Category talk:Diagrams

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2007Archive 2008

Template:On Wikipedia[edit]

Feel free to improve it. Rocket000(talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. I will give it a try here:
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects: (en) Diagram ·
(cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · (el) Διάγραμμα · (es) Diagrama · (eu) Diagrama · (fa) نمودار · (fi) Diagrammi · (fr) Diagramme · (io) Diagramo · (it) Diagramma · (nl) Diagram · (no) Diagram · (pl) Diagram · (pt) Diagrama · (sl) Diagram · (sv) Diagram · +/−
This is the result I am getting here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions to improve it? Rocket000(talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing for now. I wonder if it makes sense to alter the instruction on the Template:On Wikipedia, like this:
Basic usage:
{{on Wikipedia| de=Hauptseite | en=Main Page | fr=Accueil | es=Portada | pt=Página principal}}
This makes it a little easier (for me) to edit the template instruction because the line automatically breaks in the Wikipedia editor!? If you know what I mean!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sometimes I forget not everyone edits in 1280x1024 resolution. :) Rocket000(talk) 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing. Does it make sense to add the term "about" in the first sentence: The article about Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The other options[edit]

Now I will try the other options. Inline:
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects: (en) Diagram · (cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · (el) Διάγραμμα · (es) Diagrama · (eu) Diagrama · (fa) نمودار · (fi) Diagrammi · (fr) Diagramme · (io) Diagramo · (it) Diagramma · (nl) Diagram · (no) Diagram · (pl) Diagram · (pt) Diagrama · (sl) Diagram · (sv) Diagram · +/−
And floating:
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects: (en) Diagram ·
(cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · (el) Διάγραμμα · (es) Diagrama · (eu) Diagrama · (fa) نمودار · (fi) Diagrammi · (fr) Diagramme · (io) Diagramo · (it) Diagramma · (nl) Diagram · (no) Diagram · (pl) Diagram · (pt) Diagrama · (sl) Diagram · (sv) Diagram · +/−
It works. Uh, does it work? Doesn't it need an extra <Clear> functions -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was intentional so text can appear along side it. You can always use {{-}} after it to clear everything. Rocket000(talk) 08:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The {{-}} works, thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
(cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · +/−
And one other thing...!?
  • The foating option is very interesting
  • if there are just a few links to list like here.
  • for example in the (artifical) lay out here
Great...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Diagram categories needing charts and graphs moved out of them[edit]

I used the {{collapsed}} show/hide box for this:


I added it to Category:Diagrams for now. It is under the {{categorize}} template. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Box removed again[edit]

I removed it again. There is no concensus to add such a "maintance" box on the category page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First: These is really just a kind of maintance messages:

The following diagram categories (and/or their subcategories) have charts and graphs in them that need to be moved to Category:Charts by theme and Category:Graphs by theme.

These messages belong on the category talk:Diagrams page.

And second. It is a very questionable message. What is it talking about? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something against maintenance such as the {{tl:categorize}} template
I don't understand. Please explain. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a big difference...!?
  1. the {{categorize}} tag is a general accepted message in all top categories
  2. This box (I removed) is your own message...
  3. ... and that message of yours is very questionable. I think there is hardly any problem there.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Diagrams charts graphs[edit]

I created this template, User:Timeshifter/Template:Diagrams charts graphs. It can be used in various places to encourage editors to better categorize charts and graphs. Here is the code to use:

{{User:Timeshifter/Template:Diagrams charts graphs}}

Just paste it into the relevant categories, galleries, and talk pages. This will encourage others to help in categorization. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is no solution because their is no problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You say, you don't see a problem but Timeshifter sees one, so this is no solution please describe why you don't see a problem. I can mention why you don't see a problem but I don't really know...--Ma-Lik (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I will give it a try:
  • First: The problem the template starts with "graphs amd charts that needs to be moved" is all over WikiCommons.
  • Second. Look at for example the Category:Agricultural diagrams. The problem doesn't exist there.
  • Third. We can look at all other categories listed, and solve the problem. For the future there is no structural problem in this particular place. See the first point. This problem is all over WikiCommons
  • Forth. A category diagrams can contain "graphs amd charts". They don't have to be moved unless there are some serious problems.
So the whole instruction doesn't make sense to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I have requested this template to be deleted based on these same arguments, see [1]. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop the flaming[edit]

Why can't you two stop flaming each other? I suggest that you two don't edit in this category anymore. If you want that anything change, you can suggest it here. If you see a problematic edit of the other party without a decision here, you can revert it and report it here and I or someone else decide what to do one week after the suggestion after a discussion. If someone flames the other I will report it to the admins. What do you think about that?--Ma-Lik (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ma-Lik for your initiative to start remove the flaming here. I did some removal myself and also restored some order here and there in the previous talk items: All commands are placed in chronological order; they are separated on different places in one talk item; some templates are replaced with just code so they do not interfer with this standard lay out. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Further discussion here is copied to User talk:Ma-Lik#Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme by -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Collapsed[edit]

There was just a problematic edit at the Category:Diagrams, see here. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I aggree it's problematic, because most commons user are lazy or don't estimate the right thing in the box (because the box description is not optimal). I think with this box the category gets bigger and bigger again, as it was before my first edits in this category (more than 100 Diagrams in this main cat...) Why do you think this is a better solution MDD?--Ma-Lik (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ma-Lik. I appreciate your efforts here. But I don't understand your idea here.
  • I think, it is beside the point if or if not commons user are lazy or don't estimate the right thing
  • I do agree the box description is not optimal. But I think it should be optimized by us together, not deleted again.
  • But I don't understand how the category can get bigger and bigger again, since the box automatically collapes (or at least I think it does).
So the first impression is always only one line of the box. Only the people who look into the box will find more text, with makes the category disappear. But at that moment that doesn't care.
There has been a serious discussion about this kind of category documentation recently, see here. Most people were rather critical there. In the light of this discussion I think this box is a good option and needs some further work. We could even contact the persons of that discussion and ask their opinion about this solution here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
But my proposal was to discuss it first if one side disagree. And you reverted me..., please stop this or I stop my trials here and... At the moment I have no time to discuss, but I will answer in the evening.--Ma-Lik (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't reverted you. See "Looking for a more structural solution". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is same problem either you revert it yourself or...--Ma-Lik (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I just did. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. Let's now discuss the points from Marcel Douwe Dekker:

I think, it is beside the point if or if not commons user are lazy or don't estimate the right thing
If every user categorise the image only nearly there where they should be, it's half of the work. BTW did you maintain all the categories you created?
I do agree the box description is not optimal. But I think it should be optimized by us together, not deleted again.
If no one use it, it is needless and that happens with a suboptimal description.
But I don't understand how the category can get bigger and bigger again, since the box automatically collapes (or at least I think it does).
If every user categorise diagrams at this top category, will it be a tilt at windmills. And don't forget the phsycholgical point if here are more than ten diagrams, everyone thinks it's the right place....
So the first impression is always only one line of the box. Only the people who look into the box will find more text, with makes the category disappear. But at that moment that doesn't care.
I don't understand this point

I read the discussion, but this is not half a page these are only three or four points. And why did you put this solution in user space when it's not optimal? But it's always better to work with several people on such things, so be free to contact other people. And I'm very interested in a discussion, so I wait for your answer but please don't edit Category:Diagrams before we reach here an end of discussion point--Ma-Lik (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think I didn't understand your objections in the first place. Maybe we can go back once more. Do you think that more editors will categorize images in the category diagram in the situation, for example here, because the categorization instruction is in a box?? If so, I wish to give you an other response. This thought didn't occur to me in the first place because the {{categorize}}-template is still there to warn people not to do so?
Two more things. First this discussion is a follow up of the discussion of the discussion about Introduction of this category maps, see here, and the same kind of discussion I started here, see here. I think that the final solution at the category maps (stalling the category info on the talkpage) isn't perfect. I am investigating if the collapsable box can be a better solution here.
Second. You asked if I maintain all categories I created? I think I do a lot more. I recategorized about 5000 images last month. But maybe I got this Question wrong also?
One last thing. You asked me why I want to add eight lines in box in the first place? Now those eight lines are one, imcomplete and should be expended, and two only in English: These kind text could/should be in more languages. And then there is a lot more. A collapsable box gives a lot of new possibilities. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

because the categorization instruction is in a box no I think more editors will categorize images in a state like this [2] of course this english introduction understand not all users but many. And {{categorize}}-template was here before I cleaned this category, so most users ignored it... Is it possible to standard open the collapsed box to the english introduction? Maybe this could solve this problem. The discussion you mentioned above will I read tomorrow... For the second point, my fault I looked at your last edits and didn't saw any cat edits, sorry for this assumption. P.S. Timeshifter mentioned the open english solution already here: Category_talk:Diagrams/Archive_2008#Hiding_the_category_introduction --Ma-Lik (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you read the discussion by now, maybe you understand some more, why I am looking for a more structural solution. In order to do so I want to question every aspect and experiment with the category itselve. Do you understand? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes I understand, but those things should be heavily discussed before and not after the edits. If no reactions are there things can be done. But I think Timeshifter and I are not against your changes but sceptical and I think this is most of the time good and not bad. But back to the topic, why not standard open the box? And are there any tutorials about how a good main category should look like. If not, it will be a big improvement, if someone creates it to concentrate the forces to build a standard.--Ma-Lik (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Category information - Looking for a more structural solution[edit]

Earlier discussion about this item was
* On Category talk:Maps, now archived see here
* On Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, now archived see here
* On Category talk:Diagrams, see here

I wish we could work on a more structural solution for the "category information". In order to do so, I again altered the category information:

  1. Here I altered the title and left the "see also" information out, see here.
  2. In an second option is to leave the {{categorize}}-template out, See here

Now the "Categorization information and diagram resources" box almost only contains general information. And I think a box like this can (almost) be applied in every diagram/diagram by theme/diagram by type category. But before that I think this box needs some more improvement. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Line charts to be eliminated??[edit]

Tonight Timeshifter has tried to eliminate the Category:Line charts making it a redirect. I have tried to turn the tied. I would appreciate if others would take a look here and give your response at Category talk:Line charts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)