Talk:Early world maps

Individual maps

Piri Reis map

Shouldn't the Piri Reis map be included? 11 February 2006

Waldseemuller map

Shouldn't the Waldseemuller Map be added? Swissbanker 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Waldseemüller Map

I think that there should also be the Waldseemüller map of 1516 that had more geographical knowledge of India, and more of an idea of the Americas because there were explorers who traveled the world. i think that it is a very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.229.186 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

T-O Maps

I think that there should also be more of the T-O maps of the era. they are very important religiously, and politically. Anyone want to add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.229.186 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatus Mappa Mundi (1050 CE)

The age of the map does not correspond to Beatus of Liébana age (730 - 798). 1050 is the time of the surviving copies. - fnielsen 13:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oronteus Finnaeus map

Hello there. Just wondered if the Oronteus Finnaeus world map could/should be included in this article. Thanks, Steph

Hadji Ahmed map?

Hello there. Does anyone know much about the Hadji Ahmed map, prepared circa 1559? I have a picture of it from a old book - it even depicts the west coast of America. Thanks, Steph

Direction of the Maps

I think that there are maps there that are supposed to have East or South be up, but they are North oriented. Someone want to change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.229.186 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"ancient"

we are missing a lot of ancient and medieval maps, while listing 15th and 16th cenrtury specimens which are by no stretch "ancient". There should maybe be articles or categories by century, such as 15th century cartography, 16th century cartography? dab (ᛏ) 16:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should be ... once we have enough material to fill them out. Right now the article stands at only 13,668 bytes: not quite big enough even to split in two (i.e. ancient vs mediæval). I'm moving it to Historical world maps. Jimp 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ... on second thoughts, says the article "Cartography or mapmaking ... is the study and practice of making maps or globes." and a significant part of this article deals with this study and practice thus Historical cartography seems the best title. Jimp 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) The problem, of course is that this is quite similar to History of cartography which already exists and is kind of biggish (44,400 bytes). Perhaps the best approach would be to merge this article there then split along ancient vs mediæval lines. Jimp 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time to ponder this question again? "Early" has now extended as far as 1630, which is getting to be a bit of a stretch. David Trochos (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some maps on the view that "early world maps" included all maps before accomplishing a global mapping of the world, isn't it so? Should early be interpreted or measured in some other way?--Wikitza (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the world was not fully mapped until the advent of aerial imagery (and in many respects, not even then), I'd say, yes, "early" should definitely be interpreted in some other way. But what other way? David Trochos (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe until all continents were displayed for the first time? That makes sense to me...--Wikitza (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Any way you cut it, that takes us right though to the late 18tb century, via a very large number of maps and atlases showing new bits of coastlines etc. Probably better to have at least one separate article for the era of continental discoveries after 1492. David Trochos (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kangnido POV shift?

The latest edit of the section on the Kangnido (and the main Kangnido article too) has shifted the thematic emphasis to the influence of Islam via the Mongol Empire. While such an influence self-evidently does exist, the article seems to give the impression that it was more significant than Chinese cartographic ability, which I find myself doubting. Also in this context, no mention is made of the India Problem. I know little about far Eastern mapping, so I won't make immediate changes myself- but I will try to find out more if nobody with more expertise has anything to say. David Trochos (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding, this article summarize the relative position of each map in cartographic history. As for the Kangnido, the most important improvement from earliar Chinese maps is that it incorporated Islamic knowledge. I think that the real problem is that earlier Chinese maps are not introduced in this article although they may not necessarily be regarded as world maps.

Also, what do you mean by "India Problem"? I briefly explained in the main article how India is depicted. See also Talk:Kangnido#Errors on Image:645px-KangnidoCaption.jpg. --Nanshu (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nanshu, I think you are being extremely rude and uncivil. In the Kangnido article, you have deleted a whole bunch of properly cited information and citation needed tags, and re-added uncited, irrelevant sections without explanation. Actually, you called it "vandalism" and gave me a vandalism warning on my talk page, which feels like a personal attack.

Please stop reverting other people's work and do not accuse me of "vandalism" for adding balanced, cited information to mitigate the Mongol-centric bias, in the Kangnido article and here. Kangnidofan (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kangnidofan, don't lose your temper. The edition you try to keep is off the mark and erroneous. Keep in mind that this is an article about "ancient world maps". Its relative position in cartographic history should be described. And we cannot confirm that Arabic map(s) were directly referred to create tha map.

Also this is a summary, so references are not required. --Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The direction of the maps

Is there any good reason for that all the pictures of the maps are positioned north upwards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinse (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ermmm- they aren't.... David Trochos (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

those reconstructed from Greek geographers are. It is true that they might more 'authentically' be drawn with east to the top. But they are reconstructions anyway. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek and Babylonian maps

Who made the reconstruction of the Greek maps? Were is the picture of the Babylonian world map is taken from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.111.178 (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Madaba Map

Although in mosaic, Madaba Map will make nice addition as it dates from the 6th century --89.253.154.62 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

not a "world map", but definitely worth a "see also" link. dab (𒁳) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Genoese world map (1457)

Genoese world map 1457.

Here's an image of the 1457 Genoese world map. Again quite interesting for its rather precise contour of Africa, before Europeans actually rounded the Cape. Could someone include the map in the article? For reference, a book where the map is discussed, and a large portion of the map shown: New Found Lands, Peter Whitfield, ISBN 0415920264. A Genoese world map article would also be quite justified. Thank you PHG (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think according to the Fra Mauro map, a ship from India first reached the Cape in 1420, and European geographers got information about the southern tip of Africa indirectly via this expedition. It's true that the Europeans reached the Cape in an expedition of their own only in 1488. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Babylonian world map

Please stop saying that there is a an "earlier world map dated to the 9th century BC". There isn't. This is a single world map, usually dated to ca. 600 BC, which has been dated to the 9th century by some authorities. It's two dates given to a single item.

This miraculous "duplication of the Babylonian world map" on Wikipedia is what happens when you indulge in WP:SYNTH based on google books snippets in fields with which you are not sufficiently familiar or sufficiently skeptical. (c.f. this diff). --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1670- not very early!

I've just deleted a new section on the"Magna Carta Mundi" of 1670, for the simple reason that it doesn't seem to qualify as "Early". I raised the issue a couple of years ago (see above) and I still think that the current termination with the first widely-available map showing part of Australia is at the absolute limit of what could qualify as early. Any thoughts? David Trochos (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand what you're saying, man... this page writes the historical change of the old map. Check the world map page. it doesn't make sense that the Australia is the border of the time 'early'. 'Early' is same thing as 'Old'. If your view is right, where should this information go to? Not early map? modern map? remember that an encyclopedia is not in field of study or science. this is not journal. P.S Enter the page 'Old maps'. --Yodamgod (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I noted back in 2010, the best place to break might be 1492, which would involve the creation of a new article called something like "Early-modern World Maps". David Trochos (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on where such a divide might be, but I've just changed the text above to redlink, and if you want to make that article, and can find sources to justify 'Early-modern World Maps' as a seperate type of object from 'old world maps' or 'world maps' and can explain what the criteria for qualification in one place or another is, then go ahead and start the article I guess. EdwardLane (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what I have to do? Write your opinion and criteria in the first section if you're thinking that your thought is right, or I'll revert my writing. --Yodamgod (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, this will need a bit of planning. When this article was first created, it terminated with the Cantino map of 1502. My proposal would move all the current "after 1492" section of this article, including Cantino, to the new article. The big question, though, is where should the new article end? The world's coastlines were not fully mapped until the 20th century; some interior regions are probably not mapped in terms of locally-used place-names even today. The best end date I can think of at present is 1839, the year before Wilkes began the era of scientific study of continental Antarctica. David Trochos (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I know your intention. But dividing article should be minimized because it is a better way for users for convenient. Many documents already linked here. We can rename this page and can add more section and can divide sections. There are alternative ways to avoid doing it. Please, refer to History of the world--Yodamgod (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the principle that division of articles should be minimised- but the problem here is that expanding articles beyond their original bounds should also be minimised. This particular article was originally written to provide a summary of world maps made up to the point where mapping of the Americas began. Over the past 7 years, the end date has crept further and further beyond that original termination, to the point where the word "early" in the title is almost meaningless. One solution might be to change the title to "History of World Maps" and expand the article up to the present day. David Trochos (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The meaning of early is clear and meaningful and, while individual maps can be removed, it is completely unhelpful to split such overview pages into a thousand subpages. As there has been no progress on this and no support since 2012, closing suggestion and removing headers. — LlywelynII 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERA

This edit established the use of this page as BCE/CE. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Source 9 links to a dead domain

Currently, clicking on source 9 (the source for the 1883 reconstruction of Eratosthenes' map) links to a website which does not have the map present, or any information at all. The site only contains advertisements for other sites at the moment and it does not appear the domain www.henry-davis.com is still being paid for. I searched for other sources for this map, but all the ones I checked which actually had a source either sourced this article for the image or the aforementioned dead site. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know protocol for broken links, but it seems wrong to keep a broken link on the page. What would the typical way of dealing with this? Should the link be removed until a reliable replacement is found or should it be left as is? AlisterSinclair (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The URL was usurped after the domain expired. I've updated this (and three other references) with archive links and disabled links to the original site. Mindmatrix 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Jim Siebold is using a different domain to host his site. It can be found at myoldmaps.com Glendoremus (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)