The circles categories are a bit of a mess at the moment. What I cannot fathom is what purpose the category circle is serving that isn't served by either circles or circles (geometry). Therefore I propose
- moving the geometry-related circles up to Category:Circles (Geometry)
- moving the plain circles to a new category Plain circles which resides under Category:Circles
- moving the remaining circles to Category:Circles
- putting a category redirect from Category:Circle to Category:Circles
Is there anything that speaks against this? --Rimshot 11:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, but I'm not sure if there really is a need for a category plain circles, couldn't we just put those in Category:Circles? Finn Rindahl 12:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really have strong feelings regarding such a category. I think it might make plain circles easier to find, but it's not a must-have. --Rimshot 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally sounds fine, I can see it would be good to have a category to put all those coloured rings in (simple svg circles of different colours) but I don't think 'plain circles' is quite right. Maybe also a category "Concentric rings" to match the page Concentric rings.
- I don't understand what Just so circles is for, but then that's not a category ... --Tony Wills 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so circles has been requested deleted by me. Finn Rindahl 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Round is quite interesting as well. For the moment, let's keep to Category:Circle - it's too easy to get side-tracked. --Rimshot 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not have serious objections against a category for plain or simple circle-illustrations, but I wonder if it would not be better to leave them in/move them to category:circles, and make them easy accesible via a gallerypage. I started making one, plain circles, but decided to wait with the rest until it's decided whether there should be a separate category for them (in which case there would be no need for a gallery... ;-) Finn Rindahl 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Circles (Geometry) would be renamed (and splitted), because:
- 1. It is misspelled: (geometry), not (Geometry)
- 2. An extra name between parenthesis is usally for disambiguation, but there is nothing to disambiguate
- 3. This category contains geometrical figures and, in my opinion, “to show a circle” is not a pertinent feature in order to properly categorize geometric figures. --Juiced lemon 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for 1.: you're right of course, but I really wanted to fix circle first. 2. Well, yes there is. Anything with a circular form can be in the category circles, for example something like this. An image like this, on the other hand is about the geometric properties of a circle - it's therefore rightfully in the category Circles (geometry). Of course there is no need to separate these, but it is a natural way, I think, of diffusing the category. 3. That might be something to argue about, but I think in the example I gave it is quite a pertinent feature that this image contains a circle. --Rimshot 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary and vote[edit]
Ok, I've summarized the positions so far, you may vote here if you wish. I hope this gets the discussion a bit organized. For the other issues, it might be best to start under a new heading. --Rimshot 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The name should be Category:Circles, by convention. --Rimshot 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I have placed a category redirect as well.
Create a category/gallery Plain circles[edit]
Support Gallery. If plain circles are what you are looking for, you should be given an easy way to find them. After some thinking I prefer a gallery, because it can group the circles by colour/structure/anything. I cannot think of a better name, but go ahead if you know one.--Rimshot 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done this seemed uncontroversial, so I finished the gallery, and moved the images into circles. --rimshottalk 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The name as it is now, as User:Juiced lemon pointed out, is not very good. I propose the name above, in correspondence to Category:Triangle geometry. --Rimshot 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I missed this summary before. I believe we should go through with the three suggestions above, and I'm willing to take responsibility for expanding that gallerypage I started. I'm not going to vote, however, since I belive this is a matter that could (and should) be resolved by consent, and not by voting. If there were two distinctly different alternatives voting might be "the last way out", I don't believe that's the case here :-) Finn Rindahl 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there is no kind of process yet for CFDs on commons. I thought a "vote" might be a good way to make the different points of view clearer. --Rimshot 13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having had another look I find I now see the point of having a category:plain circles as well, they're now easy available in the gallery (thank you rimshot!) and are just confusing category:circles... Sorry for speaking against this initially :-( Finn Rindahl 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and create the category, then ;) --rimshottalk 11:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ;-) Finn Rindahl 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that “Geometric study of the circle” is a pertinent subject for a Commons category. OK to name it Category:Circle geometry. That needs some selection in Category:Circles (Geometry). --Juiced lemon 11:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Started: I've moved the subcategories and pages, and placed a category redirect. A number of images still need to be moved. --rimshottalk 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, took me some time as I had to create some new categories on the way. --rimshottalk 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
