Category talk:Animations of geometry

Too broad descendant categories

There is something wrong, when a Deepcat view of this category contains stuff like Animations of ambigrams.
The path of increasing weirdness is as follows: Animations of ambigrams < Rotation animations < Animations of motion < Animations of space < Animations of dimensions < Animations of geometry
I don't see how categories like Animations of space (containing Animations of outer space) or Animations of dimensions (containing Animations of spacetime) could ever be well defined. For now I have removed Animations of dimensions from Animations of space. These running rats and similar files are still in a descendant of this category.
@AnonMoos and Allforrous: Maybe you have an opinion here. --Watchduck (quack) 13:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia and correct where appropriate.Allforrous (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That does not mean anything - just like "animations of space" or "animations of infinity". --Watchduck (quack) 12:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Breaking the link between the meaningless categories ...space and ...dimensions has removed Phenakistoscope from this category.
But that toy was still categorized in Set theory. This is how: Rotation animations < Animations of infinity < Animations of set theory    --Watchduck (quack) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)