Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Category:Pictures and images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
  • Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Category:Pictures and images}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add :
    {{Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Category:Pictures and images}}
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Pictures and images[edit]

At first: please do not forget, thats the cat where any media formerly tagged image: should be placed into via some subcat(s) - now see the mess (the cat is the small bottommost box): Pictures+and+images-090228-2053.svg

in fact, any image we have, is sorted again somewhere deep into the cat tree via Pictures and images, including categories like Psychology (via Communication), Machinery, Engeneering, Equipment (via Tools), Art (via Literature - Publications) - there is no way to show downward tree, as this cat:Pictures and images contains hundreds, maybe thousands of subcategories

i marked:

  • green: toplevel sorted into Category:CommonsRoot (the small box topmost - for heavens sake..)
  • red: where to cut and two sorting corrections without loose any precious information

so it will get sorted clear into CommonsRoot hierarchy-level 2

besides some other bugs

  • in Personal live via Home, Housing?? - whats that? of course, I can see it on my computer.. ;)
  • in Industries, Civil engineering, Buildings - via Housing..
  • in Reality - ah yes, of course, Commons is reality, i've seen it for shure ;)

to me categorizing is some way to sort information systematically, not to send someone for circling around into metphysic relations --W!B: (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you fix the SVG? There's an issue with the text - that is, it doesn't show up when viewing the SVG directly (at least in Firefox 3). I would love to be able to read it. Thanks. BTW, if you don't get much discussion here, don't get discuraged. On Commons I've noticed it's best to sketch out your idea for improvement, wait a bit for opposition, deal with that if there is any, then go at it. 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the image itself - I love the graph, I had been wondering where to find a tool to help visualize the category system. I can't get the tool to display more than one sub-level, although it is happy to show super-levels. I also wonder about the categorization of the image itself, it is not really a screen-shot, it is simply a graphics file produced by an automated database query. Can it be said to have have creative content, copyrightable?
I didnt bother about copyright, i will delete it afterwards.. ;)
you can't get the tool to display more than one sub-level: thats right, thats a problem with commons categorizing: CatGraph does load oly 100 (maybe 400, i forgot, we should ask dapete) so, if a cat is set to "broad", you wont see deeper levels: try any category with only a dozend of subcats --W!B: (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the category tree - It is a bit of a mess, for a start how can any category be 'above' the root of the tree, Category:CommonsRoot! "Category:Meta categories" perhaps should be deleted altogether or removed from the category tree. I have a hard time thinking about this tree, I think part of my problem is that categories are used for two different things, one is essentially as tags, the other is to fit images into a logical category system. I have removed the loop that puts category:Hidden categories into itself for no good reason.
  • Regarding your changes - I think the category structure needs serious work, and find it difficult to analyze your suggestions. I think part of the reason that strange connections are made is that the contents of categories are ill defined and different people assume different uses. (for example does category:Pablo Picasso contain artwork by Picasso, pictures of Picasso, or anything relating to Picasso, the different uses would be on different branches). If you think your changes make sense, then make them, but also put a description of what the category is for at the top of each category page to clarify the changes. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that makes more sense :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
ah ja, our mediawiki-inline-svg-renderer is not the best --W!B: (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think thats my point, that stuff should be in a seperate tree, with a seperate root. Its like a database containing two different types of data that has no way of keeping the two from being intermingled --Tony Wills (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
yes, a systematic bug: you see a circle: CommonsRoot → Commons → Commons maintenance content → Maintenance data structures → Meta categories → CommonsRoot - in fact, CommonsRoot should be root and not be placed anywhrere - lets discuss that somewhere else (it comes from one of the temlpates put into, i asume ist --W!B: (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
i just fixed that, hope, it doesnt get reverted: so, image given above is not up to date --W!B: (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

what we should discuss here is: what is the purpose of this cat? i'm no english-native, so explain me:

Closing a thread with stale discussion. Interesting thread, but at some point one should attempt to formulate a proposal in terms of how the categories should be restructured or renamed. -- User:Docu at 11:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)