@Watchduck: You are perhaps speaking of the conceptual idea of 'the cube', but the reality of Commons is that we categorize depictions of concepts, not concepts themselves. There are at the moment 203 files in Category:Cube, so the category contains a minimum of 203 cubes, presuming they are correctly categorized. This image at right itself contains 9 cubes. Thus the category should be plural per COM:CAT standards. Josh (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your proposal is, that you limit the category to images that show cubes. But there are things that belong under the concept "the cube", but are not cubes. Cube nets or the Triangular cube shadow are 2-dimensional, so I am sure you can agree that they are not cubes, right? Also the things in Related to the cube are not cubes. This category could also contain a PDF that describes the cube purely in text and formulas. You are not simply renaming a category, you are limiting its meaning, and by that you are making files homeless that belong here, but would not belong in your new category.
Your example image shows a total non-problem. No-one would ever get the idea that a painting of nine cats is misplaced in Felis silvestris catus (singular). And no-one would rename a category for a specific national flag to "National flags of ...", just because many of it may appear in the same file. Watchduck (quack) 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the name "cube" the name "cubes" clearly suggests that all images in the category in fact show cubes. You say so yourself: "There are at the moment 203 files in Category:Cube, so the category contains a minimum of 203 cubes." That is not the case. The triangular cube shadow has 7 vertices, so it is not a cube. The face-intersection graph of the cube (right) has 12 vertices, and the face lattice of the cube has 28. (According to you, should that be face lattices of the cube or face lattices of cubes?) When we agree that all these things belong here, and that plain images of the cube also belong here, we can probably agree, that they should be in their own subcategories. Can we? It would not be great to have some graphs scattered between images like File:Hexahedron.jpg. How would you call the subcategory for images that simply show cubes? Watchduck (quack) 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Watchduck: You do realize that Category:Cat is just a redirect, right? And heck, maybe it should be deleted, but that would be its own discussion, as are flags and square roots, so I have no idea why you are bothering with these irrelevant diversions. Either one of two conditions exist:
Category:Cube only rightly contains files which depict one or more cubes or cube-related subjects and sub-categories related to cubes. If so, then the category should be renamed Category:Cubes.
Category:Cube may rightly contains some files which do not depict any cubes or cube-related subjects and/or sub-categories which are not related to cubes. If so, then we should retain Category:Cube and move files which do depict cubes and sub-categories related to cubes to Category:Cubes.
Answering this does not require diversion to Egyptian tiling. As you are presumably knowledgeable on the topic, I look forward to a straight answer about this category as to which of the above conditions is true. Josh (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who made a categorical argument: "We categorize depictions of concepts, not concepts themselves", "this category is not for a specific individual cube", so "per COM:CAT standards" the name has to be plural.
As a response to that kind of argument, it is absolutely justified when I point out with examples how absurd the consequences of applying it would be.
With your wording "cubes or cube-related subjects" you obfuscate the problem. A category called "cubes" should contain only cubes. A category called "cube" can reasonably contain cubes as well as cube-related subjects that are not cubes. But wording aside, it's clearly option 2. For the sake of clarity I prefer Images of cubes. Right now that category contains e.g. Raytraced cubes and Drawings of cubes.
The core of your argument seems to be, that the scope of this category is basically "images of cubes". My argument is, that such a category should exist, but as a subcategory - while this one is needed as a wrapper that allows more abstract subcategories. Watchduck (quack) 14:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Watchduck: So then you agree with condition #2 above. You are incorrect about what you call the "core of my argument", but no matter, I am glad to see we are in agreement on the actual substance of the discussion. Josh (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(There are almost no plural categories of species on Commons - of course with the exception of the Cat breeds Josh has renamed after I brought up examples like Abyssinian cat.)
This is a meaningful subcategory of Cube. One could think that the implicit meaning of category Cube already is Images of cubes, but - as explained above - it is broader than that. Watchduck (quack) 07:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: No one claims, that every category Foo should have a subcategory Images of foo. But when there is Photos of..., Drawings of... and Raytracings of..., then it makes sense to bundle them, and not to have them scattered between all kinds of other subcategories. Watchduck (quack) 07:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing a robust and self-explaining concept like subcategories by arcane sort keys sounds like a terrible idea to me. Is there a policy page about that practice?
What if a page belongs in more than one former subcategory? Can it get multiple sort keys? One of the key advantages of the category system is, that it allows more than one parent. Watchduck (quack) 09:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Watchduck: I think Watchduck made a fair point earlier that Category:Cube represents a concept that is more than just cubes, and that images of cubes should have their own sub-category under "Cube". However, Estopedist1 is correct that "Images of cubes" is not a good name for this category (just as 'images of...' most things is really superfluous). We should simply rename Category:Images of cubes to Category:Cubes and leave it as a sub-category of Category:Cube. Josh (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To have both Cube and Cubes would be confusing. Explicit is better than implicit, and "images" is what "drawings", "photos" and "raytracings" have in common. Watchduck (quack) 18:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I agree that it is confusing, hence my initial proposal that started this. The case has been presented to keep 'cube' (concept) as something separate and distinct from 'cubes' (objects). I agree this seems a bit much; after all, files depicting the concept of a helicopter and not necessarily depicting a helicopter per se can still live fine under 'helicopters'. However, I can accept it as not too much of a problem, so long as Category:Images of cubes is a redirect to Category:Cubes where all files depicting cubes reside. Category:Cube can remain for files not depicting cubes per Watchduck's concept. Josh (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage would be, that Cubes could also contain Animations of cubes and (theoretically) Videos of cubes and STL files of cubes. Maybe someone finds a better name that is more explicit than Cubesand more inclusive than Images of cubes. Anyway, I am the last person to insist on perfect category names. Somewhat ambiguous names do no harm, as long as there is a clear description on the category page. We should think about template texts for the (singular) wrapper and the (plural) subcategory.
Your examples aren't images of cubes, right! But if I understand you correctly, it's not about the fact that they aren't images, but rather that they aren't cubes? So we might need a new category:cubes, but we don't need a category:images of cubes. --W like wikigood to know20:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? The singular/plural question has nothing to do with this. You propose to delete Images of cubes, and I assumed that you are joining Josh's argument, that category Foo already implies Images of foo — so I gave some counterexamples. Admittedly, that is not the argument you made. In fact, you did not make any argument, why this category should be deleted, except that "Images of ..." categories are rare. (Of course they are, because usually Foo implies Images of foo.) You mention that the job of the subcategory could be done by a sort key. I don't think this is a good idea for a crowded category like this one. Explicit is better than implicit, and sort keys are notoriously vague. --Watchduck (quack) 20:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my point: That many images in Cube are not images of cubes, and that Images of cubes is therefore a meaningful subcategory — which therefore should exist. --Watchduck (quack) 23:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have written above: To have both Cube and Cubes would be confusing. Explicit is better than implicit, and "images" is what "drawings", "photos" and "raytracings" have in common.
Anyway, maybe we should wait for some other opinions. This section boils down to the question, whether some subcategories should be bundled by a wrapper category or by a sort key. At the end of the day, this is not exactly important. --Watchduck (quack) 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of problem exists in many categories. E.g. Horses generally contains images of horses, but there are exceptions like Horse feces and Horse-related signs. I will start a general discussion about this topic at the village pump. The approach I would propose is not the one used here, but the one seen in Neon and Argon graph (i.e. a dedicated sort key for non-foo related to foo). --Watchduck (quack) 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This page is about a unique geometric object. There is only one cube, just like there is only one regular dodecahedron (cat).
Compare e.g.
Support per nom also noting that w:Category:Cubes uses the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_a_Cube.png){kind=link}
