User talk:Doc James

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

File:Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.png

File:Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.png has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.png This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

Hyperba21 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Got OTRS permission from copyright holder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

"Maps showing <year>"

Hey Doc, this map does not show anything about the year 1963, just OWID's current lack of data in 2025. Don't you think the {{Map showing old data|year=1963}}-Template should be removed from the file, as well as the [[category:Maps showing 1963]]-Category?

As a replacement, I have already prepared Maps showing no data, I think that this should get assigned to all similar placeholder-maps that just do not display any data (yet). I think the category could be renamed as either "OWID-maps showing no data" or "Our World in Data maps showing no data"; but I can also imagine other dataless maps from other sources. There are enough uploads about OWID already that we will need to create "Maps of North America showing no data" and so on - so I think we should not make overly long names.

Finally, none your maps are products from their time; for example this map was not created in 1826. In the Commons' map naming scheme, "<time> maps of <location>" are reserved for maps from <time>. As of right now, we do not have a too-great category system for history maps, but there is Maps of North America in the 19th century, for example, which will need expansion. Once there is enough content, I think we would create subcategories like Maps of North America in the 1820s, and so on.

All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

In regards to your third paragraph, Commons categorization is currently so that <year> maps of <location> is for maps of <location> showing data as of or for that year. Especially for older maps, year of data equals year of map made. Especially for newer maps, categorizing by year made makes little sense for example as maps get updated via new revisions. What you are talking about is located at Category:Maps by year created. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Enyavar, will look at building that functionality (blank maps) into the graph viewer. Right now we still need them or the interactive graphs will break. I am not; however, sure how hard it will be to build. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: , I had to do a bit of searching but I admit I have come up emptyhanded. Apparently you refer to this CfD from 2014? Well, essentially nothing has been done on that front since then, but we do have an established practice to differentiate between the two ideas nevertheless: "<year> maps" are a subcategory of "<year> works", "<year> in geography" and most importantly of "Old maps", and that means categorization follows TFOMC, which is a guidance template from 2006. Categorization of maps by year (sadly) got out of control after 2019, and practically in just one direction: by now, "<year> maps" have become essentially synonymous with "Maps created in <year>" - just look at 1780 maps. Following the TFOMC-template, "History maps" on the other hand were few enough that they mostly just accumulated in "history-of"-categories without ever getting subdivided by years. Some others and me only made a push in the last two years to create more and more "maps showing <year>", while "Maps by year created" looks pretty much empty to me. Right now it seems easier to just change the Template:MapsYear to specify that it means creation year.

Do you think this merits a VP-proposal? --Enyavar (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I was mainly describing the current use and understanding of these categories. by now, "<year> maps" have become essentially synonymous with "Maps created in <year>" Not at all; you are talking about what I referred to with "Especially for older maps, year of data equals year of map made" but this is very different for newer maps. If you change something like that, you'd be responsible to make sure the categories contents match their title and the formalized distinction but keep in mind that people upload new revisions of data visualization maps and the cat would need to be set to the year the last revision map was created. If you don't want to do that or can't, then don't do it. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

—Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 12:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Matrix. The same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

files showing identical curve

Hi Doc James, 2 days ago you have uploaded a number of files showing Population growth rate, which all seem to show the same curve and therefore have been recognized by OptimusPrimeBot as duplicates of File:Population growth rate, 1700 to 2100, ARE.svg and been tagged accordingly, see Category:Duplicate. Only after deleting a number of them, I recognized this. Was the upload of the identical curve in different files intentional or just an error? Shall the remaining also be deleted?--Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Appears the upload tool is not working properly as this should be the population growth of the individual countries which of course are not the same. Will get our programmer to look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

PS please do not delete the duplicates until our programmer can look at it so they know the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I've left a note to my admin-colleagues in the dupe-cat. --Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Plan is to fix the upload tool and than reupload replacing the incorrect line graphs with the correct ones. Hopefully in a few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: my bot makes sure to not flag more than 190 duplicates at the same time to not overload admins. With currently 179 SVG files staying in the category for a long time, its checks are almost disabled. vip (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The programmer of the upload tool is working on a fix. It is not done yet. They say soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

OK thank you :) vip (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, it seems the same problem just started with File:Indian rhinos, Asia, 1966.svg etc., which are identical to File:Indian rhinos, World, 1966.svg and accordingly tagged by OptimusPrimeBot as duplicates. And how about a solution for the population growth-curve-images? They are clogging our dupe-category.--Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I understand the fix has been rolled out. I just need to do the reupload to see if it works. Hopefully in the next 8 hours.

The indian rhino case is going to require further updates which we will look at. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately the software fix did not work. Asking our programmer to try again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Túrelio and User:Don-vip that one issue appears mostly fixed. Does the warning template need to be manually removed or will a bot take care of it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I've tried as an example with File:Population growth rate, 1700 to 2100, KIR.svg by manually removing the duplicate-template, which had been added by our OptimusPrimeBot. However, the file is still really a duplicate of File:Population growth rate, 1700 to 2100, FSM.svg, as shown on the description-page in the section "file usage". For both files you had uploaded a new file-version of february 23rd.--Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes was unable to fix those two. Can you please delete those two? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Doc James can you please take a look at Special:ListDuplicatedFiles and see if all your listed files there are known issues? I'm not sure if you're aware of all the "Crude death rate the share of the population that dies per year" duplicate files created only two days ago and not yet reported by my bot. vip (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Vip. Okay yah I see we are having issues uploading the explorer graphs. This is a different issue and will get it fixed.

By the way should we redirect the "world" maps to the "asia" ones? Or simple delete the "world" maps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it seems the same problem as previously has now happened with the cruve-series "Trade openness in europe" and "Crude death rate the share of the population that dies per year", which now clog our Category:Duplicate. --Túrelio (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yah, we just did another update now. Do you want us to simply redirect the world to the Europe maps? Or delete the world maps? I would need to have deletion ability to do the later.

This issue has to do with a graph only containing data for a single region of the world. There are a couple of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I can process the already dupe-tagged files. However, the question is into which direction? Europe -> World or the other way round?

Wrt future uploads: if the issue is identified, then the uploading bot should be programed to check this before upload and then refrain from uploading files with identical content (wrt the file itself, not the description). --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I say world should go to Europe as these set are for Europe and for these set the World should go to Asia as these are all about Asia / the map is of Asia.

Yes agree and have asked for the tool to "refrain from uploading files with identical content" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• We just had hopefully a fix for this set.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've now processed all dupe-tagged "Trade openness in .." files (World -> Europe). Only around 20 "crude death rate .." files are remaining in the dupe-category. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Perfect thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:PregnancyinCrossSection.jpg

File:PregnancyinCrossSection.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PregnancyinCrossSection.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

JayCubby (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)