Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/10/Category:Maps of the Low Countries in the 15th century

Category:Maps of the Low Countries in the 15th century

There are currently four category that are supposed to hold the exact same content: Maps of the Low Countries in the 15th century, Maps of Belgium in the 15th century, Maps of the Netherlands in the 15th century and Maps of Luxembourg in the 15th century.

The last three of these categories are essentially unneeded and should be turned into redirects to the "Low Countries" category, which was specifically created with history in mind to avoid this issue. History maps that differentiate between the preindustrial history of Belgium, the preindustrial history of Luxembourg and the preindustrial history of the Netherlands are exceptionally rare. The Netherlands became an independent nation in the 1650s; Belgium in the 1790s/1830s. Before the 17th century, the whole area was either considered one single entity ("The low countries") or many provincial/regional entities like Flanders, Holland, Brabant, Geldria, Utrecht and so on.

Reviewing the content of all four categories should validate this position.

The same should thus be done for all similar instances up to the 18th century, as we should not keep quadruplicated categories on the same topic. Enyavar (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This CfD relates to a review of our History maps categories (User talk:Ty's Commons#History maps) - which is my primary interest and current focus. The associated project and categories are being designed to effectively provide a series of maps - easily searchable for each European country - depicting the evolution of its territory through all of the various twists and turns of European history.

Project scope, and arguments A-J, by Ty's Commons

:This is not an easy project but one I believe to be valuable, especially because European history can be quite complex - even for Europeans. This summary is intended to review why it's important and also to consider how it best works in a manner that makes it easier for average users - who are not only non-historians but may know little about the evolution of the countries and territories of Europe. While Europe is the starting base, and a challenging one, a model that withstands and portrays the complex histories of our European countries can also then be applied to other countries - many of which likewise have complex histories, including reorganizations and renamings. A. Fundamental principles and basic needs: (1) Every current country in the world (in Europe and elsewhere) possesses its own unique territory - which is precisely defined and obviously important to its current identity as well as its history. (2) Each country's territory or land (again for virtually every European country and most elsewhere) has a complex history - and that is likewise of central significance to each country's identity (including its various regions, its places of historic interest, its monuments, its unique composition and/or combination of various cultural influences, dialects, arts, trades, etc.). (3) With respect to each country's current territory, the series of maps showing the evolving transition of regions and states - both within the existing territory and nearby - are critical to depicting and understanding the evolution of each country leading up to its current state (both physical and political). Indeed, the series of such maps over time is one of the most fundamental and basic tools for describing each country's history - as any historian or history teacher fully appreciates. B. General ways of addressing these needs: Consistent with and serving the principles and needs noted above, virtually every country has, and historically has had, an atlas or similar collections of maps showing the evolution of its territory - again naturally including predecessor regions or entities within the territory as well as larger entities that contained or controlled all or parts of its territory. Reflecting these same fundamental principles - as well as providing an organizational system that is clearly defined and easily used - Wikimedia Commons is likewise developing and featuring a series of Atlases based on each country of the World, ambitiously called the Atlas of the world. These are essentially arranged by country, including each country in Europe, which is our initial focus here. The organizational framework necessary to present each country's history and territory is also essentially the same as our focus here. In the case of Belgium, for example, the relevant section of the Atlas of Belgium is organized as follows: - "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." 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. Indeed those maps are essentially what we are discussing here - to be categorized in a methodical, complementary and similarly easy-to-access and intuitive manner. The language being used to organize the corresponding country-based century-by-century categories is also analogous. In the case of maps related to Belgium, for example, the following language is used: - This category is directed to maps showing all or substantially all of the territory of modern-day Belgium - as the lands were in the 15th century (1401-1500 CE). - See Wikimedia Commons Atlas of Belgium for a general overview of the territory including its evolution in European history. Additional maps related to the history of Belgium - including various entities comprising or controlling the Belgian territory as well as smaller entities within the territory - can be found at Maps of the history of Belgium. C. 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) Each of these current countries is defined - and each of course has a history. Alternative methods to instead have the country-based organization sporadically "swapped out" for various other entities that occupied, controlled or reflected parts of these territories or their regions over time would be both complex and subject to numerous debates about appropriate names, controlling aspects, boundaries etc. It would also be far more difficult for average users to make use of because navigating its organizational structure to find maps of interest would require users to effectively know about the various entities and names that existed historically - and then still have to guess or search to figure out how some map categorizer (such as one of us) decided to refer to them and/or group them. D. Furher benefits of the country-based territorial approach: There are several important additional benefits to this standardized approach. First, the territories of each of our countries are (almost always) precise and clearly defined. Second, the world and each of its continents are effectively and clearly divided up and mapped (since essentially all of the associated lands are accounted for without overlap). Third, and perhaps most important from a community and user perspective, the system is easy to search and to navigate (since existing templates like that for the existing countries of Europe can be easily employed and they then allow simple navigation from one country to any of the others - which appear in standardized and generally accepted alphabetical order). Based on all of the foregoing, the system seems to be not only the best way to organize but practically speaking the only way to do so that makes it relatively easy for both contributors and organizers of associated maps - and most importantly for visitors and average users (especially those without detailed preexisting knowledge of the corresponding histories and variety of corresponding names used back over the centuries). A further benefit of the system is that not only can such users easily navigate back through the complex histories, but the galleries reflected in each corresponding category will literally illustrate - pictorially - the corresponding histories. For each country and century, users can quickly see the associated names of the various entities existing at that time, as well as borders, regions and neighbors. E. Requirements of the approach: There are basically two essential requirements needed to make the system work well. The first is as noted above, to use the countries of the world as at least a principal organizational tool for the territories of the world. That is in fact standard practice (and Wikimedia Commons, its templates, etc. are geared to it.) The second requirement follows from the first. It is essentially the territories of our existing countries that serve as the primary organizing framework (regardless of the various and evolving sets of political entities and their names that comprised or controlled various parts of the territories over the course of its history). But that is essentially a reflection of the history of each territory - which is the principal interest of such categories and maps in the first place. So the categories are structured such that the territory of each existing country serves as the subject matter for organizing the relevant maps - which effectively show each country's territory or land as they existed during the designated time period. The format is still being finalized but is generally worded as follows: "This category is directed to maps showing all or substantially all of the territory of modern-day [Country A] - as the lands were in the [Nth century]." A Wikimedia locator map pictorially shows the corresponding territory. F. Planned refinement to category names: Although the definition and specific text within the category description make it quite clear what is to be included (i.e. maps showing all or substantially all of the territory of the modern-day country as that land was in the prior centuries), I am considering modifying the basic category name to emphasize that it is referring to the land rather than a political entity. This should make the central feature of the framework more apparent, even before the specific definition is seen. The revised category would then be, for example, "Maps of Belgium (the land) in the Nth century." G. Parallel or alternative categories: There are parallel categories of several sorts. One set relates to regional collectives or "agglomerations" of territories of either an historic or simply geographic character. Examples include groupings such as the Low Countries, the Balkans, the Baltics, the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula and Scandinavia. Just as with the names to be applied to various historic political entities, these varied over time and are still associated with various controversies over the asserted "appropriateness" of selected versions of the names and/or their selective "lumping." The Low Countries will be addressed in more detail below but groupings such as the Balkans, the Baltics and Scandinavia involve among other things the name that should be used, as well as whether and when various countries should or should not be included. Others such as the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula are superficially less controversial (in that they reflect physical geographic territories), but even these elicit controversies such as whether Ireland, which is typically included within the British Isles (especially by British historians) really should be - or whether that represents a perspective that is more than coincidentally associated with British history and/or political aims. Other problems arise with the various continental entities that evolved significantly over time. Lithuania is just one example. While it is often lumped in as a member of the Baltics (along with Estonia and Latvia), during the 15th century the territory of the associated political entity (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) included not only the "Baltic" territory of modern-day Lithuania but also all of present-day Belarus and Ukraine, as well as parts of Poland and Russia - making it the largest European state at the time with a territory stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. H. Additional concerns regarding use of the term Low Countries as a "substitute" or replacement for the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg: For reasons outlined above, the principal organizational framework is based on using the territories of our existing European countries, and organizing maps depicting such territories over time. Even if we link to other regional groupings such as Scandinavia - or to political entities (such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the like) these are best done in parallel and easily handled by cross-referencing. I therefore have no problem with continuing to cross-reference such parallel categories. I would, however, note that the use of the term "the Low Countries" raises additional issues. Unlike political entities (such as various kingdoms, commonwealths etc.) or culturally distinct regions (such as the Basque Country or Catalonia), it was generally neither politically nor culturally a unified region. Indeed the name itself tells us that: so 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). The term was not consistently or uniformly applied and so is 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 words imply, those extended into the German Rhineland and were associated with "Lower Lotharingia" - as opposed to the upper regions that eventually formed southern Belgium and Luxembourg. As summarized in Low Countries, 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 Commons that are intended to be and are translated across languages. For example, in many languages the nomenclature "Low Countries" can possibly 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 recognized "source of 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, I have not nor do I object to potential 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, not surprisingly to most of us, "Prehistoric Belgium"). The same is true for Italy and Germany, and all the various countries of Europe you would apparently like to abbreviate, '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, much of Flanders, Hainaut 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. Flanders and Hainaut 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. I. Wikimedia Commons exceptional policy related to the categorizations of countries: Even if a regional category such as the Low Countries is maintained and some maps appear in both the country-specific category and the regional category, that is not in and of itself a problem. When the categories are actually populated (more on that below), there should indeed be some maps covering both levels. At the country-specific level, these will show the territory that forms Belgium (including its constituent parts) and its relationship to that of its neighbor. The importance of and interest in the countries of the world is in fact expressly emphasized by Wikimedia Commons and reflected as being the principal exception to the general Overcat policy Commons:Categories#Exception for images with more categorized subjects: - Commons: Categories - Exception for images with more categorized subjects: -- "Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories." The text used to illustrate this Wikimedia Commons exceptional principle for the categorization of our countries is also relevant to what might be regarded as "multiple entrants" in the various regional categories - the example given being as follows: "For example, Category:India is in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia." Thus, India (being a country) is placed not only into its regional grouping ("Countries of South Asia") but is at the same time also reflected in the higher level grouping for the continent ("Countries of Asia"). J. Ongoing work: As a procedural matter, I have only begun to populate individual country-based categories in part because some "activities" (reflected in our conversations) have effectively distracted from ongoing efforts - including removals of some maps reflecting the territory of certain countries, causing the category to become emptied and then deleted or redirected. There are also (again as discussed) maps that have effectively been made very difficult to find because they have been essentially sequestered into an almost endless series of separate narrow drawers. The Category:Old maps of Belgium, for example, contains approximately 9,000 individual maps - but many of these 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 often 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, such approaches and contexts make the identification of maps corresponding to these categories more difficult. Furthermore, when initial maps are used to essentially set up the categories and link them to each other in sequence, removing them tends to obstruct the process and the ongoing project before the categories can even be established to prepare for more fully populating them. It would therefore be most helpful to refrain from removing maps from the categories to which they have been placed to initiate category set-up. That will allow these categories to be finally developed and the variety of individual countries can each then have an appropriate place to include maps that reflect their territories over time, as well as incorporate cross-references to other categories of interest to each country. As discussed previously, we can then assess what, when and in which contexts the additional related categories such as regional agglomerations remain as useful, and if so how the categories are best cross-referenced.

Summary:

Overall, this is a substantial project but one that I believe is beneficial in several ways:

(i) it provides a standardized scope and relationship to one of the most important category sets on Wikimedia Commons: our current countries;

(ii) it enables an easily-navigated system that is supportive and helpful for visitors to Wikimedia and average users with little knowledge of the individual complex histories behind the evolution of each country;

(iii) it provides an organizational framework that can be used to easily cross-reference any of the variety of other history and old map categories that are applicable;

(iv) it is of use for parallel community projects such as enhancing the Wikimedia Commons Atlases of the World.

The eventual century-by-century 'galleries' become visual portrayals of the evolution of each of these territories over time, including the variety of names and geographic boundaries that reflect each country's unique history. As such, they then become in a sense a teaching and learning experience as well as an organized collection of useful maps. That at least is my goal and I certainly appreciate any and all assistance in furthering it. Ty's Commons (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Your main argument here is that you want to have maps accessible to users at the place where the users may expect them. That interest can be served easily with a redirect. The user inputs "maps of Belgium in the 8th century", and gets redirected to "Maps of the Low Countries in the 8th century", and if the user has any interest in the content, they will understand why that redirection happened.

Besides the readers/consumers of categories, we also need to keep in mind the people who categorize. The more categories a person needs to keep in mind, the worse the categorization work is going to be. Where are you going to sort a map that shows 'the languages spoken in the medieval low countries, when that map is an SVG file, claims a timespan of 1380-1520 and is kept in Spanish'? My own guesses would be "Spanish-language maps showing history of Europe", "Maps of of the medieval Low Countries", and "linguistic maps of Belgium/Netherlands". That is already four categories. The second of these four could be better specified with three Low-Country-by-century categories, leading to six categories instead. You would apparently not hesitate to add nine more categories on top of that, with close to no benefits.

Addressing the arguments A-J, by Enyavar

::Let me now go through all your points. A) not every country of Europe needs to have representation for each century. Even if there is one single map, that does not justify creation of "Maps of Andorra in the 3rd century BC". Similarly, just because the Burgundian Netherlands may appear in this history maps of Europe, does not make it a "map of Belgium in the 15th century". You may of course crop out a new file of just the area of modern Belgium in that map, but I would argue that such a cropped minimap has decidedly less value for realistic educational purposes. And if you do so just to fill up your desired category, that would be spam in my opinion. B) Your Atlas project has nothing to do with the category tree, nor is there any need to have a category tree that follows the Atlas project or its organizational framework. C) Yes, maps are to be organized by country. That also means, that when there is no country, there needs to be no organization. There is a different situation for example with the United States (where we don't have recorded history of the nations/countries before colonization happened, but we have maps approximating tribal territories) which leads to anachronistic categories like "15th century maps of the United States". Such is not the case with Europe. We DO know the history of the area before the country of Belgium was formed, and it does not involve a country named Belgium, but rather the "Burgundian Netherlands" as part of "Burgundy". Meanwhile, "Maps of Ghent in the 15th century" would be okay, but only if "Maps of the history of Ghent" needs to be subdivided. D) Instead of tailoring a "standardized approach" to our arbitrary modern situation, we rather need a framework (i.e. template) that fits the historical situations. You argue with definitions of the territories of the modern countries and apply them to the past where they do not fit. Inside Europe, your scheme does make a lot of sense, given how modern national boundaries are mostly following historical lines, Poland being a major exception. But if you apply your standardized approach outside of Europe (which IS something that we should care about in a category system serving the world), you will fail hard when you start categorizing "Maps of Saudi Arabia in the 15th century" (political landscape was totally different) and "Maps of Mongolia in the 14th century" (...as defined by the modern territory...?). It follows that we categorize what is, not what we can chop up to fit in a box. E) conclusion is based on incorrect assumptions, please check with D why such a template is a really bad idea. F) If I take that proposal as you have presented it, that would make categorization a lot WORSE again. Please see my second initial point from this post: How are uploaders supposed to categorize their files? It is preferable to have a clearcut system where you can infer the content directly from the category name. Hatnotes and definitions are helpful to clear up confusion of course, but ideally you should be able to assign a category via Uploadmanager or Hotcat without ever opening the category to check. G) You call it "lumping", I call it "grouping". If you have a group of countries like "Europe", you do not need to assign individual 40+ categories for each country of Europe. A map that shows all of "Scandinavia", is implicitly also showing all of Sweden, and "maps of Sweden" IS a subcategory of "maps of Scandinavia". The category hierarchy exists for a reason. The same map does NOT need to be placed in all parts of the tree, in fact Com:Overcat strongly disagrees with that idea. An exception can be made to the above example if Sweden is really the focus of the map (like, a location map of Sweden within Scandinvia). Sidenote: I regularly encounter maps of <Oslo / Silesia / Sardinia and Corsica> in "(...) maps of Europe". One could argue that Oslo is in Europe, and thus the category is applied correctly? No. The principle with geographical categories is to apply categories to specifically the level you are in. The map of Oslo would also be misplaced in "maps of Norway", and Sardinia would also be misplaced in "maps of Italy". Yes, the guesses are getting closer, but we have hundreds of thousands of maps of Italy, and only a few thousand maps of Sardinia. H) the Low Countries were identical with Belgium, and so were the Netherlands that is not my exact quote, but I would subscribe it when changed to "more or less identical". Low Countries is the term to use to describe the pre-national situation; and it is among the terms that were used historically. "Low" is not a denigrating term here, it is the name of the region. As I wrote, Gerardus Mercator (16th century cartographer!) grouped all maps about modern-day Benelux into the chapter he named "Belgii inferioris" (i.e. "Lower Belgiums" in Latin). To him, a dutch-speaking man from Gelderland would have been just as "Belgian" as one from Utrecht, maybe even so with a French-speaking man from Hainaut. He would also have known the large differences between these cities, no doubt. My point is that "Belgium"/"Low Countries" described more or less the same region, and he grouped maps into other such chapters like Gallia, Germania and Italiae. Back in that day, Germany and Italy were NOT nations, but they were regions. Italy is a region defined by the peninsular coastlines and the Alps to the North. If Italy had never been unified or if Italy would today desintegrate into a dozen new states, I would nevertheless propose to group the countries not because of their current borders, but because of the regional boundary of the region. By the way, I applied the same logic to Maps of Arabia in the 12th century: Arabia can be well-enough defined that way, the Saudis cannot. Back to your Italy example: Once there are enough maps that show the history of Tuscany, Lombardy or the Kingdom of Naples in any given century, I will gladly accept a category about "Maps of the Kingdom of Naples in the 16th century" and so on. That category would be inside "Maps of Italy in the 16th century" and all files in "Naples" would be removed from "Italy". It is that simple. On your point about the regional agglomeration approach which does a disservice to provincial entities? That is not the problem at hand here, if there were enough history-maps content I would also support "maps of Gelderland in the 16th century" just as I would support the Kingdom of Naples. But there IS not enough such content. As of right now, there is just enough content for all history Maps of the Low Countries in the 16th century. As per my response to G) above: grouping content to the right level means that you cannot subdivide the content to even lower levels. Show me the maps that exclusively deal with modern Belgium and not with the modern Netherlands: and only those would be acceptable for the subcategory of "Belgium" that sits below "Low Countries". I) Yes, that is the case. I explained it above in my response to G): Maps of India needs to be a subcategory of both Maps of Asia and Maps of South Asia. Categories are structured hierarchical. The files themselves are to be ordered into that hierarchy. All maps of India have to be categorized under "India", not under "Asia". That is why this edit was "overcat". J) a.) Yes, I noticed. You are now cropping out countries from history maps just to populate categories that would otherwise be empty because there are no genuine history maps about the region that you want to include in your scheme. Who exactly is supposed to benefit from File:C. 1500 Norway.jpg? You even cut away most of Denmark - the beige country is supposed to be "en:Denmark–Norway", in case you had not noticed. This activity (cropping just to fill categories) just makes no sense and is more obfuscation instead of clearing up. If there just are no history maps of the region you want to create a category for? Just don't create the category until you find some. b.) The "maps showing <year>" scheme is a related category hierarchy, which has been mostly slumbering for a decade. Most history maps that show specific dates/years, are currently not yet categorized, but we'll eventually get there. This structure is not intended to show specific locations and does have its own benefits. Although yes, in same rare cases it is already linked into the "maps of location in century" scheme, take for example Maps about Peace of Westphalia and Maps of Treaty of Verdun (843).

My summary is more or less what I already wrote in the intro to this post: Empty and misleading categories can be redirected to intended categories (as suggested), which will have just the same organizational benefits. Regarding that point IV: Categories are not galleries (although users can browse them as such). The Atlas of the world is nothing but galleries already, we don't need to duplicate it by mis-applying categories.

With all my best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Arguments K-N + O, by Ty's Commons

:::K. Applicable policy and principles: The reasons for and needs addressed by the current organizational system extend far beyond ease of use (although that is certainly a benefit). They begin with the fundamental principles and basic needs reflected in section A above. These are not generally disputed (indeed I'm not sure how or why one would), but you suggest at the outset that "not every country of Europe needs to have representation for each century" - citing Andorra in the 3rd century BC as an example. Such a suggestion is premature since it's not the situation before us. I would, however, emphasize that we both should be especially focused on and strive to follow the specific terms and provisions of our community's agreed categorization policy and corresponding principles rather than substituting our own rules of thumb. Indeed, as 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." Among applicable principles, the following are all considered to be pertinent to various aspects of our discussions and therefore to serve as our guidance - not only individually but collectively (to the extent that they actually inter-relate) - regarding preferred ways of organizing and handling pages, i.e. not only individual maps but categories of such maps as we're addressing: 1. Modularity principle - Use more specific categories: ·    "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)." 2. Selectivity principle - Avoid multi-subject categories: ·    "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." 3. Universality principle - Categorize systematically and universally across countries and levels, avoiding local dialects and terminology: ·    "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. Analogic categorization branches should have an analogic structure." 4. Policy regarding multi-subject files - Categorize by subject even where no corresponding subcategory yet exists: ·    "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." 5. Appropriate categorization standard - Categorize pages according to their subject matter not than 'contents': ·    "Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents." 6. Exception for images with more categorized subjects - Countries may be categorized into multiple overlapping categories: ·    "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." L. Treatment of maps reflecting the history of our European countries: Regarding your note at A, if by calling out Andorra (or Albania or Belgium or any other smaller country), you are effectively suggesting that we should treat them differently because they're somehow less relevant, then that would certainly not be in compliance with the Universality principle. The fact that there may be relatively few maps in some such cases is likewise not a basis for treating them differently. As noted, the categorization structure applicable to our countries is intended to be "as systematical and unified as possible" and "pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents." Furthermore, as emphasized above and in other contexts, every one of our European countries has a history - and every one of our European countries also serves as a key basis of organization and categorization. Those two fundamental facts are likewise reflected across essentially all of Wikimedia Commons (as reviewed further below). These key points do raise an important distinction, which you sometimes appear to forget or selectively ignore - but which is critical to our consideration of the categories at hand. Since we're essentially dealing with maps showing the histories of our European countries, the first and most fundamental question is as follows: What is "Country X" (be it Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain etc.) and what is its history? Or to paraphrase as a single question: What is the history of Country X? There are two basic approaches for answering this, which for distinction might be called the "country-based approach" and the "political-entity-based approach." If we choose the former, we will essentially be focusing on the individual countries that make up Europe and addressing each of their histories. That is not only the aim of this organizational approach, it is also consistent with the overall organization and treatment of existing countries and their histories across Wikimedia Commons (see below). If we should instead choose a political-entity-based approach, we will fairly quickly - but always at varying times and in differing manners for each country - be led to a tangled, intersecting and varying set of imperial, regional or other entities, controlling some or all parts of each country, for varying (but always limited) periods of time. Of course such other entities are relevant within individual countries' histories, and they'll be reflected as such, when and as relevant, but they're far from an ideal organizational framework (much less an exclusive one) for reasons we've been discussing. When maps are organized using the country-based approach, all of the various political entities will be shown -  indeed each will be pictured and named, and can also be cross-referenced as appropriate. And each will both appear and later disappear (since they did for essentially every country of Europe) naturally and consequentially in the their corresponding time period. Furthermore, the various earlier entities will not only be reflected when and as they were relevant (so no country-specific and time-specific "re-direct(ion)s" are required to follow each country's history), but the history of each country will effectively be pictured by the corresponding progression of maps organized by century. These progressions are also reflective of the variety of territorial build-ups, re-shufflings and losses that likewise characterize the history of almost every country in Europe (from small states such as Belgium and Estonia to large ones such as Italy and re-unified Germany). All countries can thus be organized and treated in the same general and neutral manner, which is consistent not only with the Universality principle governing categorizations by country, but also with other categorizations by country across Wikimedia Commons (see below). M. Consistency with Wikimedia Commons categorizations by country: Equally importantly, the country-based approach is not only consistent with (and indeed an application of) the Universality principle to our categorization (as reflected in our official policy noted above) - it is also consistent with and parallels the overall organizational framework across Wikimedia Commons. That basic Wikimedia framework is by country, in our case the countries of Europe. And it is onto that fundamental framework that the various and endlessly varying political entities forming part of each country's history are linked, including through direct coverage when and as appropriate or through cross-referencing, again when and as appropriate. If there were any doubt regarding the foregoing points, a review of any and all of the following would be pertinent: For Wikimedia Commons, the meta category for organizing the entire history of Europe, appropriately called Category:History of Europe by country is organized by these same countries. In other words, it clearly follows the country-based approach - not the political-entity-based approach. The subcategories relevant to our discussion and example here are not primarily the history of the "Low Countries" (or the history of Scandinavia, the Baltics etc.) but rather Category:History of Belgium, Category:History of Luxembourg, and Category:History of the Netherlands. The maps of the history of Europe are likewise organized in a parallel meta category, appropriately called Category:Maps of the history of Europe by country - and appropriately organized by our same countries (i.e. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). The corresponding Wikimedia Commons histories of each individual country are also correspondingly the history of the territory comprising the current country - and they are all organized by reference to it (i.e. they follow and are organized according to the country-based approach not the political-entity-based approach). See, e.g., Category:History of Belgium, which is described as "aspect of history, focusing on the western European country of Belgium" with links to the corresponding Wikipedia page for the country History of Belgium Similarly, with respect to individual countries such as Belgium, its history across Wikimedia Commons categorizations by hierarchy follows the country-based approach, including for example, Category:History of Belgium by period, Category:Belgium by topic, and Category:History by country. These are then included within parent categories that are both regional and higher level, e.g. Category:History of the Low Countries and Category:History of Europe by country. So in answer to our exemplary questions above: ·       Belgium essentially refers to the country of Belgium in the manner described for the country-based approach (not the political-entity-based approach); ·       Belgium's history does not extend back only to 1830, or just to the Burgundian Netherlands (which are included as a subcategory of Belgium's history), but rather, as with other countries back to the classical period, in this case to Category:Roman Gaul and its corresponding subcategory Category:Ancient Roman categories in Belgium. ·       Belgium is categorized as a country of Europe for essentially all of these purposes - and its history extends back from the modern period, through the medieval, to the classical. Although it is sometimes also grouped within regional or political parent categories (such as the Low Countries, the Austrian Netherlands, the Spanish Netherlands, etc.), that is done by including Belgium as a subcategory within the regional or other political category - not blending, redirecting or otherwise merging Belgium into them. Essentially, the same approach is being applied in the country-based approach in general, and in the present category as well, with respect to maps. N. Application to other European countries having differing paths: Although the approach under discussion does not need to be directly applicable to all other situations (so we can leave medieval Saudi Arabia and Mongolia for another day), I would note that it can be applied to many types of situations involving the sorts of reshufflings and renamings that Europe experienced. As for Europe, the approach not only readily handles the variety of different pathways that characterize European history but the corresponding categories effectively reflect them. To consider just a few examples, the following very different "scenarios" are readily and systematically addressed: ·       France is a good example of what might be called gradual accretion - with the maps of its history reflecting additions over time as various territories from Bretagne to Gascogne to Provence and other areas that "make France what it is" initially appear as neighboring lands and later as inherent parts of France, along with some other subsequent gains and losses ·       Spain is a good example of conquest and reconquest - with the maps of its land reflecting the arrival and conquest by the Romans, then Vandals, Visigoths and other tribes, then Islamic entities from Africa and the Middle East, and still later the "Reconquista" ·       Italy is a good example of protracted partitioning but eventual reunification - with the scattered pieces following the collapse of the Roman Empire only finally being reassembled with the "Risorgimento" of 1861 ·       Germany is a good example of collective assembly, growth and reconfiguration - with its corresponding maps reflecting regions and prior states within the Holy Roman Empire, German confederation, later empire, division and eventual reunification ·       Austria and Lithuania are good examples of dramatic expansions and fallback - with their maps reflecting territories that were greatly enlarged from their original ones only to be later drastically pared back ·       Iceland is a good example of what might be regarded as colonization and independence - with maps and related entities reflecting both ·       Ireland is a good example of what might be regarded as acquisition and release - we know the players and circumstances and again the maps will reflect both aspects of Ireland's history ·       Belgium and Bosnia are among a number of examples of being literally trodden at the crossroads of conflict by a series of outside entities ·       Switzerland is a good example of inward confederation and doing everything else it could to avoid being trodden at the crossroads The overall point - in addition to their being both illustrative and exemplary European countries and histories - is that despite all of the varying types of situations, trajectories and resulting nations, the basic organizational framework being developed can function to effectively address and handle all of the various scenarios and corresponding maps, as well as the others that collectively made every one of our European countries what they are today. And again none of their individual histories ("rich" or otherwise) are lost because they're all effectively reflected and depicted within the categories, cross-references and individual maps that track the evolution of each respective country. Put another way, we're not eliminating the underlying chaos, but rather organizing its presentation - and in a way that is relevant to and helpful for appreciating each and every European country. O. Miscellaneous points: Turning to various follow-on points (most of them being more like "pot shots" but considered as part of our "Socratic discussion"). Your next suggestion at B is that the Atlas of Belgium#History maps (described as being a "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"), which features selected maps designed to illustrate the history of Belgium over the centuries, somehow has no relevance to (indeed being overly emphatic as you often are has "nothing to do with the category tree") nor thus the Wikimedia Commons categorizations of history maps designed to illustrate the history of Belgium over the centuries, including historical maps of former countries and empires that included present-day Belgium. First and foremost, it is in no way my Atlas project, it is a broad Wikimedia Commons community project - intended to provide maps illustrating the histories of all of our countries (many of which will therefore necessarily be among those we're discussing). In that regard, to suggest that broad-based Wikimedia projects directed to countries and their historic maps, with essentially closely-related and overlapping subject matter, should somehow have absolutely no connection nor even relevance to each other seems rather odd to say the very least. But in any case, as reviewed in the corresponding user talk discussion I did not in fact 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. The next suggestion at C is that "when there is no country, there needs to be no categorization," which is equally off-base in the context of our discussion and the points noted above regarding the history of each of our countries - as well as the organization of virtually all subject matter across Wikimedia commons. As discussed above and previously, the country of Belgium has a history that precedes its current political entity. The next suggestion at D is that we do not need a "'standardized approach' to our arbitrary modern situation." The points are quite the opposite. We do not have an "arbitrary modern situation" - we have a clearly defined one with respect to the countries of Europe. Any vagaries and ambiguities are not with respect to the modern situation but relative to their pasts, and these sometimes controversial and always varying entities are a key reason that a standardized approach based on our current countries is important. The suggestion that we do not need a standardized approach to the treatment of all countries at all levels of categorization is likewise inconsistent with the Universality principle as noted above. You further suggest at D that I am "argu(ing) with the definitions of the territories of the modern countries." Again the points are just the opposite - the territories of our countries are certain and unarguable - and the histories of those territories therefore essentially reflect the histories of our countries. You suggest at E, that D is based on "incorrect assumptions" - but as noted if there are errors or incorrect assumptions they are yours. There is a suggestion at F, that any specification to make clear (in the category name itself as well as the description) that the reference to a country is to the country's land rather than it's political entity would somehow make the categorization worse. Why? Because you suggest that "It is preferable to have a clearcut system where you can infer the content directly from the category name." So further clarifying the subject matter in the category name makes it somehow worse - because the subject matter should be clear or at least inferable from the category name. What..?! In any case, back to the point, I might refer to geographic area in certain contexts (i.e. when and if it seems needed or helpful). There is a suggestion at G, that lumping or blending different things together is essentially the same as grouping. They are not, as discussed above and in other contexts. Grouping is done by subcategory to category linking in the hierarchy. So in our example, Belgium may be grouped with the Netherlands and Luxembourg into a parent regional category such as the Low Countries (but more appropriately and without ambiguity across and even within languages into the Benelux region). Lumping or blending different subjects together is quite different and leads to incorrect and inappropriate suggestions such as those suggesting that Belgium is identical, or "more or less identical" as you now suggest, with the "Low Countries." You further emphasize that "The category hierarchy exists for a reason." I totally agree. And yet you in fact attempt to suppress it by blending or combining subjects from the lower level into the higher, and then suggest that the lower level need not exist, that one lower-level subcategory is "more or less identical" to another and therefore they should be effectively merged. You go on to essentially suggest that in cases in which multiple subjects are reflected within a single map, the Overcat policy "strongly disagrees" with the notion that they should be categorized by subject matter. As discussed above under A, the very opposite is the case. Alleged "over-categorization" is not the problem (since there are not many images) - however under-categorization is - especially when there are relatively few other images reflecting the individual subjects. With regard to the overcat policy (which Is itself both defined and addressed within the Wikimedia Commons categorization policy), the first aspect of the over-categorization problem is essentially over-crowding and "drowning out" caused by numerous images being placed into a broad and crowded top category. In the corresponding example, the top category fills up, making it necessary to go through hundreds or thousands of images - and, in addition, less common types of related images are effectively "drowned out" by more common or frequent types. The second aspect of the over-categorization problem is caused by placing numerous images into a category that is at a lower level but is already crowded. In the corresponding example, "[o]n lower levels, the problem becomes less acute, since the number of images will be smaller." However, as noted, "they can still easily reach into the hundreds." And there is an associated secondary problem, which might be regarded as a type of "search-impairment problem." In these cases, the parent category is not as badly crowded but still might contain hundreds of images - and the inclusion of some more-specific-subject-matter images within the parent category tends to lead users to incorrectly assume they've likely "found what there is" (thereby discouraging them from looking for and finding the other subject-matter-relevant images in a more subject-matter-relevant category). As summarized in the categorization policy and principles, the result in this second aspect is that "[t]he top category is cluttered, and users will stop looking for the most relevant category since they've reached one that has a relevant image." But in many cases, including those at issue in our prior discussions, the opposite situation is true: there are not too many available maps, there are often very few. And this raises the opposing question: when are de-categorizations not in compliance with existing polices and/or are actually unhelpful? De-categorizations are neither warranted nor helpful when there are in fact relatively few available maps that show or reflect the history of our European countries in earlier centuries. In such cases (which again are the very ones we've been focusing on), de-categorizing the relatively few available maps from subject-matter-relevant categories to which they pertain is neither called for nor consistent with the overcat policy - nor is it helpful - indeed in many cases it is harmful. De-categorization or lumping (rather than placing into appropriate subcategories) also tends to cause a related search-impairment problem which it is a stated intention of the overcat policy to avoid. If maps that are relevant to the subject matter of Norway are not categorized as such (regardless of whether they also include neighboring countries), then users will see only an artificially and unnecessarily partitioned subset of the relevant maps (e.g. maps showing Norway but including no neighbors versus maps showing Norway that also include neighbors). The user's interest is Norway - and within that grouping of maps (which should be together), they might be interested in seeing neighboring countries (e.g. to see their time-corresponding borders and names), they might be not interested in seeing any neighboring countries (in which case they might want to extract the subject of interest either by cropping or by applying locator tools) - and in many if not most cases the features of their main subject of interest (i.e. Norway) are far more important than whether and to what extent adjacent countries are shown or not (since those additional subjects are readily eliminated if desired). Thus, many if not most people interested in a map showing Norway at the pertinent time would more likely be interested in seeing a group of such maps so that they can easily find and select one that meets their related interests. These include for example each map's particular level of detail within Norway, the inclusion of internal boundaries and regional names or not, the inclusion of towns, cities or neither, the map's language, its size and file type, its coloration, when the map was made, etc.). These are essentially secondary "attributes" or qualities of the maps meeting the principal subject-matter criterion (i.e. showing Norway at the relevant period). Across such attributes, some users will be very if not exclusively interested in one or another, while other users will have completely different priorities. Any and all such users should be able to easily see the group of maps side-by-side so that they can be presented with the available group and then select the map or maps that best satisfy their particular interests. At H, you initially allege that I misquoted you as stating that "the Low Countries were identical with Belgium, and so were the Netherlands." Such an allegation is false. Indeed your exact statement was as follows: "the Low Countries were identical with Belgium, and so were the Netherlands." (Enyavar (talk) 30 October 2025). You now suggest that the entities were "more or less identical" - which is also incorrect. You then go on to state that "'Low' is not a denigrating term here, it is the name of the region." But once again you're off-point. I never suggested that the problem with the use of the term Low Countries was that it was a "denigrating" term. On the contrary, as carefully laid out in H, the points made included the following:   ·       1 - The use of the term "the Low Countries" raises additional issues. Unlike political entities (such as various kingdoms, commonwealths etc.) or culturally distinct regions (such as the Basque Country or Catalonia), it was generally neither politically nor culturally a unified region. Indeed the name itself tells us that: so 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). ·       2 - As summarized in Low Countries, the constituent countries and lands also varied depending on the time-relevant controlling entities ·       3 - Another source of confusion is variations across languages - which is a further concern for databases such as Wikimedia Commons that are intended to be and are translated across languages. For example, in many languages the nomenclature "Low Countries" can possibly 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). ·       4 - The terminology is thus varying, context-dependent, language-dependent and a recognized "source of 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. These concerns related to the use of a term (directly related to this CfD) that is varying, context-dependent, language-dependent and a recognized "source of confusion" for reasons described above and in Wikipedia, certainly raise questions regarding its furtherance of and compliance with the Universality principle which provides among other things that "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/" Your suggestion at I is again rather the opposite of the point being made by the Wikimedia Commons official policy and principles regarding overcategorization. That policy essentially provides that countries are key exceptions to the Overcat policy - indeed they're addressed under the section "Exceptions for images with more categorized subjects" in which it is expressly provided that "Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories." The example given is that the South Asian country of India is categorized both within its applicable regional grouping (i.e. Categories of South Asia) and also within the higher level grouping (i.e. Countries of Asia). In the same manner, the Scandinavian country of Norway would be categorized both within its applicable regional grouping (i.e. Categories of Scandinavia) and also within the higher level grouping (i.e. Countries of Europe). And yet your supposed "application" of this principle is just the opposite - suggesting that a multi-subject file depicting Norway should not be categorized as depicting Norway. You attempt to rely on the Overcat principle to allegedly justify this odd result. In doing so, you ignore the exception allowing countries to be categorized at multiple overlapping levels, you also ignore the principal reason and basis for the Overcat policy in the first place (i.e. to avoid over-crowded categories) and ignore the guidance that "On lower levels, the problem becomes less acute, since the number of images will be smaller." The suggestion at J is considered to be both inappropriate and unhelpful. As noted already, the maps in many atlases are essentially multi-subject images. It's rather absurd to suggest that focusing on one of the subjects, such as the territory of a European country at the relevant time is an act of "obfuscation" (?!) Returning to the substantive issue, the fact that there are relatively few maps showing the territory of a particular European country at a particular time period is certainly not a reason to suppress or displace whatever maps or images are available. Quite the opposite, it is a compelling reason for identifying and providing any maps showing the territory of the particular European at the corresponding time period. The "maps showing <year>" scheme is not considered to be a particularly related category hierarchy and its "slumbering" status may well be warranted. As we’ve discussed previously, and it may seem more than obvious, the key issue from the perspective of any subject matter is the subject matter - which should accordingly be the initial focal point. So "Maps showing Paris in the 16th century," and "Maps showing Sicily in the 8th century," yes. But categories like Maps showing <1537> [somewhere], and maps showing <788> [somewhere], not so much. The final note that "categories are not galleries (although users can browse them as such)" is inapt. As discussed in more detail in the parallel user discussion in which you raised these points, I never suggested that categories are the same as galleries - 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. Neither the maps nor the organizational structures are therefore unrelated.

Summary and goals:

The major substantive points have been appropriately laid out in these and prior discussions, and your supplemental remarks do not fundamentally detract from or offset that perspective for reasons noted.

I do appreciate your recent recognition that "Inside Europe, your scheme does make a lot of sense" - and hopefully that's even more evident now that various principles have been fleshed out. I also very much appreciate your initial work in encouraging Reinhard Müller to develop the navigational country-by-century template, which is not only helpful but quite ideal for this project and for its future users.

So I'll now finally return to advancing the project to the extent I can, and look forward to your cooperation. In that regard, particularly while these categories are still in development, I do expect that we closely adhere to the principles of the Wikimedia Commons official categorization policy as it is written (rather than resorting to various urges or 'rules of thumb') and please do avoid taking steps or engaging in manipulations of files and/or categories that are being developed in accordance with such principles (particularly without prior discussion). In turn, if I can be of further help along the way in any related aspects or your parallel projects, don’t hesitate to let me know.

The next phase of the plan will involve considerable time hunting for additional relevant maps reflecting the histories of our European countries so that they can be brought together from often disparate locations and categories. The goal is to enable users to readily find relevant collections of related maps, see them side-by-side, and then be in position to compare and select the map or maps that are of greatest interest for their particular need - whether that is images for further public use or simply for informational purposes or guidance to related subjects. I think those aspirations reflect our greatest goals and service and I have no substantial doubt that you share in them.

With best regards in return, Ty Ty's Commons (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm taking the liberty to introduce collapse-boxes. Discussions are not decided based on word count, but on substance, and others need to be willing to participate. You are adding more lettered arguments (K-N) that are mostly just a reprise and reframing of your earlier ones, and with (O) you try to counter my responses. I am willing to write more responses if required for the CfD.

Regardless: At no point can I see you weighing the pros and cons of my actual proposal, which is to create redirects so that we no longer have four overlapping categories for the same content.

Let me point it out in this way: I do not argue that Belgium has no history. That was never my case. Rather, I argue that (17th and earlier) we have not enough history maps where Belgium is treated as an entity to be distinguished from the rest of the Low Countries. The same with regards to Luxembourg+Netherlands.

Creating even more cropouts from larger European history maps, just to populate the otherwise empty categories, achieves the contrary of convincing me, by the way. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)