Category talk:Diagrams/Archive 2008

Category:Diagram on sister projects:
	Wikipedia; cs: de: en: eo: es: fi: fr: ja: ko: nl: sk: su: vi: ; See more at interwikilinks (?)

Archive of Category talk:Diagrams

Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts, graphs by theme?[edit]

Note: This discussion was copied from User talk:Ma-Lik.

You categorized Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme in the cat Drawings. Is the nameing of the cat then right? In my opinion the category should named Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts, graphs by theme.--Ma-Lik 12:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Or we could change Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme to Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts by theme. Charts and graphs are fairly interchangeable. --Timeshifter 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm no, I think it's better to call all the basis cats--Ma-Lik 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have changed my mind. I looked up "diagram" in a big paper dictionary, and in online dictionaries. See:

Drawings are considered to be diagrams. In the commons one see that Category:Drawings is a subcategory of Category:Diagrams.

So I think we should leave the category name, Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme, the way it is now. Otherwise the category name gets longer and longer. --Timeshifter 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's a good point, but charts and graphs are also diagrams... Maybe we should call it Diagrams by theme. --Ma-Lik 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some definitions of diagrams include charts and graphs, and some don't. So it is clearer if we include them in the title of the category. --Timeshifter 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Ma-Lik 08:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent categories of diagrams, charts, graphs[edit]

This talk-item is copied from the Category talk:Economics graphs page

Hi, I am reorganizing the categorization of diagrams, charts and graphs in the sciences categories.

Now I moved all graphs from the Category:Economics diagrams to this category, because I want to make a difference between:

Diagrams: like block diagrams... etc.,
Charts: like bar charts, pie charts... etc, and
Graphs.

Now I noticed that there are a lot of graphs in the field of economy. I noticed two particular types here:

Graphs that represent a theory
Graphs that show some statistical data

I wonder if we could make a difference here, for example by creating a separate Category:Economic statistical charts category. This will give an opportunity to make some further differentation here.

Maybe there is an other solution here, but something has to be done here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go ahead and do what you feel is right. We can correct mistakes later. Such as English spelling, grammar, etc.. Category:Economic charts means the same thing, and makes more grammatical sense though than Category:Economic statistical charts. I like this:

Category:Economic diagrams, charts, graphs - parent category.

Subcategories:

I suggest further subdividing the graphs according to theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will give it a try, and see if it works. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New parent categories[edit]

Hi again. I started creating a few new parent categories yesterday:

Now I wonder if I should proceed here? I think these new type of categories replace the categories, which were just named:

Category:Economic diagrams
Category:Business diagrams
Category:Management diagrams

In the new situation the name "diagram" is replaced by the "diagrams, charts, graphs". In the current (or old) situation in a lot of science categories all diagrams, charts and graphs seemed to be listed under the category:diagrams. So it seesm just a change of name. On the other hand this could be a step forward to make a better listing of infographics by kind. Could anybody give his opinion here?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good thing to do when there is a need in some categories to break things up more. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name and scope of these parent categories "by theme"[edit]

I agree with the intention here, but I think the names of the "Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme" and the categories of "diagrams, charts, graphs" doesn't fit the purpose.

Ma-lik already suggested in June that the term "drawings" should be added.
However if you look at the "restored" Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme it also contains "animations", "models", "drawings" and "technical drawings", "imagery", "maps", and even "Ontologies".
In the field of agriculture I also added the "illustrations" to the category
Now I noticed that in every fields of science has its own special mix and exceptions.

Now acoording to my perception, the purpose of the "Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme" could/should be to over the topcategory of all themes in these visualisation techniques. Now I wonder of a new name wouldn't be better. For examples:

Category:Visualization by themes, or
Category:Visualisation techniques by themes.

Could such a category perform as a top category here...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Visualization, though, does not really work to describe what we want. See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:visualization and

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visualization

In English, the best word we have found so far is diagrams. And its definition, though, can vary depending on the dictionary and context. See the previous discussions. That is why we added charts and graphs to the name at times.

We might be able to define "diagrams" better in the intro to Category:Diagrams. I think we both want diagrams that represent information somewhat abstractly. Not photos. Nor do we want unannotated realistic illustrations that do not have any abstract info. For example; realistic plant, bird and animal drawings without part annotations.

But diagrams, exploded drawings, labeled drawings, charts, graphs, models, technical drawings, and many animations, etc.. all have elements of abstract info in them. I will try to add an explanatory intro to Category:Diagrams. Others can edit it too. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I however don't agree on your arguments and your last actions. First. I agree there are all kinds of definitions of visualization, but there are also all kinds of definitions of diagrams. These listings don't offers a starting point. Although they can be of some assistance.

Second. I think there is neither any basis to state, that The broadest definition of diagrams includes labeled drawings, schematics, charts, graphs, models, maps, plots, hierarchy maps, technical drawings, exploded drawings, layered "x-ray" drawings, etc.... Non of the diagram definitions support this vision. In a way, I think, what you are saying is true. But do we really want to work with the broadest definition possible? Not if there is an alternative.

I think in fact we are looking at the bigger picture here and the organization of all images in WikiCommons. This makes it so complex. I have several points here.

There is stil a lot to improve on Wikipedia with the explanation of the basic terms, like visualization, diagram, chart, etc... I belief this can offer a starting point.
For example I just wrote an introduction in the en:diagram article. I realized that the main characteristic of a diagram is that it does not display quantitative data. I checked and non of the diagrams definitions mention other wise. This can be a starting point in Wikicommons for categorization.
I think two very reliable source to work with are L.E. Brasseur's "Visualizing Technical Information: A Cultural Critique" from 2003, and en:Michael Friendly's "Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization", last update 2008.

I think we should use those expert opinions to get a better reprentation (on Wikipedia) and organization om images in WikiCommons. Now there is more, but I maybe you want to respond first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very good points. "Visualization" is a good name for a parent category, Category:Visualization. It is above Category:Diagrams, Category:Charts, and Category:Graphs.

But the definition of w:Visualization also includes illustrations. From w:Illustrations: "An illustration is a visualization such as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that stresses subject more than form." So the visualization category includes non-abstract illustrations, too.

I am not sure if the term "infographics" includes all charts and graphs. I asked here:

w:Talk:Information graphics#Are all graphs and charts considered to be infographics?

So we still do not have one single word for an overall category name for visualizations with abstract info. I suggest we create an overall category called Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. This has been discussed previously, and people were in favor of it.

Or if the definition of "infographics" is broad enough we could use Category:Infographics instead of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs.

"Infographics" is a very common term, and a Google search finds hundreds of thousands of pages using it:

http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics

Looking at the pages seems to confirm the broad definition of the word. So do Google Scholar searches:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics+charts

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics+graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we should go ahead and use Category:Infographics as the parent category. I also think we may need Category:Infographics by theme.--Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to jump to conclusion here. I don't think there is one simple conclusion here. I allready responded on Wikipedia that the term "infographic" is rather controversial. I don't agree on the way the term is exploided in Wikipedia and the way the en:Category:Infographics is organized, because I think it is POV: a personal point of view. But there are a lot of thinks I don't like about the representation of visualization in Wikipedia, and I have been working on that the past weeks. Personally I like the current state of the Category:Infographics in Wikicommons much more, because it is a modest view on the special characteristics of information graphics. Here a few lines come together which doesn't fit in any other category.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infographics may not be a perfect name. It can be complicated to define. For example; I don't think complex scientific visualizations are information graphics until they are labeled. See w:Talk:Information graphics for further discussion. If the categories for charts and graphs were added to Category:Infographics then I don't think we would need "Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs". I would like to hear what others say here and at w:Talk:Information graphics. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of diagrams[edit]

Hi I started a new series of categories and articles/galleries about this history of diagrams. This is part of my effort to improve the coverage of visualisation in Wikipedia and Wikicommons in general and diagrams in particular.

Now as a start I am introducing categories and articles/galleries about:

Medieval diagrams
16th century diagrams
17th century diagrams
18th century diagrams
19th century diagrams
20th century diagrams
21th century diagrams

And maybe: Ancient diagrams, about diagrams in first civilisations This whole will be categorized under the category:diagram

And there are three articles to cover the whole

Now there is a lot of work to scout the whole of wikicommons images, to determine the different groups, and to scout internet for new sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The next question is copied from en:Talk:Information graphics#Three different definitions in Wikipedia

I think we agree for the most part. I don't think art such as these non-labeled art images qualify as diagrams or information graphics under any definition though:

Image:Fortymartyrs.jpg

Image:Arabischer Maler um 1180 001.jpg

Image:Ein Engel versperrt die Pforten der Unterwelt mit einem Schlüsel.jpg

They are in Category:Medieval diagrams.

Maybe an additional category called Category:Medieval illustrations might help? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I think this is a tricky question. I categorized them in the first place because I presume that these medieval geometic illustrations are one why or another connected to the historical development of diagrams. I just don't know how. This enterprise has his surprices. For example I found the Image:Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union.jpg, which is the first illustration so far which is really called a "diagram".

I agree that the illustrations you mentioned are a separate class, and can I mention and list those in the article/gallery Medieval diagrams. I suddenly realized why I added these images in the first place, because of what Michael Friendly (2008) stated in "Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization".

In Medieval times the earliest seeds of visualization arose in geometric diagrams, in tables of the positions of stars and other celestial bodies, and in the making of maps to aid in navigation and exploration

I guess I want to figger out what he means with geometric diagrams. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My paper Webster's dictionary has the date of 1619 for the first English use of diagram. The Greek root words were around long before that.

I was suggesting that Category:Medieval illustrations or something similar be used as a parent category above Category:Medieval diagrams. I don't think unlabeled intricate art designs qualify though as diagrams according to the modern (since 1619) meaning of the word "diagram." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know yet. I added all these illustrations to the Medieval diagrams gallery. I think it all makes some more sense there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I suggest categorizing the century categories in a similar way to how it is done here:

Category:Maps by century made --Timeshifter (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done and thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory diagrams[edit]

Category:Explanatory diagrams

I think this category will end up having all kinds of diagrams from many themes. Most diagrams are labeled, and so they are somewhat explanatory. Some explain more than others.

Would it be better to take all those diagrams and put them in the subcategories of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category to categorizing the Voyager Golden Record and some similar diagrams in the Category:Infographics. Now in the [NASA document] the plate was named an "Explanatory diagram". The term is some how familiar with a 87.000 google rate, but in a further search I found no real definitions of this term. So I guess the term "Explanatory diagram" doesn't really relate to any specific category of images other then they have a larger explanatory element. Now two things:

First I think there does is a common element in most images I (for the moment) collected in this new category:

They are more complex then the common diagrams/infographics which are "simple and easy".
But they are not as complex and visualize a large amount of data as the contemporary w:information visualizations

So they seem some where in between diagrams/infographics and information visualizations.

Second. I already noticed something similar between the illustrations and technical drawings: the w:technical illustrations. They are:

a specific technical type of illustrations, and
a specific illustrative kind of technical drawings, who nowadays don't really classify as technical drawings.

Now I can imagine to classify the current "Explanatory diagrams" as "technical illustrations", but not the other way around.

One solution here is to start a new Category:Technical illustrations, and to loose the Category:Explanatory diagrams. This new category can also end up having all kind of images. That is why it needs some explanation and maintenance. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technical illustrations is better. People are not likely to find these graphics though unless they are categorized more specifically. To me they are all information graphics, or just "graphics." It is common in magazines to see these kind of graphics. Photos are also considered to be graphics. Maybe Category:Technical graphics. But some of the stuff in Category:Explanatory diagrams is not all that technical. The bird infographics for example. It is hard to specifically define "technical." Maybe need Category:Ornithology diagrams, Category:Voyager Golden Record diagrams, etc.. See also:

Category:NASA

Category:Birds

Category:Ornithology --Timeshifter (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important thing is, that categories in Commons correspond with real life. Now I searched with google images with the terms "Infographics", "Technical drawings", "Technical graphics", and "Explanatory diagrams", to get an impression here. Here I found that especially "Infographics" and "Technical drawings" did give one kind of image...

One other thing first. I am actually surprised that there is something of a typical "Infographical image". I think we should put some corresponding characteristic images back in that category, to show people what a characteristic infographic looks like.

Now I noticed the current images in the Category:Explanatory diagrams don't correspond with the first impression on a technical illustration. Any way I guess I am going to start that category any way in combination with improving the wikipedia article. But this is an other plan.

So it seems to me that a Category Technical illustrations is not better for those images. Searching for "Technical graphics" didn't give me a clear view either. So I am back with Explanatory diagrams. Now when I think of it the term isn't that bad. The particular Voyager Golden Record is in fact really has to explain human life to extraterrestrial. Also the image selection Google is showing me isn't that bad. It is all out of the ordinary. So now I watch this closer, I am back at the original choice.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. The categories you mention seems all main categories to me.

As an experiment I have put some images back to the "main" category infographics. I kind of like the result (in both categories). In the category infographics the images look to me like typical and specific "information graphics".

The funny thing is that these are not the images that illustrate the current w:Infographics article...!?

Now for the moment, I would like to keep these images in the infographics category. Maybe it is also time to start a article/gallery there, to give our perception/preview on information graphics. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://images.google.nl/images?q=information+graphics pulls up the same type of stuff as http://images.google.nl/images?q=explanatory+diagrams in my opinion. They are all graphics that share information beyond what a photo or unlabeled drawing can do.

I think the problem may be with the modern word "infographics". I think I am going to use the full phrase "information graphics" as the category name. Category:Information graphics instead of Category:Infographics. "Information graphics" sounds more serious than "infographics." The 2 words that make up the phrase have been around a long time and people know what both words mean. Plus "information graphics" seems to have been in use longer than "infographics."

The other main categories I mentioned were starting points to find or create specific graphics-related category names. For example; Category:Bird-related graphics or Category:Bird-related diagrams or Category:Bird-related information graphics. The same for NASA categories. Ornithology is the study of birds. I prefer "bird-related" since this is an international image repository, and "bird" is easy to understand.

I don't see how "explanatory diagrams" are any help. All diagrams are explanatory or they wouldn't be diagrams. I think part of the problem is that you are trying to call intricate art a diagram. They don't have any abstract info, or labeling, yet you are trying to call them diagrams. They are not sharing information. They are art, not info-related.

I don't see how Category:Physiologic diagrams is any better than most of the other categories in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme for representing typical information graphics. So I don't see why it should be in the parent categories of Category:Diagrams or Category:Information graphics when Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme is already in those parent categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't except that you just changed the name of the main category Category:Infographics over night, without any talks. I have left some notes here an there for response, because I don't know if there is any procedure to follow here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Categories are frequently renamed for clarity, spelling, grammar, etc.. This happens all the time. You didn't ask permission to create the categories and galleries you have created.

Also, you didn't answer my questions about the need for the new category you created called "Explanatory diagrams."

You also did not answer my question about putting one subcategory Category:Physiologic diagrams above the other categories in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme.

It is common to use the parent category whenever possible rather than pull out individual subcategories. Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme is already a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. Since Category:Physiologic diagrams is a subcategory of that there is no need to give it special treatment. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can not argue about three things (or more) at once here. Can we split this discussion into three (or more) different topics? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having a problem talking about all 3 since they are interrelated. If you want to start separate talk sections for Category:Information graphics and Category:Physiologic diagrams feel free to do so. Please don't change or rearrange this talk section though.

If you want to keep Category:Explanatory diagrams we can keep it for awhile and see what others say. I think it will only duplicate where diagrams are put. Wouldn't it better if each diagram were only in one subcategory of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme whenever possible? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Explanatory diagrams[edit]

It is quit clear that the current images in the Category:Explanatory diagrams are a series about one topic. Do you have a better name here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What topic? "Explanatory"? Nearly all diagrams are explanatory. So this category will end up with many, many uncategorized diagrams. But as I said if you want to keep the category we will do so and see what others think about it. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep this category. Or make it a COM:CFD. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better if each diagram were in one subcategory of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme rather than dumped uncategorized in this general category? But we can keep this category for awhile and see what others say about it. If you want to take the category to COM:CFD feel free to do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Category:Information graphics[edit]

I made my point at the Category talk:Infographics and left a note on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. I will respond over there.

This is where much previous discussion on the Commons has occurred concerning Information Graphics. Plus there is great similarity between Category:Information graphics and Category:Diagrams as it has been defined here. This has also been discussed here. Please see previous discussion here. I already replied to you several times here concerning all this. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not the place to discuss this any longer. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where previous discussion has occurred. We have discussed information graphics many times on this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics --Timeshifter (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Category:Physiologic diagrams[edit]

It is quit clear that the current images in the Category:Physiologic diagrams are a series about one topic, updated in one whole by one editor. They should stick together. Do you have a better name here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my point. Please read my previous comments concerning Category:Physiologic diagrams. I will try to summarize. I don't object to its name. I suggested that the category not be put as a direct subcategory of Category:Information graphics. It is not necessary when its parent category Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme is already a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep this category. Or make it a COM:CFD. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say to delete the category. Do you read my replies at all? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Diagrams to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs[edit]

I think we should change the name from Category:Diagrams to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. This has been previously discussed by several people. I now agree because of the increase in the number of subcategories, and the confusion caused by the definitions of diagram and information graphics. Diagram has both narrow and broad definitions, but the broad definitions are not accepted by some people. "Information graphics" has not been around long enough to be accepted by some people. So the category of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs would serve our needs. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Now I guess there is a proper procedure to propose such mayor changes in WikiCommons. A procedure that should take at least two weeks. I think this is something the whole WikiCommons and even Wikpedia Community should decide. If you start this procedure I will start leaving some mesages here and there.

Now I don't agree for a couple of reasons that

the term diagram in a broad sense means "Diagrams, charts, graphs" and even some more.
the term "Diagrams, charts, graphs" doesn't even represent the broad meaning of diagram
It is inefficient to start using these
The category diagram is needed any way, as a top category for all images which are diagrams in a strickt way, and last but not least:
There is more then enough content in real life and in Wikicommons to justify a category focussed on strickly diagrams, and the concept of "diagram/diagrams".

Now your agrument that the broad definitions are not accepted by some people, doesn't make sense to me. Who are you refering to? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different definitions of diagram. Please see the previous talk sections, and these definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagram - (Random House dictionary mainly).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diagram - (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:diagram (Definitions of diagram on the web).

The last one is not as authoritative as the other two. Web definitions are mostly from non-reliable sources. Random House and Merriam-Webster both have authoritative printed dictionaries too. It is not clear in all authoritative definitions that diagram includes both charts and graphs. Random House does not mention graphs. Merriam-Webster does not mention either charts or graphs.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am proposing. Nothing would change right away in the subcategories below Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs. Only the parent category would be renamed. It would clarify for the readers what this overall parent category is about.

Individual diagram categories would remain. Such as Category:Diagrams by century made, Category:Feynman diagrams, etc.. Along with individual categories for charts or graphs. Look at the existing top-level categories in Category:Diagrams.

Themes cross all 3 categories of diagrams, graphs, and charts. For example; you created these subcategories of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme:

The management and economic categories are broken down further into separate subcategories for diagrams, charts, graphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave five good reasons to keep this category as it is. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions or doubts about the definition of the term "diagram", go the w:Diagram article. I just updated the definition there. If you have any remarks, please add it on the talk page.

If you think there is a need for a Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs, just start one and keep this category. And if you do, take the categories: Drawings, graphs, Information graphics, plots, tables, and timelines, with it away from here. Then this category can really focus on diagrams in a strickt sense. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC) / Not a good idea after all. To many people in and outside Wikicommons uses the term diagram in a broad sense and we should accept this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At meta Wikimedia in one project they use the stricter definition of diagram. See

meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests - From that page:

"At this stage, illustration means diagrams. Not photographs, charts, or maps."

I think most people do not use the broad sense. See the dictionary definitions. Most do not include both charts and graphs. And by charts, the dictionary definition may be referring to diagram-style charts such as organizational charts. From that page (emphasis added): "An organizational chart (often called organization chart or organigram(me) or organogram(me)) is a diagram that shows the structure of an organization and the relationships and relative ranks of its parts and positions/jobs. The term is also used for similar diagrams, for example ones showing the different elements of a field of knowledge or a group of languages."

We have been using a broad sense that may or may not be accurate. Commons category names are better if they are clearer. People of all languages use the Commons, and they need clarity with the English category names. More information in the category name helps them out. Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs is clearer. Just like Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme is clearer. Just like the categories you created are clearer:

I don't see anything wrong with further extending your method of naming categories in order to make the overall category clearer. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitly don't agree. I think we should loose all these artificial category terms like Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. Just reinstate the Category:Diagrams by theme, and explain in the description what you mean. This is far more efficient and effective. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not efficient because previously people were confused by just Category:Diagrams by theme. See the previous discussion by Ma-Lik. These category names were agreed to by several people over time:

What are you talking about!? You created the Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme on 14 December 2007, and I created the other four diagrams on your advice less then two weeks ago. In the mean time I have categorized probably more then 1000 diagrams in Wikicommons, and created more then 2 dozend new diagram categories here. I think the three categories are not efficient nor consistent with the rest. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07 and

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Economical diagrams --Timeshifter (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is really nothing new for me in the previous discussion the two of us just had. I agreed with you once, and even that was questionable. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

(unindent) I suggest you read w:WP:CALM. The current category name is confusing due to the variety of dictionary definitions. Up to now we have used Category:Diagrams for diagrams, charts, graphs, and labeled drawings. Labeled drawings are called diagrams, too. So changing the name to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs only clarifies what we have already been doing. Previous editors on this talk page agreed to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme awhile back and we have had that category without problems. So I don't understand your objections to changing the overall category name. Especially since it was you who expanded some of the subcategory names to include "diagrams, charts, graphs". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. w:WP:CALM has nothing to do with it, and there is nothing confusing with the name Category:Diagrams. The confusion is all yours, and is maybe in the way you gave a general description of this category. How can a name "category:diagrams" or "category:science" be confusing? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the ambiguity in the meaning of "diagram" in my other comments. Others have noted this lack of a clear definition also. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of "diagram"[edit]

Here below are the definitions of diagram from major dictionaries (emphasis added). Note that some definitions include charts and graphs, and some don't.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagram

–noun

1. a figure, usually consisting of a line drawing, made to accompany and illustrate a geometrical theorem, mathematical demonstration, etc.
2. a drawing or plan that outlines and explains the parts, operation, etc., of something: a diagram of an engine.
3. a chart, plan, or scheme.

–verb (used with object)

4. to represent by a diagram; make a diagram of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagram

n. [noun]

1. A plan, sketch, drawing, or outline designed to demonstrate or explain how something works or to clarify the relationship between the parts of a whole.
2. Mathematics. A graphic representation of an algebraic or geometric relationship.
3. A chart or graph.

tr.v. [transitive verb]

diagrammed or diagramed, diagramming or diagraming, diagrams

To indicate or represent by or as if by a diagram.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diagram

n. [noun]

1. (Geom.) A figure or drawing made to illustrate a statement, or facilitate a demonstration; a plan.
2. Any simple drawing made for mathematical or scientific purposes, or to assist a verbal explanation which refers to it; a mechanical drawing, as distinguished from an artistical one.

v. t. [transitive verb]

To put into the form of a diagram.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diagram

noun

1: a graphic design that explains rather than represents; especially : a drawing that shows arrangement and relations (as of parts)
2: a line drawing made for mathematical or scientific purposes

adjective

diagrammable, diagrammatic, diagrammatical

adverb

diagrammatically --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start a discussion about the definition of diagram is completely irrelevant here. You should read COM:CFD. But you allready know that. You have violated this with the Category:Infographics and it seems to me you trying it here again. This is just unaccapteble. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:CFD is only used as a last resort. After discussion elsewhere. I currently have over 5000 edits on the Commons, and over 13,000 on English Wikipedia. So I know how things work with creating categories. I have created many, many categories. I have discussed categories at COM:CFD when necessary. Most categories are created without discussion at COM:CFD. You did not use COM:CFD to discuss most of the categories you created. It is not necessary most of the time. I am trying to discuss this category now, but you do not seem interested. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: If you have questions or doubts about the definition of the term "diagram", go the w:Diagram article. I just updated the definition there. If you have any remarks, please add it on the talk page. Now I just explained over there, that there seems nothing special about these definitions. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk)

These are the authoritative sources for definitions of diagram. The Commons does not depend upon English Wikipedia for decisions made on the Commons. The Commons does not always follow English Wikipedia category naming either. Both of these statements have been true for a long time. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3-dimensional diagrams[edit]

http://www.google.com/search?q=3-dimensional+diagram pulls up many articles and images. So diagrams can be very complex. These type of 3-D information graphics are common in magazines too. Both general coverage magazines and newspapers, and more focussed magazines and journals. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category for discussion. Information graphics[edit]

Category:Information graphics. Please see:

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion. Diagrams, charts, graphs[edit]

Please see:

These categories follow the current category scheme of Category:Diagrams and Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. The current category scheme has been discussed and developed over time with the participation of several editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that I created those categories less then two weeks ago on your proposal, which turned out a bad idea. Now I propose to delete them again. I can't remember any more people being involved. Your scheme just doesn't work. It only creates an extra layer in top categories. It is much simpler to just add the specialized diagram category in all the main categories. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the long talk history on this page involving several editors concerning categories with "diagrams, charts, graphs" in the category title. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you split diagrams charts and graphs in extra category. Who uses this? Someone who is not sure what correct kind his graphic is (not many people knows the exactly difference between chart and diagram...) must then search all subcategorys.--Ma-Lik (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ma-Lik. I don't understand your question. In the field of Agriculture, Economics and Management I more or less did split these category in three, and made the diagram categies the "local" top categories, see Category:Agricultural diagrams, Category:Economic diagrams, and Category:Management diagrams. Are you asking me, why I did this? Is there in one of those three situations something you find inconsistent? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer at Split Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme? in three--Ma-Lik (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a deletion request after Timeshifter destroyed my categorization work today. See here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Diagrams,_charts,_graphs_by_theme. All categories can be better subcategorized and I had done that. I really see no need for this meganame here!--WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams by type[edit]

I noticed that Marcel Douwe Dekker was adding Category:Diagrams by type to various themes. See these diffs and category versions, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], for various categories that are already subcategories of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme.

Creating a major new subcategory needs to be discussed here first. There is no need to duplicate Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply part of a new development. Since when do I need your permission? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes don't need permission. Be bold. But major changes are sometimes better done after discussion. Otherwise your efforts will probably be reverted eventually. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply trying to develope the situation. Now after my kind request in the summary:

Added the new situation, which is in development, not to be deleted

... You started to refert my work any way, here. I am not going to ask you again, but if you continue referting the work I just started, I will file a formal complain against you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left in your additions of Category:Diagrams by type.

The other categories you added were not correct. You put chart and graph categories in diagram categories. Those chart and graph categories are already in "Diagrams, charts, graphs" categories. The "Diagrams, charts, graphs" categories are the correct parent categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the chart and graph categories in diagram categories is correct.

In a broad sense charts and graphs are considered diagrams
The four specific "Diagrams, charts, graphs" categories are redundant any way. They are proposed for deletion.
Even is these categories stay, the extra link is correct and effective.

The same is with adding the diagram categories to the specific fields of science. It shows all users the new situation, with the short cut. I will restore the situation. Please leave it like this. If you have any new arguments, please lets discuss this first. I want to proceed, and I really don't have time to restore all this again and again. I you don't trust me, please ask some administrator or some one else for his judgement first. Thank you -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one other reason. I am developing the new situation, and this needs some time to adjust and to experience if it really works, or how it can be improved. So I propose you let is be for the next two weeks, untill the discussion of the "Diagrams, charts, graphs" categories is finished. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been removing your new categories even when they made little sense. Such as Category:Diagrams by type. So please stop removing the "diagrams, charts, graphs" categories. Also, it looks like you have changed Category:Diagrams by type to Category:Diagrams by theme. I was wondering why you created "Diagrams by type" when there is already this list at Category:Diagrams:

by theme: Astronomy, Biology, etc. See Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme
by kind: Schemas, Plots, Sketches, 3D diagrams, Animated diagrams, etc. See this category
by language: Language-neutral, English, French, etc. See Category:Diagrams by language
by program created with: Printed, Hand drawn, Software (like Mathematica, Gnuplot, etc.) See Category:Diagrams created with}}

I think the problem is that you are a non-native speaker of English. I was mistaken in telling you previously to be bold. I just discovered this essay linked from one of the user pages of the admins commenting elsewhere: Commons:Don't be bold. Since you are not a native speaker of English, I think you sometimes jump into creating new category names that create problems. Plus I don't think you completely understand the discussions due to the English situation. See also:

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Economical diagrams --Timeshifter (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have noticed I changed the Category:Diagrams by type in the Category:Diagrams by theme, which fits the categorization "by theme". As I explained to Mal-Lik I have created a kind of "test case" around it.

Now at the Category:Agricultural charts it was not my intention to remove the Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs, but to reinstall the Category:Agricultural diagrams and Category:Charts and the "test" I am working on. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It looks like Category:Diagrams by kind was changed long ago to Category:Diagrams by type. I corrected that on the main page Category:Diagrams.

So Category:Diagrams now says:

by theme: Astronomy, Biology, etc. See Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme.
by type: Schemas, Plots, Sketches, 3D diagrams, Animated diagrams, etc.. See Category:Diagrams by type.
by language: Language-neutral, English, French, etc. See Category:Diagrams by language.
by program created with: Printed, Hand drawn, Software (like Mathematica, Gnuplot, etc.). See Category:Diagrams created with. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme? in three[edit]

I propose the idea to split the Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme in tree:

And make the category:diagram the top category. This can work both in the top around the Category:Diagram as in the specialized area's. In Category:Management diagrams I made an example of that new situation. I think this is a good step towards a more consistent situation, ready for future growth. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But now it makes the situation complicated in particular most user don't split the terms correctly (the terms charts, diagrams and graphs have not the same tradition in all country's ). Why make things complicated? I think most users type cat diagrams, then see there is a theme point and find a good entry point.--Ma-Lik (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ma-Lik. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question may be connected to the previous question you made, here above. You wonder if I complicate things? Now I wonder why you wonder? I created the Category:Agricultural diagrams and the Category:Management diagrams as a test case. In essence I only used a few rules there to categorize the images:

Does the image qualifies as a diagram or chart, or as something else
If the image shows quantitative data (in a chart-like way) it is putt in the category charts
If the image shows a non-quantitative description, it is putt in the category diagram

And I didn't really use the graph category. Now I don't state that this is all right. This is a first step to get some more order here. I think this will make things easier here, not more complicated. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Category:Graphs by theme and even the Category:Charts by theme are not needed as a top categories. This will make this even less complicated!? Or not. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer here the other question, too. It is consistent when you create the three cats, but then there is only the top connection (diagrams by theme) between the three cats. And when you create only Diagrams by theme, then it's not obvious why it's in the graphs oder charts cat. I think you want to make the cats better to type, but then comes the problem I've mentioned above.--Ma-Lik (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ma-Lik. When people look at many of the diagram categories they see many charts and graphs inside those categories too. Eventually all the charts and graphs will be in separate categories. But we aren't there yet. Eventually we may have enough charts and graphs subcategories to justify separate categories for "Graphs by theme" and "Charts by theme". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this idea: Subcategorize all the categories still listed in this controversially discussed one and/or their content into existing categories like: category:Diagrams, category:Graphs, category:Drawings, category:Charts, category:Drawings, category:Illustrations, etc. or one of the subcats of that and put a definition of the different types here plus the inforation, that all the media should be put into the defined categories. Of course it makes sense also to create ...by theme categories, where needed and not yet existing. Especially as most of the categories are named with ...diagrams ... and the category category:Diagrams by theme already exists! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought start doing something instead of further discussing. ;-) I believe step by step we get all the chaos better organized. Of course not every media fits where it is, but thats more a job to recategorize the media. Beeing familiar with the existing categories helps in organizing Wikimedia. I hope my work during the last monthes goes in the right direction. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss first before changing all the categories as you did, WikipediaMaster. I reverted your massive changes. See #Definitions of "diagram" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to revert is no solution, especially as most of the diagram categories can be sorted into subcategories! The problem is the name of the Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. What I did was only a sorting into subcatergories, but still under Diagrams or one of te best fitting words (for drawing types, for example!)--WikipediaMaster (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a deletion request after Timeshifter destroyed my categorization work today. See here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Diagrams,_charts,_graphs_by_theme. All categories can be better subcategorized and I had done that. I really see no need for this meganame here!--WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategorization[edit]

@WikipediaMaster. Thanks for starting the subcategorization. If you have more plans, this could be the place to discuss them. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I redirected the category:chart and category:graphs back here, becuase of categories chart by type and graphs by type directs to diagrams by type. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connection between the three cats[edit]

@Ma-Lik. You stated that there is "only the top connection (diagrams by theme) between the three cats". It is my intention to developed a connection in every field of sciene between the two in the specific diagrams category. I introducted this in (the testcases) Category:Agricultural diagrams and Category:Management diagrams.

In fact, in these two categories both - themes and types - subcategories come together. To split the both, I directed the two types (charts and graphs) to the top of the subcategory tree. I did the same with the Category:Agricultural diagrams in the Category:Agriculture. Now it is listed there on top of the category structure (with Agriculture in art (26), Agriculture by country (81), Agricultural diagrams (4), Agricultural illustrations (9), and still Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs (3)). As a result, in the total listing of subcategories there is also a split between themes and types.

So as you can see the three cats can allready join together at every field of science, and even join with are types. The "Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs" is not needed in this construction. I would be just an other confusing layer. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams by theme, Diagrams by type ... and more[edit]

After the categories Diagrams by theme and Diagrams by type are created I wondered if some of the remaining categories here fit either one of them. I am speaking here of:

3D diagrams (1)
Animated diagrams
Charts (4)
Concept maps (0)
Cutaway diagrams (3)
Diagrammatic miscellany (0)
Diagrams without usage (0)
Explanatory diagrams (0) G
Graphs (8)
Information graphics (11)
Plots (4)
Round diagrams (4)
Schematic diagrams (2)
Sketch diagrams

At the moment I think that non of these categories can be listed under Diagrams by theme or Diagrams by type for three reasons:

Charts, Concept maps, Graphs, Information graphics, Plots: are diagrams in a broad sense of the term diagram
3D diagrams,Animated diagrams, Cutaway diagrams, Explanatory diagrams, Round diagrams, Schematic diagrams, Sketch diagrams: No real type of diagrams, more a special class/case of diagrams, which also are diagrams in a broad sense
Diagrammatic miscellany, Diagrams without usage: these seems administrative categories.

If somebody doesn't agree, this should be the place to discuss this first. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many separate theme subcategories for charts, graphs, diagrams[edit]

There are many subcategories that need to be created. Each theme category should be subcategorized by its diagrams, charts, and graphs. Marcel Douwe Dekker and User:WikipediaMaster seem to like creating categories, so this shouldn't be a problem. Such as creating Category:Earth Sciences graphs and Category:Earth Sciences charts. See Category:Earth Sciences diagrams and the images in it.

AFTER this is done then we should look at Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme and how it might be broken up. It might no longer be needed.

Charts and graphs are mixed up in many diagram themes. Look inside the themes at Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Ma-Lik (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe waiting will also keep the admins happy at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Timeshifter and User:Mdd. So we don't take any action for now on the overall category, Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme, and we delete the lower categories:

Category:Management diagrams, charts, graphs‎

Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs‎

Category:Business diagrams, charts, graphs

Category:Economic diagrams, charts, graphs

Since the lower categories are not being used, they are effectively deleted anyway. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to clear the Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should stop complaining and start moving the chart and graph images out as I have been doing. The categories are being cleared out as the charts and graphs are removed from them. Please see

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme#Categories for discussion --Timeshifter (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of this category[edit]

The current introduction (see 'here) of this category should be optimized, like the current category maps (see here). The main problems here are alike the problems in the category maps, which has been talked about recently (see here and at the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (see here). I think the current problems here are:

The introduction text is still more then one computerscreen long, which makes the category unrecognizable.
For more then 95% of all users that visit this category, the current information isn't needed.
And then the current information is only in English, while Wikicommons is an international project.
The listing of international names is missing

I propose to alter this category like the category maps

With a separate page for instructions.
... and with the possibility for instruction pages in other countries.

I propose to discuss this first (for lets say seven days), and then make a final decision and make some changes. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the introduction. At Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Category documentation the admin, Rocket000, said "those kind of links are very useful." He was referring to "See also" links. As for the international translations of "Diagram" feel free to add them. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just the shortening of the English introduction is solving only one of the four points mentioned. As a try out I added a sisterheader and the international names, with the links to the Wikipedia articles. This solves the 4th point mentioned. But isn't a total solution yet.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we put the international names in a table to shorten the introduction? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this:

International Wikipedia links
Čeština: Diagram.	Deutsch: Diagramm.	Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.	English: Diagram.	Español: Diagrama.
Euskara: Diagrama.	فارسی: نمودار.	Français : Diagramme.	Ido: Diagramo.	Italiano: Diagramma.
Nederlands: Diagram.	Norsk bokmål: Diagram.	Polski: Diagram.	Português: Diagrama.	Slovenščina: Diagram.
Suomi: Diagrammi.	Svenska: Diagram.

I personally think this is a big improvement. I have added this table to the main page as a try out. With this new result I keep wondering if these extra data is really necessary here. I have asked the same question in discussion about the category:maps discusion. (see here. If you for example look at the Category:Physics these kind of data is not present there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table is a good idea. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked it and added another one. Still a big header, but better structured now. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains if all this data is really needed here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think its overloaded, but how to solve? Create a page Diagrams and move the content in and then categorize it in here? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of ideas. One idea is to change the lay out of the first table you made, into the lay out used on top of the Commons:Babel page.

If a page is created here to contain category data it should be called something like About the category:Diagrams. I think it shouldn't be called diagrams, because under that term there should be a general gallery about diagrams. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Category:Bar charts I just tried an other lay out - Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The categorization of diagrams in the fields of science[edit]

With the recent diversification and new creation of "subcategories" of diagrams, charts, graphs, maps, plots, technical drawings etc in every fields of science there is a question, how to organize all these categories in the category of the specific field of science. I guess there are all kinds of options here:

List all these new "subcategories" in the "field of science" category
List them all together in the "subcategory field of science diagrams"
A combination of the first two options: List only the important "subcategories" in the "field of science" category, and the rest in the "Subcat. diagrams"
A double categorisation of and the first and the second option
Accept some double categorisation.
Don't list any of them in the "subcategory field of science diagrams"
Don't create one standard here, because the situation is to complex. I would like your opions about this. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Wikipedia links[edit]

I think the problem may be that the international templates have line breaks built in. I don't know.

{{cs|[[:cs:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{de|[[:de:Diagramm|Diagramm]].}} 
{{el|[[:el:Διάγραμμα|Διάγραμμα]].}} 
{{en|[[:en:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{es|[[:es:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} 
{{eu|[[:eu:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} 
{{fa|[[:fa:نمودار|نمودار]].}} 
{{fr|[[:fr:Diagramme|Diagramme]].}} 
{{io|[[:io:Diagramo|Diagramo]].}} 
{{it|[[:it:Diagramma|Diagramma]].}} 
{{nl|[[:nl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{no|[[:no:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{pl|[[:pl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{pt|[[:pt:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} 
{{sl|[[:sl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{fi|[[:fi:Diagrammi|Diagrammi]].}} 
{{sv|[[:sv:Diagram|Diagram]].}}

Putting "nowiki" <nowiki> tags around the above produces this:

{{cs|[[:cs:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{de|[[:de:Diagramm|Diagramm]].}} {{el|[[:el:Διάγραμμα|Διάγραμμα]].}} {{en|[[:en:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{es|[[:es:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} {{eu|[[:eu:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} {{fa|[[:fa:نمودار|نمودار]].}} {{fr|[[:fr:Diagramme|Diagramme]].}} {{io|[[:io:Diagramo|Diagramo]].}} {{it|[[:it:Diagramma|Diagramma]].}} {{nl|[[:nl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{no|[[:no:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{pl|[[:pl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{pt|[[:pt:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} {{sl|[[:sl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{fi|[[:fi:Diagrammi|Diagrammi]].}} {{sv|[[:sv:Diagram|Diagram]].}}

Putting table formatting around it produces this:

International Wikipedia links
Čeština: Diagram.	Deutsch: Diagramm.	Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.	English: Diagram.	Español: Diagrama.
Euskara: Diagrama.	فارسی: نمودار.	Français : Diagramme.	Ido: Diagramo.	Italiano: Diagramma.
Nederlands: Diagram.	Norsk bokmål: Diagram.	Polski: Diagram.	Português: Diagrama.	Slovenščina: Diagram.
Suomi: Diagrammi.	Svenska: Diagram.

Putting it in one table row produces this:

Čeština: Diagram.

Deutsch: Diagramm.

Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.

English: Diagram.

Español: Diagrama.

Euskara: Diagrama.

فارسی: نمودار.

Français : Diagramme.

Ido: Diagramo.

Italiano: Diagramma.

Nederlands: Diagram.

Norsk bokmål: Diagram.

Polski: Diagram.

Português: Diagrama.

Slovenščina: Diagram.

Suomi: Diagrammi.

Svenska: Diagram.

Putting "nowrap" in front of each entry in the table produces this:

Čeština: Diagram.

Deutsch: Diagramm.

Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.

English: Diagram.

Español: Diagrama.

Euskara: Diagrama.

فارسی: .

Français : Diagramme.

Ido: Diagramo.

Italiano: Diagramma.

Nederlands: Diagram.

Norsk bokmål: Diagram.

Polski: Diagram.

Português: Diagrama.

Slovenščina: Diagram.

Suomi: Diagrammi.

Svenska: Diagram.

If the templates allowed the language links to wrap just like other text, then there would be no need for a table. The language links would all be in one short paragraph. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion elsewhere about show-hide templates[edit]

(unindent) There is some discussion elsewhere about show-hide templates:

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Show-hide templates, and hiding international links.

A header based on the header template[edit]

I mentioned the table on top of the Commons:Babel page as a promising alternative here. If you translate this to this situation, you get someting like this:

Now I introduced this template in the category, and restored some of the original lay out. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I'll put this in the categories I created, too. Or is there an upcoming template?--Ma-Lik (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More options[edit]

Here is the row of links using larger text:

The {{Categorize}} template has a list of international links that might be adapted or combined with the above links.

See {{Categorise/lang}}

Alemannisch ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Boarisch ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ interlingua ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ Nordfriisk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ हिन्दी ∙ অসমীয়া ∙ বাংলা ∙ தமிழ் ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ +/−

<small>
[[Template:Categorise/de|{{#language:de}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/el|{{#language:el}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise|{{#language:en}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/es|{{#language:es}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/fr|{{#language:fr}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/it|{{#language:it}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/ja|{{#language:ja}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/lt|{{#language:lt}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/nl|{{#language:nl}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/oc|{{#language:oc}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/pl|{{#language:pl}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/pt|{{#language:pt}}]] |
[[Template:Categorise/ru|{{#language:ru}}]] |
</small>

Here it is without the <small> tags:

It might be possible to combine this sentence of links with the other one. Something like this:

'''{{#language:fr}}:''' [[:fr:Diagramme|Diagramme]]. 
'''{{#language:it}}:''' [[:it:Diagramma|Diagramma]].

français: Diagramme. italiano: Diagramma. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, what you are proposing here? But I noticed two things:

You show an alternative with a larger text in the table.
You show an alternative with "full languages" in stead of the abbreviation.

I personally think both are no improvement. The design I proposed especially focussed on a smaller font, the use of abbreviations to shorten the text, and last but not least: a simple source code. No "[[Template:Categorise/de|{{#language:de}}]] |" but simply "[[:cs:Diagram]] | ".

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Some people will need help finding the link to the article in their own language because the word for the article name is the same in other languages. So the language names are helpful to them. Here below is a table with the language names. The table wikicode has been simplified.

*The article Diagram* in other Wikipedia projects:** Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

Here below is the wikicode for the entries in the above table.

Česky: [[:cs:Diagram]].  
Deutsch: [[:de:Diagramm]]. 
Ελληνικά: [[:el:Διάγραμμα]]. 
English: [[:en:Diagram]]. 
Español: [[:es:Diagrama]]. 
Euskara: [[:eu:Diagrama]]. 
فارسی: [[:fa:نمودار]]. 
Français: [[:fr:Diagramme]]. 
Ido: [[:io:Diagramo]]. 
Italiano: [[:it:Diagramma]]. 
Nederlands: [[:nl:Diagram]]. 
‪Norsk (bokmål): [[:no:Diagram]]. 
Polski: [[:pl:Diagram]]. 
Português: [[:pt:Diagrama]]. 
Slovenščina: [[:sl:Diagram]]. 
Suomi: [[:fi:Diagrammi]].
Svenska: [[:sv:Diagram]].

The table can be shortened to just the language names. See the table version below to the right. The entry for فارسی: fa:نمودار is hard to manipulate. It is a right-to-left language, and so cutting and pasting in it is weird in my Firefox browser. Someone else fixed it for this table, and I copied it here.

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** Česky. Deutsch. Ελληνικά. English. Español. Euskara. فارسی. Français. Ido. Italiano. Nederlands. ‪Norsk (bokmål). Polski. Português. Slovenščina. Suomi. Svenska.

Here is the wikicode below for the table to the right.

[[:cs:Diagram|Česky]].  
[[:de:Diagramm|Deutsch]]. 
[[:el:Διάγραμμα|Ελληνικά]]. 
[[:en:Diagram|English]]. 
[[:es:Diagrama|Español]]. 
[[:eu:Diagrama|Euskara]]. 
[[:fa:نمودار|فارسی]]. 
[[:fr:Diagramme|Français]]. 
[[:io:Diagramo|Ido]]. 
[[:it:Diagramma|Italiano]]. 
[[:nl:Diagram|Nederlands]]. 
[[:no:Diagram|‪Norsk (bokmål)]]. 
[[:pl:Diagram|Polski]]. 
[[:pt:Diagrama|Português]]. 
[[:sl:Diagram|Slovenščina]]. 
[[:fi:Diagrammi|Suomi]].
[[:sv:Diagram|Svenska]].

One can find the language by using curly brackets around the 2-letter language codes:

{{cs}}
{{de}}
{{en}}

which produces:

Čeština: (missing text)

Deutsch: (missing text)

English: (missing text)

Also, one can look up the language and its code in a list. For example:

Restored new table[edit]

I restored the following table on top of the category:diagram.

For three reasons:

Ma-Lik allready approach this table and wants to start using it more often.
I agree and wants to do the same.
The further ideas and developement by Timeshifter are no improvement.

So Timeshifter if you want to continue with your new design any way please first get somebody else his approvement first. And please don't start and editwars again, as you did two weeks ago agains me and last week agains User:WikipediaMaster. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Diagram in Wikipedia projects:

Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

The new table higher up that shows just the language names was the idea of Rocket000 at

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Show-hide templates, and hiding international links.

Ma-Lik hasn't seen the new tables. So for now I will use the table that incorporates both our ideas to the right.

You started the edit wars all of a sudden a few weeks ago after Ma-Lik and I had been working on this category for many months, and you are still embarrassed by the fact that almost no one agreed with you concerning another category here:

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics

Try being mellow as suggested here:

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Timeshifter and User:Mdd. From COM:MELLOW: "This may not be your home wiki, and not everyone does things the same way. Compromise, reasonableness, and explanation are needed. Remember: consensus is wiki's building block."

And why do you keep returning the old category links on the right side of Category:Diagrams? I thought you were trying to remove stuff from the introduction. The category links are already in the left sidebar of Category:Diagrams. It seems like you just want to complain and create drama. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing introductions[edit]

The first introduction by me (Timeshifter) is a shorter introduction than the one by MDD. I thought this whole discussion started because MDD was trying to make the introduction shorter, and to keep it less than one computer screen. I left out the {{Categorize}} template here to save space and avoid some duplication below. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter introduction[edit]

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

English: Diagrams. Charts and graphs should be categorized in Category:Charts and Category:Graphs. Diagrams are categorized:

by theme: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.
by type: 3D, timelines, animated, tree, ladder, block, etc.
by language: Language-neutral, English, French, etc.
by created with: Hand drawn, software (like Mathematica, Gnuplot, etc.)

See also:

Resources:

en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop
meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests - request creation/improvement of diagrams.

MDD introduction[edit]

English: Diagrams. Charts and graphs should be categorized in Category:Charts and Category:Graphs. Diagrams are categorized:

by theme: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.
by type: 3D, timelines, animated, tree, ladder, block, etc.
by language: Language-neutral, English, French, etc.
by created with: Hand drawn, software (like Mathematica, Gnuplot, etc.)

See also:

Resources:

en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop
meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests - request creation/improvement of diagrams.

Removed unacceptable manipulation[edit]

I removed the unacceptable manipulation from the category page, and object against the way Timeshifter manipulates the situation here. Three things:

Timeshifter removed the last accepted table, with the words: "Table added that incorporates the ideas of several people". This is only in his own twisted mind.
Timeshifter present a "MDD introduction", which is an arrogant manipulation because I am only talking about the table all the time. Not about the introduction as a whole.
I introduced a simple plan, to keep the existing table in place (because it is accepted by one other user) and first wait for responses. Instead Timeshifter alters the page again and starts his manipulation.

I really don't accept this kind of manipulation. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of wikipedia and commons guidelines[edit]

MDD violated several guidelines and policies. "twisted mind" is a violation of w:WP:No Personal Attacks. Striking through my comments is a violation of w:WP:TALK. I removed the strike-through lines. MDD insists its his way or no way. See w:WP:OWN. So let us remove all the tables until further discussion. There is no rush. That is MDD's root problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you try to manipulate the discussion about your own incompetent behavior. Instead of responding to the three mayor points I made, you come up with some other things. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it if you're having a meltdown. Relax. Let us both come back to this in a few days. See COM:MELLOW. Have you read it? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add a new table on top of the Category:Diagrams[edit]

I like to propose to add the following table on top of the category:diagram. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this:

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

The above table uses {{Font-size}} set at 90% to create a table with a slightly smaller text that is still readable. This is the size I set the right-aligned table to in the section higher up called "Timeshifter introduction." I got the {{Font-size}} idea from Rocket000 at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Show-hide templates, and hiding international links

Here below is the table set at 95% {{Font-size}}:

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

And here below is the table at default text size (100%):

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

I think that non-English speakers will be able to figure out the above tables of mine better than the one by MDD. Maybe if there are many more entries (such as 30 or more languages), then a variation of the MDD table might be needed. Such as this one set at 95% {{Font-size}}:

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** cs:Diagram. de:Diagramm. el:Διάγραμμα. en:Diagram. es:Diagrama. eu:Diagrama. fa:نمودار. fr:Diagramme. io:Diagramo. it:Diagramma. nl:Diagram. no:Diagram. pl:Diagram. pt:Diagrama. sl:Diagram. fi:Diagrammi. sv:Diagram

So there are various table options available depending on the number of entries in the table, the length of the category introduction, and the space available for right-aligned tables. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer MDD's table. Because it's small and readable --Ma-Lik (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your eyes must be better than mine. I can live with MDD's version if the narrower version is used (2 lines instead of 3). It also uses a slightly larger font - 95% {{Font-size}}. Compare the 2 MDD versions below:

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** cs:Diagram. de:Diagramm. el:Διάγραμμα. en:Diagram. es:Diagrama. eu:Diagrama. fa:نمودار. fr:Diagramme. io:Diagramo. it:Diagramma. nl:Diagram. no:Diagram. pl:Diagram. pt:Diagrama. sl:Diagram. fi:Diagrammi. sv:Diagram

Look at the Persian language text ("fa" code) in the 2 versions of the MDD table. The Persian characters in the table with the smallest text are hard to distinguish. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's really a problem.--Ma-Lik (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The header I propose is based on the "Commons:Babel table/template". This is a very professional lay out, and I trust the people who developed it and the choices they made. There is a simple question here. Do you Timeshifter trust the choices they made, or do you think you can do a better job? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I made {{Header}} too. :) I would prefer this to be slightly different at least, so users know it's not the standard header on top of most project pages with translation links, but I do think some kind of separator is needed. Either a | or • Rocket000(talk) 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is more.

The "Commons:Babel table/template headed has more or less become a standard for translation. The layout is in every welcome message for example. This standard lay out is used.
But here we have a new application to make a link between category and the articles in Wikipedia projects
Because of this new use, I used a different kind of code. Not just English, but en:Diagram.

~~I propose we just start using this header again~~. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflict. Just what I was talking about. Rocket000(talk) 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. What I was trying to say is, that I will start using this header (but not in this category) to get some experience if it works in different places. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Rocket000. Here is the template using one of your ideas for a seperator:

*The article Diagram* in Wikipedia projects:** cs:Diagram • de:Diagramm • el:Διάγραμμα • en:Diagram • es:Diagrama • eu:Diagrama • fa:نمودار • fr:Diagramme • io:Diagramo • it:Diagramma • nl:Diagram • no:Diagram • pl:Diagram • pt:Diagrama • sl:Diagram • fi:Diagrammi • sv:Diagram

Collapsible boxes[edit]

Hey guys, here's a present for you: {{Collapsed}}. I just installed collapsible boxes here. Rocket000(talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the {{Collapsed}} template here[edit]

Thanks RocketO00. If I apply your template here I can create something like this.

The article Diagram in other Wikipedia projects:

cs:Diagram - de:Diagramm - el:Διάγραμμα - en:Diagram - es:Diagrama - eu:Diagrama - fa:نمودار - fr:Diagramme - io:Diagramo - it:Diagramma - nl:Diagram - no:Diagram - pl:Diagram - pt:Diagrama - sl:Diagram - fi:Diagrammi - sv:Diagram

This creates an alternative lay out. One thing I don't understand is why it is called "collapsed"? Shouldn't it be collapsable? (nl: opklapbaar). in other word: should it have a "hide" function like Wikipedia templates? See for example here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. Don't tell me, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer... crap. (It's exactly like WP's in Firefox.) Rocket000(talk) 23:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Bypass your browser cache (hold Ctrl key and click the Refresh button). Rocket000(talk) 00:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does work now. The template looked different two hours ago. It has a show/hide button now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the category introduction[edit]

I am not convinced about this first application. Maybe it can be used to hide the category information like this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category information

Diagrams. Charts and graphs should be categorized in Category:Charts and Category:Graphs. Diagrams are categorized:

by theme: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.
by type: 3D, timelines, animated, tree, ladder, block, etc.
by language: Language-neutral, English, French, etc.
by created with: Hand drawn, software (like Mathematica, Gnuplot, etc.)

See also:

Resources:

en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop
meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests - request creation/improvement of diagrams.

I think the English category introduction should be visible on the page. Translations of the introduction might be put in the show/hide box. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further commands[edit]

@ Rocket000. Thanks! This is great, and will be especially useful in places with long introductions with detailed translations in several languages. Such as:

Plus it may replace Template:Hidden. It only has the very small arrow icons. It is used on many image description pages. See:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Hidden

Maybe the code from Template:Collapsed could be used to update Template:Hidden. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, yes. I need to see about internationalizing it first (which why we have the arrows in the first place). Rocket000(talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can both the arrows and the text be used? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Here below are the contents of the above show/hide box. The text is smaller in the show/hide box.

cs:Diagram - de:Diagramm - el:Διάγραμμα - en:Diagram - es:Diagrama - eu:Diagrama - fa:نمودار - fr:Diagramme - io:Diagramo - it:Diagramma - nl:Diagram - no:Diagram - pl:Diagram - pt:Diagrama - sl:Diagram - fi:Diagrammi - sv:Diagram

Rocket000. Could you change the template so that the show/hide box uses the default text size? Many people dislike smaller text unless absolutely necessary. I am one of those people. My eyes get tired from too much small text. Upping the text size in browser preferences is not consistent and not very satisfying. Since it is a show/hide box the default text size in the boxes shouldn't effect how people scroll through the rest of a category or gallery introduction. Because people can ignore the show/hide boxes if they are in a hurry, or if they don't need the international translations. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I quickly created {{Collapsed}} just to demonstrate MediaWiki:CollapsibleTables.js, which I just added. I wasn't necessarily implying that that template be used, just something like it. I can create a customized one if you'd like. Rocket000(talk) 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. The options you added to Template:On Wikipedia are very helpful. Maybe some or all of those options can be added to this template too? I have thought of many uses for this template. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a new compressed category intro[edit]

Adding the two proposals I made above, results in the this lay out for a new compressed category intro. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category information

Diagrams. Charts and graphs should be categorized in Category:Charts and Category:Graphs. Diagrams are categorized:

by theme: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.
by type: 3D, timelines, animated, tree, ladder, block, etc.
by language: Language-neutral, English, French, etc.
by created with: Hand drawn, software (like Mathematica, Gnuplot, etc.)

See also:

Resources:

en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop
meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests - request creation/improvement of diagrams.

Further comments[edit]

I am not quit sure about this proposal. The text in the Collapsible box seems a little to small here. And there is no place for a sisterheader. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme[edit]

This question is moved here from the Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme page.

How are people going to be able to tell which diagram categories need to have charts and graphs moved out of them? Right now it is easy with this category, Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. All the diagram subcategories in that category contain charts and graphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem here. I assume the editors who do move charts and graphs like you, me and WikiMaster just know the difference. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. There are many categories listed in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. If you eliminate Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme there is no listing of diagram categories that need charts and graphs moved out of them. Other people might want to help too. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No listing of diagram categories that need charts and graphs moved out of them? You say!? This makes no sense. Every image on Commons can:

Stay uncategorized
or be categorized in the category:diagram, category:chart or category:graph.
or in one of hunderds of other existing categories.

And people like use can check that once in a while and recategorize these images. So there is really no problem here... -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Diagrams/Archive 2008

Category:Diagrams, drawings, charts, graphs by theme?[edit]

Parent categories of diagrams, charts, graphs[edit]

New parent categories[edit]

The name and scope of these parent categories "by theme"[edit]

History of diagrams[edit]

Explanatory diagrams[edit]

About Explanatory diagrams[edit]

About Category:Information graphics[edit]

About Category:Physiologic diagrams[edit]

Rename Category:Diagrams to Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs[edit]

Section break[edit]

Definitions of "diagram"[edit]

3-dimensional diagrams[edit]

Category for discussion. Information graphics[edit]

Categories for discussion. Diagrams, charts, graphs[edit]

Category:Diagrams by type[edit]

Split Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme? in three[edit]

Subcategorization[edit]

Connection between the three cats[edit]

Diagrams by theme, Diagrams by type ... and more[edit]

Many separate theme subcategories for charts, graphs, diagrams[edit]

The introduction of this category[edit]

The categorization of diagrams in the fields of science[edit]

International Wikipedia links[edit]

Discussion elsewhere about show-hide templates[edit]

A header based on the header template[edit]

More options[edit]

Restored new table[edit]

Comparing introductions[edit]

Timeshifter introduction[edit]

MDD introduction[edit]

Removed unacceptable manipulation[edit]

Violations of wikipedia and commons guidelines[edit]

Proposal to add a new table on top of the Category:Diagrams[edit]

Collapsible boxes[edit]

Using the {{Collapsed}} template here[edit]

Hiding the category introduction[edit]

Further commands[edit]

Proposal for a new compressed category intro[edit]

Further comments[edit]

Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme[edit]

Navigation menu

Search