This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dupe to Category:Graphics by book. Should be merged, I don't know in which direction. Danny lost (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Work" is not the same as "book", since it includes magazines, for example. Also Illustrations is not the same as Graphics. So they aren't dupes. However I'm thinking that perhaps this category should be renamed to "Images by work" and then Category:Illustrations also redirected to that. As far as I can see, "illustrations" are just images associated with a particular work. --ghouston (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of these, however, are illustrations from books (or, in many cases, simply books with illustrations). @Ghouston: I'm not clear on how book graphics are different than book illustrations. Can you explain? Anyway, I'm not necessarily opposed to moving to Category:Images by work but we need to account for Category:Book illustrations somehow. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose what I meant was that illustrations are images / graphics that are used to illustrate something, so they are a subset of images. We could have "Images by work" and subcategories like Images by book, Images by magazine, and Images by newspaper. I don't think categories are needed for "graphics" and "illustrations". --ghouston (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "Images from books" is better than "Images by book". --ghouston (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which could be a subcategory of Category:Images by source. --ghouston (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which already exists anyway: Category:Images from books. --ghouston (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to get very confused looking at all these categories. One thing that I've forgotten above is that "image" is a very general term, and includes, apart from drawings, photos etc., also symbols, including letters. A scan of a page of text is also an image. The illustrations of a book separate the drawings, photos, diagrams etc., from the text in a way that "images" can not. --ghouston (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ghouston: All very good points. Thanks for your response. Do you think we should organize things something like this?
- Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although I think I'd skip Illustrations by source (at least initially) and leave "Illustrations from books" in Illustrations. I guess there won't be many types of sources, and all illustrations should go in one of them (since if it doesn't come from some larger work, it's not really an illustration). Also Category:Book illustrations already exists, as mentioned above, it could be renamed if desired. Illustrations could then also be moved from Category:Images from books and Category:Graphics by book to Book illustrations. I suppose Images from books is needed in some form, as a parent category for "book illustrations" and for the book page scans that aren't illustrations, although that name may be confusing. Maybe something like "book digitizations", since "scans" can be made with a camera too. --ghouston (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a lot of the subcats need to be removed, leaving only the ones named "Illustrations from...". If any not named that way really contain only illustrations, they could be renamed. Some of the current cats have files that are not illustrations from their respective books. For example, this file and other djvu filez, and this audio file (one of many in its cat). --Auntof6 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Illustration from books despite being perfect it is not standard. To simplify the use and maintenance of categories we use a restricted language and thus we use by whenever is almost acceptable. For istance category:people by country, category:paintings by medium not category:paintings media. For your adknowegment an illustration is a picture that explains the content of a book and generally made specially for the book; this happened in old times when didn't still esist photos. We have also the category:illustrators. So if a book was about ships, a drawing with the ship parts was an illustration. If a books was about Michelangelo, a picture of a painting was likely not an illustration because was the book problably explaining the picture and not viceveresa. Of course is not a cutting-edge classification. Usually an illustration is an engravings or a print. The noun illustration came from latin verb illustrare. It's perfect translation is to enlighten. So an llistration is a enlightening picture--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pierpao: Category:Illustrations from books could include single files. Category:Illustrations by book could be a subcategory/metacategory for categories of illustrations from specific books (e.g. Category:Illustrations from The Begum's Fortune by Léon Benett. I'll add that to the proposal above. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Graphics and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Engraved illustrations of people. These discussions are somewhat related to this one. Josh (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just deleted Category:Graphics by book, since it was a strange mix. I moved things to Category:Illustrations from books by title to be clearer. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Danny lost, Ghouston, and Themightyquill: Since the original duplication no longer exists, can we close this now? Josh (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Danny lost, Ghouston, and Themightyquill: Closed (resolved) Josh (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
