Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold[edit]

“Baelde style” is not a significant information, this category title is conceived to hide images. “Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra” and “Category:SVG_Kepler-Poinsot_solids” are sufficient, the present subcategory can be removed.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No separate discussion needed for the subcategory. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style. Watchduck (quack) 12:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories you created are not on the same level, the present one is a subcategory of the other. You hide in this one 44 images I created, out of which 10 show at the same time convex and nonconvex polyhedra, not only Kepler‑Poinsot solids. So these ten images should be in Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra:

In my previous list of 10 images, I forgot deliberately images where the two kinds of polyhedra, convex or not, are a little more difficult to see. Here are these 9 images:

Each of these nine images shows two concentric regular polyhedra, one is convex, the other is not convex. So these nine images should be in Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra and Category:Concentric_objects. Like those of the previous list, they should be removed from the crazy category: Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3-fold.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even bother to put your images in the respective subcategories Great dodecahedron, Great icosahedron, Great stellated dodecahedron and Small stellated dodecahedron. Neither did you put those you mention above in Icosahedron or Dodecahedron. It's a bit strange that you care about SVG regular polyhedra and Concentric objects instead, but fair enough. Subsets of this set can be added to all these categories. But none of this changes the fact that these images are part of a set. Diffusing these images in more specific subsets can be done when a better name is found. (I will not propose one, because you will not accept it anyway.)

Just for the sake of clarity: You were hiding these images when you put them only in SVG regular polyhedra (and some in Concentric objects), because they were not (directly or indirectly) in Kepler-Poinsot solids. Watchduck (quack) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is unclear. By a first step, you could admit you categorized wrongly 19 SVG images in your “Category:Kepler‑Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3‑fold”: these images show at the same time Platonic solids and Kepler‑Poinsot solids. I propose a transfer of these SVG images from “Category:Kepler‑Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3‑fold” to “Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra”. I divided previously the list of these 19 images into two sublists, only to help anyone to examine at first these drawings, and then think about our problem. If you disagree with me about this transfer, you can expose your objection.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, my answer is not unclear. I generally have my doubts that you actually read and understand answers. Your answers usually don't show any sign of it.

Each of these files has to be in some subcategory of Kepler-Poinsot solids. The category we talk about is such a category. SVG regular polyhedra is not. Watchduck (quack) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 19 images I talk about do not show only non convex regular polyhedra. So they are wrongly in your “Category:Kepler‑Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style;_3‑fold”.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All 44 images currently in this category show Kepler-Poinsot solids, and thus have to be in a subcategory of Kepler-Poinsot solids. Some can additionally be added to other categories. Watchduck (quack) 16:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You admit, but you are far too vague. You removed four images from Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style after its nomination for discussion, for example this image (5 September 2018, 16:37 came after 08:45). Why this removal? No image in the current “Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style”, why did you create this unattractive subcategory of “Category:SVG_Kepler-Poinsot_solids”? Someone who reaches this subcategory page reads the present category title, and reads “Baelde_style” again. And after the second semicolon, this present title ends almost with a real information: “3‑fold”. Why not categorize in Category:3-fold_rotational_symmetry?

I wrote a beginning of content description of Category:SVG_regular_polyhedra, currently discussed. On this other discussion page, we could finalize all the details of this content description. Could you try to be clear?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit what?

The four images where overcategorized, and I changed that. (1, 2, 3, 4)

This is dihedral, not just rotational symmetry. The discussed category is in Orthographic projections of polyhedra; with 3-fold dihedral symmetry. To put each of these images directly in 3-fold dihedral symmetry would be against the modularity principle — you know, the rule you choose to ignore, because you don't like it.

I chose to create the nested 3-fold category as a precaution, expecting that 2-fold and 5-fold images in the same style may follow. If you don't intend to create such images, the subcategory can indeed be removed. Then the whole image set will be directly in 3-fold polyhedra. Watchduck (quack) 11:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: “I chose to create the nested 3-fold category as a precaution, expecting that 2-fold and 5-fold images in the same style may follow. If you don't intend to create such images, the subcategory can indeed be removed”. Therefore you use also images that do not exist to complicate searches and comparisons of real images. My opinion is unchanged, style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry, therefore any category with “style” or certain colors in its title must be removed, like the present category and the parent category.

You wrote: “This is dihedral, not just rotational symmetry”. I disagree, because a space under rotation can be two‑dimensional or three‑dimensional.

You wrote: “some can additionally be added to other categories”, therefore you know you had not properly categorized these images. But you admit by proposing to add other categories to the 19 images I listed above. Perhaps you did not read my begining of content description, on “SVG_regular_polyhedra”, when “SVG_Platonic_solids” was the only subcategory. In the logic of this beginning of description, I propose to tranfer the listed images from this discussed category to their initial category: “SVG_regular_polyhedra”.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time:

You were hiding these images when you put them only in SVG regular polyhedra (and some in Concentric objects), because they were not (directly or indirectly) in Kepler-Poinsot solids.
All 44 images currently in this category show Kepler-Poinsot solids, and thus have to be in a subcategory of Kepler-Poinsot solids.

Images of Kepler-Poinsot or Platonic solids belong in their respective subcategories, and nothing you write in the description of SVG regular polyhedra can change that.

"I disagree, because a space under rotation..." Fine. Feel free to disagree.

"My opinion is unchanged, style or colors are secondary informations in this geometry..." Fine. According to you all image sets of Kepler-Poinsot solids should be emptied into Kepler-Poinsot solids (or even higher categories). As long as you don't try to do it, feel free to have that opinion.

You made no proposal for renaming, and your demand to under-categorize images is not acceptable. I will now rename the category, and properly subcategorize by the solids shown, so nothing remains to be done. Watchduck (quack) 17:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I suppose you will not like it, but you would not like anything in accordance with COM:CAT.

The renamed category Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG is in SVG Kepler-Poinsot solids.
It has four subcategories for the actual solids. E.g. Small stellated dodecahedron; colorful 3-fold SVG, which is in Small stellated dodecahedron.
Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with Platonic solids is in SVG Platonic solids.
Its subcategory Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with hulls is in Concentric objects.
And of course Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron is in Dodecahedron. Same for icosahedron.

Everything is where it belongs now. Nothing remains to be done. This discussion (and its twin) should be closed now. Watchduck (quack) 18:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By writting on the page top: "No separate discussion needed for the subcategory. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_Baelde_style", you had tried to escape from any discussion on this page. And now, you changed the category content before this discussion is closed, it is not correct. You are still flouting the following principle to categorize these SVG images: the topic of each image must prevail over its colours or its "style".
Arthur Baelde (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject is more important than the way it is presented. As usual when you state something correct it is part of a straw man. You are implying that images in this category are not correctly categorized by subject. But they are. Watchduck (quack) 21:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as usual when you have no answer, you start a new discussion about the same topic instead: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with Platonic solids Watchduck (quack) 10:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to evade from this discussion, so I have to recall certain facts. Numerous precise examples of your wrong work are given on this page. And your answers are constantly general remarks, never you had taken one image as an example. For example, everyone can read this file history and state the fact: you changed the category content before this discussion is closed, and it is not correct.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your formatting choices are as bad as your ideas about categorization. Any other user would keep images on the default right side, but of course you have to add the left keyword to mess up the indentation.

"precise examples of your wrong work" See my for the last time remark above.

"never you had taken one image as an example" Currently every image in this category is correctly categorized. If you want to claim the opposite, give an example of one that is not.

"the categorization of this image changed" As stated above: The four images where overcategorized, and I changed that. (1, 2, 3, 4)

"you changed the category content before this discussion is closed" If an experienced user takes your side, I will have a constructive conversation with that user. Otherwise I consider this discussion closed.

Watchduck (quack) 19:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again: You have no answer, so you just started a new discussion about the same topic (and already removed the links to this discussion on the category page). Just because the category has a new name does not mean that the discussion needs a new name as well. If anything remains to be said, it can be said here. Watchduck (quack) 11:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, Arthur Baelde is trying to hide this discussion and start a new one with the same topic. Probably he thinks that his inability to actually take part in a discussion is less obvious this way. I do not accept this tactic of diversion by redundancy, and copy his last post from there to here. Watchduck (quack) 11:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly Arthur Baelde has not answered, but started new discussions about subcategories instead. I move them here under their own headlines.
This is clearly not a good-faith attempt to keep different topics apart for the sake of clarity, but an attempt to start the same discussion over and over again. Watchduck (quack) 17:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that Arthur Baelde is trying to hide this discussion, I did not exaggerate. He now made a deletion request for this discussion page. Watchduck (quack) 13:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG[edit]

Same topic, according to the image names.

According to their names, the two adjacent images show a same polyhedron. The first image is the last drawing of an old image used on Wikipedia, also visible on Star polyhedron for example. The second image is currently categorized in Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids;_colorful_3-fold _SVG. But Watchduck would like to avoid the discussion.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies that these images show a great dodecahedron, and unsurprisingly both can be found in Great dodecahedron. You made essentially the same post in the gray with yellow face discussion, and I have already responded there. Watchduck (quack) 11:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron[edit]

This category should be removed, its unclear title does not correspond to its content.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Watchduck had stored the adjacent image in the following categories:

Here is its current categorization:

“Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids; colorful 3-fold_SVG; with_dodecahedron” ends with “dodecahedron”, does that mean “with Platonic dodecahedron”?

“Category:Kepler-Poinsot_solids; colorful 3-fold_SVG; with_dodecahedron_hull” ends with “dodecahedron hull”, does that mean “with a convex hull of twelve faces”?
Arthur Baelde (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...with dodecahedron and ...with icosahedron are in ...with Platonic solids. So, guess what, we are talking about the regular dodecahedron.

Great stellated dodecahedron; colorful 3-fold SVG has the ...with dodecahedron hull subcategory.

It contains those images of the gsD where you indicated the convex hull, which is a dodecahedron. Yes, the regular dodecahedron. With twelve faces.

Watchduck (quack) 18:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with icosahedron[edit]

This category should be removed, its unclear title does not correspond to its content.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains every image in the set that in any way shows a regular icosahedron. Its content exactly matches its name. Watchduck (quack) 18:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with hull[edit]

This category should be removed, notably because Category:Convex hull already exists.
Arthur Baelde (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably the only person on Commons who thinks that the existence of a parent category is a reason to delete a subcategory. Watchduck (quack) 18:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold

Contents

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with icosahedron[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with hull[edit]

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; Baelde style; 3-fold[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with dodecahedron[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with icosahedron[edit]

Category:Kepler-Poinsot solids; colorful 3-fold SVG; with hull[edit]

Navigation menu

Search