - which is in Cat:Maps by theme? by now, sorted here are

  • Maps of cities
  • Maps of oceans
  • Maps of seas

furthermore: are the following "geographical features"?

  • Maps of the world
  • (Maps of the) Hemispheres

by now, I sorted Cat:Maps of geographical features into Category:Landforms, because it is the "maps"-branch of that topic - but if we put the others into it, we would have to sort all maps of landforms into the specific landform category

--W!B: 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Subcontinental maps

Category:Subcontinental maps - shouldn't it be in (or merged with) Category:Maps by region (more the national, less then continental) - it will for instance also contain Euregios, as modern concept of "region" includes groups of national territories and subnational divisions --W!B: 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

.. and finally "Maps by.."

to me th following are all of the type "Maps by theme":

if all that above is done, we have only left inhere a real set of by what criteria maps should by sorted

  • Maps by cartographer
  • Maps by century made
  • Maps by century shown
  • Maps by source
  • Maps by language
  • Maps by theme
  • Maps by type (including SVG and Templates)

any map should be placed in that set (the last three as a must, the others optional, the second is Cat:Maps for contemporary by our definition, or we do Cat:Contemporary maps in there - but no real use..)

leaving behind:

  • Superseded maps
  • WikiAtlas
  • Old maps und AOMC

which are Commons interna (licencing, organisation, mainanance)

then we could think about, what is the "main content" of that category:

  • to me "by theme", which is then sorted alphetically, and the Commons interna by « »
  • or we leave it "cleared up", and put only a browsing and categorizing hint inhere..

--W!B: 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion splitting

we have also Template:Oldmapslink, which lead to Commons:Categories/Maps, maybe we should merge this page and that?

to may opinion, Commons:Categories/Maps should have an short "overview" section, so we could include it in the header of that category, or all main branches - the more hints we give, the better any of us will sort..

I added an see also at Commons talk:Categories/Maps --W!B: 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Resources

I've moved a couple from the category page here since they lack information on their copyright status. The free in Free blank map does not necessarily mean free in the same way as Commons requires. Also this whole section shoyld probably be moved to the "free image sources" page. /Lokal_Profil 09:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Unless otherwise noted, the maps included on this web site are produced by the Cartographic Section and are copyrighted by the United Nations. Reproduction of any part without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Reproduction of any part without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful." More info on [5]

/Lokal_Profil 09:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The free outline blank maps page says they are free. Outline maps are not complicated. Free means free. Don't overcomplicate things.

The UC Atlas of Global Inequality maps page is very clear. All they require is attribution.

The UN maps situation is clear here:

An admin, User:ChrisO, worked out that {{UN map}} arrangement with the UN.

If the wording can be improved, and the information made clearer, then feel free to do so. But please don't delete these resources. --Timeshifter 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved resource links to another page

I have moved the resource links to Map resources. --Timeshifter 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction of this category

I wonder if the introduction of this categorie can't be improved, see here. I think there are several things confusing here:

  1. It starts with a content, the intro is missing here
  2. The "Category Maps on sister projects" box needs to be updated.
  3. The "main category" box need to be on top. Or at least I think this is the standard
  4. The automatic content box needs to be avoided. This gives me the impression this is an article.
  5. The first listing of international names is redundant: Deutsch: Landkarten - Ελληνικά: Χάρτες - English: Maps - 中文: 地图 - 日本語: 地図に関するカテゴリ。- Nederlands: Landkaarten - Polski: Mapy. Every body knows the English term "map"
  6. I don't understand the need for a seperate listing of "Resources". Can't you just add these things to the talk page, or in a general gallery about maps.
  7. The introduction text seems much to long. An introduction lay out such as in the category:Diagram, see here seems far more effective and efficient.
  8. Develope a general article/gallery about maps, which gives a general overview, shows examples, and can contain the extra information.

A short and strong introduction will be far more effective here. At the moment the real category information seems hard to find, which isn't very helpfull. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I solved this problem by moving most (to detailled) text to the talk page. The category information itselve is visable again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I reported your blanking of the category introduction in my comment at the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. An introduction worked on by several people over a long time. My last edit comment was to say that someone may report this blanking to the admin notice boards. Here is the version with the introduction:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Maps&oldid=13083878 --Timeshifter (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
ad 5 - please forget it: Commons is an international project - we will internationalize anything! if You do not like it, please use Your CSS to hide languages, You do not understand..
ad 6: You are right, link to Commons:Map resources is fine.
ad 7+8 acc: just lets merge into Commons:Categories/Maps - Category:Commons maps is a fine place for overview - and do a short version for the header - maybe we use some <include>-techique to keep service together?
W!B: (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
@W!B: I guess you are right about "ad 5". But I still don't really understand, that those listing of international names are not redundant, or not. If I arrive he as a user, most of the time is because I was linked here through Wikipedia (the Dutch or the English). I guess in such a case it is not needed. But if you arrive in commons through an image, for example found on "Google images" and went through the category tree (wish was in English)... whoops... I guess it is also not needed. So the question remains here, when and why these texts are needed? The one argument you gave, that "we internationalize any thing", seems rather thin? maybe you can explain what you mean. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
People click on an image from any Wikipedia in any language. They often immediately arrive at the Commons image description page for that image. They then click the English category links at the bottom. They may not know what the English category name means. So the list of category name translations helps them out. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. Why would they "click the English category links at the bottom" in the first, when they don't know what it means? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This question shows how little you know about the Commons. There are many reasons. They may be looking for similar images. They may want to go up or down the category tree to see images on a slightly different topic. They may be looking for images for other Wikipedia articles, their website, their personal curiosity. They may be looking for related Wikipedia articles. Many categories link to articles about the topic of the category. Interwiki links go to those articles and categories in many languages. They may want to do cross-cultural comparisons of articles on the same topic in different languages. Those are just a few of the many reasons. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Category:Commons maps and Commons:Categories/Maps are work pages. They can not be used as disambiguation pages for the general readers of Category:Maps. There are many links to the parent category for general readers, Category:Maps. So many general readers end up there. Therefore, the main disambiguation info has to be at Category:Maps, and not at the overall specialized work category at Category:Commons maps. It makes little sense to send general readers to Category:Commons maps or Commons:Categories/Maps. General readers don't normally go there. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
MDD. Please stop complaining and deleting. Start editing instead.
re 1 - The table of contents can be removed. There used to be a separate resource section. The resources were moved to a separate page. There is no longer a need for a table of contents.
re 2 - Well, then update it and stop complaining. See Template talk:Sisterlinks
re 3 - There is no standard location for the main category box. Stop complaining and making up stuff.
re 5 - Ridiculous. Stop generalizing and trying to sound authoritative about people from many nations.
re 6 - Many category pages list a few resources. Resource lists don't go on talk pages. Talk pages have too much other info, and talk pages are archived. Resource lists have to go on their own page when they get long enough. The map resource list was moved from Category:Maps to Commons:Map resources. Commons:Map resources has subpages. Subpages can't be created for categories. That is why many work and resource pages start with "Commons:" instead of "Category:" - See the thousands of pages that start with "Commons:" by clicking this link:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&from=&namespace=4
re 7 - Well then, stop complaining and start editing the introduction. Several other people edited that introduction. So don't just delete stuff you don't understand. Stop believing that you are better than other editors. From reading your comments on several pages this is what you seem to believe.
re 8 - Feel free to go ahead and create gallery pages. You have created gallery pages before. Here are some possible names for gallery pages:
Maps by period - like this gallery of yours:
Diagrams by period --Timeshifter (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion about the total solution here is proceeding at the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

For those who are interested I have been compiling subpages for various projects. The map and graphic lab subpages may be of interest to those who categorize maps. See:

See this discussion also:

Removed confusing see also section

I removed the following data from the category

See also these related categories:

These categories may contain more maps. Please categorize them in map categories.

Who beside Timeshifter really needs this information here? I hope there is an other user, who can give me an acceptable explaination? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The "see also" links were added by various people over time. I only consolidated them into a table. The table format was someone else's idea. I got the idea from User:WikipediaMaster. It conserves space.
Adding links to related categories is normal on category pages. For many examples see the results of these Google category searches below. They pull up links to related categories in various formats:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also+category%22
These searches don't pull up all the categories that have related links listed on them. People introduce related links with words other than "see also".
Categories are for helping people find images and media. So are the related links. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Reinstalled the table without any consesus is unacceptable. Please try to get some consensus first. I think your arguments make no sense. Please get somebody else to agree with you, but don't start referting my removal here.
I will explain once more. Who needs this hughe message box, which is saying:
These categories may contain more maps. Please categorize them in map categories.
Is that really so important that it has to be here? I don't think so? There are probably over 100, over 1000 categories containing maps.
There is one other thing. I opposed to a similar idea on Template talk:Diagrams charts graphs. The table here is a same kind of idea, which I think is only poluting the category introduction space. I really oppose these kinds of add-ins. Now if you think this is a good idea please confince somebody else, who can explain. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Diagrams charts graphs has nothing to do with this. That template is only on talk pages, and not on category pages, as far as I know.
I linked to thousands of examples of categories with related category links listed on the category page.
The related category links have been around in various forms for years on this category page. Please get consensus before removing them.
Above the table I changed See also: to See also these related categories:. This clarifies that they are related category links.
It is up to you to get consensus before changing what normally occurs on the Wikimedia Commons.
The list of links is only 4 lines long.
If you want to save some space, MDD, why not put this in a collapsible box:
 The article Maps/Archive 1 on Wikipedia projects:
A collapsible "show/hide" box would save a lot of space. I thought Rocket000 created and edited a few of them. See Category:Collapsible templates.
You could put the related links in a collapsible box too. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A mess

The maps structure is seriously screwed up, all these images are in a subcategory of Category:Maps. Multichill (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone with a bot can remove most of the images from any category with "maps" in the category name. It looks like most of the images are not maps. Of course, someone would first have to manually remove all the map images from the page.
Why did you link to an old version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Zandbak? And what is that page? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If you take a look at most of the images you'll see that those images are in sensible categories, but somehow one or more of these categories are a subcategory of category:Maps.
User:Multichill/Zandbak is my sandbox, it changes all the time. I do queries to get subsets of Category:Media needing category review like lepidoptera, plantae, scarabaeiformia orbuildings in Italy. I checked a lot of images this way. Multichill (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "somehow one or more of these categories are a subcategory of category:Maps." Can you give me a specific image example, so that I understand? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Maps/Archive_1&oldid=708107031"