User talk:Arthur Baelde

Incomprehensible category

Hi Arthur Baelde,
you have just moved all the images in a set to a more general category for the second time (e.g. first, second). Your edit summary was: "this category name is too complicated, search for images must be easy" That you don't like a name is not a reason to move images out of a category. If you don't like the name, you can just change it. Moving all the images from a category to its parent is usually a bad move, and when there are many images in that parent, it often means that information (which images belong together) is almost irretrievably lost. What on earth makes you think, that just trowing all kinds of images on the same big pile makes them "easy to find"? Do you think that these and these images should also be directly in SVG Platonic solids? Or only yours? Take a look at this screenshot, and tell me if these files are easy to find. What about those that are not among the first 200 of 1000+? I move your images back in their own category where they belong. Feel free to rename it. Watchduck (quack) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You created a category named “Set of Platonic solids; orthogonal projections with dimensioning”. Very bad title. “Set”, does it mean there is a set of Platonic solids on an image of this category? You placed in your category the following images, which present no mark of dimension:

Academ_RegularOctahedron_UnchangedCrossSectionsByOneThirdOrQuarterTurn.svg,

Academ_RegularOctahedronSeenInTheDirectionOfADiagonal_RegularCrossSections.svg,

Academ_Two_stellations_of_a_Platonic_dodecahedron.svg.

I propose to delete your category that you do not understand yourself.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your whole argument is again just about the name. I already said everything that is to say about that: Feel free to change it.

The main point is that these images should be in the same category, no matter how it is named. (Set of Platonic solids; Euclid is not a great name either. But that does not change the fact that these images belong together.)

"'Set', does it mean there is a set of Platonic solids on an image of this category?"   Seriously? If you don't understand what an image set is, just take a look at the other categories in Sets of all Platonic solids - like 3D stl, colored glass or desarrollo. No one cares about the names. What matters is that these images belong together. (BTW: If it helps to come to terms with the concept, you could nominate your image set to become a valued image set - like stereo).

I changed the category name, and you are still free to rename it. And I moved the three images back, because they are clearly part of the set.

According to you, all these images should be directly in SVG Platonic solids - is that correct? Unfortunately you did not answer my question: Should all the other buckets in that box also be emptied in that box? Or should only your images lie around, while the other files are properly in their subcategories? (That would be like saying that your close are "easy to find", when you let them lie around in the locker room. That may be true. But not if everyone else does the same.)

According to you, should all these images also be directly in SVG orthographic projections? Watchduck (quack) 18:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

---

 

For example, for me
this SVG image should belong
to Category:SVG_Platonic_solids.

Please, don't change anything of any of my messages.
For example, here is one of my choices, my signature contains <br/>.

I think it will be easy for everyone to understand these categories and to search for images that show one or several Platonic solids, if we discuss calmly the problem, before any change of title or tree of categories. Seriously, I ask you why you would like to see my SVG images of Platonic solids in such a category, the title of which begins with “Set of Platonic solids”. If “Set” means “Category”, “Set” must be removed. And if you want a special category dedicated to images that show only one Platonic polyhedron, I disagree. Why your category title begins with “Set of…”?
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Three images that are clearly part of the same set.

If you think using indentation within an answer is a smart idea... Fine.
The image you show above is one I have never put into this category. (And it does not seem to be part of a set.) Why use a straw man instead of talking about the images in question? Like the three on the right.
"Why your category title begins with 'Set of…'?"   Because this is a set of images. These images belong together, just like those in the other sets. Have you actually bothered to read my answer? I can only repeat what I already wrote: Just take a look at the other categories in Sets of all Platonic solids - like STL solid, colored glass or desarrollo. What is the essential difference you see between your set and all the others?
And please answer my question: Should all the other buckets in that box also be emptied in that box? Watchduck (quack) 15:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Old talk page

The talk page of your last account adds helpful context to this one: User talk:Baelde
Let me quote David Eppstein (Categorization again), because you still refuse to understand this:

As Commons:Categories clearly states, "Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. ...
always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those."

Watchduck (quack) 10:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiviews

I noticed your objection to my sorting several images from Multiview orthographic projections to Multiview orthographic projections of polytopes. I read your edit comment, and I can agree with concept that a "multiview" is specifically a drawing showing multiple views of the same subject. I think that is a correct assessment, but is at odds with a lot of contents of 'multiview'. I think there is a confusion between 'multiview' and 'multiple-view', which are not the same thing, but many folks may not recognize the difference.

However, the reason I wanted to ping you was that your edit is a bit confusing. While I agree with limiting 'multiview' to those of the same subject, your rationale doesn't match up with the actual edit you made. You moved the item from Multiview orthographic projections of polytopes to Multiview orthographic projections. The point is, if you are right that they are not 'multiview', you still left them under 'multiview', you only removed the 'polytopes' part. Are they not polytopes? They certainly appear to be geometric shapes with flat sides, so I am unclear as to why you removed them from 'polytopes' but not from 'multiview', which would have seemed logical based on your edit summary. Can you perhaps explain this discrepancy? Josh (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the number of views inscribed in the subcategory title.
  Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)