This category was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2007 but was kept.
If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first.
Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User:Juiced lemon keeps removing Category:SVG maps from being a subcategory of Category:Maps. He also keeps removing the SVG map subcategories from the relevant map categories for nations, continents, regions, etc..
What's the reason for doing that?? I find it very helpful to be able to find SVG maps via the category system. But OK, I might have missed something - I'm new around here, so I'm willing to listen&learn ;-) Finn Rindahl16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent). I think that is his reasoning, but I am not sure. Commons:Categories#Category structure does not prevent an SVG map category from being categorized both by media type and topic. It says "All categories (except CommonsRoot) should be contained in at least one other category,"
Please also see w:Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree. It says "each category can appear in more than one parent category." It says "it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees."
In my opinion Juiced Lemon should have the courtesy to leave the categorization in place while it is being discussed. Since he is currently in the minority. It seems that this lack of courtesy is a habit. Juiced Lemon has been mentioned unfavorably many times at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. --Timeshifter08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Divided” involves that you may not interconnect these substructures as you want. When you look at the talk page, you see that access to the Topics substructure is preferred. There are some reasons to that:
1. This substructure is the most useful to Commons readers
2. Every media file would be found in this only substructure.
Therefore, easy browsing in the Topics structure is an essentiel element of the success of Commons project. That means that the reader must easily understand the Topics organization, then find the way to reach the wanted media files.
That's why the categories of the Topics substructure have to be cleared of most interconnections between the 6 substructures. When a category contains several subcategories, you can logically expect to find different media files in each subcategory. That would not be true, if we allow interconnections. Any file in Category:SVG maps of Mexico is already far better categorized in Category:Maps of Mexico: Category:SVG maps of Mexico is a wrong track. More, media files are mainly selected according to their overall quality, not according the only criterion “to be a SVG file”.
I believe that an SVG map category tree is beneficial to the project. I did not create the SVG map category tree. But it seem that the project is encouraging SVG images. Category:SVG maps was started in January 2006. See the history:
Interconnections between category trees is normal and encouraged. Why did you remove Category:SVG maps from being a subcategory of Category:Maps? How else do you expect people to find these SVG maps?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about categorization. Strict hierarchies do not work, because topics are interconnected.
Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or w:tree structure, but a more general w:directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below).
Nevertheless, parts of the category graph will be tree-like, and it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees. When applying the guidelines above, consider each tree to be independent of the overlapping trees. A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy. This can lead to a good deal of debate as to what the hierarchies actually are. To clarify the structure of the hierarchy and help people browse through it, you can add a classification to each category. For more about this, see w:Wikipedia:Classification. [End of quote]
A key point is "A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy." That means interconnections are essential. That means that the SVG maps category tree, Category:SVG maps, for example, needs to be interconnected with the map category tree, Category:Maps. --Timeshifter09:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very personal manner to interpret other users' interventions. You are currently the only user who questionned the removal of SVG categories from the Topics substructure. --Juiced lemon11:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Category:SVG maps is a map category and an SVG category. You seem to be the only person who does not want SVG maps categorized in map categories.
3 people have questioned your removal of it from map categories.
My "questioning" above was indeed just that, asking a question hoping that the answer would give me some understanding of the matter being discussed. I (hope I) now have a better understanding... Since I've just started drawing new maps using inkscape, I find the SVG maps categories very helpful as a place to find sources to copy from. For these purposes SVG maps as subcategories under topic categories would be helpful. I think, however, that for most users searching for illustrations and such, "mediatype" and "Copyright stats" (or for that matter "user") as subcategories of the topic catoegories will only be confusing. I'm starting to get to know my way around here, so for me it is not a problem to browse from top category Category:SVG maps down to a certain geographical area, and then do a cross check in the main category for that area to see whether there are better .png, .gif etc maps. So, to summarise: I believe that there should be topical substructures in mediatypes, but not mediatype subcats to topics. I.e. SVG maps and sub to SVG files ( and maybeCategory:Maps at this top level), then Category:SVG maps of Europe as sub to SVG maps but not to category:Maps of Europe and so on. I concider the Topical categories our "main" categories, the catsystem that makes our mediafiles available for the public. The other categories are only there to help us (active commons user) organize tha content. A file only categorised as "copyright:GFDL" or "type:SVG" or "source:Flickr" is in practical terms uncategorized. Finn Rindahl12:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that means all the SVG maps will have to be individually categorized under their topics. It would be a lot easier just to make Category:SVG maps of Mexico a subcategory of Category:Maps of Mexico. I will go and categorize the individual SVG images in that category now to show you what I mean. So ALL the individual SVG images will be categorized in both Category:SVG maps of Mexico and Category:Maps of Mexico. This seems like such a waste of valuable time. But it is important that the average reader is able to find all the maps of Mexico. Even if the categorization scheme is illogical and wastes everybody's time just to make one person, User:Juiced lemon happy in his unique categorization scheme which is different from all other wikipedia map categorization schemes. Because interconnecting category trees is allowed everywhere except in the mind of User:Juiced lemon. --Timeshifter12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question for me is not was is "allowed" or not, but what is most practical for the average user. I may have been unclear above: I agree with Juiced Lemon that Category:SVG maps of Mexico should not be a subcategory of Category:Maps of Mexico and so on. Further, to both Timeshifter and JL, assume good faith and keep in mind that we're discussing in order to find the best solution. :-) Finn Rindahl12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith on both your parts. I just don't think either of you are thinking clearly about the issues. I have started checking all the individual images in Category:SVG maps of Mexico to see that they are all categorized under Category:Maps of Mexico or one of its subcategories. Because it is important that the average reader is easily able to find all the maps of Mexico. --Timeshifter12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finn Rindahl. You wrote: "what is most practical for the average user." Is it not most practical for the reader if the reader can go directly to the SVG map category? Is not the most important element of an SVG map the fact that it is a map? Many objects can be categorized under multiple topics. So categorization can not be strictly hierarchal for those objects. Those objects are normally categorized in those multiple topics. It is common throughout wikipedia and the commons. I checked all the Mexico SVG maps. They were nearly all already categorized in multiple categories. Including separate SVG map and Mexico map cateogories. So why do we categorize the individual maps in multiple categories but not Category:SVG maps of Mexico? It is illogical, and goes against the existing categorization rules as I have quoted several times already. The existing commons rules override the peculiar categorization schemes of Juiced lemon. --Timeshifter21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that User:Jeff G. may agree with me. See this diff:
There seems to be a number of mis-conceptions involved in this discussion, so I will make some points.
This is not wikipedia, categories have a very specific use here which is different from the way they're used on wikipedia.
As described by User:Juiced lemon the category structure is a number of inter-twined but independent trees starting at the same root. ie the branches weave through each other but a branch on one tree doesn't suddenly get grafted onto another tree.
The category structure is very definitely a hierarchical tree (well 6 trees as described above). Loops and nailing branches of different trees together destroys the structure and makes tools like catscan useless.
SVG is a 'media type', not a 'topic', so however strange it might seem it is on a different tree. The appropriate linking would be some sort of 'see also' link, not grafting branches of one tree onto another.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This category is useless and disturbs the organization of the Commons database. SVG files have a .svg extension, therefore no specific structure is needed to find them. --Juiced lemon11:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably where the discussion should have been started originally, but I suggest we continue discussion where Juiced lemon initially started it at:
This category is useless and disturbs the organization of the Commons database. SVG files have a .svg extension, therefore no specific structure is needed to find them. --Juiced lemon15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you want to delete the category. Many people like the convenience of finding SVG maps quickly in one category tree, rather than wading through many other types of maps in order to find SVG maps. Images can be categorized in more than one category. --Timeshifter15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People don't need to find SVG maps in the topics structure. In this structure, people can find the categories or galleries which match the searched subjects, and they'll select the best media files, choosing between various media types, SVG files included.
Wikimedia Commons have no policy to favour SVG files, but a policy to favour good quality files. Therefore, we must give to people the occasion to choose the best quality, in particular when talentless illustrators have uploaded pathetic SVG files.
More, every SVG file has a “.svg” filename extension: hence, every SVG file can be easily tagged with a bot, in order to find it with the catscan tool. So, Category:SVG maps is the parent category of an unclassified and useless structure, which disturbs the classification process and the browsing in the Commons database.
I dislike SVG files sometimes too. But I also like some of them. I can do basic image editing in other formats besides SVG. I would like to learn to create and edit SVG images. So SVG categories help in finding similar images to model from. I think the SVG image use in MediaWiki software is flawed, but it is still very useful. I dislike that only PNG images are used to substitute for the SVG images. The MediaWiki software converts SVG images to PNG images before showing them in wikipedia articles. Because most browsers can't view SVG images. I wish there was an option to use GIF image substitution for low-color graphics. --Timeshifter04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find these categories useful. BTW, there are other such categories, such as Category:SVG flags or Category:SVG coats of arms. If I wanted to create a new SVG map (or flag, or COA, or...) I'd be grateful to have a way to find some already existing SVG map, flag, or COA upon which to base my work on. Otherwise I'd have to trace the paths again myself. These categories help me to find such already existing SVG drawings. Lupo23:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this deletion request while looking for SVG maps. Knowing a little bit about Commons, I of course expected to find a category for SVG Maps, and did indeed, though it was a little shocking to see that there was an extant deletion request for it. That said, SVG is unique and interesting as an image format because it's a vector rather than raster format. Perhaps the category should really be something like Category:Native vector maps or something of the sort. -Harmil21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. This category is really usefull and is probably one of the most important categories here in Commons (in my opinion) and it can save a lot of time when you're looking for an SVG map, this helped me create a lot of maps (1,; 2 for example). --escondites10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is absurd. It "disturbs the organization of the Commons database"? The category provides an easy way to find SVG maps, without interfering with any other category. I can find images with an SVG extension manually, but there's no perfect way to know without checking which are maps. That's why the category is useful. Superm40108:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this disturbs anything. I use this category, as well as its subcats, to find SVG files on which to base derivative works. Otherwise, I'd have to start from scratch or go searching manually, which are both equally painful. Thadius85617:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched the world map category from a svg map of italy, and the category to reach world vector maps is the SVG maps hierarchy. --Dereckson08:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep until all of the png maps have been converted to svg. And even then, there would have to be a rule about no new png maps. Anyone who is concerned with the categorization of images should be familar with the differences between raster and vector images. -- carol07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, I'm trying to find categories of maps, I don't care the format, I need the category. If you have another compiled category, then fine, but it's good to have a choice all on one page.
Keep, the category provides an easy way to find SVG maps. There's a lot of reasons to keep it, as already noted. Additionally it's useful if I look for images or maps. I'd like to have every possible angle to find something relevant. A lot of media's categories are very poor, and unspecific categories like this one are often a last resort to find them. --Jo12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
