Should be renamed back to Category:Infographics, because the term "Infographic" is much more beeing used internationally then the term "Information graphics", for example in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy etc. --Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Information graphics" is the full name and is self-explanatory. "Infographics" is not always understandable to some people. "Infographics" is not found in many dictionaries and spelling checkers. See the discussion page for en:Information graphics. Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote there: "Infographics is a relativelly new and unknown term." Google finds both "information graphics" and "infographics" in hundreds of thousands of English pages. We don't solely use the quantity of Google results to make these kinds of naming decisions anyway. See w:WP:NAME. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will explain some more. The term "Infographics" is common good. According to Google-rates:
- In English: Information graphics - 207.000. Infographics - 542.000
- In Germany: Informationsgrafik - 7.170. Infografik - 673.000 (at www.google.de)
- In Holland: Informatie grafiek - 42. Infographics - 38.100 (in texts in the Dutch language)
- Etc... In Germany and Holland about 99% of the people use the term infographics. This strongly indicates the term "Infographic" is much more international. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People come to the Commons from many languages. Some use variations of "infographics" and know what they are looking for, and some have little idea of what category they need. See the introduction to Category:Diagrams, and the discussions at Category talk:Diagrams to read of similar problems with definitions and where to find graphics. The more information we provide them, the easier it will be for them to find what they have in mind. I am a native speaker of English and infographics is not a word I am likely to use in conversation. "Graphics" may be the only word that many people will think of. It is a very common word. See:
- http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million pages.
- We might help people more by putting both names in the category name: "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see it's already there. Where is the problem everyone sees the right name...--Ma-Lik (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This category started 2.5 years ago as "Category:Infographics", and the actual question here is if this should remain this way. A few days ago, just overnight, the category has been renamed "Category:Information graphics" by Timeshifter claiming "Infographics" is a bad name. But there is nothing bad about that name. I just think this category shouldn't have been renamed in the first place. But maybe there are other reasons to keep it like this. This is why I started this discussion in the first place. From a discussion on the German talk page, I already understood there are. But as German, I think, you could better explain yourselve. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I think it's casual thing and if anybody searches for the Infographics, he will find the "right" category. It's the same thing with the plural, e.g. Category:House and Category:Houses, I think everybody types first House but the "right" category is houses.--Ma-Lik (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MDD. I did not say infographics was a bad name when I added the redirect tag to Category:Infographics that pointed to Category:Information graphics. It looks like you misread the tag. People make many minor changes to category names on the commons. For spelling, clarity, grammar, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see now. You didn't give any reason at all. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was discussed at Category talk:Diagrams#Explanatory diagrams, but for some reason you refused to discuss it there further. Then you started this discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, for several years now I am used to the situation on Wikipedia, that if you want to change a long existing category, you discuss this first. You don't say: "Hey, I have a new idea" at 00:30 at that one talkpage ... and then the next minute at 00.39 remove all content from the Category:Infographics, which has been created more then 2 years ago on 4 March 2006. There was definitely no discussion on Category talk:Diagrams#Explanatory diagrams about this. All you stated at 00.30 there where some fuzzy thoughts:
- 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".....
- And whoops at 00.39 you blanked the Category:Infographics. One of the reasons, I make such a point of it is, that you still think this is completely normal. You stated that I am silly to even talk about it, because "it happens all the time". Nice going, corrupting the situation. Sorry I fear, that if I don't ring a bell, you keep the impression that you have a wildcard to change whatever you like. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is really not a big deal. It was a side discussion. It was a minor change. It was not controversial. It is easy to change back. Rather than discuss it further there where the discussion started you went to an administrator noticeboard, and then to here. We could have had the same discussion we had here without all that. 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. I currently have over 5000 edits on the Commons, and over 13,000 on English Wikipedia. I have created or renamed many categories. You also went to the German wikipedia page on information graphics, and they came to the same conclusion I did. See de:Diskussion:Informationsgrafik#"Informationsgrafik" and "Infografik". The discussion is in English. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it no big deal to you, do you agree, that I refert the situation? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent what I say. Renaming categories is not usually such a big deal. I am not the only one to prefer the title of these articles and categories to be "Information graphics." I would be happy with "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep dreaming. In a hunch you change the internationally frequently used name into an hardly used name in the Netherlands and Germany. And this is no big deal? You violated the normal Wikipedia procedure, and keep trying to sweep it under the pillow. And it is all no big deal? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, no one seems to agree with you. I suggest you read w:WP:CIVIL. "Keep dreaming" can be considered rude in English, and not very civil. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this is the most current discussion, but seems quite current. Do I understand this correctly:
- There was a category 'infographics' for ~2 years that has been renamed to 'information graphics' on the grounds that:
- 'information graphics' is more technical sounding than 'infographics' (particularly in German)
- People will be able to search for 'information graphics' more easily because they may use one of the two terms rather than the name 'infographics'
- On the other hand:
- The category has been here for a while, and has been called infographics for that time
- 'infographics' is what the field is called, according to Google and according to the people who coined the term
- My 2 cents is that this is best resolved by calling the category 'Infographics (information graphics)', as has been suggested because:
- People searching for Infographics know what they are looking for and know how to search for it - as they have done up until now
- People searching for 'information' or 'graphics' may have no interest in infographics, or they may become curious. Either way, how people search is independent of what infographics is
- Infographics is what the field of study is called by those who write about it. Not information graphics, nor graphinfo nor infographtion. We should not make up names for fields of study because the new name 'sounds more technical than the actual term' (even if I agree)
- Dhatfield (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with either "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". It does not matter which to me. I would like to point out what the scholars in the field use though. Here are some Google Scholar results below.
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22information+graphics%22 - 3840 results.
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics - 506 results.
- Of course, most other people (myself included) end up using "infographics" because it is quicker and easier to type out.
- As the German wikipedia talk page pointed out it is fairly common in Wikipedia to use full names for article titles. I also believe that many more people will search for "graphics" compared to those searching for "infographics." So users of Google may find the relevant Wikipedia articles and categories a little easier if "graphics" is spelled out separately in the title. So if we cannot use both names, then I believe we should use the full name, "Information graphics", for that reason. As I said before "graphics" is a very common word.
- See: http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million results. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think both alternatives are unacceptable. But if you insist, please do proceed. I will request that new category to be deleted. Then we can continu this discussion over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should discuss it more here before creating a new category. Then there is no need for a deletion discussion in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)" are simply impossible to write down. I don't think the both of you have realized that this actualy is needed so once in a while. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dhatfield. Your interpretation surprises me:
- I stated: In Germany: Informationsgrafik - 7.170. Infografik - 673.000 (at www.google.de)
- And you interpret: 'information graphics' is more technical sounding than 'infographics' (particularly in German)
- The situation in Germany is simply that only 1% of the people use the word 'information graphics' and 99% 'infographics'. One of the two term is hardly beeing used. That is the whole point here. The title here should be te most accaptable most used term. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people don't know either term. The word infographics is not in my 1986 print version of the Webster's dictionary. It is also not in other authoritative dictionaries online. See:
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographics - no results.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infographics - no results. This site uses several dictionaries that put out print editions too.
- Also, the word "infographics" is not used in many other languages. There are variations in spelling, or a word is used that doesn't look anything like the spelling of infographics. People coming to the commons from many nations will search using English. "Graphics" is more likely to be the word used by many non-native speakers of English during searches.
- In English here are some Google results in descending order:
- http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million.
- http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics - 670,000.
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22information+graphics%22 - 415,000.
- Infographics is becoming more popular, but it is still not a commonly used word by many people. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have been over those numbers a few times now, just as we have talked about the meaning of the term, which is vaque, and we also agreed that little people know the word. What keeps me worried is the way it has effected the construction of the Category:Infographics:
- First, the category was upgraded to a main category in the field of visualization
- Second, the category was renamed to Category:Information graphics
- Third, there is a proposal to rename it to "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)"
- Now we agreed these terms are relatively new, unknown, and not permanent defined. Personly I can get over the second move and accept the current name, if for example the first step is turned back. Is this an acceptable compromise? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't studied the definition of "visualization" much. Here is a start:
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visualization
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visualization
- The 2008 Merriam Webster online dictionary definition number 2 seems to be relevant: "2 : the act or process of interpreting in visual terms or of putting into visible form".
- That sounds like it could cover illustrations and visual media of any kind. But shouldn't this be discussed at Category talk:Visualization? I started a discussion there. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I gave a response over there. Maybe you can give a response here to my last question if this is an acceptable compromis. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the 2 discussions need to be tied together. One is not dependent on the other. We shouldn't be deciding for others in a separate discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to summarize this situation here one last time: Infographics, and information graphics are two alternative terms. Both terms are relatively unknown and undefined, their popularity started rising since the 1980s. The biggest difference between the both is, that internationally only the term Infographics is popular. In the Netherlands and Germany less then 1% uses the information graphics, or its local translation.
- Now a category infographics was created here 2.5 years ago, which was focused on the core idea of infographics as a specific type of graphic formats. The Wikipedia article w:Information graphics explains: Information graphics or infographics are visual representations of information, data or knowledge. These graphics are used anywhere where complex information needs to be explained quickly and clearly, such as in information sign, maps, journalism, technical writing, and education.
- Now 20 July 2008 Timeshifter decided on his own to popularize the category by introducing the broadest scope possible: Images that are information graphics (infographics). Information graphics include signs, charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, tables, labeled drawings, etc.. Almost any illustration or animation that has elements of abstract information in it. Photos and drawings of objects, or photos from nature (such as plant, bird and animal drawings), are not considered information graphics unless there is an overlay of abstract information combined with them. Art and cartoons are not infographics.(see here).
- At the same time Timeshifter made it a top category in the field of all graphics, by collecting the categories charts, diagrams, graphs and maps in that category.
- One week later Timeshifter again decided on his own this new top category needed the name "Information graphics", and renamed the category. Every body knows "Information graphics are graphics that show information", so let it be.
Now there are two things we can do here.
- Restored the category, focused on the specific type of graphic formats, with the international term in use.
- Keep the top category on the broadest meaning possible, under the broadest term "Information graphics".
I will rest my case. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia and the Commons tries to make it easy for people to find stuff in the categories. I have already replied to nearly all of this in my previous comments. See my previous comments concerning popularity of words.
- As for category descriptions Wikipedia and the Commons tries to use the standard, most common definitions of words used in article and category titles. Category descriptions should reflect this too. When it is difficult to figure this out we do the best we can in trying to figure out what is the most common definition from the various definitions in standard dictionaries. When that doesn't work we go to the standard reference books found with tools such as Google Scholar. All of this helps users of the commons in finding stuff. Since users of the commons are not all native speakers of English they need us to use the most common definitions. It is a judgment call to balance all these factors. See also the discussion at en:Talk:Information graphics for more info on Google Scholar results and definitions.--Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will withdraw this request, and will remove the template from the category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this as withdrawn by nominator. Wknight94 talk 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Neutral: