Category talk:Graphs

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

This category is overpopulated[edit]

Here we are with charts, diagramms ...

  • in different sorts
  • in different languages (+ empty for new descriptions)
  • about different themes

I suggest subcategories for different sciences and themes. The pictures should have the language added in the title as a "earthquake-english.png" "earthquake-german.png" so that an interested person can take one for its mother language or prepare one in its own language. -- Simplicius 15:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources for more graphs[edit]

I believe that putting User:Timeshifter/Template:Diagrams charts graphs on the category page would eventually get more people involved in helping out here.

{{User:Timeshifter/Template:Diagrams charts graphs}} produces this show/hide box:

Click the "show" link to see possible locations for more graphs. Some of the graphs need to be categorized by theme in Category:Graphs by theme.

Not all the diagram categories in the show/hide box contain graphs. Some of the diagram categories contain charts. The individual charts need to be more specifically categorized, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this category meant to be "Mathematical graphs"?[edit]

Is Category:Graphs supposed to be understood as a host for "graphs" in the sense of graphs as in mathematics? This possibility is confirmed by both the elaborate multilingual header and the fact that it's parented by Category:Diagrams. In this case, however, the category name being only "Graphs" is ambiguous to an extent that makes it patently invalid as a subcategory of "Diagrams", since lexically the word "graph" doesn't seggest anything but a two-dimentional graphic visualization - which may be a diagram, a chart, a vector, a statistic table, a mathematical function...). So any idea on the action that should best be taken? – Since we seem to manage most of our general infographic images under Category:Diagrams to a sufficient extent, I'd say that yet another general inphographics cat won't be helpful, and thus the current "Graphs" category should indeed remain for the mathematical meaning, however it must then be renamed accordingly! If we leave it as just a host for informative images the categorization must be reversed so that "Diagrams" be a subcat of "Graphs" because a graph is more general than a diagram. Orrlingtalk 04:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I no longer use, or believe in, categories for statistical graphs and charts. I now categorize most statistical charts and graphs in Category:Statistics.
"Statistics" category is a precise name, and is a fully developed category with many subcategories. "Mathematical graphs" is not helpful. It will just further waste people's time trying to categorize statistical charts and graphs in chart and graph categories. I wasted a lot of time doing that until I found the more precise Category:Statistics.
I think the best use for the graph category is for specialized subcategories such as these:
Category:Graph theory
The intro needs this removed: "This category is for graphs of all kinds. Both graph images, and mathematical graphs as used in graph theory and analysis (function graphs)."
The intro should direct people to Category:Statistics instead. It should point out the graph category is strictly for the specialized areas of study of:
Category:Graph theory
Category:Functions --Timeshifter (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm in no contestation at all with the assertion that Category:Mathematical graphs isn't necessarily the right title. But, Category:Statistics can't possibly fulfill the above-stasted alleged function of a sole-parent solution for diagrams, charts and other information graphics, because it isn't - and probably shouldn't be - classified under any such inphographics category environment in itself! Going the above-proposed way and putting one's patently-graphic scheme files under "Category:Statistics" without additionally tagging them at either Category:Tables, Category:Diagrams, Category:Pie charts or any other (preferably distinct) inphographics parent is somewhat careless beacause it leaves great many images outside the graphics search, given that "Statistics" isn't tagged as a graphic cat! Please systemize using more than only the "Statistics" super-parent and pick also "Tables" for a table etc., we have (more than) enough graph-type cats to choose from. Apart from this, if it's agreed that the current Category:Graphs is for selective usage for those designated "Graph theory" and "Functions" entries as I've suspected, I see no reason to leave it with its current mega-ambiguous title; Why should our categories mislead users? I'd redirect "Graphs" to "Diagrams", after emptying it by sorting and re-grouping its content at respective subcats i.e. "Graph theory" and "Functions" or any other. But a title such as "Graphs" can't remain in service for a specified category and removing intros has no meaning.
Please state whether you support merging the cat with another or suggest an unambiguous name for it. Orrlingtalk 09:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:Statistics is not a parent category for diagrams or information graphics. Many diagrams have no statistics in them at all. Many infographics have no statistics in them.
I am not interested in categorizing diagrams and infographics. I am only interested in categorizing tables, charts, and graphics that are based on statistics.
I will let others categorize diagrams and infographics. I see no need to categorize something based on whether it is a graph, chart, or table. I am only interested in the topic. So I categorize in Category:Statistics by topic.
If others are interested in categorizing by the form also, then that is fine. I consider it to be a waste of my time. It creates too many parallel trees. The main category tree is statistics by topic. It is much simpler than also trying to categorize "graphs by topic" and "charts by topic" and "tables by topic".
It does not matter to me whether Category:Graphs exists at all. But others might want a parent category for these:
Category:Graph theory
I am not sure diagrams is the parent category for them. I am sure though that graphs is a parent category for them. We just need to define the graphs category more narrowly by writing a better introduction.
But I will let others decide whether to keep the graphs category, or to change it. But I don't like "mathematical graphs". That is a parallel category tree. Too much work. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, now after hearing this legitimate stance - I'll draw to the original bottom point of this talk section altogether: "Category:Graphs" as a host for specific designated scientific graphs CAN NOT fufill this desired function with this generic name. A "graph" per wikipedia and per most lexical sources is a general visualization of schemes of any type, extent and subject.
Given that you, being my only companion to this discussion, do not display objection to renaming this cat, I would like to move one decissive step forward and hear your input as to which name will appeal to you for a category hosting Graph Theory and Functions images, dismissing the proposition of "Category:Mathematical graphs".
Thank you. Orrlingtalk 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
What I want is not what is happening. Since I don't believe Category:Graphs by subject should exist. I think nearly all of those images should be moved to Category:Statistics by topic. To avoid parallel category trees, and all the extra work involved. But others don't seem to mind the extra work.
I am not the decider of what goes in the various graph categories. There are a lot of graph subcategories, and a lot of ways "graph" is used. See en:graphs. So this graphs category may be necessary after all. I do not see a better alternative name for this graphs category. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You can't be sending graph images sweepingly to "Category:Statistics by topic" because not all graphs are statistical graphs. Many diagrams and charts are not of a statistical nature. And "Graphs" is too general. Obviously its content can and should move elsewhere such as part in "Category:Statistics", part in any of "Category:Diagrams by theme"'s subcategories, etc. I agree that Category:Graphs by subject should not exist. It must be merged with Diagrams by theme. The same however should probably happen with Category:Graphs. Orrlingtalk 19:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
English is not a perfect language. Diagram and graph are vague words, and have various meanings. Depending on the diagrams category as a place to put graphs does not seem right. In the end I think we should just live with both categories continuing to exist. I don't think we should put statistical graphs by subject in diagrams by theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
If you on one hand can't share with us any firm definition of Category:Graphs as a standalone entity and on the other oppose (needlessly, I'd say) merging it with Diagrams even shown that a conflated cat is certainly better than two vague mutually-duplicating ones apart, and understanding that "Graphs" is - indeed - a vague and ambiguous word, the only option is to rename Category:Graphs to set it as a mathematical-graphs category. It can't be an option to "live with" such unnecessary category entanglement because when files are randomally dumped in either of two cats you simply know that one of them is misplaced or misnamed, and we're here to rather fix things and get them workable. Orrlingtalk 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I can propose merging the Graphs upward with Category:Information graphics. These are two same notions. Will modify the rename-tag accordingly. Orrlingtalk 14:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd be ok with that because we definitely have to get rid of the Graph-category. Not only it is not clear if "Graph" refers to "Graph theory" or "Graphic" but also creates a redundant tree. Proposal: We should redirect Graphs to Category:Information graphics and move all content of itself and it's subcategories to the appropriate places. (Most of them to charts and subcategories of charts and a small number to diagrams, I guess) --McZusatz (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of redirecting graphs to Category:Information graphics, and moving the various subcategories to wherever seems to be the best parent categories.
By the way, Category:Charts is another vague category like graphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the Graphs; the charts and everything else will be easier to manage once the duplication abates a bit. By a brief view most of the individual files in Graphs indeed belong in Diagrams, probably some in Charts (which has almost an identical lexical meaning as "diagrams"...! I won't stand on anyone's way merging Charts and Diagrams). I'll issue the move for "Graphs" into "Information graphics" at the movecat command list although bot activity looks somewhat suspended; and will meanwhile do as many manual sortings as I reach. Of course the math-specific entries such as "Graph theory" merit a self-determination, apart from anything. Orrlingtalk 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not move the entries of 'Graphs' into 'Information graphics'. This will create more work than moving them directly in one of these: "Charts", "Diagrams", "Plots" or "Functions" --McZusatz (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah... I see. But who can sort all these entries into the distinct parents?.. . Orrlingtalk 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Graphs are not diagrams[edit]

Graphs are not diagrams. See definitions:

"Charts" can have a broad meaning. It seems to be getting broader. See definitions:

Infographics (information graphics) has the broadest meaning, it seems. See definitions:

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Graphs include diagrams, and graphs are synonimous with information graphics which is also why participants on this palkpage have recently agreed on redirecting it accordingly and spill most of the "graphs" into Category:Diagrams and no need to make-up a new sub-matter; no one cares about these negligible distinctions. Orrlingtalk 17:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Graphs do not include diagrams. Look up the definitions of diagram and graph. I did not agree that graphs belong in diagram categories.
I agree with your proposed merger though of putting Diagrams by theme and Charts by subject under Information graphics by subject (Infographics by subject). See merger discussion:
Category talk:Diagrams by theme
I think graphs by subject can also be merged with infographics by subject. This way we get rid of several parallel categories and end up with mainly one major "by subject" category: "Infographics by subject". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You might have missed the fact that Graphs by subject is already inexistant, as deleted this afternoon soon after I published that merge proposal, to my great satisfaction. In which way do graphs not include diagrams, may I ask. Orrlingtalk 17:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
See definitions of graph and diagram:
Graphs are graphs. They are statistic-based line curves. Diagrams are not statistic based. They are explanatory and how-to.
I knew that we had agreed that the graphs category would be eliminated, and assumed lots of graph subcategories would be eliminated too. That still leaves the various graph by subject subcategories. My suggestion is to move their contents into "infographics by subject" subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. As I asked at the end of the previous chapter, how will we still decide where the hundreds of "graphs" files distinctly go? I removed the move command of sending them to "Information graphics" from the bot because it's been mentioned that this will make a harder work, Orrlingtalk 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible tree structure[edit]

As an example we could create this type of tree structure for a subject area:

Economic infographics - parent category.
- Economic charts - (merge all charts, graphs, tables)
- Economic diagrams

I have been putting all economic statistic-based charts, graphs, and tables here:

There is more discussion here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Current infographics discussion[edit]

Please see:

I started a new section there. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)