Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme

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

Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme

[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Diagrams,_charts,_graphs_by_theme&oldid=164704419"