You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
I was using Gil Feiler, page 40, as a source for that: he claims that at some point, yes they did, "by 1987" which could mean they joined only in the 1980ies and stopped in the 1990ies after only a few years. He lists 26 states in the same breath, so no details are given. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was categorizing maps, and stumbled upon a couple maps that didn't belong into "Route Maps", hence I removed unnessecary categories. The end goal is to have maps of similar extents, timeframes or topics sorted together; and different types of maps sorted separately. And neither did these two maps of the silk road show "Natural Earth" nor are they showing local directions which would be the purpose of a "route map" (check the other maps within "Route maps"). --Enyavar (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the Natural Earth category, thanks for pointing out my error here. Merely 1000 maps have that category so far, so apologies, I didn't know. It is a valid maps-by-source cat.
So you emptied the more specific category and put all the content into its broader parent category, leaving an empty node in the category tree? I didn't invent the structure, I merely put it in place as the maps of the US were mostly not sorted at all. There is "Category for Discussion" for a reason, why didn't you use that first? English is the universal and defining language of the Category tree, so following your argument, there shouldn't be any "Cultural maps of <places>". --Enyavar (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes. None of the categories and subcategories inside this overall "cultural" category seem right to me:
Hi: It is typical for one person to nominate, others to comment and a different person (usually an administrator) to close. I find things that have been previously categorized as no source, no category or no license. Most of those are just plain "Delete" and never worry about it again. However, occasionally I come across images which seem to have the wrong license or something else that could be fixed. It is not customary here for the finder to "just do it" unless the situation is absolutely cut-and-dried, obvious, no questions. What is typical is that the finder tosses the image/s over to Deletion Nominations to get the help from the community to fix the issues. While I deal with copyright all the time, I am not an expert on Crown Copyright - others are. We just wait until the discussion either provides the correct tags or other information - or an administrator expert resolves it. We don't rage at the system, we just share the load. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some cheers back, and I can't really object to any of your statements. Which of my recent deletion requests led you to make this comment? --Enyavar (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Sorry, yes that apparently happened, I won't make that a habit.
@Ellin Beltz: but that was not what you meant two years ago, I guess? I still have no idea what prompted your comment. Reading this again now, it looks like you wanted to admonish me for "raging against the system" ? It felt strange back then, and even more now. I really hope I haven't done inappropriate DRs at any point - I only point out why stuff should get deleted, usually with a few more words than just "OoS", which I think is valuable feedback to the original uploader so they understand what was wrong with their images. --Enyavar (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: : I was speaking about myself, customary work flow, and why sometimes I nominate something which seems to be "easy" or "cut and dry" because I am not personally an expert at everything! Hope this helps! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I could upload images of micronations. What is the reason for its total elimination? Not even the flag and shield are relevant to commons? Is there a policy on images of flags and coats of arms? Sorry my English, I only speak Spanish
What is the criteria to accept or not images of micronations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturoloretti (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please check out Commons:Scope and Commons:Deletion policy to find out about that, it should be translated to all major languages. Following that guideline, I understand that the fictional micronation should have been portrayed in prominent media. Sealand or Liberland GOT that news coverage, while the Deltarian Empire is unknown. (If you can find other examples on commons which encouraged you to also go public on commons - just point them out and they may be dealt with just the same. --Enyavar (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These were the categories and images that made me believe that photographs of micronations could be included in Wikimedia Commons:
I don't really understand what is the problem with this category Maps concerning the First Crusade. Could you please give me a clue for that matter. Regards.
[Category:Go-Hing_Festival,_Seattle,_1921&oldid=664819191]: Obviously, not an is-a relationship, but it was a fundraiser for famine relief. If we had a category for the specific famine of course I would have put it there instead, but we don't. - Jmabel ! talk22:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦»05:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir or Madam, I read your reasoning and related Wikimedia articles and I am in complete understanding and agreement with it.
My question is in regards to where is best to categorize these files on the platform. It seems to me that there are various fictional flags hosted on this platform and therefore that it is appropriate for me to upload them in theory. My question is in regards to how I would appropriately go about this. I am not a highly tech savvy person and my expertise with Wikimedia Commons is limited, and you seem to be quite a bit more expert in this regard. Is it necessary for me to include the word fictional in the files' titles or do they need to be categorized differently? Or are they completely inappropriate for this platform, altogether? I would appreciate your input, as I would sincerely like to have these files available on Wikimedia Commons. Best Regards Presromanaw (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latter: inappropriate on this platform. Please read my user page to learn about my stance on the matter, and read Commons:Scope to learn about the community rules. Once we allow personal fiction, we'd get absolutely swamped - in fact, we already get swamped with stuff like yours. If you want to point out other fictional flags on Commons, then please do so, I treat everyone's files with the same standard. --Enyavar (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ulrich von Zell Wirkungsorte e.i. - old maps as a base
Thank you, Anyavar, for your comments concerning my use of old maps.
The base of Ulrich von Zell map was published in 1954 and I would be only to happy to provide full details of the publication. But - shame on me - I don't know in which field of the Structured Data it should be done.
As for Breisgau zur Karolingerzeit there is an obvious mistake in the name of my file - the book which I used was published in 1836. Again, I'm not sure how to correct it.
I hugely appreciate your paying attention to these files and do agree they need correcting - please help me do it so that I know next time.DaLoetz (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DaLoetz: for offering the full details. You may post them here and I'll try to carry them into the file descrptions, but you could also do it yourself. There is no definite/best formatting of sources I believe, but there is of course the possibility to mis-state them (and many uploaders do!). People who are used to mostly publish their own photos, can just forget to make different source claims when they upload old stuff, and also go with "current date, own work". So, for easy example, I present File:Portugal_OSM_Zoom_9.png: I can edit "Date", "Source" and "Author": in the first I can give the original year of publishing; in the source I can refer to where the map came from; under author I first credited the source and then myself because I did some minor arranging. In your case, "1834" is the date, "source" should name the book and edition number, then "author" gives the author(s) of the original map plus a mention of what you added, if anything. All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HUGE THANKS! I've made the changes you recommended:
The number in the file name is still wrong but I have no way to correct it. It's the year in which the book I used was published (1836), which was a reprint of the first publication in 1834.
But I can't figure out why after all my changes this file info still shows Own Work as Source. It really beats me. I tried to compare the description in your file, but as it doesn't exhibit Structured Data I can't see how you filled in the fields there.
Anyway I do hope it is better, fairer, now. And you have helped me enormously to get to grips with Wikimedia (that is in fact more complicated than writing articles). Best regards. DaLoetz (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, it seems that changing descriptions within the file is less obviously available. So, here's a better walkthrough: At the top right of each file's page, in the line below your username, there is an "Edit" button. By clicking on it, you are then able to edit the source code. Here is a revision comparison for your perusal. Um... are we talking about the same Zeißig? The one you have stated, was a sculptor who died in 1944. If the person who created the map that was published in 1954, was still alive then, the map should get deleted, regrettably. Copyright law of Germany says "Life+70 years", so if the cartographer Zeißig died (for example!) in 1960, the map can get restored in 2030 by the admins. All the best, -Enyavar (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what exactly sparked this comment? Most election categories are by now set up in the pattern of "<year> elections in <country>", but there are often country-specific subcategories of each singular election process, that deviate from said pattern. Check for example: Category:2011_elections_in_Europe. I think that in the long term we can eventually homogenize the patterns internationally, but there is no reason why one pattern is superior over the other. --Enyavar (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elections by country by year -> 2021 elections by country
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Hallo Enyavar,
ich sehe, dass Du die Karte File:Bèrcay Land.xcf mit "Difficult case because there are no WP-articles "Aftam"/"Bèrcay" nor can I find a region with that names." beschrieben hast. Ich bin mir absolut sicher, dass alle Uploads von Gaby56000 völlig fiktional sind und keine reale Geographie abbilden.
Herzliche Grüße --Bürgerentscheid (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moin, würdest du dich dann um die "Politicians" kümmern? Von T abwärts mach ich dir das gerne. Ich habe hier einfach vorsichtshalber gehandelt, die Bilder liegen ja oft seit Jahren in der Kategorie.
Bei den "unidentified politicians" hatte ich den Plan, als nächstes noch einmal grob drüberzugehen (DRs auf Selbstdarsteller, Politische Journalisten sowie Kundgebungen wieder herausfischen und anders einordnen) und dann entsprechend in die "Unidentified politician of <country>" einordnen, wo ja alle hinmüssten, die keine Namenskategorie haben. Ich kann sie dir aber stattdessen auch einfach nach "Politicians" zurückschieben. LG --Enyavar (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ich arbeite immer wieder mal an "Politicians" und versuche, sie wenigstens in "Politicians of country" zu bringen, das gelingt bei etwa 95 Prozent der Bilder. Dort kümmern sich dann hoffentlich die landesbezogenen Spezialisten darum, in DE klappt das ja ganz gut. Mal schauen, ob ich das wirklich für alle derzeit 2250 Bilder durchhalte. "Unidentified" wäre für mich nur dann zutreffend, wenn es wirklich keinen Identifizierungshinweis gibt (also weder ein Personenname in der Dateibeschreibung noch im Dateinamen und keine Artikelverwendung), nur wegen fehlender Individualkategorie würde ich sie eigentlich nicht als unidentifiziert betrachten, aber mach da gerne, wie Du magst. Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Die unidentifizierten Politiker sind jetzt wieder unter 2000 Bildern, aber es ist schon eine ordentliche Arbeit, gerade weil ich auch die restlichen Uploads prüfe: Fast in allen Fällen sind die Unidentifizierten von Einmal-Accounts angelegt worden, die nur einen Schwung Bilder abgeladen haben und dann nie wieder aktiv waren. Wenn es nur wenige Bilder von einem Politiker(in) gibt, dann lege ich keine neuen Kategorien an, sondern lege sie nur in die Unidentifizierte Länderkategorie, die ich jetzt zum Teil angelegt habe. Und auch Politikerbilder die ich in Category:Politicians of Bolivia finde, die aber keine plausible Bildbeschreibung haben, die einen Namen verrät, schiebe ich beim Anlegen der Kategorie nach "Unidentifiziert". Nicht in allen Ländern gibt es so disziplinierte Kategorisierer wie in DE/EU. ;-D --Enyavar (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, mühsam, aber "Politicians" sind jetzt unter 1800. Ich verschiebe weiterhin nur in die Landeskategorien und kümmere mich nicht darum, was dort weiter passiert: Ich habe einfach keine Ahnung, wie die politischen Strukturen in Indien oder Brasilien sind und bin überfordert, dort feiner zu kategorisieren. Ich grüble aber darüber, ob vielleicht landesspezifische Sammelkategorien für Politiker ohne Wikipedia-Artikel sinnvoll wären. Bei Personen ohne Artikel(-relevanz) sind Individualkategorien IMHO meistens nicht lohnend, aber die Einzelbilder machen die Themenkategorien unordentlich und erschweren es, neu hinzukommende Bilder zu erkennen und aufzuräumen. Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schon recht - bei Personen ohne eigene Relevanz und mit mieser Beschreibung zögere ich auch nicht, direkt die Löschung anzuregen. --Enyavar (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I originally planned to complete the series (my progress went up to the 1200s when I temporarily gave up, but I will find motivation to start up again, hopefully); so thanks a lot for what you did today! Just to be sure what you did: In the first moment I thought you made a new SVG template... but I still create and upload the next maps of the series like I used to, right? And then I include the uploads into this template which is a graphical list of all versions of the near east map. Correct?
Regarding that file here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fight_For_Justice.jpg I think that you miscategorised it. The uniforms in it match those of Indian civilian police as you can see here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Police_of_India The officer on the right with a blue cap has a cloth badge on his shoulder. Not all the writing on that badge is clear to see but, it includes the words “CITY POLICE.” You can add the file to the category Police of India.
If you want, I can refer you to a separate photograph that you can add to the category Military police. That would be a replacement. Dreddmoto (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreddmoto: Of course, just change the categories, I hold no stakes in the picture whatsoever. You may also want to replace "Unidentified locations" with the correct city, too. My main objective was to identify the Politician (as part of a campaign to move thousands of pictures out of the Category:Politics), and after finding more of the stuff I switched my edit from Category:Unidentified politicians of India to the current identifier, but didn't change the other categories in the same breath. Apologies. --Enyavar (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Maps of the history of <place>" means maps that depict the history of that <place>.
"Old maps of <place>" means contemporary maps of that <place>.
"1560s maps of Asia" means maps that were created between 1560 and 1569, that show Asia to their knowledge back then. A 1895 map, or a map created today, when showing Asia in the 1560s is a "Map of the history of Asia", or a "Map of 16th-century Asia". The category you created here is named so that old maps from the 1560s may not be included. Wasn't your plan about something like "Maps showing the Ottoman Empire in the 1560s"? That would include both old maps and history maps. --Enyavar (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I mean Template:MapHistoryOttomanDecade should generate "<date> Maps of the history of Asia" and "<date> Maps of the history of Europe", but it generates "<date> maps of Asia". I don't understand why.
Ah! Okay, I mostly use templates that work from other areas, and modify them. But as far as I understand that template, it should work like you say, not like how it works right now. Maybe it transcludes the category from another template?
Anyway, I see only about 60 maps about 15th century history of the O.E., I don't think that's enough to justify ten subcategories. --Enyavar (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Hi @Bizottmány: , I did not check each individual file. These files were just put into "(male) politician of Hungary" in that main category-collection, and didn't have file names that make it clear what their names were. It definitely helps to have captions, too. But as long as they are sorted in these men's correct categories, I'm already okay. I'm going to remove that "unidentified" thing from the files now. Thanks for caring, and sorry again! --Enyavar (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic of populating this category. The majority of these photos have the name of the depicted politician(s) clearly stated either in the title of the description – so how are they "unidentified, unclassified, unknown or mislabelled"? Gikü (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gikü: , I'm trying to lay out my full reasoning here, as follows: I am occasionally doing stuff like this or this. According to the guidelines, it is best to create categories for notable persons that tend to be depicted often - like politicians. There also have been "Unidentified politicians of..."-Categories before, but I hope I got them a bit more structured now, by applying the template (the one you cited above, which suggests to move the images into "politicians by name"). Whenever needed, I create new national categories while sorting through the wild assortment of (Category:Politicians+Category:Unidentified politicians). And when I make a new "unidentified politicians of..." category, I also go for a quick check in the parent category. Now, Category:Politicians of Moldova for example, has many more pictures of politicians that aren't yet sorted into their personal categories. Most are okay enough, they have the full name in the image title - those can be found with the regular search tool, and I leave them alone. But some images don't have a full name, which means they might not show up during image searches, and they should get organized better. Just look at the image titles in some of the "unidentified..." categories! Titles like "Macron meets Moldovan president", "Maksim in Sofia", "A. K. Pane", "André B.", "DCIM1234.jpg" and "Archif 19511208 btv9ASD10" are simply not descriptive enough, even if there might be a proper text description (that I wouldn't see in the category view). So one of my usual steps is to move all images with non-descriptive titles into the "Unidentified..." subcategory. In the result, there are multiple possibilities:
The politicians may not be identified at all (not in the title, not in the description, not via the category, like for example here): Then they truly belong into "unidentified", until someone identifies them and brings them into the named category. As a demonstration: done like here. (People should ideally also move the file to a better name, or add a description, but that doesn't reflect in the categories.)
The politicians may have been correctly named via the description text, like File:Foto_I._Turcanu.JPG. I assume you found cases in my moves yesterday that are like this. Yes, I could have created the Category:Ian Turcanu. In rare cases, I even do such detail work, but I often realize that I'm not familiar enough with the people. Mr. Turcanu might already have a category that includes his middle name, for example. Many categories I created have since been moved to better places, or got deleted. And the research can be lots of work, too. So I'd like to rely on the local editors who are familiar with the politicians and can sort them out more quickly than I ever could.
The politicians in question have already been sorted into their own personal category, but also still lingered in the "Politicians of..." category. That means, they have been previously overcategorized, which is simply an error that someone else can fix when they go through the "unidentified" category later: Make sure all people in a picture are in their named categories, then remove the "Unidentified", and all is well.
It's a group photo, like this one. Two people are properly categorized, but three are not, which means that I would claim this is still a case of "unidentified", as far as categories are concerned. If another editor familiar with the matter finds out that the three other persons are not even notable (within scope), the "unidentified" category can be removed as well.
I hope my motivation is now a bit more clear, and I laid it out fully so that others with the same question may also understand. I'm fully open to suggestions on changing the template, to give better instructions on why images have been brought there. --Enyavar (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your exhaustive explanation, I appreciate!
To me it still seems that you are using the "Unidentified politicians of [...]" category as a "we need to better categorize these people" pool – which I guess could be covered by {{Categorize}} – rather than a "we could not identify or classify these people, or they are unknown / mislabeled, but otherwise we know they are politicians from [...]" – the latter is what {{Unidentified politicians by country}} tells me.
I am not completely on board with your approach so I will not add more files to such categories, but I will go ahead and move out what I can from the Moldova and Romania "Unidentified" categories as a continuation of your impressive cleanup effort.
[1][2] I don't need your 600-word reasoning to understand that the "unidentified politician" is not a politician whose identity is explicitly specified, and whose photo is already in use in the related articles or Wikidata items. The obligatory personal category for the "identification" is totally your invention. Stop marking the files like that. It's irrelevant. INS Pirat (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bad descriptions and labels are everywhere in original uploads, so in many cases, the names are not as easily found out. Just today I found multiple dozen politicians of India that were only in the category "Politician", and most images are not in use, either. Some have their name in the image title, but a different name in the image description. Some have weird names like Mr. Interview, Mr. Uttarakhand and Mr. Politics, the latter also known as Mr. Mass. Chandra Shekhar Azad, dead since 1931, looks quite alive in his 2022 election campaign. Is Lalpura his real full name?
Frankly, "Politicians of <country>" is not the proper category for any of the images anyway, so marking them as "unidentified" isn't that much worse, and it could be easily rectified by anyone who can create a proper named category and suddenly bring together several pictures of the same person. It's already a win with just two or three images.
Yes, the category could be named differently, like "Politicians of <x> needing categorization", but that would just change the label. Note that we also have "Category:Unidentified flags" and the like: Everything that should be organized because we have millions of pictures, but is still in the root category, needs to be sorted in SOME way, and Commons:Overcat tells me that this is the correct way. --Enyavar (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing the different issues, not addressing the concerns of mine and of Gikü. You radically misuse the word "unidentified" and overpopulate the maintenance categories with irrelevant stuff. In my case and in your own example above, the people ARE identified. The lack of their personal categories doesn't make them unidentified.
COM:Overcat has nothing to do with your actions too. The files in the categories, which are too vague, ARE not sorted precise enough by definition. The separate "unsorted" categories are redundant.
I would even go that far to call your actions disruptive. You should have at least discussed them in advance with community, instead of inventing this novel vision on your own. INS Pirat (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, these categories are not my own invention. seehere, here, here or here. Outside of politics, you may be interested that this whole thing also exists for people in general. So I merely found stuff that was not properly categorized - and Lo+Behold, I was knee-deep into thousands of smiling portraits unhelpfully categorized as "Politics", "Politicians" and "Unidentified politicians". All I did was to create a few more necessary "unidentified"-categories to begin processing these photos, and then move these pictures there. Second, Commons:Categories#Improper_categorization_of_categories_is_a_cause_of_over-categorization Overcat describes exactly this situation, so again, I am only applying practically what I found in the guidelines as the recommended action to do. Third, the "unidentified" categories are not redundant. In the ideal state of matters, all politicians are already sorted into sub-categories; ideally by their names which are themselves subnodes of "politicians of <country> by party/affiliation"; and the "unidentified" category is as empty as the "Politicians of <country>" parent category. However, Commons can only ever approach towards the ideal state, it doesn't ever arrive there as long as new images are uploaded. Fourth, in some cases I add a suggested category in red, but that does not yet "identify" a person. If the image is used in an article or in Wikidata about the person, all that needs to happen is that someone else uploads a better picture, which then gets used instead. As soon as the old image is unlinked from the article, your claim that the images are identified somehow automatically because of their usage, is no longer true. Fifth, this is a global project and in over six months, not a lot of people have had complaints. If you want, I am happy to discuss this matter on the village pump, if you want to bring it there. Do it: I won't move files around for a while, and we get to see if the community (or the 2-6 people who might voice their opinions) thinks of it as "disruptive" or not. Sixth, you and everyone else can always create the proper categories to sort these images for good: I am aware that these files do not belong into "unidentified" forever. Don't complain, act. The images are merely there until someone decides to apply the proper categories. Or at least have them renamed and described unambiguously, that would already improve the situation. Which leads me to Seventh: I am not the person who will do that final detail sorting. I might be able to do that in some cases, but I'm likely to screw it up. Is it Vundavalli Sridevi? Or is she known under the name en:Undavalli Sridevi? Does Commons need to use her middle name to distinguish her from three famous Indian actresses who all share the same name? With politicians from other continents than the one I live in, I am definitely the wrong person to settle the correct category name, so I only bother when I can be reasonably sure I got it right; and even then I might be wrong. The next thing after the category name is assigning the proper party affiliation... Which I have no clue about. This is all a task for the locals. It might even turn out that some hot young politician who uploaded thirty pictures of his campaign, is a non-notable hoax so the images can get deleted. Again, I'm also not the person who decides that a smiling face from Nepal, Algeria, Uruguay or Indonesia is a legitimate politician or not.
But what I can do is see what the file currently claims, and so I can replace the stupid tags like "politician" "for the people" "politics" "representant" "parliament" "Bangladesh" "progress" "justice" "anti-corruption" "campaign" "Dhakar" with one single slightly smarter category: "Unidentified politian of Bangladesh". And the file with a name in Thai that merely has the category "Politician", is probably still an "Unidentified politician of Thailand". And Mr. Jpg Jpg here is likely an "Unidentified politician of India". And so on. Some might also be businesspeople who just gave themselves a fancy label, but we can't figure this out if they remain unsorted in a supercategory, because nobody will find them there. --Enyavar (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that INS Pirat did not initiate a community-wide discussion after all. I held my feet still for two weeks, and 35 new portrait images of supposed politicians popped up, just counting Category:Politics. I think that is enough; I'm beginning to move these images into the [Unidentified politicians of...]-categories (unless the persons have a category) soonish. --Enyavar (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should initiate such discussion, not me, because you want to perform the bulk actions. (Sorry, I won't read that another huge block of text above. The unidentified people are those who are unidentified, not those who are identified, but don't have their personal categories) INS Pirat (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moin, das obige Bild ist ein Ausschnitt aus einem Gemälde, das ich bei Wiki Commons gefunden habe und ist in so fern 'mein' Werk, weil ich es ausgeschnitten und einen roten Kreis darum gemalt habe. Ich bin noch auf der Suche nach dem Original. Ich denke, es handelt sich um ein Gemälde einer Schlacht zwischen britischen und holländischen Schiffen während deren Querelen damals. Wenn ich es gefunden habe, werde ich dich unverzüglich informieren. Viele Grüße --ThomasJa276 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ging schneller, als ich dachte! Das Bild aus WikipediaCommons ist: File:Battle of Scheveningen (Slag bij Ter Heijde)(Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten).jpg.
Moin, danke! Trotz Ausschnitt und rotem Kreis zählt das nicht als "own work". Sonst könnten wir einfach Ausschnitte aus urheberrechtlich geschützten fremden Werken als unsere eigenen Werke deklarieren und hier hochladen. Und sogar mit erheblich umfangreicheren Modifikationen (25% URV, 75% Eigenleistung) zählt eine URV als URV. 🙃 LG --Enyavar (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there are quite a few OSM related files in there last edited by you before marked by bot as lacking a license tag. Example: File:Northumberlandia map.svg. Would you please go through the category and add the appropriate license tags for these files? Thanks. Regards --Rosenzweigτ18:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, please link me the files and provide me the preferred OSM license (as long as it's not that horrible template locking them in the topmost OSM category) and how to place it on the file, and I can check whether or not they should get OSM-licensed. The Northumbrialand one makes me uneasy, as it is not a screenshot from OSM, just purported from the description that it's from OSM. But files like File:Map_of_Bath,_England.png, File:Los_Angeles_locator_map.png or File:Lehrterstr.png I feel comfortable to confirm that yes they have been taken from OSM. --Enyavar (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I realized that this extent of the Middle East (Persia+Afghanistan+Baluchistan) was quite commonly selected in 19th-century cartography, so I decided to assemble the maps per decade, just like with other regions. The original intent seemed to have been to collect just one specific map title of a specific English-language publisher (McNally), but maps were also included from other publishers. So instead of only maps that randomly share an English publication title, the category can now include all old maps with the same regional focus. (like "Old maps of Scandinavia", "Old maps of the Mediterranean" etc.) --Enyavar (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for elaboration. Recently, I was reading a book of geopolitics that was talking about slight differences between versions of the McNally's map in different years. Searching for them on Commons, I found out that there is no coherent categorization. Due to the fact that many files of the map in various years were available, I judged that it would be useful to be able to find them with categories. Such categorization can also help if you want to, for example, find a map of Iran in a specific year. I think there are a few issues with the new categorization:
The region in question is not in Central Asia. It is in partly Southern Asia, and partly in West Asia.
'Map of Persia, Afghanistan and Baluchistan' is a proper name, used by McNally (as it was referenced in the book I read). Other sources have named their maps with other names such as 'Iran and Turan' or 'Iran and Turkestan'. Some have included Arabia or Turkey as well, or have otherwise referred to Afghanistan as 'Cabool'. As a result, I don't find McNally's naming to be generic and widely-used. This situation is probably be misleading, as someone may look for this specific map by McNally.
Based on these points, my suggestion is that:
We turn '[Decade] maps of Persia, Afghanistan and Baluchistan' into '[Decade] maps of West Asia' and '[Decade] maps of South Asia' (as the terms 'West Asia' and 'South Asia' are widely-used). Other maps would also be included in this category.
We revive the category format "Persia, Afghanistan and Baluchistan (Year)" and reserve it for McNally, so that maps of every year are linked to a Wikidata entry and can be found easily. Derivatives such as this (which I found used the same a book) are included too. Other series such as 'Iran and Turan' would also have their own category too.
Hi, thanks for explaining your motivation in turn, and now I feel sorry for having disrupted your category.
If you wish to make a special category for comparing the various McNally-editions, I suggest you could mention McNally in the category name. For example, "<year> maps by McNally of Persia, Afghanistan and Baluchistan" or "Maps of „Persia, Afghanistan and Baluchistan“ by Rand McNally" - similar to some book title categories. With a name clearly invoking a titular work and author, I'd have left these maps alone in the first place. Instead, I believed they were just maps sharing the same common title, and that's like grouping together any books sharing the title "Advanced Physics" regardless of authors/year.
I also had time to rethink the decade-category in question (P+A+B) and now think this categorization might be slightly problematic: In the work title, compared to the modern spelling, "Balochistan" is misspelled. (back then it was also sometimes called Beloochistan etc.) The name "Persia" is also not optimal for neutral purposes. On the other hand, I already find the title variant "Persien, Afghanistan, Biludschistan" in German 1830s maps, and it reappears for example in the titles here and even in Russian as Персия, Афганистан.... So it was definitely a common grouping, as these three countries fit neatly into a bounding for a while.
On the topic of "West Asia" and "South Asia": Um, the maps show too little of either. West Asia stretches from Turkey to Iran; South Asia from Sri Lanka to Afghanistan. But see also the next paragraph.
On the topic of "Central Asia": I'm subscribing to the definition of "expanded" Central Asia like here. Before looking it up, I'd have defined that region by roughly stretching a rubberband around the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Tibet, Mongolia and Kazakhstan and anything inside is classical Central Asia. The expanded definition above would remove Tibet from that. But the region of P+A+B here is at least largely represented. But: I think we should maybe bring several map-people together here on Commons and decide on naming schemes for large-scale regional definitions for maps that don't conform to modern borders. In my opinion, we shouldn't place Maps in multiple "Maps of <country>"-Categories (Yemen, Saudi, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE...) when a simple "Maps of Arabia" is sufficient.
I agree that more users, including map-people, should be involved in this (I am personally not much knowledgeable in this field). I also support (P+A+B) naming, do you have any suggestions? HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I removed the category, for this and other characters, because they are minor and unknown politicians in Italy. He and others are placed in the dedicated category
Enyavar, this file nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate File:Tripolitza.png is not an "exact duplicate" of the other file. This file contains the full map (as an inset map), plus an additional related map that is different than the other file. So, not a "duplicate" per COM:duplicate.
Separately, this file's original upload is better quality. So, the overwrite could be reverted to show the larger original.
Um. There are three versions here: A full greyscale/color version, a greyscale version just showing the inset map, and a b/w version the shows the inset map and some random stuff from the full because it is cropped in a bad way. The DR is only onthe last one. Yes, the b/w version and the greyscale versions come from different scans... of the same book. Also, even the original b/w upload has still a lower res than the grayscale version. But ultimately, that is the decision of the admin who will handle this. --Enyavar (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Old maps" is currently a well-defined term on commons: Maps that are 70+ years old. "Historical" is not a good word to describe maps, as it can be interpreted as both "of the history of" and "old". That is why I regularly rename "historical maps" into "old maps". This is current best practice in maps all over the category tree, and has been decided long before my participation in map-sorting. I never saw your CfD there before, and I will read it next, but I assume off the bat, that the terms discussed there are "images" and "historical", not "maps" and "old". So far my first thoughts, probably more to come. Enyavar (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: As suspected. There were seemingly three ignorant voices clamoring for deletion of the whole old maps category tree, which has millions of maps sorted into hundreds of thousands of subcategories. I don't think those three people have categorized any larger amounts of old maps. Worse: "Old maps" was not even the focus of the debate there, it was "Historical images", as the CfD's title suggests. I don't see that there was any resolution to axe away at the Old maps tree - a tree about which we have mostly consense since roughly 2006.
I'm not even sure that enough people attending that CfD debate were even aware of some difficulties in sorting historical (=old) material. I have mostly been active in the categories "maps" and "old maps" over the past three years, but I also often peeked into "historical <stuff> of <places>". I never encountered this debate because it was so well hidden, or I would have strongly opposed some ideas presented there (while agreeing on other well-made points in favor of getting rid of "historical <stuff> of <place>". Basically any larger city in the world has a "History of <place>" category, and in that there are quite often some "historical <stuff> of <city>" subcategories, which are then (sometimes) subdivided by century, decade, year and date. But, WHAT IF there are a few photographs/postcards/paintings that can be dated only as exact as "between 1890 and 1910". Which is the by-date-category you place that material in? "Category:2nd-millenium photographs of Krakow"? Yes, "historical" was probably a misnomer for the whole category tree, but then it should have been replaced with a better term, not deleted entirely. But as much as I disagree with this not fully-thought-through decision, I won't interfere with you reshuffling millions of images into new categories: "historical images" are not my hobby. Y'all do you; tell me next millenium how the decision worked out.
"Old maps" are my hobby, and Old maps were kept by CfD, for good reasons. Because "old maps" are the preferred super-category of maps by century, we don't even need an extra "Maps of London by century" as long as we have "Old maps of London" with century-wise subcategories. "Old maps" are also much better defined than the wiggle-word "historical". I can assure you that there are a lot of maps without a clear publication date (Gallica places a lot of them as "16th or 17th century", just for example), and for those the best categorization applicable is "old". Just for example File:BostonNeck.jpg at first glance is either undated or was created in 2006 (it depends on your judgment, I'd say undated (=old) for the basemap, but the whole file definitely needs to be labeled as "2000s map showing history of Boston"): so why was it placed as a 17th century map?
Another issue I have with too-precise categories: many places have just a few old maps. For a village with just ten old maps from five different centuries. We don't need five century categuries, each with just two decade-categories, each with a single year-category, each with a single image. In that example, you use 26 categories to sort 10 images. That is madness, when a single category ("Old maps of village") is fully sufficient. For more on that topic, please refer to my FAQ about "Old maps by decade" vs "Old maps by year". --Enyavar (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there was no political party mentioned, neither in description, nor file name nor visible in the file itself, and the image was also unused. But thanks for helping with categorization! --Enyavar (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You included the category tag "Otrocamino". Which, I thought you realized, is the name of her political party. That's why it's on her shirt. DS (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Most parties have a category on Commons, or are recognizable in their name as such (Forza Belgia, PRLO, Partido Revvolucionisti pour le Liberté of the Otrocamimo nation - that kind). I just tagged something that was visible, but that got no hit, so I input unidentified next. The O-word could have been the name of her Peruvian province, her Filipino neighborhood or even an Australian clothing brand without any political message. Good that you could make a sense of the picture, maybe thanks to that clue. --Enyavar (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Enyavar. You have removed the category "1629 maps of Denmark" from a file (and another user later deleted the category). You then moved it to another category. Was the date wrong, or was there something else wrong? Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rsteen: it was this one here, a single file in a specific year category. There are multiple reasons why this is not a good idea, please expand "Old maps by decade" vs "Old maps by year" in my User-page's FAQ, to see why I am a big advocate of using decade-categories for old maps predating the 20th century.
I didn't look into it too close yesterday, but my assumptions (that the big nams in 16th and 17th century cartography were brilliant copycats) were almost instantly validated: a map of the exact same design is attributed to John Speed from England, the linked scan appears to be sheet 29 from a reprint of his 1627 "Prospect". That doesn't mean however, that we can date the map to 1627, either. --Enyavar (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I do not do much uploading of maps, but the one in question seemed to be of good quality. I checked that there are "1629 maps of France" and "of Europe", so the categorization seemed appropriate. However, the logic in your FAQ is reasonable, and you seem to possess much knowledge of and enthusiasm for the subject, so I understand the recategorization. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the quality cannot be questioned! A very fine map, and a crisp scan. Commons would be poorer without it. Also yes, there are still many maps sitting in single-file categories, still much work for me (and others) to do. Working on it. :-) Enyavar (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I am doing this for about two years by now; I have brought up the topic(s) in several discussions (by-year-categorization for example here, but also a few other times to general consent, so it's now even in my user-page-FAQ). Each deliberate recategorization is in my experience uncontroversial. Here, I just did a lot of them in a short period, but this is not a "mass move". Examples:
A lot of stuff was entirely mis-categorized. For example this map was created in 2020, not in 1972. After recategorization, the Category:1972 maps of Alabama was empty, so I put it up for deletion. (Also, there are quite a few cases where maps from a period (1941-1946) are simply placed in either of the years of the bracket, or where 1905 maps get misplaced as 1902, or where "1880?" is placed as "1880".)
Then there are the Sanborn maps, and again, this has been discussed a lot already. These are cadastral plans, and should just not be sorted directly into year-maps-of-state. This is arguably not really a "1902 map of Colorado" - but it's currently not categorized as "map of Hinsdale County, Colorado", which it should be. After the moves, the files are less specific in time (where most Sanborn-files are currently miscategorized anyway) but more specific in location. After moving Sanborn maps out of year-specific categories, there is usually not that much left.
If there are just 1-5 files in a by-year category (like so), I find it preferable to move them up to the decade-level for easier browsing: organize 20 similar maps in 1 category, not in 11 categories. For another reason:
Decade-vs-year: Why don't we categorize maps by the month and day they were created? It could add even more false precision! The difference between "1636 maps of Hesse" and "1637 maps of Hesse" is minimal, and the more you go back in time, the more of a problem you have with timestamp-assigning as well. Much more than the exact date, the location is of interest: If these maps can be moved into "17th-century maps of Kassel" and "17th-century maps of Darmstadt" instead, that is much better.
This is just what I practically applied to Colorado maps: Instead of "all maps of Denver" vs. "by-year-maps-of-Colorado", these maps fit much better into "by-decade-maps-of-Denver" vs. "by-decade-maps-of-Colorado". (let's say you want to find an old map of an entire state: This structure makes stuff more accessible than this one).
But there is no WikiProject or village pump discussion on this? Such a mass change needs some kind of broader community approval. I especially question this because the moves you are doing are removing information from the file and in many cases we will have many more maps in the near future and then we have to undo the move to the broader category and restore the deleted one. You should definitely ask the people who created the by year categories before requesting them for deletion. GPSLeo (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now this made me think hard. There may be village-pump discs that I forgot about or missed entirely, and I will gladly place this on the pump if you want me to. As I wrote before, I saw my map-sorting as rather uncontroversial maintenance movements, given how I got almost no feedback about it before.
I'd love to learn if there was a "WikiProject Maps". Is there? It can't be overly active, or I think I would have stumbled across its actors by now. Village pump discussions? Yes, I went, and there I learned:"Maps of <location> by <year> categories should be burned with fire." - "everything finer than "by century" should go" - "Let's not make more narrow category trees that aren't necessary". Those were the essences of the three major opinions back then. That was what made me consider the (non?)sense of too narrow categories in the first place. There were a few more CfDs, where I mostly got the feedback that map-cats by year are too specific. The Montreal-CfD was an exception in which I only suggested how the by-year structure could be dissolved, but did not act myself. See it as my testing, how quick the matter gets solved by community consensus. By late 2022 I just started to clean out single-file categories like so, and my speedy-nominations (e.g. there: "Category:1683 maps of Georgia") were simply deleted, which I understood as another tacit community approval. Yes, I was questioned about the practice before, twice, but each time on a much narrower subject and not asking whether or not a broad community approval has ever been given. On the other hand: was there a broad community approval FOR the first by-year map categories, back in 2016? Was approval given for the mass-creations in 2018/19?
Also where did you see me removing information? Either, I am removing a category that was falsely placed on the files, or I am moving them one node higher in the temporal-sorting tree. A "1785 maps of Abkhazia" retains all its information when I move it (with a key!) to "1780s maps of Abkhazia|1785 maps". If the by-year-category really has to be recreatedat a later point, it's a matter of a few clicks with Sir Catalot to move the files back. I don't delete descriptions either, instead I tend to enhance them (if needed and if I have the time). I'm not some vandal who deletes the "|date = 1785" in the desc.
Finally, "but we need the granular categories for the potential influx of future files!" I'm not seeing that, so far - not even with Erin Laor, Polona and Gallica blasting their map archives into Commons (another topic entirely). Anyway, so there is this one possible influx: A bulk of (map) files appears that doesn't quite fit in any existing category, so new ones have to be created. Let's assume uploads of whopping 1200 maps of "The 1953 Ultimate Atlas of Colorado". These maps should not each be placed directly under "1953 maps of Colorado", but rather inside a new cat, which then can be placed under "1950s maps of C."), and also be subcategorized by location and so on. The other likely influx is that of of one map here and three maps there, which each can still be placed under "1950s maps of C.". For now. They accumulate much slower, and also not in the same amount for each century/decade. At some point, there are really SO MANY maps that more granularity is needed, and you need to go from "Old maps of..." to "maps-by-century" and eventually "maps-by-decade". But. Even with "Maps of London" and "Maps of Paris" (two of the most-mapped places of Earth), we have not yet reached that kind of density, that we had had to go by-year (instead we went by-work for one map with 300 files; and any other single-file maps from the same year can still sit in the decade-cat). I also checked New York City's 1890 and 1910 categories: Yes, there is a lot of content, but after weeding out Sanborn maps and whole work-compilations (like the District maps of '16) that sit directly in the by-year-categories... yeah. As it stand now, even NYC doesn't really require a by-year-categorizing. Yes, we do so for NYC, but we also do so for the metropolis of Werbach, which devalues the argument imho.
Of course, all this is specifically about "old maps", and usually from before 1900. Non-map topics may require entirely different approaches. --Enyavar (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I asked the Village pump on the topic, and I did invite people via ping whom I expected to have an opinion, including yourself. None responded, but still: every single person who DID respond gave the following quote: Usability comes from seeing items within a minimum amount of categories (pages), rather than single files buried in sub categories where they can't be seen without drilling down. --Enyavar (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Enyavar, I noticed that the summary point for "Obligatory conscription for women" in English and German differ by meaning. In English it's claimed that "a wide range of policies can be observed" etc, but in German "weltweit gelten sehr uneinheitliche Bedingungen" usw.; which one is accurate? Sollte das so sein, oder ist das ein Fehler? Samsattet001 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsattet001: I translated them rather freely. What is the significant distinction between "es gelten sehr uneinheitliche Bedingungen" and "ein breites Spektrum hinsichtlich der politischen Leitlinien ist beobachtbar"? Das zweite ist extrem gestelzt, die Bedeutung ist dieselbe. On the other hand, "very heterogenous conditions are applied worldwide" reads (in my opinion) a lot more technical than "a wide range of policies can be observed". (Edith sagt: Also, as a reader I might want to know who applies the conditions?) --Enyavar (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: I see your point. At first glance, the English version might give an impression of a more positive outlook than the German one, though. Instead of taking "a wide range of policies" as somewhat negative, i.e. women are still treated unequally in some armies with female conscription (also weltweit sehr uneinheitliche Bedingungen), one might interpret it as a wide range of options existing for conscripted women, which sounds somewhat more positive. Perhaps "very varied/differing conditions & policies can be observed worldwide in regard to deployment, etc." is more accurate semantically to some extent? Since I took the English version as a base for my translation into Russian, it also sounds more positive. Should I modify it? Samsattet001 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the ru-translation! The "options" are for the national lawmakers, not the women who may get conscripted. This means that it really just depends on the respective army's culture. If you are uncomfortable with the translation, please just change it, as long as the general meaning stays the same.
What is more important, I think, is the map itself. It was created in 2016, and lots of people fiddled around with it. The description needs a full list of countries, the policy with regards to female troops/officers, the sources accessed, and a date. Ideally also, a percentage of female soldiers over the whole armed forces. Based on such a list, I could re-create an updated version.
For example, France and Madagascar have currently the same color, but it symbolizes very different things. Most countries are in the yellow "no further info" group now, so could you please look up some sources/info for any language you can read? Some base info for the Uzbek, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Kazakh forces would be good. --Enyavar (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Samsattet001: I am making progress with creating the data required for a new version File talk:Women in military world map.svg --> big table. The new map will have three separated layers with info on the recruitment model (voluntary/selective/conscription); on the percentage of women in the whole forces; and on the roles they are allowed in (combat, leadership, restrictions, only support, etc.).
I still think you can help a lot finding information; I am currently searching for reliable information, but I can only read sources in English and French. (see comment above) --Enyavar (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you recently moved a bunch of maps, which I put into "CAT:Unidentified maps" to "CAT:Old maps of Guam" (random example). My reasoning for placing them into "unidentified maps" was that, while is obvious that they depict Guam, basically everything else important is still unidentified/not depicted by the categorisation - topic/subjects, dates, locations within Guam, scale, whatever else is important about maps.
Note that I have no idea about map categorisation on Commons, and I am sure you know what you're doing, but this just confused me somewhat. TheImaCow (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thelma, there are "Maps" and also "Unidentified maps": both of these categories mean that the person who placed them on a file, has not established anything further about them so far. The "identification process" of maps depends on the whims and capabilities of the patroller: They may just see an old map of London, and move it to "Old maps of London", although there are dates, authors and everything easily available in the description (it's the lazy method). Or, the patroller may just see a colorful map of what is clearly Iran, labelled with squiggles: even if they can't read a single letter, at least one thing can be done: "Maps of Iran", and people interested in the category who understand Persian, can then notice the map and sort it further depending on the topic, to "geological maps of..." or "1967 election maps of..." (that's the incremental method). Of course, yes, I usually strive to pinpoint the topic, date, area and author in the categories in one go (the accurate method).
But sometimes yes, when I encounter a whole bunch of similar-looking maps, especially military survey maps, I tend to be lazy and rather leave it to experts from the area to sort them out. That is why OSM maps of France is overflowing with thousands of maps that need to be sorted by city/regon/departement/or whatever. They are already identified as a combination of "maps of France" and "OSM maps", but not further. In my opinion, there is no real difference between "Maps of the United States" and "Unidentified maps of the United States": Both categories exist, but both need to get weeded out by the locals. --Enyavar (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing your name when I'm closing DRs. Seems like you're doing a lot of good work, been around for over a decade, have half a million edits, and a clean block history. Have you considered becoming an admin? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How involved would the additional tasks be? Right now, I'd like to continue doing the good work on maps, and wherever I look, that work keeps accumulating faster than I can help with it. I also like to just file the DRs, but not have the deciding word. Also, playing devil's advocate against myself: I've been around, sure, but only got really involved with Commons less than three years ago, and seeing my talk page above, I think that my categorization efforts have sometimes been controversial (although I think I always had good reasons for my actions).
In summary, I have not considered it ever before, but now I might at some point in the future.
Taking this slowly, I wouldn't mind running for file mover, if there is need to offload some work from that group. I often encounter files with pretty awful names, but I hesitate to request file moves all the time. --Enyavar (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> How involved would the additional tasks be?
That's up to you. You wouldn't have to take on any new tasks you don't want to. It would, however, allow you to be able to speedy delete the obvious copyvios like the google maps, instead of filing a DR for them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the checks involved in DRs - I have been wrong about Google maps suspicions before (WMF decided to publish a deceptively similar map style for WikiMapper); and also in rare cases debates with uploaders convinced them to redraw their map on a free base map, or at least teach them about map copyright. That's harder if the file is just deleted from one second to the next.
Hi Enyavar, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Map showing the area where Sumbawan languages are spoken
Hello bro, I ask for help to display the distribution of the Sumbawa language in English Wikipedia, This map is accurate because I found it on the official website of language administrators in Indonesia and the explanation is that dark blue is the majority Sumbawa language and light blue is the Sumbawa language is a significant minority language, thank you Javanesepolisi (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, instead of blowing up the image to incredibly large proportions, you should use the parameters that help adjust image size. Please have a look at en:Help:Images, or use the parameters I just corrected on this talk page: "|thumb|<Description text>". All my best, --Enyavar (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're tech-savvy enough to use a chorus of multiple accounts on my user talk page. I'm fairly sure you can learn to click the edit/modify buttons yourself on en-WP (or try on id-WP first) and use copy-paste on the source text. If you don't know what you're doing, there are sandbox pages to test the stuff you want to try.
i can't I'm being blocked please help me only you can listen to me you just need to paste the file in the map info in English for Balinese please i cry
If I wasn't blocked there would be no way I would beg like this I will immediately post it on Wikipedia in English... I was blocked in 9 months bruh, I'm currently expanding to spread this map across Wikipedia in various languages for the Balinese language the same thing I did for the map of Sumbawa language a few days ago But English Wikipedia is the most important for me because it is international and the only Wikipedia that I can't edit is in English Wikipedia damnAlèxanderè the Grèát (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your other sockpuppets weren't called Squidwart, and I don't think a user of that name asked me for a similar task before. If people get blocked in en-WP for adding language maps, that is another reason not to do it. --Enyavar (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No No No! believe me it won't block your account if you just paste the image file it's safe I guarantee 100% I was blocked for changing the percentage of religion and Wikipedia admins always target new accounts that I create. Maps don't matter really your account won't get ban for that. Please brother help me
Welllll... if you wouldn't constantly create new sockpuppet accounts and if you wouldn't falsify records, then people could take you more seriously and you wouldn't get banned. Try that for a change, it works. This is a hard NO from me. --Enyavar (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes brother sure after I am released from the 9 month ban I will not act out now please copy that and replace the old English Wikipedia map for Balinese with the new one🙏 that's what I need now
You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.
As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.
Зачем вы пытаетесь удалить мои файлы? Вам мало доказательств? Это не фантастика дурак ты! Давай тогда я тоже скажу что твои файлы это твои мысли, тебе будет приятно? Sergey Puttov (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excusez-moi : les fichiers ayant déjà été supprimés, je ne parviens plus à déterminer s'ils contenaient des informations fictives. Cependant, j’étais très, très confiant à ce moment-là il y a un mois. Vous êtes invités à soumettre un débat d'admissibilité. --Enyavar (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
И так, некоторые люди и вправду считают Алларама богом, просто Все сайты где это было написано были заблокированы,я считаю, что все религии, даже самые маленькие должны иметь внимания! И Княжество Сивланд и вправду существует,этим ты можешь проверить написав в Поисковике Google Principality of Sivland, и тебе всë найдëт! Кроме государственного сайта. Страниуа Сивланда просуществовала здесь более часа, и при этом она была не достаточно качественная,но во время того как кто-то еë удалял, я еë редактировал. Если ты такой умный, тогда скажи как мне сделать так чтобы просмотреть страницу не выкладывая еë? Sergey Puttov (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Кстати, ты думаешт что княжество Сивланд это мои личные фантазии? У тебя впорядке с головой? Просто напиши в поиск Principality of Sivland, а ещë ты должен быть наказан по статье 148 конституции Российской Федерации, за оскорбление чувств верующих. Sergey Puttov (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Шукав в улюбленому пошуковику "Sivland Principality". Нуль результатів. Тож так, я твердо вірю, що це цілком вигадка. Ваша найновіша карта знову показує, що Сівленд є єдиним будівельним блоком. Поясніть мені, будь ласка, що міститься в статті 148 Конституції Сівляндського князівства: я хочу ще трохи посміятися. --Enyavar (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting posts that did not violate Wikimedia Commons policies from my account. Very friendly of you! At least you could apologise or something, couldn't you? Errioxako-Errepublica (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be related to this DR, regarding out-of scope content. No problem, Errioxako, you are welcome. Please don't feel special, the cleaning-up service benefits all users of Commons, not just yourself. And don't forget to thank the admins: I cannot delete anything by myself. --Enyavar (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mir ist gerade bei einem Blick in die Liste der Löschnominierungen Dein Eintrag "1809 maps of Bavaria" ins Auge gefallen.
Warum meinst Du - soll die Kategorie gelöscht werden? Ich habe in den letzten Jahren zahllose Karten nachkategorisiert , auch die regionale und zeitliche Zuteilung. Nach meiner Meinung gibt es keinem Grund eine solche Feingliederung wieder zu ruinieren. Es gibt sogar viele gute Gründe, warum man Druckwerke wie Karten, Bücher, Bookcover, Stadtansichten ect. jahresweise sortiert, auch wenn es beim Durchblättern etwas mehr Suchaufwand bedeutet. Also bitte - wenn die Zuordnung sonst ok ist (Rechtschreibung) bitte keine Löschanträge - in diesem genannten Zusammenhang. MfG. EACC80 (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EACC80: moin zurück, das ist nun wirklich vielfach diskutiert worden. Wenn du die Feingliederung brauchst, kannst du für Publikationsdaten "by year" die Kategorien "Tyrol in 1456" oder "Munich in 1777" benutzen - gegen die kann man nichts sagen.
Bei Büchern und Fotos kann ich deine Argumentation ebenfalls klar befürworten, ich lege selbst entsprechende Jahreskategorien für Publikationsdaten an. Aber bei Karten? Nach Dekaden oder Jahrhunderten, gerne. Superpräzise auf einzelne Publikationsjahre? Auf gar keinen Fall, und bitte lass das bleiben, vielen Dank. Das Ausmisten und richtige Zuordnen von diesem Unsinn kostet erhebliche Mühe.
Ich bin damit neulich erst an der Dorfpumpe bestätigt worden. Es gibt aus meiner Sicht gar keinen Grund, eine jahresweise Feingliederung zu alten Karten anzulegen oder zu behalten. Die "vielen guten Gründe" interessieren mich aber schon, liste mal auf. --Enyavar (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hier eine Auswahl von "viele gute Gründe" dagegen.
Also, warum ist die jahresgenaue Zuordnung von alten Kartenwerken fast immer sinnfrei? Vom Ergebnis her gesehen: oft wird halt nur eine einzige Karte in der "Gruppe von Karten von Bayern im Jahr 1808" präsentiert. Eine Kategorisierung pro Dekade ist übersichtlicher und bietet eine bessere Ausbeute "beim Durchblättern". Aber das ist nur das oberflächliche Ergebnis der dekadenweisen Zuordnung; die fachlichen Gründe kommen hinzu:
Typischerweise ist der Ausschnitt falsch kategorisiert. Wer "Karten von Bayern" sucht, kann sich beim mühsamen Durchblättern doch nur ärgern, wenn seitenweise Karten von Augsburg herauskommen --> sobald es Kategorien wie "Old maps of Fürth" gibt, sollten alte Karten von Fürth dort rein, idealerweise nach Jahr geschlüsselt und bei Bedarf nach Jahrhundert subkategorisiert. Unter "Bayern" haben die Stadtpläne von Fürth nichts verloren! Das gilt für alle Karten aller Länder: typischerweise gibt es pro Jahrgang nur wenige Karten, die wirklich den gesamten Ausschnitt wiedergeben, für den die Kategorie gedacht ist: Eine Karte der Schweiz von 1688 sollte in "1680s maps of Switzerland" einsortiert werden, nicht aber zusätzlich in "1688 maps of Europe". Eine Karte von Tibet aus dem Jahr 1811 gehört nach "19th-century maps of Tibet" und nicht nach "1811 maps of Asia" und erst recht nicht unter "1811 maps of the world", falls die Asienkategorie fehlen sollte. Umgekehrt ist es ein absolutes Unding, Weltkarten unter "Maps of Tibet" einzusortieren, nur weil auf einer Weltkarte manchmal das Wort "Tibet" in der Himalayaregion auftaucht. Wenn ich sowas finde, bereinige ich es. Punktum.
Beispiel Indiana: Category:1860s maps of Indiana hat momentan (nach meinem Ausmisten neulich) nur noch 14 direkt zugeordnete Karten, die tatsächlich in den 1860ern produziert wurden und Indiana zeigen. Vor dem Ausmisten gab es für jedes Jahr zwischen 5 und 15 Karten und einige Unterkategorien, die aber eben nicht "Indiana" gezeigt haben, sondern Vogelperspektivansichten des Orts Newcastle, Bodengütekarten vom Landkreis Daviess, Feuerversicherungspläne 1:600 einzelner Straßenzüge im Landkreis Blackford, und Wahlergebniskarten die tatsächlich erst von Wikipedianern im Jahr 2015 produziert wurden. Eben nicht das, was die Kategorie enthalten soll: "Karten von Indiana aus den 1860ern".
Weniger typisch aber häufig genug sind auch falsche oder impräzise Jahresangaben. Ganz klassisch in der schlechten Archivierung werden Karten "Anfang/Mitte/Ende des xten Jahrhundert" nach "1X00", "1X50" und "1X99" einsortiert, und dann werden solche falschen Schätzwerte später mit-digitalisiert, auch wenn sie nicht stimmen. Selbst wenn eine Jahreszahl auf dem Scan draufsteht, dann gibt es weitere Gründe, warum sie nicht blind darunter einsortiert werden sollte: Karten von 1586 wurden auch noch 50 Jahre später fast unverändert nachgedruckt (ich schreibe 'fast': Das Datum wurde natürlich geändert!), ohne dass jemand mit der Wimper gezuckt hat. Oder es ist eine Geschichtskarte aus dem Jahr 1849, welche die Situation "vor 100 Jahren" zeigt. Dadurch wird es aber keine Karte von 1749, sondern bestenfalls eine Karte, die das Jahr 1749 abbildet. Dafür gilt: Einsortieren unter "1749 in Hinterammergau" + "1840s maps showing history" + "Maps showing 1749". Bei "Maps showing year" sehe ich übrigens auch wieder nichts auszusetzen.
Bei allen Karten bis zum Ende des letzten Jahrhunderts galt ohnehin: die zugrundeliegenden Vermessungsdaten stammen aus den Vorjahren, selbst die topaktuellste Karte zeigte direkt nach dem Druck eine circa zwei Jahre zurückliegende Vergangenheit (oder es hatte sich schlicht nichts geändert). Das sieht man auch an den Karten, die in Büchern publiziert wurden: Wer in den 1880ern durch Norditalien stiefelte, stellte das Buch samt beiliegender Karte zum Teil eben erst 1891 fertig, und somit ist auch die Aussage "1890s maps of Italy" viel zu oft irreführend. Gerne "Italy" durch "Syria" ersetzen, und es sollte vollkommen klar werden, dass Kartendaten auch heute gerne mal zwei Jahrzehnte alt werden, bevor sich wieder ein Vermessungstrupp durchs Land bewegt. Kurz: Das Publikationsdatum einer Karte sagt nichts über ihren Stand aus. --Enyavar (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die rasche Antwort zu der Thematik jahresweise Sortierung. Ich kann Deinen Argumenten entnehmen, das Du mit den vorliegenden Sortierergebnissen nicht zufrieden bist, weil die Karten möglicherweise in Form eines Reprints oder aus einem Kartenwerk in Zweitverwendung stammen. Mglw. wurden in den späteren Drucken Verbesserungen oder Beschädigungen gedruckt. Das ist aber die Sache von Experten und gehört in der wissenschaflichen Bewertung zur Quellenkritik - es ist üblich, das man schaut, wie ein bestimmtes Gebiet damals im Kartenbild dargestellt wurde. Deine Argumente überzeugen mich nicht.
Die Kernfrage ist doch - aus Deiner Sicht: wann genau wurde die Karte gedruckt. Wenn dort angegeben wird "1809" - dann war das Blatt nach entsprechender Vorarbeit 1809 verfügbar. Damit ist die Karte auf ein Startdatum gesetzt. Auf dem Kartenbild erscheinen Details, die folglich im Jahr 1809 existiert haben - damals waren die Franzosen in Bayern - es wurde viel gebaut (Militärbauten). Das ist der lokale Aspekt, ich bin da sehr froh, wenn ich Karten finde, die mir zeigen, wie sich Orte und ihre Umgebung verändert haben. Grundsätzlich aber: es gibt eine weltweit gültige Erläuterung, wie Commons-Dateien zu Beschreiben sind - ergo diese Beschreibungsbausteine mit diversen Pflichtangaben zur Bildquelle und so weiter und im Idealfall werden auch möglichst viele Angaben zum Bild (oder anderem Medientyp) mit gegeben, um die konkrete Datei präzise Suchen zu können. Das Durchsuchen nach Augenschein im Bildbrowser ist auch nur eine Möglichkeit wenn wenige Dateien dort eingefügt sind, weil die meisten (normalen) Leute, die Bilddateien hochladen nur minimalistisch Kategorien eingeben, vermutlich ist es ihnen lästig. Ich bin der Überzeugung, und das ist wissenschaftlicher Konsens, Daten immer so präzise wie möglich in den Beschreibungen (digitale oder analoge Metadaten) zu hinterlegen. Ich hatte vor einigen Jahren ein Praktikum im Staatsarchiv Gotha - dort sind auch die Kartensammlungen des Bestandes Petermanns Geographische Nachrichten mit mehreren tausenden Karten und Beschreibungen von Expeditionen aus aller Welt. Dort sind Skizzen aus dem Notizbuch einer Saharaexpedition, Wochen später schon die ersten gedruckten Blätter im Nachrichtenblatt Petermanns und Jahre später diese entlegene Ecke der Welt in einem Atlasblatt - z.B. im Blatt zu Oberägypten/Sudan. Im Archiv sind diese Sammlungen sowohl nach Land/Region/Ort als auch jeweils jahresweise gruppiert Archivunterlagen. Wenn man z.B. die legendäre Wüstenstadt Timbuktu sucht, findet man - neben deutschen/österreichischen auch französische und britische Karten und das immer jahrweise sortiert. <br> Ich plädiere dafür, alten Karten weiterhin jahresweise zu kategorisieren, und damit ist ein höherer Nutzwert vorhanden, als diese von Dir betriebene dekadenweise Gruppierung. Viele Karten stammen auch aus Digitalisierungsprojekten, wo ganze wissenschaftliche Sammlungen als Public Domain zur Nutzung freigegeben wurden. Soweit für heute - die Familie verlangt nach mir ;-) EACC80 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe was du meinst, und jede Datei hat ein Pflichtfeld zur Datumsangabe, wo man gewissenhaft das Erscheinungsjahr einer Karte eingeben sollte (klar: sollte, einige User geben einfach das Hochladedatum an weil ihnen das ganze Formular lästig ist, und das ist echt sch..ade). Aber das Eingabefeld "Datum" besteht unabhängig von einer Kategorie zur Karte. Mit dem Suchstring "date=1809" Bayern kannst du alle Dateien speziell für dieses eine Jahr finden, bei denen auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite zugleich die Worte Bayern, Bavaria oder Bavarie auftauchen. Mit der Suchfunktion kann man richtig tolle Sachen anstellen, solange die Leute sich vorher nur etwas Mühe mit der Dateibeschreibung gegeben haben. Die Kategorien sind allerdings nicht als Suchtags vorgesehen.
Alle Dateien (Karte, Foto, Zeichnung, egal) von historischem Wert für eine Örtlichkeit (subject) kann man in Archivmanier nach "<Year> in <subject>" kategorisieren, und das würde ich auch befürworten (etwa "1809 in Bavaria", oder besser noch "1809 in Regensburg"). Wir können getrost davon ausgehen, dass sich in solchen Jahreskategorien viel Material ansammeln kann, und Commons ist mit nur wenigen Millionen Dateien noch ziemlich am Anfang der Sammlung. Aber "1809 maps of Regensburg" ist eine sehr sehr spezielle Forderung, so viele neue Stadtkarten wurden einfach nicht herausgegeben - genausogut könnten wir "1809 plaques commemorating French officers in Regensburg" als Kategorienamen wählen, und auch hierfür gibt es einen Fund. Haben wir das auch für 1810 und 1811? Die eine Karte zu Regensburg 1809, die wir aus einem Niederländischen Archiv vorfinden, ist ein Glücksfund, und sie wurde irgendwann zwischen 1809 und 1875 graviert - wohl eher später als früher. Eine Kategorisierung von "<year> maps of X" ist jedoch nur dann sinnvoll, wenn für jedes Jahr genügend Karten zum jeweiligen Subjekt vorliegen.
Über mehr alte Karten von Timbuktu in Commons würde ich mich riesig freuen! Doch wenn es nicht gerade für jedes Jahr etwa ein Dutzend unterschiedlicher Stadtpläne von Timbuktu gibt, dann ergibt es keinen Sinn, eine derartig granulare Sortierung aufzubauen. "1876 in Timbuktu" (in derselben Kategorie wo auch alle historischen Fotos/Zeichnungen aus dem Jahr landen, mit einiger Sicherheit dutzende von jedem Aufenthalt eines Forschungsreisenden) und "Old maps of Timbuktu|1876 maps" (wo alle alten Karten zu T. landen, aber insgesamt nur etwas mehr als ein Dutzend momentan) sind aktuell völlig ausreichend. Sobald es später einmal dutzende von alten Karten von T. gibt, dann lohnt sich vielleicht eine Aufgliederung nach Jahrhundert - sind die alten Karten von 18XX oder von 19XX? Wenn sich dann eine Häufung ergibt (z.B. 30 Karten stammen aus den 1870ern und 20 aus den anderen Jahrzehnten) dann kann man wiederum das eine Jahrzehnt feiner untergliedern. Wenn man so vorgeht, ergibt sich auch automatisch dieselbe chronologische Sortierung, die dir vorschwebt. Das setzt aber voraus, dass wir tatsächlich so viele unterschiedliche Kartenwerke spezifisch zum Subjekt Timbuktu haben. Wenn alle verfügbaren Karten aus derselben Quelle stammen, ist eine Gruppierung nach der Quelle weitaus sinnvoller als nach Jahr.
So eine Gruppierung nach Quelle ist zum Beispiel (und hier kehren wir zu deiner ursprünglichen Frage zurück) die Category:Das Königreich Baiern (1809 atlas), aktuell mit 31 Dateien. Darin enthalten sind nach meiner Zählung 6 echte "Karten von Bayern" sowie 3 Karten vom Altmühlkreis und je 1 von Salzachkreis, Pegnitzkreis, Lechkreis. Die Karten der anderen 11 Kreise wurden beim Scannen offenbar weggelassen, dafür gibt es aber noch 19 willkürliche Kartenausschnitte, Kartenrahmenabbildungen und Deckblätter. Nur die sechs Karten von Bayern sind "1809 maps of Bavaria", die anderen Karten sind fachlich den Untergliederungen von Bayern zuzuordnen. (Auf den Spezialfall mit Salzachkreis im heutigen Bundesland Salzburg gehe ich mal nicht weiter ein: Die Toplevel-Kategorien richten sich natürlich nach den heutigen Staatsgrenzen.) Das war aber Stand heute morgen nicht der Fall, da hieß es noch: "1809 maps of Bavaria (1 C 31 F)" --> die Kategorie aller Karten von Bayern im Jahr 1809 umfasst eine Kategorie (nämlich den Atlas) und 31 Dateien (nämlich den kompletten Inhalt der o.g. Atlaskategorie, samt Buchdeckel). Die Buchdeckel sind aber keine Karten von Bayern; und obendrein ein klarer Fall von Commons:Overcat. Insgesamt gab es also nur ein (1!) Kartenwerk über Bayern in "1809 maps of Bavaria", und das kann in "1800s maps of Bavaria" ebensogut bestehen, und zwar als eine vollständige Sammlung (die 31 Dateien im Atlas sind keine eigenständigen Kartenwerke).
Commons ist nicht das Staatsarchiv, und wir hosten alte Karten aus hunderten von beitragenden Institutionen: Private/staatliche Kartensammlungen/Bibliotheken/Archive sind der Großteil der jetzigen Neuzugänge. Und wie bereits oben geschrieben, die Jahreszahl ist zwar ein brauchbarer Indikator zur schnellen Kategorisierung, aber noch wichtiger ist der Karteninhalt. Die Category:1689 maps ist wertlos, wenn dort die Karte von Jerusalem neben der Karte von Asien und der Karte des Rheinischen Zirkels liegt. Aber auch eine Kategorie "1894 maps of Russia" ist wertlos, wenn der dortige Inhalt in Wirklichkeit lauter Detailkarten von Polen, Tatarien, Dagestan, Kamtschatka und Odessa aus diesem Jahr umfasst, und keine einzige Karte von Russland.
Es ist eine empirische Erfahrung: Vor dem 21. Jahrhundert haben wir so wenig unterschiedliche Karten pro Jahr pro Kartenausschnitt, dass sich eine Feinuntergliederung nach Jahr fast nirgends lohnt, nach Dekade aber manchmal schon. --Enyavar (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Enyavar - vielen Dank für die ausführlichen Hinweise. An dieser Stelle sollte ich vielleicht mal ein paar Anagben zu meinem beruflichen Werdegang liefern. Ich wollte nach dem Abbi Geographie oder Kartographie o.ä. studieren - ging nicht - davon hat die DDR für Jahrzehnte genug Personal ;-) ergo techn. Ingenieurstudium. Nach der Wende gingen jede Menge Firmen in meiner Region unter, also flexibel bleiben und immer wieder neu durchstarten. Aber es gibt ja auch Hobbys und mit Wikipedia konnte man sein eigenes breites Wissen auch sinnvoll weitergeben. Vor etwa zehn Jahren wurde auf einer Projektseite von Wikipedia gemeldet das diverse staatliche und private Institutionen Dateien via FLICKR für Commons anbieten. Das Angebot wuchs wöchentlich. Ich bin im Schlaraffenland - dachte ich, als ich mir die Files from Flickr's 'The Commons' näher anschaute. Mein Favorit war zunächst die British Library. Ich hatte mich dann als Freiwilliger dort eingebracht und mir das Projekt erklären lassen. Das war noch im Anfangsstadium in knapp 1,5 Jahren habe ich etwa 20.000 Dateien aus Flickr in diverse Verzeichnis verteilt - d.h. incl. Bildbearbeitung, Dateinamen in Originalsprache der Quelle, wenn interessant wurden auch gleich Bilder in diverse Wikipedia-Artikel eingebaut - z.B. Kolonialkriegsschauplätze der Briten, Forschungsreisen in alle Kontinente, ect. In Absprache mitdem Team habe ich bei meinen Dateien stets auch Titelseiten und Buchansichten - Vorder- und Rückseiten der Einbände zusätzlich "beschafft" es gibt das Verzeichnis mit 900 derart gestalteten Mappen: Books with images from the British Library Mechanical Curator collection. Die ganze Arbeit war ehrenamtlich - eine Einladung nach London war mir nicht möglich - mein Vater war Pflegefall. Ich habe zunächst natürlich selektiv Bücher aus D A CH "verwurstet" aber die fast 1 Mio Bilder in Flickr wären ein Lebenswerk gewesen. Die Londoner Partner informierten mich dann über ihre nächsten Ziel - Georeferenzierung der vorhanden histor. Karten - davon waren auch fast alle Blätter aus meinem Fundus betroffen. Ich hätte das auch erledigen können, habe mich dann aus dem Projekt ausgeklinkt - die ersten Schritte hatte ich ja mit erlebt. Mit diesen hervorragenden Reverenzen konnte ich in meiner Heimatstadt punkten und habe mit dem Stadtarchiv kooperiert, Weiterbildung im Staatsarchiv und ich wurde einem Museum als Archivar (Fulltimejob) empfohlen. Damit war aber der Wikipedia-Service nicht mehr zu bewältigen, ich habe das abgebrochen. Im Museum habe ich ein eigenes Media-Wiki durch die IT erhalten und mit eigenen gescannten Inhalten befüllt. Fünf Jahre bis mit Corona überall die Lichter ausgingen. Ich dann dort aufgehört, weil ich auch in der Coronazeit mit den DDR-Verwaltungsakten und dem ganzen politischen Unsinn konfrontiert wurde. Das war beim Lesen sofort wieder auf dem Schirm - sowas vergisst man nicht. Inzwischen hat die IT der British Library gestützt auch auf meine bescheiden Beiträge - mit denen sie das mehrfach modifizierte quasi KI unterstütze Filemanagement aufgebaut haben in Sack und Tüten. Die meisten meiner Kartenblätter wurden mit Hilfe von Bots in neue Formularansichten konvertiert - auch normale Fotos, Grafiken, soweit die Daten in westeuropäischen Sprachen vorlagen: hier ein Relikt wo es scheinbar nicht lohnt (File:KOVALEVSKY(1841) p171 Karte von Montenegro im Jahre 1838.jpg). In diesem Zusammenhang hatte ich natürlich auch immer ein wachsames Auge auf die hochgeladenen 20T Files, etwa 99,99 % dürften noch existieren - aber leider auch in der primitiveren unbearbeiteten Rohfassung des Flickr-Pools. Ist mir aber egal - ich habe es als sportliche Herausforderung betrachtet und bin damit auch beruflich einige Jahre sorgenfrei durchs Leben gekommen. Ok. das ist ein privater Rückblick - aber man auch mal innehalten. Viele Grüße EACC80 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verständlich! Ich habe auch jede Menge von großen und kleinen Projekten, und das Stöbern in den Kartensammlungen der verschiedenen Archive/Bibs macht mir große Freude. Als vor zwei Jahren die Gallica-Sammlung komplett auf Commons geworfen wurde, habe ich auch erst einmal Bauklötze gestaunt und die Ärmel hochgekrempelt. Aber abseits von Karten finde ich auch z.B. die Bildarchive der Niederländer zu ihren indonesischen Kolonien klasse (Category:Southeast Asian & Caribbean Images (KITLV), Leiden University Library). --Enyavar (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... ich sehe wir funken auf derselben Frequenz! Sehr schön, damals hatte ich im Hinterkopf ein Digitalisierungsbüro als Nebenjob/Homeoffice zu betreiben, ich wäre vermutlich damit baden gegangen. Und dann ist ja immer noch das Problem Copyright bzw. Urheberrecht. Ist ja in fast jedem Buch nach 1990 im Impressum als HInweis zu finden. Bei der Stichpobe ist mir aufgefallen, die Londoner haben auch ihre Vorgabe geändert und bei Karten das Feinraster der Jahreszuteilung ebenfalls in Dekaden vergröbert, bis auf Großstädte wie New York natürlich. Ansonsten hatte ich damals auch Unmassen an Illustrationen zu klass. Antike und einge Erstausgaben Shakespears waren ebenfalls mit hochwertigen Grafiken geschmückt. Wir könnten hier noch Stunden plaudern, es ist für mich ein sehr gutes Training gewesen auch zum Verständnis, wie die Prozesse und die Software in Mediawiki funktioniern, das normale Wiki ähnelt noch stark dem Hypertext aus den 1990er Jahren ... in dem Sinne - viel Vergnügen EACC80 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi #EACC80 (sorry, den Farbwert-Gag hab ich jetzt erst verstanden), die Karten von London (auf Commons) waren bis vor ca. zwei Jahren sogar fast gar nicht sortiert, und wenn, dann nur nach Jahrhunderten. Übrigens, wenn du Spaß am Kennenlernen von anderen Editoren in Wikipedia aber auch z.T. von Commons hast, dann kann ich dir übrigens die WikiCon ans Herz legen. --Enyavar (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, these are locator maps, irrespective of usage. If there had been more than just that two dozen, I'd have sorted them into more fitting subcategories like "Locator maps of parishes of <Danish province/district>". --Enyavar (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader in question only uploaded ~22, which included the uncategorized one that I found in Category:Maps in the first place. And if such files are not maps, they should not include borderlines and coastlines that make them look so eerily similar to maps; and should also not use colored highlights like locator maps do. Thesearelocatormaps, so this is too. --Enyavar (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, pretty much everything in Category:Parishes in Denmark and subcategories is locator maps of the same kind then. It's just that our parishes (and consequently these maps) have long since ceased to be of much practical use. Hjart (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I get that. In my opinion, people should rather place a variable pin on a location map. Whenever I encounter locator maps, I put minimal effort in the categorization. --Enyavar (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup for this information, I will keep that in mind. Did you notice me doing edits that I should perform in a different way? Meilleures salutations, Enyavar (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for caring, I've seen that you were involved in previous categorizations of these files, and thanks for that work.
TL;DR: Maps show locations, not time: by-year categorization makes no sense in most cases. And yes, exceptions exist, like history maps. Another yes, the principle has been discussed a few times. See for example "maps by year? - kill it with fire! - 10000% agree with that!" - sure, I paraphrased these two responses, but this got hot rejection. There have been subsequent debates on the topic and the rejection was just less dramatic.
Long answer? So, the file is still part of the "Old maps of Boston" branch, which is even subdivided down to the decade level, so it can be found as part of "1890s maps of Boston" (and thus, it's still a part of the "Boston in the 1890s" branch). I added the "1892 in Boston" "April 1892 in the United States" categories for your sake, since the month is mentioned in the map. Yet, please imagine the hypothetical category:April 1892 maps of Boston. Maybe there are some files for that category, but what do these files even have in common? The random month they happened to be published. Rather than by month or even by year, maps should be sorted as by extent. If you have a few maps for certain suburbs (some maps of Roxbury or of Charlestown, East Boston, whatever) and only maybe two dozen for that specific suburb over a whole century, they should be grouped together as "19th-century maps of Roxbury", instead of getting merged together with all kinds of Boston-related-maps which are then separately poured into by-year categories. Another example: Sampson, Murdock & Co. produced Boston maps in 1893, 1894, 1896, 1898 and 1899, and some more years may be missing here on Commons. Yes, there are some smudges in these low-resolution scans that are apparently updates from previous years, but these are essentially the same maps, and it seemed to me that "1890s maps of Boston and environs" is more appropriate to hold these and similar maps, to differentiate them from the maps that show just a few city blocks. With maps, location is more key than time; and categories are there to group similar files together, not to spread them far apart.
Sorting maps roughly by publication time is a good idea, of course: Maps from 1770 are different from maps from 1870, and especially so in case of Boston where even the coastlines changed dramatically. But that is also the crux of the issue: map dates are fuzzy. The mapping data was surveyed years in advance, then published at date X, and many maps then got republished/reprinted years later: which dating method applies? Do we use the same dating method each time, do we even have precise dating? The same challenge of course remains on the decade level as well, but it's much less severe.
Compare photographs. They have an exact timestamp of their creation (although often not preserved with old photos), which allows for a very granular sorting on both levels: both space and time. Maps on the other hand never* have an exact timestamp of creation (* if they do, it's an artificial point after the creation process) and so we shouldn't treat them as if they do.
One more argument, now against applying "... maps of the United States": Lo and behold this map showing the United States on 1886-05-26: yes, with a copyright that can be tracked down to the day (see the previous paragraph!). Except, why would you classify it as a "Map of the United States"? It isn't. It shows less than 0.001‰ of the United States. There are thousands of other maps which show tiny fractions of the United States in 1886, but which drown out the comparatively few files that actually display the entirety (or large parts) of the United States in 1886. The category "1886 maps of the United States" should (in the end) only directly contain maps of the US; the category "1886 maps of the world" should only directly contain actual world maps; and Category:1880s maps of Massachusetts should only directly contain maps of the actual state (or large parts). Not the maps of upstate villages, nor maps of "just" Boston.
I did not say that map needed to be in Category:1892 maps of the United States. I said it (and the numerous others like it) needed to be somewhere in the subcategory tree. If you insist on deleting the Massachusetts subcategories, then you move the files into the parent categories. If you don't want Massachusetts maps in the United States category, then keep the Massachusetts subcategories. It is not acceptable to remove files completely from a category tree as you have been doing. If you continue those removals, this will become an administrative issue.
The fuzziness issue may be true for some maps, but a lot of Boston and Massachusetts maps can be dated very precisely. That's especially true with tram maps that reflect the system at an exact point in time - many of them are dated to the month or even day. Sanborn maps are also typically dated to the month. I am not asking for categories any more specific than by year, but by-year categories are probably justifiable given the large number of Boston and Massachusetts maps on Commons. Again, you should have sought consensus before making a change of this scale, especially given that many of these categories are 5+ years old. Please stop and start a discussion before you delete any more categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, maps do not inherently have to sit in a maps-by-year category. Many maps are even completely fine in a by-century category, despite the publication year being known. You provided no argument besides "probably justifiable" why it makes sense to organize these maps by year, while I stated the arguments why maps should get organized by location first and foremost, and afterwards (possibly) by century and by decade and eventually in rare cases by year, if there are really that many maps for the very same location.
Details of the sorting process
:::Naturally, maps older than 70 years in fact should go into the category branch of "Old maps of..." - for example "Old maps of the United States", and since there's about a million of old US maps, they need to subcategorized in a way that is practical and usable. There are some ways to break down the US, and the usual method is by subcategorizing into 50 states, and the states again into counties. And then all these old maps can be sorted - by location first.
Now, what maps are there? For one, "Bird's eye view maps of <city>", and various plat book maps on the county level. These maps show single towns, or single counties. Such maps have usually no business getting sorted into "... maps of state". Not by year, and not even by decade, unless they are really numerous like . Naturally, exceptions are made. If the category "Old maps of <city/county>" exists, that is where that map goes, preferably with a sorting key that states the year to make the map perfectly searchable. And of course, the county-level categories like "Old maps of Dukes County, Massachusetts" have to be categorized into the higher-level category, i.e. "Old maps of Massachusetts".
The second numerous type of old maps (in the US) are the Sanborn maps. (sidepoint: They are in fact so large-scaled that I'd classify them as plans, not maps, but that is a distinction many people no longer make today.) I've asked around and even weighed in to some discussions about Sanborn maps, and what I heard is that after some initial enthusiasm, nobody really curates them any longer. These are cadastral-level plans only covering built-up areas (of course), they are too numerous to be manageable in detail, but they are public domain, and a few might turn out to be a potentially useful source for someone digging in the past of their town. So we keep them, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But the average user searching for "Boston maps 1867" does not search for a Sanborn map, do they; and they were not properly categorized wherever I checked. I think you will agree that Sanborn-subcategories should not be placed haphazardly into maps-by-year structures with the following method: "1891 Sanborn maps of Xville, Ycounty, Zstate" gets placed into "1891 maps of Zstate", and the subcategories of that same 1891-maps-category are then "1898 Sanborn maps of Xville...", "1909 Sanborn maps of Xville...", "1925 Sanborn maps of Xville...". This is madness, as none of these coverages shows even a single county, but gets sorted as "1891 maps of <state>" when most subcategories are actually about different years. The ideal way to easily categorize the Sanborn maps, is like Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Whitefield, Coos County, New Hampshire: "Cat:Sanborn maps of Zstate" (for all Sanborn maps of the state); "Cat:Old maps of Ycounty, Zstate" (for all Sanborn maps of that county); and then "Cat:[Maps of] Xville, Zstate" (for the locality). I imagine you would advocate to place the 1889, 1896, 1901, 1908 and 1921 subcategories of Whitefield back into the respective by-year-categories of New Hampshire? But that's not how this is currently handled, or have I seen activities towards that direction. It's also terribly tedious to implement.
So. Once all these county-level, localized old maps that do not show the state level, are taken care of, there are not that many maps remaining to be categorized as "<year> maps of Massachusetts". Which means the grouping that makes the most sense, is the decade level, not least also because of the fuzziness that I mentioned above... and the fuzziness issue is true for all maps. Until the first aerial and satellite photographs were taken, no serious map was ever created in a day from nothing. In the case of yearly maps of Boston, the mapping companies clearly created updated maps, not entirely new ones. I will grant your argument that you can precisely pinpoint the publication date with a few (or even many) like the tram maps. But even with tram maps: Just because we know the publication year and month: WHY should we categorize them by that? "Tram maps of Massachusetts" is not even subcategorized by century.
You mention consensus, so yes. I did seek consensus on the Village Pump before: Once and twice. Other discussions have usually been 1:1 in various places, so I don't have links ready (nor do I have the names of the various admins, who did take note). But sure, I'm not in a hurry. I will take a break with the US states now and get a third round of consensus. For starters, with a shorter OP. --Enyavar (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Pi.1415926535, Jmabel has brought up a good point on the village pump discussion, and that has convinced me to reconsider your point that the <year in location> category has merit even though the <year maps in location> has not. So I'll be going through the Boston and Massachusetts maps to add the <year in location> categories again, also to maps that were not categorized as such. --Enyavar (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
Njoman Ardjya Winata (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:J._C._Diwakar_Reddy,_June_2018.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=778015656){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:J._C._Diwakar_Reddy,_June_2018.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=778049197){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_p171_Karte_von_Montenegro_im_Jahre_1838.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=893942611){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
