Category talk:Agricultural diagrams

Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs is not needed here

The Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs is not neede here. The existing category contained:

• charts
• diagrams, and
• and illustrations

Now all three media have a category, an extra empty layer is only confusing, and ineffincient.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The category of Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs was accepted at Category talk:Diagrams. Please discuss changes at Category talk:Diagrams. Please see also the additional replies at:

Category talk:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That category was just a bad idea. There is no acceptence at the Category talk:Diagrams page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To avoid duplicating the discussion please see:

Category talk:Diagrams#Categories for discussion. Diagrams, charts, graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The categorization of diagrams, charts, graphs and maps under illustrations

I have undone the recent changes here, were Category:Agricultural diagrams, - charts, - graphs and - maps were collected under Category:Agricultural illustrations.

As far as I now there is no precedent for this restructure here, or in any other field in Wikicommons. And I think this should be discussed first.

I personnaly don't agree with this restructuring. In term "Illustrations" has the meaning of specific kind images, the more realistic drawings. And they don't contain diagrams, charts, graphs and maps. So using the term illustration as a "container term", I think, is confusing for most people. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed User:Ingolfson used the argument "Illustrations are above diagrams". Now I am not aware of this rule. Maybe Ingolfson could explain.

Hello MDD - first let me make one point - I am not too fussed about the specific ordering (I should be, but there's too much to be done on Commons where I am already embroiled, so...) - I did these changes because:

• Category:Agriculture was (and still is, despite my flurry of activity yesterday) a mess. There is no layered structure like there should be, with generic subthemes collecting together subcategories. I have made a start, but there's still many that could do with more sorting.

• I noticed that there were quite a few (somewhat related) agriculture categories like maps, graphs, diagrams, illustrations. Since they were all sitting directly under "agriculture", without an intermediate category to sort and collect them together as explained above, they "were ripe" for a quick collecting together.

• I placed them all under illustrations because when looking at generics, Category:Diagrams sits under Category:Illustrations. What is used as sorting logic at the higher levels in Commons should be repeated in the more detailed structures as well, for consistency and ease of research. Category:Graphs in turn sits under Category:diagrams (so I was, in fact, not radical enough in subsuming that cat, it should have gone one further down). Category:Maps sits under Category:Geographical illustrations, which logically is also under Category:Illustrations.

So in the end, I do believe my changes were fully in the spirit and existing sorting logic of Commons. No offense intended, I hope you see the reason for my actions now. Ingolfson (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You are both right. The problem is that there is no really good hierarchy based on the common meanings of the words "illustrations" or "graphics" or "diagrams"

Each of these word has a specific common meaning. MDD is right about the specific common meaning of "illustration." It is normally something like a drawing or 3-D mechanical illustration.

There have been attempts to find an overall word to cover all abstract graphics. But is an accurate drawing of an animal an illustration, art, a graphic? It is certainly not a diagram. Once one uses multiple colors in a drawing, and shading, then it becomes a picture, or an artist's rendering, or something beyond just an illustration.

The best overall word I have found is "graphics", but it is not entirely satisfying either. Many people do not associate graphics with detailed drawings or illustrations.

I am not sure there is really a need to consolidate the categories in question under an overall term. I think it is probably better to leave them directly under Category:Agriculture. I think more people will find them that way. They may not know to look for charts, graphs, and maps under illustrations. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, and that is where I disagree, because that argument can be used against many - maybe even most - attempts to sort categories anywhere on Commons. Of course I can find them easier if they are in the top category. But only because other categories (who had no one championing a revert of the "from the generic to the specific" sort) do not clutter up the main category anymore. I think we should follow precedent and established sorting structure, and this discussion we are having here should not be had here at all, but in Category:Illustrations or similar top categories, if you would like to change that established order or nominate a category like "graphics".

Please don't take my words as rudely as they may sound - but I am pretty big on consistency in Commons, and keeping the revert would be inconsistent. Ingolfson (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The topcategorization of the categories data visualization, charts, diagrams, drawings, graphics, graphs, illustration, images, infographics, information graphics, information visualization, maps, plots, technical drawings, technical illustrations, visualization... etc. is far from clear at the moment. And is changing whenever one feels like it. Calling the categorization of Category:Diagrams under Category:Illustrations the precedent (or the standard) is a mistake. I would like to change this right now, but I don't want to get in an other edit war there.

Timeshifter is right, that we don't agree. The situation here, and on several other places, is a compromis after several months of disagreement. We have had most of our discussion at the Category talk:Diagrams talkpage if you want to know more. I am pretty big on consistency in Commons as well, but I don't accept random simplicity. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. @Inglofson. I have serious doubt you are improving the situation in the Category Agricultural I just removed the message

"The main subcategories are found within Category:Agricultural techniques,

which I think is just confusing. That subcat contains only two cat's now. Even if there will be more, this message will remain to be confusing. Every body with a little experience can see that at the moment the "Agriculture by country (96 C, 1 F)" is the main subcategory.

MDD said "P.S. @Inglofson. I have serious doubt you are improving the situation in the Category Agricultural"

Which is semi-polite for "Please stay the heck away from this category which I worked so much on in the past"? Sorry, mate - that's not the way it works. As for your complaint itself - numbers have nothing to do with importance as such. But I agree that my note could be seen as confusing when you don't know what I intended with it, and so I won't revert your removal of it.

As for your wider comments about categorisation on diagrams/illustrations etc - it sounds to me like you have tried to change the organisation there in the topcats, but achieved no consensus. That neither supports nor damages your argument as such - but neither does it mean that elsewhere local preferences should trump consistency. If there is no consensus for change at Category:Diagrams, then that is a consensus - for the status quo, and its parent cat-subcat relationships.

Since I am already trying to hash out a category scheme (which is what you guys are looking for, for all your diagram / illustration categories) on an category that is at least as contentious, I am unlikely to get involved there. All I care about is that eventually an acceptable standard is found that doesn't have five very related categories sit in parallel in the same top-level cat (agriculture). Ingolfson (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just critical, that is all. I encourage any initiative to improve the categorization. I indeed made a considerable effort here (re)categorizing all 1000+ diagrams, illustrations, maps, etc in the Category:Agriculture, but I didn't categorize any photo's, and in fact the main categorization of the Category:Agriculture. So I think there indeed could be some work done there. However I think the main problem here remains getting all uncategorized and half categorized (in the category:Agriculture) images in their sub/sub-sub/sub-sub-sub categories.

As to the situation of categorizing the diagram / illustrations here. It is tried to gather these subcat's:

• under Category:Agricultural diagrams
• under a new Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs (now deleted)
• all separate and divided under Category:Agriculture,
• all together in the top of the Category:Agriculture, and
• under Category:Agricultural illustrations.

If you have an alternative please let it know.

I do would like a consistent categorization on all levels, compliant with the theory and Wikipedia articles, and categorization.

I think I like the current situation (all together in the top of the Category:Agriculture) is because the categorization of diagram / illustrations is

• a secondary categorization
• apart form the main categorization in countries/fields/techniques etc.

They are all together now and don't interfer with this main categorization. I think a bigger problem is that that main categorization is split in two when there are over 200 images in the category. I think this is the real curse here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)