Category talk:Ball-and-stick models (3D balls image set)

Scope?

@Watchduck, it would presumably help if it could be clarified what this image set is actually supposed to encompass, as currently it seems to contain a bunch of images in significantly different styles. It also seems in any case that the category is, as of now, rather underpopulated, as a large part of the images I just moved to the recently created Category:Ball-and-stick models with transparent background appear to potentially form a set (and in case transparency is not considered a defining aspect of the set – which is how it appears to be treated in its current state – so do some of the remaining images in Category:Ball-and-stick models). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Given how different B&S models can look, I would not call them substantially different. Yes, most images in ... tranparent background would belong here – particularly in the shiny subset. But I gave up on this, because it's just too many images. Also, sets are supposed to be useful, and not a self-licking ice-cream cone. This set has potential to be the latter. The shiny sulfides or gray rings are better examples of how sets are supposed to look like. --Watchduck (quack) 03:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I might've just seen File:Diethylphthalat-3D-baelle.png and figured that wouldn't fit in, though I'd also say Category:Ball-and-stick models (3D balls with rings) are quite different from the other "subsets" like Category:Ball-and-stick models (3D balls shiny) etc., so I might prefer splitting it up to a separate set. Also, I believe Category:Phosphorus sulfides (3D balls shiny spacefill) should not be a subcategory of the ball-and-sticks cat (they can be linked with {{Cat see also}} instead), since the two respective category trees are currently kept separate. (And should Category:Phosphorus sulfides (3D balls shiny) just be a subcat of Category:Ball-and-stick models with transparent background and the files subsequently removed from that as overcategorised?) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course you are right about the spacefill subcat. But somehow I feel, it's not worth the minute it would take.

You are right, it probably makes more sense to see this as a collection of sets. I tend to rename it to Image sets of ball-and-stick models. --Watchduck (quack) 21:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No objections. I can re-categorise the spacefill set if you don't want to do it. What about categorising/not categorising the sets into the transparent categories? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)