Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams by subject

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

Category:Diagrams by subject[edit]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams.

Merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: So long as Category:Diagrams are a valid subcat of Category:Information graphics, wouldn't it be valid to maintain their respective "by subject" indices? Josh (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line between diagrams, schemas, charts and information graphics is thin at best and poorly defined. I think it's better to keep "by subject" to the broader category. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Joshbaumgartner: First of all, I do not understand why this proposal was placed to this one category, not to the top category of the whole tree of Diagrams, or to whatever of sister categories of this category.

I do not want to interfere in a dispute between native speakers and judge how an educated and acquainted native speaker can understand that word and how an uneducated or quirky native speaker can understand that word. I would just like to remind that Commons is not a project of English native speakers, but an international project where English serves as an international language of communication and its use must be subordinated to this purpose. A dialectology of English is not essential for this purpose. Now we must all - native and non-native speakers - assume and respect the fact that currently and since a long time ago, the whole category tree of Category:Diagrams is consensually used in the same sense as in the en:wiki article Diagram and its ca 50 language equivalents. Above all, however, I want to oppose any other chaotic and ill-considered interventions that disrupt the consistency of the project. Chaotic craating of new categories and emptying of old ones (instead of proper discussion and possible proper relocation), disrupting the logic of the categorization consistency and structure, disrupting of interwikis etc. The use of the word "diagram" in the current meaning is widespread in many items and fields, into hundreds and thousands of subcategories, and a possible change of interpretation and renames would mean a gigantic amount of work and almost certainly would mean a significant disruption of the whole system not only in Commons but also in en:Wikipedia, Wikidata and links with other projects.

I'm not sure whether simple and short definitions from general language dictionaries are the best proof of the full range of meaning of technical terms. On the one hand, some of these dictionaries also mention a graph of a mathematical type as one of the meanings of the word "diagram" (and this type of dictionary certainly cannot be expected to exhaustively describe all existing and possible types of such diagrams/graphs/charts). Also from the long-standing consensus in Wikipedia and Commons, I would conclude that even among native English speakers, there are many people who understand the word diagram in the sense in which it is used and understood throughout the world. Eg. Venn diagram, Hovmöller diagram etc. are apparently called "diagrams" and count among diagrams also by educated native English speakers. Btw. the Chart article says: "A data chart is a type of diagram or graph, that organizes and represents a set of numerical or qualitative data." So I dare say that to the significant majority of native English speakers, this meaning must be at least somewhat known.

If it were really the case that the word "infographic" has the meaning in English that the word "diagram" has in Commons, Wikipedia and the rest of the world, then it would really be possible to solve the situation by renaming the categorization tree of diagrams. However, I am afraid that the word 'infographics' means, in the first place, graphics which do not correspond to that meaning. Pictograms, signs, logos, navigation symbols, coprorate liveries etc. etc. Thus, deleting the categorization tree of diagrams will cause the diagrams (in the present meaning) to be mixed between all kinds of graphic informational symbols, signs, logos, drawings, cartoons etc. And even if in native English the word "infographics" evokes primarily graphs, it would be misleading to the rest of the world, causing frequent miscategorization. E.g. in my country, "infografika" is a term primarily for "communication using symbols and signs" (even though graphs and other mathematical diagrams can fall under infograhic in a broader sense). But that's not my main argument - my main argument is a long-term consensus on the Commons and the English Wikipedia. --ŠJů (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů and Joshbaumgartner:
  1. I think we should be using "Information graphics" not "infographics"
  2. I think "Information graphics" is a broader category than "diagram" since it includes maps, but depending on the definition of diagrams vs graph vs chart, may also include other things not included in the category "diagrams."
  3. As alluded to in #2, I think the meanining of "diagram" is somewhat ambiguous, particularly with "charts" and "graphs". Is a pie chart a diagram or a chart? Are family trees charts or diagrams? What about timelines? Are charts diagrams or something else? And graphs? And that's just in English. The word is used (in some form) in many languages, and there the definition may also vary. You'll not that "pie chart" in Czech is "Kruhový diagram." Information graphics, by comparison is explicit in its meaning - it's a graphic image created to convey information. I don't think anyone would dispute that graphs, charts and diagrams are all information graphics.
  1. Given #2 and #3, I think "Information graphics" is where narrowing by subject should begin, not in a subcategory like "diagrams."
Finally, I don't really see this creating a tremendous amount of work or disruption. It would make things clearer. It would make things easier to sort, and easier to find. I don't think any of these categories are signficantly linked via wikidata. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Yes, "Information graphics" is a very broad category which include whatever – including pictograms and symbols, informational cartoons, typefaces, informational use of colors and shapes etc. That's why Commons needs also a specific category tree for the narower meaning which means "diagrams" in the common sense, i.e. de facto mathematical graphics. Such a categorization tree has existed here for a long time, it works, and so far the vast majority of users and editors of Commons and en:Wikipedia have respected and understood it. No one has come up with a better idea yet, and on the contrary, your attempts have brought chaos and inconsistency into the system. As we can see, some of the linked dictionares mention that meaning and count "graphs" and "charts" among "diagrams". The problem is that you copy only the references to dictionaries everywhere, and at the same time you do not explain your interpretations and thought processes. However, it does not follow from these dictionaries that the current practice and consensus are incorrect. And even after a long communication with you, it is still not clear what you actually consider a diagram and what you do not, and why. Collins Dictionary mention: "a chart or graph explaining or illustrating ideas, statistics, etc." – Exactly! or "a pictorial representation of a quantity or of a relationship" – Concise! How does it imply that we should mix diagrams with other infographics, as you did?
At that moment, I see no better solution than to respect the meaning of the word "diagram" which is consensually used in en:Diagram#Gallery of diagram types and the current Commons category tree. You are right that maps are a very specific type of diagrams (they are more "realistic" than purely theoretical diagrams) and therefore do not have to be directly between diagrams of a purely mathematical type and can be moved up one level among other infographics. After all, even in the COVID-19 categories, maps were separate from the beginning. --ŠJů (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding you. What references to dictionaries have I copied? What long communication have we had? Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? If you are unclear about what I consider a diagram or not, see point #2 for an explanation - it's an ambiguous term with varied, conflicting definitions. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). Concerning the definition of diagram; there has never been any agreement on the Commons.

One non-native speaker of English basically took over the editing of the diagram page on English Wikipedia in 2008 and steam-rolled that page into his non-native definition of diagram. No one bothered to correct it since then, and I rarely fight tag teams in Wikipedia articles anymore.

The Wikipedia article on diagrams has references. The version I am looking at today was last edited on July 10, 2020. None of the current references are dictionary references. Most of the references are inaccessible online. The 2 references that are currently accessible online are not used to show that tables, graphs, and maps are diagrams. So the Wikipedia article is incorrect in saying that tables, graphs, and maps are diagrams.

This is an example of this: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can not use the Wikipedia article itself as a reference on the Commons. We have to look at the actual references in Wikipedia articles.

  • See: en:dictionary. In that Wikipedia article the major dictionaries with long histories are described and named. Those dictionaries do not describe tables, graphs, and maps as diagrams:

Find the major dictionary definitions with this Google search:

Those major dictionary definitions of diagram:

Oxford dictionary:

Collins dictionary:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cambridge dictionary:

So ŠJů is basically inventing a new English definition of diagram.

Infographic is now an accepted term in common English:

Oxford dictionary:

Collins dictionary:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cambridge dictionary:

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, quoted in Collins above, shows exactly why this will not be easily resolved by a dictionary:
  1. a geometric figure, used to illustrate a mathematical statement, proof, etc.
  2. a sketch, drawing, or plan that explains a thing by outlining its parts and their relationships, workings, etc.
  3. a chart or graph explaining or illustrating ideas, statistics, etc.
In short, the question is which of these equally valid senses of the word we mean to use here on Commons. A reference work cannot tell us that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that same Collins page farther down it has the traditional definition of diagram. From Collins English dictionary. For British English.
And on the other 3 dictionary pages for diagram, the traditional definition of diagram is used.
So maybe the word diagram is in transition. But infographic is well defined now.
And the latest Webster's definition is using the traditional definition of diagram.
This is creating real problems with parallel category trees that confuse the average native English speaker used to the traditional definition of diagram. See example here:
Category talk:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic
We have a perfectly fine word, "infographic", where COVID-19 charts, diagrams, maps, and graphs can all be categorized within without confusion.
And we have the example of this category discussion about merging the 2 parallel category trees into Category:Information graphics by subject.
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the definition of diagram is considered to be the same as the definition for infographic, then that means there will thousands of COVID-19 tables, graphs, and maps that will be unnecessarily categorized in both of these COVID-19 categories:
Category:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic
Category:Diagrams about the COVID-19 pandemic
This is where this latest discussion on diagrams and infographics began.
--Timeshifter (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Then Category:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic should be removed from those files as COM:OVERCAT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Infographics has been an accepted category since 2008. See:
Category:Information graphics
There is no question about the fact that maps, tables, and graphs are infographics. So they are correctly categorized in infographic categories.
If you look at the diagrams category you see the wikidata definition: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". That is the traditional definition of diagram. See:
Category:Diagrams
You say we should keep the status quo. What is the status quo? Define it for me. Do you mean the status quo as defined by decades of traditional dictionary definitions? Or the new status quo as invented in the last few years by a few non-native speakers of English who are trying to use their language's definition of diagram as a new status quo.
Currently, the Covid-19 diagram category is a subcategory of the Covid-19 infographics category. That is the traditional logic. Even ŠJů recognizes that because he made it that way. No one can logically claim that the infographics category is a subcategory of the diagrams category.
--Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My definitions from the peanut gallery (per request). I am a native speaker of American English. 1) diagram - it used to be a hand drawn (but now computer drawn) figure / sketch / drawing / architectural plan to illustrate an idea or object's details. In my opinion it does not include graphs. Well known diagrams are Venn diagram, flow charts, tree diagram. 2) infographic - a rarely used term for an informational graphic. A graphic used to convey information. This is a superset to diagram. It includes: diagram, chart, graph (XY, linear, bar, etc.), pie graph, etc. To summarize, I agree diagram should be "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole" and infograms should be "maps, tables, and graphs" along with diagrams. Change to what @Timeshifter: is advocating. Royalbroil 02:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Royalbroil: Category:Diagrams currently has this Wikidata definition of diagram that you quoted:
"plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole"
The above definition has been on Wikidata since this Dec 1, 2018 edit:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q959962&oldid=803250119
A simple solution might be to place {{Diagrams}} on all diagram categories.
Just as {{Propaganda}} is placed on many propaganda categories.
Possible message produced by {{Diagrams}}:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Tables, graphs, and maps are not diagrams.
--Timeshifter (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. I wonder what the other commenters think: @Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, ŠJů, and Jeff G.: . Royalbroil 12:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with Category:Charts, Category:Charts by language, Category:Charts by type? Are Category:Eye charts diagrams? Category:Record charts? Category:Nautical charts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I don't think I would put Category:Eye charts as a subcategory of diagrams. Eye charts are just lines of text at varying sizes. I think it is correctly categorized under Charts by type. And also under Information graphics by subject.
Category:Nautical charts are categorized under both maps by type, and Information graphics by subject. Because many nautical charts have more info than just map info.
Category:Record charts is categorized under charts. It seems to be correctly categorized according to the chart definitions at Category:Charts.
Category:Charts by language seems to be correctly categorized under Charts. And also under Information graphics by language.
Category:Charts by type seems to be correctly categorized under Charts.
--Timeshifter (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: So Category:Charts will not become a sub-category of Category:Diagrams? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Currently, Category:Charts is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. I agree with that. Charts are not a subcategory of diagrams if the traditional definition of diagrams is used. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Themightyquill: What do you think of this solution? You started this discussion, and you initially wanted to merge all of the items in Category:Diagrams by subject into Category:Information graphics by subject. Instead of trying to merge everything I suggest merging items like tables, graphs, and maps into subcategories of Category:Information graphics. A simple way to do that would be to add the {{Diagrams}} template to all diagram categories and subcategories. Have a look at the latest version of the template. Over time nearly all tables, graphs, and maps will end up in subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Statistics, Charts, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think it's a mess and will continue to be problematic, but I don't see any better solution for now. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill, thanks. Royalbroil, I think you already agreed to using {{Diagrams}} on diagram categories. What do you think of it now with the current wording:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Tables, graphs, and maps are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the updated wording. Royalbroil 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the wording of the template according to the Diagram article which represents the long-standing Wikipedia and Commons consenus and usage. Timeshifter's wording and view are in stark contrast to them. The general consensus is that diagrams are not just expanded views, but also all other types of diagrams. This is confirmed not only by the long-term consensus and usus on the Commons and Wikipedia, but also by the many quotations that the colleague brought here, but he misinterprets them. --ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ŠJů. I reverted your change to Template:Diagrams. The template was agreed to here. Do not change it without further discussion here, and agreement here where discussion has been ongoing. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Reverted back. Your wording contains obvious untruths and mistakes, in addition disrupts the long-term consensus and the existing category structure and ignores arguments from this discussion, which is not closed yet. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your unagreed-to changes again. Please stop your edit war.
Here is the current wording of the template before your edit war:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Maps, and basic statistical tables, charts, and graphs, are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus on your reduction of the term "Diagram" was achieved here, this discussion was not properly closed yet. My version of the template describes the longstanding current consensus, based on the meaning which is consensually described in Diagram article in the last 12 years, and the whole categorization structure of Commons is based on it. Not only the definitions on Wikipedia, but also many of the external sources you provide describe the term "diagram" more broadly than you promote it. A asked admins to take action against your headstrong disruption of the project. A link to the corresponding Wikipedia article is sufficient to define the term "diagram". If any additional explanation is needed, one that will prevent your mistaken opinion.--ŠJů (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people (including 2 admins) agreed here about Template:Diagrams. Closure about the Category:Diagrams by subject is separate from the template agreement. You initiated this edit war. The template has been around since August 2020. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Themightyquill, an admin who agrees with this template, and who initiated this category discussion, no longer wants to "merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject." That was his initial proposal (see the original proposal at the top). Instead he prefers this template. As I said this template agreement is a separate agreement. So no one remains who wants the initial category proposal passed. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant in the substantive discussion who has the function of administrator or other technical function, but who can objectively respond to arguments and correctly interpret the sources. For example, a discussant who accuses me of inventing a concept that has existed consensualy and independently of me for 12 years on Wikipedia and the Commons, should be disqualified from the discussion and his demands should not be taken into account at all. The fact that there is a general meaning of the word "diagram", which includes not only exploded views but also quantitative diagrams, is obvious and proven, also by many of your sources. If we are solving a problem, then it is a question of how to satisfy people who do not know this general meaning and are not willing to take it into account. However, if such people ignore the discussion and only disrupt the categorization system, then they should be directed. --ŠJů (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see previous discussion. And for those who are interested see:
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit war about Diagrams template
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also:

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams_by_subject&oldid=613081522"