Category talk:Diagrams

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]
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.

I believe it would be better English to change all the "Economical ..." and "Economics ..." subcategories to "Economic ..."

Since there are so many images to move, it would be nice if a bot could do it.

It should be "Economic diagrams"

It is correctly categorized under "Economics".

Also, the other subcategories should be:

  • Economic block diagrams
  • Economic bar charts
  • Economic graphs
  • Economic pie charts

There may be more subcategories at deeper levels that need to be changed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this proposal. I think this needs some considerable consideration.
Now I doesn't matter so much how the categories are named as long as there is one standard.
I based my choice on the existing categories in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme
  • on categories ending with ...cal: like the category Mathematical diagrams, Medical diagrams and Technical diagrams.
But I admit there are other naming conventions here:
  • on categories ending with ...s: like , Physics diagrams, Sports diagrams
  • and categories without and ending, like: Astronomy diagrams, Biology diagrams, Chemistry diagrams.
So there are three kinds of naming conventions here. I wonder when to use which, or should we make one choice here.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your user page that you are not a native speaker of English. The English language has many inconsistencies. My suggestions in this category-for-discussion page only have to do with correcting English usage, and not about your ideas for categorization. I like your ideas for subcategorization. See further discussion here: Category talk:Economics graphs. By the way that category should be named Category:Economic graphs and not Category:Economics graphs, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree, and I will make the adjustments from the Category:Economical diagrams to the Category:Economic diagrams, -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! It looks like everything has been resolved without the need for bot help. Thanks for copying the previously-mentioned talk from Category talk:Economics graphs to Category talk:Diagrams.--Timeshifter (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement reached: --Foroa (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 complex category name creates confusion and does not help to subcategorize the content. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid duplicating the discussion please see:
OK, I see you have your personal fight for this stupid category. It is easy possible to put it away and avoid dublicating when the content gets categorized well, but what you do is to destroy deep categorization. I understand partly what you want to reach, but believe me, there are better ways then yours. Example here: Category:Pictures and images, Category:Pictures, Category:Images --WikipediaMaster (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it includes Category: Charts by theme, Category: Graphs by theme as subcategories. The same for Category:Diagrams by type, Category:Charts by type and soon also Category:Graphs by type --WikipediaMaster (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for beeing incomplete. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets empty that category and maybe put a redirect to Category: Diagrams by theme, where the other two are subcats. And sorry, but some diagrams may be or may include drawings but not all different kinds of drawings are diagrams.--WikipediaMaster (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better to leave both in place for the moment, because that is standard in Wikipedia. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard should be what makes sence! ;-) Maybe it would make sence to categorize the two missing ... by theme cats into this one and then subcategorize the others. --WikipediaMaster (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your prosal to empty this category and make a redirect after all. I prose to do the same with:
  • Category:Management diagrams, charts, graphs‎
  • Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs‎
  • Category:Business diagrams, charts, graphs
  • Category:Economic diagrams, charts, graphs‎
The main reason is that it is blocking/interfering with the further developments. This all remains a complicated matter an we need some space to develop the new situation. In the cleaned new situation, people can still judge if there is need for such supplementary categories. Do you agree? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do! How long do we have to wait until we can go forward with that now? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't wait. Timeshifter alone has been blocked the development here for more then a week now. I think we have given him enough time now. And as I said. Later on others are still capable or even better capable of judging the need for this category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make this and I understand the logic behind, but as I mentioned before not many people differentiate between charts/graphs/diagrams particularly in the theme category. In my opinion we should redirect charts and graphs to diagrams because that makes it easy to use and charts and graphs are diagrams.--Ma-Lik (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should keep this overall theme category because it makes things easy to use for many people. I have allowed the removal of the subcategories from
  • Category:Management diagrams, charts, graphs‎
  • Category:Agricultural diagrams, charts, graphs‎
  • Category:Business diagrams, charts, graphs
  • Category:Economic diagrams, charts, graphs
So those lower "diagrams, charts, graphs" categories can be deleted. This way we only have one overall theme category: Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. Some day we may be able to get rid of it too. See my new proposal at Category talk:Diagrams. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four lower categories cleared

[edit]

OK. I have cleared the four lower categories, I created myself.

I wonder if we should keep the delete request in place or make a redirect, which seems to make no sense to me? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can delete the lower categories. Since they are not being used, they are effectively deleted anyway. I think we should wait awhile before further action concerning Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. I believe waiting will also keep the admins happy at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Timeshifter and User:Mdd. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme

[edit]

I think the items in this category should be relocated first. We can take a few days to do so. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests is for images not categories. Categories are discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion

For example:

There is also discussion at Category talk:Diagrams. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start a new discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion or can we agree to keep only the overall "diagrams, charts, graphs by theme" category for now? I think it is better to wait rather than bring new people into this discussion.

User:Ma-Lik has agreed to my new proposal at Category talk:Diagrams. So if MDD and WikipediaMaster also agree, then we can keep Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme for now, and over time we can categorize all the charts and graphs by theme in separate categories for "charts by theme" and "graphs by theme". Then we would not need the overall category of "Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, lets empty it and end this story! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand. Many categories (for each theme diagrams, charts and graphs) must be created first. But I agree then can this category be deleted.--Ma-Lik (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikipediaMaster. Today you removed Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme from many categories. This will be the second time, WikipediaMaster, that you have tried to make massive changes without consensus. Only the diagram categories with nothing but diagrams and diagram subcategories in them can be moved out of that category and put in Category:Diagrams by theme. All the other categories in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme will remain until the graphs and charts in them are moved to separate categories. The following categories that you today moved out and made subcategories of Category:Diagrams by theme are OK since there are no charts and graphs in them or their subcategories. So I did not change your new categorization.
Category:Necktie knot tying diagrams
Category:Aerobatics diagrams which is a subcategory of
Category:Aviation diagrams
Category:Physiologic diagrams
Category:Game diagrams
Category:Traffic diagrams
Category:Chemistry diagrams
Category:Anthropology diagrams
Category:Computer diagrams
Category:Computer science diagrams
Category:Oceanographic diagrams
Category:Engineering diagrams
Category:Microscope drawings
Category:Mathematical diagrams
Category:Systems theory diagrams
Category:Technical diagrams
Category:Ontologies
Category:Steam engine drawings
Category:Aircraft line drawings
Category:Technical drawings
Category:Automobiles line drawings
Category:Patent drawings
Category:Steampunk imagery
Category:Diagrams of the International Space Station
Category:Architectural drawings
Category:Roller coaster drawings
Category:Architectural drawings
Also, by the way, you are making a common mistake of non-native English speakers. "Economic" is the correct word for Category:Economic trends. It is not correct in English to use Category:Economical trends. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Timeshifter,
sorry, but I see no real difference if we first clean up the main cat and afterwards the subcats or the other way around, especially as I added the two subcats category:Charts by theme and category:Graphs by theme into Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. I mainly did not remove this one but moved the content into the subcats. There is consensus to clean this one, but it seems not about the order of doing it. It is a step by step approach and you tell us above, that many of the recategorizations I did are OK for you, so please help to recat the left ones instead of discussing about common mistakes. Yes I did that one, sorry about that and thank you for correcting it! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Timeshifter,
if a category is already subcategory of one which is listed in this stupid cat, then it is in and has not to be in twice, which is the case for all the cats (category:Kinematics, ...) that you have categorized back again now. I hate the edit war that you fight here as there is no logic behind it. Maybe you want to add thousands of subcategories including diagrams, charts, graphs, schemes, schemas, circuits, etc. that are not in today, but exist?!? --WikipediaMaster (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create the duplicate categories. Marcel Douwe Dekker did. Feel free to remove Category:Diagrams by theme from categories already categorized in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme.
Instead of complaining why don't you remove the charts and graphs from those categories? Diagrams should be in diagram categories. Charts should be in chart categories. Graphs should be in graph categories. It's not complicated. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear the category

[edit]

I would like to propose to clear the Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme in lets say three days. This has taken long enough. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear the air

[edit]

Your constant complaining, MDD, is what has gone on long enough. I propose that you withdraw your support of this proposal. That is what you did, MDD, at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics. Also, I suggest that you take a week off, and let things happen over time. That is what you did at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Timeshifter and User:Mdd, and we have since made progress at Category talk:Diagrams after you mellowed out. From COM:MELLOW: "Don't start brawls over stuff that doesn't matter." --Timeshifter (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just clear the category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear the category and the air

[edit]

The current category is redundant, and interfing with the new structure. It is just confusing, and should be eliminated. And all the things Timeshifter keeps saying is rather embarrassing. So just clear the category and the air here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It interferes with nothing. You are still embarrassed that almost no one agreed with you here:
Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics --Timeshifter (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simple true here is that WikiMaster proposed to delete this catgeory, I agree and you disagree. There is nobody, who supports you here. So unless this changes the coming days, I propose to clear the catgeory. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see,... that is one of your big problems, ... you don't read English very well sometimes. Ma-Lik wrote on this page here that he disagrees. He wrote to WikipediaMaster: "I'm not sure you understand. Many categories (for each theme diagrams, charts and graphs) must be created first. But I agree then can this category be deleted." That is what I have been saying over and over too. But you don't read English very well all the time as you are not a native speaker. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? Ma-lik states: "Many categories... must be created first. But I agree then can this category be deleted." Now many categories have been created, by me and WikiMaster, so this categories can be deleted. That is my whole point. I agree, WikiMaster agrees, and Ma-Lik agrees. And you are trying to stall and twist every thing around? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work on that English comprehension some more. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposal to clear the category and the air in three days

[edit]

If nobody but Timeshifter is against clearing the category, I will proceed in three days, on 19 August 2008. So if anybody else disagrees, please let me know here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opposition that doesn't make sense. There is one thing we all agree on. You said it yourselve:
  • ... over time we can categorize all the charts and graphs by theme in separate categories for "charts by theme" and "graphs by theme". Then we would not need the overall category of "Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme".
We agree that there comes a time that the overall category of "Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme" is not needed any more.
Now this time has already arrived a week ago. Just look at the new state of the art:
These are more advanced specific categories. The Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme and his selective/personal content makes no sense any more. It is even disturbing the new status quo. That is why I want to clear the category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already replied to all your points. See my previous comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Marcel Douwe Dekkers proposal. The new structure is there and the opposition of Timeshifter makes no sense at all; his behavior regarding this category is just counterproductively. It's time NOW to get rid of it! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred the previous state, but it's ok for me now.--Ma-Lik (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Three people are ok to clear the category, and one doesn't agree. I think we can proceed on the 19th. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are people going to be able to tell which diagram categories need to have charts and graphs moved out of them? Right now it is easy with this category, Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. All the diagram subcategories in that category contain charts and graphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to this last question on the Category talk:Diagrams page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you answered the question there. How are people supposed to remember that many subcategories? And what about new people who want to get involved. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here below is the discussion at Category talk:Diagrams page. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDD wrote:

"I see no problem here. I assume the editors who do move charts and graphs like you, me and WikiMaster just know the difference."
You are incorrect. There are many categories listed in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. If you eliminate Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme there is no listing of diagram categories that need charts and graphs moved out of them. Other people might want to help too. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDD wrote:

No listing of diagram categories that need charts and graphs moved out of them? you say. Every image on Commons can:
  • Stay uncategorized
  • or be categorized in the category:diagram, category:chart or category:graph.
  • or in one of hunderds of other existing categories.
And people like use can check that once in a while and recategorize these images. So there is really no problem here... [end of MDD quote]
So are you saying that you don't care? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I my opinion) This discussion is closed

[edit]

I removed the copy of the responses I made on the Category talk:Diagrams page. I made them their for a purpose. This discussion is closed, I my opinion. I have no intention of starting this discussion all over. I don't want any of my responses made elsewhere copied here again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now in respons:

  1. Timeshifter deleted my message
  2. Timeshifter copied my response from elsewhere back here again, against my written request here
  3. Timehifter starts a new question

Timeshifter seems to do everything in his power to disturb the arragement reached here, and the plan to end this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an admin, and can not close discussions.
I was reverting your blanking of some of the talk page. See the edit history. Since you did the blanking, it is up to you to sort out your material and put back your new comments. Next time when you blank, try doing it separately from adding new comments. :)
Wikipedia and the Commons are public forums, and the text is in the public domain. Once you leave a comment it can be copied anywhere. After you complained I changed the format of your comments so that it was obvious that I was quoting you from elsewhere, instead of looking like you were commenting here. I removed the timestamp from the other discussion, and added "MDD wrote"
MDD wrote higher up: Timeshifter seems to do everything in his power to disturb the arragement reached here, and the plan to end this.
That is a personal attack. Why do you make so many personal attacks, MDD. Please see: w:WP:Assume good faith, and w:WP:No personal attacks. Also, you do not OWN anything here and can not give out commands. See w:WP:OWN. Please stop the gamesmanship and the hyperbole. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution

[edit]

Possible solution for diagram categories needing individual charts and graphs moved out of them.

I used the {{Collapsed}} show/hide box to create this: Template:Diagrams charts graphs

I created this template, Template:Diagrams charts graphs. It can be used in various places to encourage editors to better categorize charts and graphs. Here is the code to use:

{{Diagrams charts graphs}}

It might be added to the parent top-level diagram, chart, or graph categories as a maintenance tag similar to {{Categorize}}.

Just paste {{Diagrams charts graphs}} into the relevant categories, galleries, and talk pages. This will encourage others to help in categorization.

So there may no longer be a need for the overall category of Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Deletion requests without the flaming

[edit]

I created a reduced version of this discussion with most of the flaming removed, see here. This can give a impression of the actual discussion, without being distracted by the personal attacks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Closed. Wrong place. If this is still of interest please re-list at Commons:Categories for discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wrong place, it is a deletion request! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted there for deletion with additional 4 related categories! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Please delete, the discussion here has ended, so its time to act! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request includes also the following four categories that have been cleared!

Also related and marked for deletion: Template:Diagrams charts graphs

--WikipediaMaster (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete categories, keep template. The template is strictly for the easy listing of diagram categories needing to be cleaned out of charts and graphs. The template is currently only on talk pages, and saves me time in duplicating and updating the info on several talk pages. If the template is deleted then I will just have to manually copy and maintain the list on several talk pages. Deletion of the template will only increase the time required. It is much easier to delete cleaned-out categories (and their subcategories) from one template, rather than several talk pages. I can recreate the template in user space if it is a problem in its current location. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve it. Rocket000(talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. I will give it a try here:
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
This is the result I am getting here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions to improve it? Rocket000(talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing for now. I wonder if it makes sense to alter the instruction on the Template:On Wikipedia, like this:
Basic usage:
{{on Wikipedia| de=Hauptseite | en=Main Page | fr=Accueil | es=Portada | pt=Página principal}}
This makes it a little easier (for me) to edit the template instruction because the line automatically breaks in the Wikipedia editor!? If you know what I mean!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sometimes I forget not everyone edits in 1280x1024 resolution. :) Rocket000(talk) 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing. Does it make sense to add the term "about" in the first sentence: The article about Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other options

[edit]
Now I will try the other options. Inline:
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
And floating:
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
It works. Uh, does it work? Doesn't it need an extra <Clear> functions -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was intentional so text can appear along side it. You can always use Template:{{Diagrams}} after it to clear everything. Rocket000(talk) 08:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Template:{{Diagrams}} works, thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 The article Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
And one other thing...!?
  • The foating option is very interesting
  • if there are just a few links to list like here.
  • for example in the (artifical) lay out here
Great...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram categories needing charts and graphs moved out of them

[edit]

I used the {{Collapsed}} show/hide box for this:

Diagram categories. Some images to move to chart or statistics categories:

The following diagram categories (and/or their subcategories) may still have statistical charts, graphs, or tables in them. The individual files can be moved and/or added to subcategories of Category:Charts and Category:Statistics. As many files as possible should be categorized in the right subcategories. New subcategories may be created. Files may need to be categorized in multiple categories. Search for more categories here and here.

I added it to Category:Diagrams for now. It is under the {{Categorize}} template. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box removed again

[edit]

I removed it again. There is no concensus to add such a "maintance" box on the category page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First: These is really just a kind of maintance messages:

The following diagram categories (and/or their subcategories) have charts and graphs in them that need to be moved to Category:Charts by theme and Category:Graphs by theme.

These messages belong on the category talk:Diagrams page.

And second. It is a very questionable message. What is it talking about? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have something against maintenance such as the {{tl:categorize}} template
I don't understand. Please explain. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a big difference...!?
  1. the {{Categorize}} tag is a general accepted message in all top categories
  2. This box (I removed) is your own message...
  3. ... and that message of yours is very questionable. I think there is hardly any problem there.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diagrams charts graphs

[edit]

I created this template, User:Timeshifter/Template:Diagrams charts graphs. It can be used in various places to encourage editors to better categorize charts and graphs. Here is the code to use:

{{User:Timeshifter/Template:Diagrams charts graphs}}

Just paste it into the relevant categories, galleries, and talk pages. This will encourage others to help in categorization. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is no solution because their is no problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say, you don't see a problem but Timeshifter sees one, so this is no solution please describe why you don't see a problem. I can mention why you don't see a problem but I don't really know...--Ma-Lik (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will give it a try:
  • First: The problem the template starts with "graphs amd charts that needs to be moved" is all over WikiCommons.
  • Second. Look at for example the Category:Agricultural diagrams. The problem doesn't exist there.
  • Third. We can look at all other categories listed, and solve the problem. For the future there is no structural problem in this particular place. See the first point. This problem is all over WikiCommons
  • Forth. A category diagrams can contain "graphs amd charts". They don't have to be moved unless there are some serious problems.
So the whole instruction doesn't make sense to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested this template to be deleted based on these same arguments, see [1]. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the flaming

[edit]

Why can't you two stop flaming each other? I suggest that you two don't edit in this category anymore. If you want that anything change, you can suggest it here. If you see a problematic edit of the other party without a decision here, you can revert it and report it here and I or someone else decide what to do one week after the suggestion after a discussion. If someone flames the other I will report it to the admins. What do you think about that?--Ma-Lik (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ma-Lik for your initiative to start remove the flaming here. I did some removal myself and also restored some order here and there in the previous talk items: All commands are placed in chronological order; they are separated on different places in one talk item; some templates are replaced with just code so they do not interfer with this standard lay out. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion here is copied to User talk:Ma-Lik#Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme by -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed

[edit]

There was just a problematic edit at the Category:Diagrams, see here. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I aggree it's problematic, because most commons user are lazy or don't estimate the right thing in the box (because the box description is not optimal). I think with this box the category gets bigger and bigger again, as it was before my first edits in this category (more than 100 Diagrams in this main cat...) Why do you think this is a better solution MDD?--Ma-Lik (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ma-Lik. I appreciate your efforts here. But I don't understand your idea here.
  • I think, it is beside the point if or if not commons user are lazy or don't estimate the right thing
  • I do agree the box description is not optimal. But I think it should be optimized by us together, not deleted again.
  • But I don't understand how the category can get bigger and bigger again, since the box automatically collapes (or at least I think it does).
So the first impression is always only one line of the box. Only the people who look into the box will find more text, with makes the category disappear. But at that moment that doesn't care.
There has been a serious discussion about this kind of category documentation recently, see here. Most people were rather critical there. In the light of this discussion I think this box is a good option and needs some further work. We could even contact the persons of that discussion and ask their opinion about this solution here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But my proposal was to discuss it first if one side disagree. And you reverted me..., please stop this or I stop my trials here and... At the moment I have no time to discuss, but I will answer in the evening.--Ma-Lik (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't reverted you. See "Looking for a more structural solution". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is same problem either you revert it yourself or...--Ma-Lik (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Let's now discuss the points from Marcel Douwe Dekker:

I think, it is beside the point if or if not commons user are lazy or don't estimate the right thing
If every user categorise the image only nearly there where they should be, it's half of the work. BTW did you maintain all the categories you created?
I do agree the box description is not optimal. But I think it should be optimized by us together, not deleted again.
If no one use it, it is needless and that happens with a suboptimal description.
But I don't understand how the category can get bigger and bigger again, since the box automatically collapes (or at least I think it does).
If every user categorise diagrams at this top category, will it be a tilt at windmills. And don't forget the phsycholgical point if here are more than ten diagrams, everyone thinks it's the right place....
So the first impression is always only one line of the box. Only the people who look into the box will find more text, with makes the category disappear. But at that moment that doesn't care.
I don't understand this point

I read the discussion, but this is not half a page these are only three or four points. And why did you put this solution in user space when it's not optimal? But it's always better to work with several people on such things, so be free to contact other people. And I'm very interested in a discussion, so I wait for your answer but please don't edit Category:Diagrams before we reach here an end of discussion point--Ma-Lik (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I think I didn't understand your objections in the first place. Maybe we can go back once more. Do you think that more editors will categorize images in the category diagram in the situation, for example here, because the categorization instruction is in a box?? If so, I wish to give you an other response. This thought didn't occur to me in the first place because the {{Categorize}}-template is still there to warn people not to do so?
Two more things. First this discussion is a follow up of the discussion of the discussion about Introduction of this category maps, see here, and the same kind of discussion I started here, see here. I think that the final solution at the category maps (stalling the category info on the talkpage) isn't perfect. I am investigating if the collapsable box can be a better solution here.
Second. You asked if I maintain all categories I created? I think I do a lot more. I recategorized about 5000 images last month. But maybe I got this Question wrong also?
One last thing. You asked me why I want to add eight lines in box in the first place? Now those eight lines are one, imcomplete and should be expended, and two only in English: These kind text could/should be in more languages. And then there is a lot more. A collapsable box gives a lot of new possibilities. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because the categorization instruction is in a box no I think more editors will categorize images in a state like this [2] of course this english introduction understand not all users but many. And {{Categorize}}-template was here before I cleaned this category, so most users ignored it... Is it possible to standard open the collapsed box to the english introduction? Maybe this could solve this problem. The discussion you mentioned above will I read tomorrow... For the second point, my fault I looked at your last edits and didn't saw any cat edits, sorry for this assumption. P.S. Timeshifter mentioned the open english solution already here: Category_talk:Diagrams/Archive_2008#Hiding_the_category_introduction --Ma-Lik (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you read the discussion by now, maybe you understand some more, why I am looking for a more structural solution. In order to do so I want to question every aspect and experiment with the category itselve. Do you understand? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand, but those things should be heavily discussed before and not after the edits. If no reactions are there things can be done. But I think Timeshifter and I are not against your changes but sceptical and I think this is most of the time good and not bad. But back to the topic, why not standard open the box? And are there any tutorials about how a good main category should look like. If not, it will be a big improvement, if someone creates it to concentrate the forces to build a standard.--Ma-Lik (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category information - Looking for a more structural solution

[edit]
Earlier discussion about this item was
* On Category talk:Maps, now archived see here
* On Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, now archived see here
* On Category talk:Diagrams, see here

I wish we could work on a more structural solution for the "category information". In order to do so, I again altered the category information:

  1. Here I altered the title and left the "see also" information out, see here.
  2. In an second option is to leave the {{Categorize}}-template out, See here

Now the "Categorization information and diagram resources" box almost only contains general information. And I think a box like this can (almost) be applied in every diagram/diagram by theme/diagram by type category. But before that I think this box needs some more improvement. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Line charts to be eliminated??

[edit]

Tonight Timeshifter has tried to eliminate the Category:Line charts making it a redirect. I have tried to turn the tied. I would appreciate if others would take a look here and give your response at Category talk:Line charts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infographic is now in English dictionaries. Diagram versus infographic. 4 major dictionaries

[edit]

Rather than repeat everything here, please see the discussion here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Diagrams}}. See agreement concerning Template:Diagrams at the bottom of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams by subject. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]