Talk:Iberian cartography, 1400–1600

Requested move
Iberian cartography from 1400-1600 → Iberian cartography, 1400–1600 – The present form invites the question "from between 1400 and 1600 to what?"; and the hyphen needs changing to en-dash. I am similarly proposing: —Tamfang (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Iberian ship development from 1400—1600 → Iberian ship development, 1400–1600
 * Iberian Nautical Sciences from 1400-1600 → Iberian nautical sciences, 1400–1600
 * Iberian technology in nautical sciences, cartography and ship development from 1400—1600 → Iberian technology in nautical sciences, cartography and ship development, 1400–1600

Moved. Standard formatting. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 10, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This reads like an essay tag
This is very reflective, long and roaming, and contains many questionable statements with insufficient citations. The structure also needs improvement. Some parts attempt to be a history of cartography itself, not specific to Iberia, and should be separated into its own article and thinned here. Grammar and prose also need improvement. Most of the text seems to have been written by a non-native English speaker, so phrasing is quite awkward at times.

Finally, the content is confusing. It reads like an essay - specifically, an essay about how cartography and empire-building are connected. There is actually precious little information specifically about Spanish or Portuguese cartography here - only one cartographer (Abraham Cresques) and two maps (Catalan Atlas, Cantino Planisphere) are mentioned. For places quite rich in cartographers and with distinctive cartographic histories, this short-shrift is surprising. The rest is just passed over in generalizations and offhand statements, as if the author is trying to get on with the thesis and doesn't want to clutter the article with facts or elucidations. It reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Walrasiad (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: why is the title Iberian Cartography 1400-1600? It has a long discussion about T-O maps, which is clearly pre-1400. Moreover, much of portolan development, the Majorcan school, etc. - that is, including Cresques and Catalan Atlas which seems to be referred to throughout the article - were also pre-1400? Walrasiad (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia and knowledge (respecting it). I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic or a kind of summarization and unique fusion of different countries with paralels and also with originalities and differences in development in these areas at that time, in a mixture or a "mess" that also omits - and with or without a political goal (?). If so, you should not use Wikipedia in this way.

"Unlike the maps being created in Portugal, those produced in Spain were heavily guarded with an air of secrecy." Really? In both countries there was severe secrecy, especially in the court of King John II, and also in the court of King Manuel (Casa da India) and King John III, and with harsh and maximum penalties for treason. The greatest secrecy in Portugal (by comparison with Spain) is even classically argued by many historians, disputed or not. I think that perhaps you confuse such "openness" with the remarkable progress of Portuguese cartography and the choice of Portuguese Cartographers for all the Courts of Europe, from Homem in England - London, also in France, in the Spanish court, since the Diogo Ribeiro to the Teixeiras later, among others, etc.; - with their inevitable signatures or origin. But thanks for your effort any way. --LuzoGraal (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Walrasiad says it all and much better - and with the authority that I believe everyone will recognize to him. And I'm careful reader and admirer of his work on Wikipedia and grateful for it (Discoveries; Expeditions, Armadas; North Africa, Rulers, Historical and Nautical Science etc.) Please, You both (and everyone) can also correct some points of my comment, of course. --LuzoGraal (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one more thing: Please excuse if I was unfair with regard to history - and you could also remove or forget the part of the "political." And I admire your effort in general and your work here (even if I agree or not in some points that I believe I know something or I know about) and your scholarship (as all People who improve wikipedia with knowledge). I hope you see my comment in a good way. --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Title ???
Article saya "Cartography throughout the 14th-16th centuries" - the title should then be 1300-1600, right? --Janke | Talk 19:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)