Category talk:Technical drawings

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

Merge and redirect Category:Technical drawing here[edit]

I will merge the category technical drawing here for several reason:

  • Wikicommons categories should correspond with Wikipedia articles 1 to 1
  • While Wikipedia articles are singular, Wikicommons categories are often plural
  • I think those two categories are confusing, the information is split over two articles.

There is a kind of logic behind the current division

  • Technical drawing for the discipline
  • Technical drawings for the drawings

But this doesn't last.

  1. Technical drawings shouldn't be categorized in the category technical drawings, but in technical drawings by theme, and their subcat's
  2. All subcat's information relating to the discipline also relates to the drawings. This is also why there is only one Wikipedia article about both.

Now this merge is part of my effort to improve the situation in the Wikipedia as well, around the W:technical drawing article. If you have any comments, just let me know.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I am improving the w:technical drawing article, and that is why I have allready merged both categories. If anybody has a problem, I am willing to restore the situation. But at the moment I need this clear overview of the total of subjects here. Believe it or not... this new situation will give the main subjects for that Wikipedia article.
At the Wikipedia Talk:Technical drawing talkpage I have allready explained the situation a few days ago, see here. There is a lot to improve there, and I think here as well.
The new situation here shows a lot of smaller categories categorized here. Maybe they can be categorized in a new Category:Technical drawing techniques.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Please use the standard procedure before merging as this is a problem to undo. There might be a logic you did not understand.
    • I disagree completely with "Wikicommons categories should correspond with Wikipedia articles 1 to 1 ": wikipedia article organisation will always be different from commons organisation.
    • Technical drawing is about the making of a drawing, technical drawings are the result. (See Category:Sculpture and Category:Sculptures. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
About the procedure: I will leave the Category:Technical drawing as it is and will continu to the develop the new situation parallel.
Now about your arguments, three things:
  1. A far a s I know the 1 to 1 correspondence is kind of standard. I know of hunderds of examples. Situations like this only exist on a few places, as far as I know.
  2. The term "technical drawing" has multiple meaning, and in Wikpedia article this gives often a problem to get a good representation. There is always a possibility, that you end up with an article having multiple issues. So often you have to make a choice to putt the one thing first, and in corporate the other.
  3. An other thing here is that the term "technical drawings" is a term for multiple different drawings:
  • Engineering drawing
  • Architectural drawing
  • Civil engineering drawing
  • CAD drawing
  • CAAD drawing
  • Technical illustration
  • Piping drawing
  • Electrical drawing
Just like the technical drafter has multiple specialties.
I think the situation here and in Wikipedia would certainly improve if this difference would really be made clear. Technical drawings shouldn't be categorized here, but in the technical drawings by theme category...!!
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. As a test I have removed the elements I have added to the category in the past, and have added your interpretation of this category: Technical drawing is about the making of a drawing
I suddenly realize you want this article to be about a third meaning of technical drawing. I assumed the term has two meanings but you add a third. These three meanings are:
  1. the technical discipline
  2. the 2D medium
  3. the act of making drawings
Now this category was about the first meaning, and the category:technical drawings about the second. Do you really want this category to be kept, about the act of making technical drawings?? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose There is a clear sense behind having the two categories and it helps to distinguish between the technical discipline (which includes the act of making drawings as well as the rules and standards related to that) and the technical drawing itself. Thats why I oppose to move all into one category again! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you recreated the situation before the merge, and I made some more edits to optimize this situation. If we want to keep the two categories the differences should be clear, and the terms should be use as consistent as possible. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of subcategories that relate to drawing medium[edit]

Independent of the previous question if the Category:Technical drawing should remain or not, most of it's subcategories should be redirected.

Most (if not all) of the subcategories relate to the drawing medium and not to the discipline.

They should be linked in the Category:Technical drawings.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If this category should stay, focussed on "the making of a drawing" I will keep the subcat's in place for now. And I will use a double categorization, because they should be in other cat as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the good cleanup. I think that there are more valid arguments to keep the categories isolated than to merge them. If you agree, please remove the move request. --Foroa (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been making some changes here in combination with improving the English Wikipedia articles, and I am still in the process. I seems I am still in favor of this merge, because:
  • This split in discipline and medium seems unprecedented here in Wikicommons. On the one hand there are cat's for discipline such as visualisation, data visualisation, information visualisation and scientific visulaisation. And on the other hand there are cat's for media such as diagrams, charts, plots, graphs. Maybe the situation with the category maps and cartography are similar.
  • Both cat's technical drawing and technical drawings are top cats and should be empty
  • Both should have the same content, because all items listed in these categories relate to both. The rule proposed by WikiMaster here is really exceptional and artifical.
And I am not so sure what those arguments for the split are.
  • Does the split really improve the distinguishing between the technical discipline (which includes the act of making drawings as well as the rules and standards related to that) and the technical drawing itself. As I said before the "act of making drawings" and "rules and standards related to that" relate as much to the discipline as to the drawings... !?
Maybe if the situation evolves I will have a better case and will ask some more attention to this case on other places and users. Untill then I like to have the template in place, because my proposal still stands. I still think the situation improves if just one of the two cat's disappear. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
My position still stands as well because I feel one should clearly separate the act of making drawings (or other artwork) and the resulting drawings (artwork) which might contain thousands of images; this strategy seems to be used on all "producing" disciplines. Anyway, if we don't come to a consensus within one week, I will remove the move request (move requests are for short discussions) and then might want to file a COM:CFD. We can't have the Category:Requested moves filling up with hundreds of disputed move requests, most of the outstanding ones are already disputed, so it blocks legitime move requests. --Foroa (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It really would help if you explain more about your point of view, because I really don't understand. What all "producing" disciplines, you are refering to? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar cases[edit]

Ok. I found it myself. You are refering to

These categories seems like the exception to me. It seems that these second type of categories can be replaced by "category:... by type" and "category:... by theme" and then there is no need for those two almost similar categories.

Now I understand the origin, and will leave it for now.

One thing is still bothers me however. I think there should be a clear difference between the two categories to avoid confusion. At them moment this is not the case with

Now these two categories are almost alike, and I think this is confusing. This was also the case here. You might think it is strange, but I realized only recently there where two categories here. In the past I multiple times I got lost, because I found some information in a subcat and couldn't find it again, because I was looking in the wrong topcat. This is why I think the two should be differently. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed merge request[edit]

I removed the merge request as User:Foroa asked, and will consider a COM:CFD. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)