Category talk:Diagrams/Archive 2007

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

Archive of Category talk:Diagrams

RV by User:Tony_Wills[edit]

It's right my first thought was to categorize the diagrams in all four kinds but now I think it's better to categorize:

  1. by language
  2. by program created with
  3. by discipline/ by kind

because some diagrams are connect to special disciplines and in my opinion it make no sense to list the discipline diagrams twice (3 cats) or rather if the pics are not connected to special diagrams in disciplines they should be lists in 4 cats. What's your opinion about that?--Ma-Lik 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories (first posted at User talk:Ma-Lik )[edit]

RV at Category:Criminal justice diagrams

You reverted my edit at Category:Criminal justice diagrams, but Category:Criminal justice diagrams are definitely no statistics diagrams they are statistics. Bar charts, Gantt charts, Histograms, Pie charts, Radar charts, Regression analysis plots, Venn diagrams are special statistics diagrams.--Ma-Lik 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are not a native English speaker. This may be the cause of the problem. Those charts are definitely statistical charts and diagrams.
But we can use both categories if it helps people find stuff in the commons. Including people who are not native English speakers. I added back the other category too.
Also, for most native English speakers, Category:Diagrams by theme makes more sense than Category:Diagrams in disciplines.
See Category:Maps and Category:Maps by theme.
I may change the name to Category:Diagrams by theme. --Timeshifter 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you get my point. The most pics in this cat are of the type statistical charts and diagrams, but that's not the point. statistical charts and diagrams sounds like special diagrams like the other one's in this cat. And the pics in Criminal justice diagrams are statistics and not special statistical diagrams. And you're right Diagrams by theme sounds better--Ma-Lik 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hmmm. Category:Statistical charts and diagrams is also on wikipedia at wikipedia:Category:Statistical charts and diagrams. It looks like it has subcategories by type of chart or diagram. Not by theme.

I refactored this discussion by adding in your original comment from my talk page.

I see these related categories:

I don't yet see

Category:Charts has various subcategories specific to charts. Category:Graphs has subcategories specific to graphs. Category:Diagrams has everything else.

So maybe an overall "by theme" category might be

I am trying to make the categorization more intuitive for the average reader. The above category could be a subcategory of

This avoids duplication of "by theme" categories. --Timeshifter 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea cause several diagrams are called in other languages charts or graphs or the other way round and Diagrams, Charts and Graphs are very similar.--Ma-Lik 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I will change Category:Diagrams in disciplines to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme in all the relevant categories. --Timeshifter 12:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should now Statistical charts and diagrams also be listed at Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme?--Ma-Lik 13:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the themed subcategories from Category:Statistical charts and diagrams, and so it is back to being a category by kind. So it does not need to be a subcategory of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme. --Timeshifter 13:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arg you are right. I confused it a bit...--Ma-Lik 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Later note. In case others are reading this later they may want to know that we ended up calling the category
Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme --Timeshifter 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme[edit]

Per discussion at User talk:Ma-Lik the category Diagrams in disciplines has been changed to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme. --Timeshifter 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to copy that discussion here where more people may notice it than on a personal talk page. "Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. By theme" doesn't seem to conform with any commons naming convention, surely "Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme" would be more normal. --Tony Wills 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't really follow all the arguments on that page, but it seems to me your original idea of calling it "Category:Diagrams by theme" was exactly right - Category:Charts and Category:Graphs are sub categories of Category:Diagrams so the description "Diagrams, charts, graphs" is redundant, "Diagrams" covers them all. --Tony Wills 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the previous discussion being copied to here if it is OK with Ma-Lik. As you suggested in your first comment I changed the name to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. The longer name is needed because this way we don't have to set up 3 categories:
Category:Diagrams by theme
Category:Charts by theme
Category:Graphs by theme
It avoids a lot of unnecessary splitting up of info too. For example; see Category:Criminal justice diagrams, Category:Demographic charts, and Category:Sports diagrams. Imagine if those theme categories had to be further divided up into the above set of 3 categories by theme.
It is also more intuitive for the average reader. Many people don't associate charts with diagrams. Or graphs with diagrams. They may go to Category:Charts to look for bar charts or pie charts for a particular topic theme. This way they can find the theme since Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme is a subcategory of Category:Charts. --Timeshifter 09:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for getting rid of the period in the name, it was looking a bit like a couple of sentences rather than a category name :-). I appreciate the idea of preventing the formation of lots of extra sub-categories but you may be too late :-). eg in the parallel classification Category:Diagrams by language we already have a sub-category Category:Graphs by language (and perhaps can expect a Category:Charts by language to emerge as well. So letting the 'theme' branch grow in the same way has a precedent :-). But before we start deleting those or get too bogged down in the detail, perhaps we should step back and develop a category scheme for diagrams so we have a map of how the category tree should grow and divide in the future. --Tony Wills 11:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Themes cross all 3 categories of diagrams, graphs, and charts. Whereas, there may only be a few images in certain languages. It makes little sense to divide up a few images labeled in one particular language unnecessarily into separate diagrams, charts, and graphs categories.
Category:Commons category schemes has this: "Please only add categories if one category is too populated and never in advance". I think we need to let things grow organically. People aren't using Category:Commons category schemes that much anyway. For example; one of its subcategories, Commons:Category scheme languages, hasn't had an edit since June 2006. It is out of date and inaccurate.
I don't have a problem with subcategories being added when it serves a purpose. For example; see Category:GDP. I created a subcategory called Category:GDP maps. That allowed the maps subcategory to be categorized in the maps category tree, too. Pulling out the maps also made it a lot easier to view the graphs and charts that remained in Category:GDP. Category:GDP is a subcategory of Category:Economics graphs. It is a subcategory of Category:Economics diagrams.
People, especially some non-native English speakers, use the names of diagrams, charts, and graphs in different ways. So it is good to have an overall theme category called Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. This way more people can find topic themes of interest. --Timeshifter 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Category schemes: That people don't bother defining category schemes is not a virtue! And once a scheme has been mapped out, there should hopefully not be a great need to regularly update it. Defining a scheme allows us to grow the category tree in a consistent manner, rather than re-inventing structures and having people guess where things might be put. Yes few people are bothering to define schemes, and consequently the category system is becoming more dis-ordered and random - the antithesis of the reason for categorization :-).
Sub-categories: Agreed, there is no need to create sub-categories when only a few images exist that would fit - I was not advocating that. I don't have a problem with putting everything in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme, and not (initially) having sub-categories for charts, graphs etc, but when that category grows large (which it will in time, assuming the project doesn't die :-) we will have to decide how to break it up. The idea of thinking about an overall scheme (and defining one for diagrams) is that we try to be consistent so that people can predict where they will find stuff - when we create new sub-category trees we at least consider how it will fit in with the pattern of other branches of the tree.
Long names: Your argument for the long name might have merit, but if so, it equally applies to the whole tree, so that Category:Diagrams should become Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs and Category:Diagrams by language should become Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by language etc. I just find it a bit cumbersome (but could live with it). In my opinion just calling them Category:Diagrams by theme and Category:Diagrams by language is sufficient. You then put multi-language descriptions at the head of the category so that it will be found when people look for diagrams, charts and graphs in whatever their favourite language is. --Tony Wills 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by language would be helpful too, though not as important as the overall root category of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. --Timeshifter 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to categorize by age?[edit]

I removed the phrase "*if they are old, compare Category:Maps" that had recently been added to the category page. Diagrams should have the dates that their data relates to either on the diagram, or on the image page, but I am not sure of how useful it would be to categorize them as new/old or by date. What do others think? --Tony Wills 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the need for it in Category:Maps, but I don't see enough old graphics yet to worry about it yet. I haven't looked specifically for old graphics to know whether there are many of them on the commons. Maybe W!B can discuss it further. If there is a need we can make some subcategories. There are probably modern charts and graphs that cover old time periods. If it serves a purpose we can break up a theme by time period covered. I am not sure though we would want to break up a theme by the date of creation of the graphic itself though.
I like W!B's rewrite of the introduction. --Timeshifter 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)