Category talk:Illustrations

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

Circle Category:Illustrations und Category:Pictures and images[edit]

here from User talk:W!B:#Category:Genres with User:Foroa --W!B: (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

which where assign to each other - i said "del Category:Illustrations its a circle!!! - illustrations are pict/img illustrating something specific, so they are part of..!", which You didn't link - by now, i did it the other way round (both Category:Ill and Category:P&i in Category:Illustrations (which seems to be a main theme) - but thats still not satisfying - try [1] for the messy structure - doesn't seem to be any kind of wellformed tree, istn't ;), [2] for a cloud - but I'm not shure, where is the bug? --W!B: (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • maybe its, one could use any P&I as illustration - so maybe we dissmiss it, and merge it completly into Category:Pictures and images by shown topic and Category:Pictures and images by topic? - so maybe the original auther intended something like "illustrations form books", thus scans of printed matter
  • or, cat:P&I ist not an thematical, but an commons-interna category (which is suggest by cats like Category:Featured pictures, Category:Pictures and images by usage)? - that means it should be just toplevel via Cat:Media - Media types - CommonsRoot, and not in Category:Media, which start running again thru Categories: Human societies | Communication technology - then Category:Illustrations would take her place there.. - that would also solve the bug that many animated images or digital photos are in P&I -> Category:Printed matter, which is wrong for shure.. in fact, any media on Commons is only electronic media, isn't it? ;)

--W!B: (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the bug is, that you think in hierarchical tree structures instead of thinking about a multi-hierarchical system called WIKI. A WIKI always allows to link up- and downwards as well as sidewards "left and right" and there is no reason to avoid this as this is the possibility to structure pictures, articles and other media in different contexts where they belong to. So what you discuss is a little bit like "Whats first, the chicken or the egg?" There will always be another editor with a different mindset and thats why there is no wrong or write. Do what you think is correct to do and others will help you or move it back to the previous state, depending on the consensus you have for your edits. What I mean: For example I created the cat Pictures and images, as some people used the cat pictures, others the cat images and I thought we need a common root here. Thats why we have at the moment some subcats named with pictures and others with images in the title. Only our continious work will improve the system. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I do agree about the multi-hierarchical system, but this situation is not comprehensive nor maintainable. Let's first to clean up the top level and define the main logic and hierarchy.

I removed a couple of useless circular links and I think that:

  • we better rename illustration to Book illustrations, Printed illustrations or Printwork illustrations
  • I hate the name "pictures and images" as it is confusing all users. It seems to concern mainly non-photographic images, so other name suggestions that differentiate from photo/images and from illustrations are welcome. (Yes, a printed matter category seems correct in the commons context) --Foroa (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Pictures and images concerns all kinds of pictures and images and therefore also includes the Photographs category. Confusing all users - are you sure? - You are the first one I read that from! And I don't think so, if it is not there, you can't see that you can differentiate into many other sub categories and if you can't see that, the chaos increases as many people will not find the best fitting cats. Neither a picture nor a image is only or can only be a photograph. That is like it is. And I disagree that the multi-hierarchical system should be neither comprehensive nor maintainable. It is, by creating the best fitting categories - like your suggestions for Illustrations! Removing circular links where they make no sense OK, but many make a lot of sense and is a big opportunity of a WIKI!!! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ah i see, we agree at the principles (its right, its a wiki, but bad structure - seen by catgraph - is in most cases also some un-thought-out aim of a cat - its not for end in itself, but for how a user whould browses thru cats: circling around leads to no target..) - in fact what i meant was: what is the meaning of this cat? lets discuss, what should be sorted inhere, then lets discuss, how we name it

  • as i understood, aim of the latter is to contain "all visual, non-video media (on commons)" - to differ it from Category:Video (with an intersection "animated pictures/images"), Category:Sound and Category:Printed media (that is "writing", with an intersection of "printed images") - the last is what Foroa suggested as the meaning of "Printwork illustrations" (which i prefer)
  • to me (as a non-en-native-speaker) the lingual difference between "picture" and "image" is not clear - isn't it synonymous?

--W!B: (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The introduction of the category[edit]

I just restored the three edits by User:Arugula999 about "cleanup" and "remove info - that's what WP"a and by me (User:Mdd) about the "lay out". This is just removed by User:Fabartus. It seems there are two opinions here, what the category heading should be about:

I agree both are possibilities. But if two editors prefer a minimal version, and other editor shouldn't refer this without any discussion.

I have had discussions about this subject half a year ago, see for example here and then we introduced the "on Wikipedia" template. Must we can start this discussion all over. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. There is a similar situation in Category:Illustrations by subject, see that talk page.

I don't think all that info belongs on Commons. No one comes here to read about what "illustrations" are. It was pretty English-biased as well. Imagine if every language wrote that much. I don't think we need any description on categories like this (especially on something as basic as "illustrations"). Maybe in a gallery, but for this page some transwiki links are all we need. Besides that, it was so messy and inconsistent with common practices. Arugula999 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar cases[edit]

I noticed there are similar cases like this:

Now I have dived into User:Fabartus contributions, and I noticed he is creating all kinds of different category introductions, see for example:

It seems to me User:Fabartus is playing around, creating an other lay out in every place, and hereby pushing away the actual function of the category: To show the subcats and pictures involved.

Also the mentioning of "the parent and upper level categories:" on top. This is a doubling of the information allready present on the bottum.

I think this decorating is not a good thing. It should be kept simple.-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed User:Fabartus has been creating these kind of introductions for quit some time, see for example here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)