Talk:Mercator 1569 world map
|WikiProject Maps||(Rated C-class)|
Introduction to this page
This new page could eventually provide:
- A list of extant copies of Mercator 1569 and facsimile editions.
- A list of locations where the map/facsimiles may be viewed.
- A survey of the general features.
- Medium resolution image of Mercator map.
- Slightly higher resolution images of the 18 original sheets.
- The latin text and english translations of all inscriptions on the map.
- A description of the Organum Directorium.
- Descriptions of the decorative features.
- Illustrative maps of the period.
- Analysis of the place names.
I have now put together a rough version of some of these topics but I suspect that there are many errors and I know that there is much textual polishing required. There are still references to check and links to implement. But the main problem is adding the translations.
The latin texts and translations cover 38 pages in the source journal and this may well produce an overlong wiki page. I also appreciate that such data may be considered unsuitable for a wiki page! I would appreciate guidance from more experienced wikicists on the best approach to these problems. Sub-pages seem obvious although I gather from wiki guidelines that they are to be avoided. The legends naturally fall into three groups: dedications, historical comments; geography; distances. Perhaps these could have their own page. The minor text could be another sub-page. What do you think?
The text translations have been provided (next section) by the International Hydrographic Bureau. The text originally appeared in the Hydrographic review in 1932. The page needs a lot of work to extend coverage to all the text (see next section). I have put up enough to provide a structure. This structure is not yet set in stone and if anyone wishes to discuss the structure please do so asap on this page. It will soon become impossible to alter as more interlinked material is added.
The Basel images have been copied and edited, with permission, from the website of Wilhelm Kruecken, . They are of moderate resolution only and place names and much of the minor text are illegible. To read such text it is necessary to consult one of the full size facsimiles (or look at the Paris online copy). Kruecken has just released such a full size, one piece facsimile: details are on his website.
The selection of illustrative maps of the period is open to adjustment, but hopefully not open ended additions. There are more maps at  and at some stage it might be interesting to put up a new page of Renaissance maps comprising a chronological list of map images annotated with descriptive data, i.e. not just an image gallery. Anyone interested in doing that?
The Latin text and English translations the framed legends and minor texts are now in place. The translations were taken (with permission) from the Hydrographics Review vol 9 (ii) 1932. There is a scan at Mercator1569text.pdf and a reasonably good OCR rendition at Mercator1569text-ocr.txt. There are some minor texts on the map which do not appear in the above translation: they can be added in the future. Peter Mercator (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Some response would be appreciated. Please append any comments here or start a new section.
- Section World maps not using the Mercator projection after 1569 and to some extent the one listing those that do use it seems like a can of worms. There is no end to either. Presumably we would list only “prominent” maps, but I don’t know that there is any agreement on what such a list would look like. What is the purpose of these lists? Strebe (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)The Wright-Molyneux map on this page is not from 1599 (as cited in the text and file tag) but 1699. The correct date can be viewed in the image itself. The map shows the west and north coasts of Australia, which was not sighted by Europeans until 1606.
- Well spotted. The original 1599 map is at  and this should be the version for this page, with no change of caption. The version shown here dated 1699 is from an unknown source: the Wikicommons page for it must be mistaken in giving the source as the 1599 Hakylut (vol3). I remember choosing the present image because it was available in a much higher resolution and I clearly didn't inspect it closely enough. Can anyone look into this and then do some tidying up. Peter Mercator (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)