Category talk:Line charts

Category is located at Category:Graphs ??[edit]

I started this category 14 September 2008 with this information:

The article Line charts on Wikipedia projects:

(en) Line chart

A Line chart is a type of graph, created by connecting a series of data points together with a line.

Today 11 October 2008 this category is relocated back to Category:Graphs by Timeshifter. Now I wonder why? I don't understand. It seems to me the line chart is one type of chart and graph. There are separate articles about it in the four Wikipedia's, and this Wikicommons category is supporting this. So maybe Timeshifter can explain? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doens't make sense to me so I will restore the category for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikimedia Commons can duplicate all the categories on the different-language Wikipedias. There are so many more subcategories in the Wikipedias. "Line charts" is another name for "XY graphs." People were adding graphs to the line charts category instead of adding them to the graphs category. This causes confusion and separation of images. It is easier to consolidate the images in the graphs category where people are more likely to subcategorize and find them. You might explain line charts and XY graphs in a graphs or charts gallery. This way people could learn more. Right now "graphs" redirects to Category:Graphs. That can be changed. You might create a graphs page there similar to your diagrams by period gallery. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions are wrong:

You assume "Line charts" is another name for "XY graphs."
But Line chart are in fact "a type of graph created by connecting a series of data points together with a line".

So:

There is one charateristic type a chart or graph
Which has separe Wikipedia articles in four languages
And this deserves a separte Wikicommons category.

So I would like to recreate the category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, MDD. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your argument to start an edit war here. Let it go Timeshifter, don't you have any thing better to do. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to let you keep this duplicative category. See farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the notification[edit]

Thank you Timeshifter for finding a solution here (with the notification) we can both live with. I did separated the remarks uou added from the introduction. I hope you can live with that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I already created the chart gallery, you were proposing here, some time ago. I gave an overview of 26 different types of graphs there. I have now added that gallery in all separate categories as a reminder.

An example of how this should work here with line charts[edit]

The line chart is one particulair type of chart, and it is important to separate this in a separate category. I will give an example, how I think this should work :

I will take the current Category:Gross Domestic Product with the following 11 images.

The idea of Wikicommons is to categorize diagrams:

by theme: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.
by type: 3D, timelines, animated, tree, ladder, block, etc.

Now in this category these 11 images are categorized by the theme "Gross Domestic Product" (within the fields of Economics, Finance, Income distribution, Wealth). The next step is to categorize them by type. Now this isn't a simple as it looks:

Number 10 is a Piechart
Number 2 seems a Scatter plot
Number 4 seems to be a line chart
And number 6 and 11 could be considered line charts, all thought they don't show the data points.
Now 6 images remain, which I right now can only type as graphs.

For me it is completely natural and logical to determine the line chart here. So it can work and it should work. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are graphs except number 2 and number 10. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical types of line charts[edit]

I have start to select a number of typical types of line charts, which Timeshifter has removed again. So I will give an overview here. I recorded four types of images here:

1. The images belonging to the Wikipedia articles about line charts:

2. A select collection of typical line charts in the current category:charts.

3. And typical line charts from elsewhere

4. A selection of atypical line charts, but does fit the description. These make me wonder..!?

There seems to be litlle reason to destroy the overview here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are graphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicative category[edit]

This category duplicates Category:Graphs. Line charts are graphs. See en:Line chart. But we can keep this category. I will categorize the images as graphs also. Otherwise you will waste weeks arguing about this since you rarely compromise or agree with others. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a duplicate category. I guess this is the whole point. For you a line chart seems just a graph. For me a line chart is one of the 26 specific types of charts. Line charts are graphs you say. Yes, but they are a specific type of graphs called "line chart".

Now I don't pretend to know every thing here, but I checked some things. The term "line chart" is used rather often, with a google rate of 1 million. A lot of images are called these graphs are called line charts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Graph" is used much more often, with a Google rate of 128 million. Line charts are graphs. You could put all graphs under the category "line charts." From en:Line chart is this: "A Line chart is a type of graph created by connecting a series of data points together with a line." All graphs fit that definition. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are approaching this from a whole different angle. I guess you are right, that most graphs fit the line chart description. I guess that description is just incomplete. This is no exact science. What I am looking at it from a global/holistic/empirical angle: In real life there are a bunch of things, that are called "line charts"; there are a million hits, 5 Wikipedia's have articles about it, and Wikicommons should support this.

It is for us to decide which images should fall into this category. And if a start is made, this will set an example. To set this example I have been looking at Google image, how this looks like in real life. I noticed the example I have shown in the previous talk item, is kind of similair with that Google image search. So this all seems like a good start. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am not quite sure about some other things. I will get back to you about that.

What is a line chart[edit]

The question whether or not "a line chart is special type of chart?" has made me wonder, what exactly a line chart is? And how it is created? Now I noticed the following excellent illustration, which explains that a line chart is the visual representation of a (empirical/statistical) data collection.

This image shows that one collection of data can be represented in a bar chart, pie chart or line chart. This image is even showing both a 2D and a 3D line chart. I seems we now have two charateristics of a line chart here:

A Line chart is a type of graph created by connecting a series of data points together with a line.
A line chart is the visual representation of a (empirical/statistical) data collection

Now you Timeshifter have just stated above, that all graphs fits the first definition. Now I am not sure about that. I don't think all graphs fitt the first description. I think a real problem here is that the term w:graph is rather not determined. The statement "this is a graph" can have all kinds of meaning. This is why I question, the need for the "notification" you added in this category

Please be sure to categorize these graphs also in graph categories or subcategories. Since line charts are also graphs please do not categorize too many images here as most readers will look for graphs in Category:Graphs and its subcategories.

The question I am asking myself at the moment: Is a line chart a basic type of graph? What other basic type of graphs exist? A w:graph of a function maybe? Now my point is, that if a line chart is a basic chart, then users should categorize a lot of images here instead of not to many!? --

Finaly my conclusion here is that this is not a duplicative category, this is a main subcategory of the category:graphs...!?

Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind on telling people not to add too many images to this category. I have decided that a better solution to the problem is to encourage people to categorize these graphs by theme also. See the talk sections below. I don't have any problems with incorporating or synthesizing the ideas of others when there are logical reasons to do so. You should try it sometime.

The other definition for line chart that you have found just further shows the need for a more specific way of categorizing these graphs. This line charts category is becoming almost as broad in its scope as the parent category of Category:Graphs. That is why we put {{Categorize}} in that category.

This is a main category requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories.

It is good to categorize images more specifically. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed notification[edit]

I removed the notification.

Notification: Please be sure to categorize these graphs also in graph categories or subcategories. Since line charts are also graphs please do not categorize too many images here as most readers will look for graphs in Category:Graphs and its subcategories.

It doesn't make sense to double categorize line charts. They are just a basic type of graphs, see previous talk page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the by Timeshifter updated note again:

Note: Since line charts are actually graphs please categorize them in a subcategory of Category:Graphs such as Category:Graphs by theme so that people can find them.

Timeshifter, this note doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can ask an other Wikicommons user to explain, because I really find the note confusing. And therefor unacceptable. Sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The note is no longer confusing. See the expanded and revised note farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line charts are graphs, too[edit]

Please get consensus before removing this note again:

Note: Since line charts are actually graphs please categorize them in a subcategory of Category:Graphs such as Category:Graphs by theme so that people can find them.

Also, please read edit summaries before reverting. Otherwise, you ignore the revisions and the reasoning. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep referting this, which I think is confusing and a mistake. If you are convinced of yourself try to pursued an other user to explain your problem here, as I have asked before. In this situation it is you, who has to get consensus for the change you want to make here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who has to get consensus, because you have given no logical reason other than "I don't like it". You agree that line charts are graphs, yet you will not allow a note encouraging people to categorize a graph in a graph category.

As I said previously, you have a habit of obstinately refusing to compromise. The note has been rewritten several times to try to accommodate you. But you make no suggestions on how to improve the note. You just say "No" over and over. This is not how mature people edit.

Rewrite the note in a way you find acceptable. I will give you a day to do so before putting back the current note. I thought we agreed to avoid each other on talk pages anyway. So instead of wasting time on talk pages, try doing some constructive editing instead. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First: I am not enjoying these edit wars, and I am looking for ways to avoid them. Today I have been trying two new ways:

I have asked you to find an other experienced user to explain to me the things I don't understand.
I have redefined the need for consensus: An add-in needs consensus to be add-in, not to be removed again. Especially if some person is fanatically against it.

Now you can also ask some admins about that rule, and you can hold it against me later on. But I will stick to that for now.

Now back to the remark. I read in the notification that it states that:

every image categorized in the here as "line chart", should also be categorized as "graph".

I think this:

is a double categorization of the "diagram type" of the image,
this will over populate the category:grahps, which is a topcategory which needs to be kept clean.
On the other hand, a line chart is a type of graph, which is shown in the catgeorization.
And I don't understand your fear that people can't find them. If they look in the category graphs by type they can find this category. What is the problem here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your understanding of English is sometimes very poor. I have pointed this out before. You did not understand the meaning of the note. So when you also try to establish your own personal rules concerning consensus, then it is even more of a problem. This is because you are being obstinate without even understanding or addressing the points of others. I said that graphs should be categorized in the graphs category or a subcategory of the graphs category. Also, people look for graphs mostly by theme, not by type. The subcategory example that I gave in the note was for Category:Graphs by theme. It seems like when you get in your admitted "fanatic" mode that you understand English even less. I suggested that you rewrite the note to your satisfaction. Then we can discuss it further.--Timeshifter (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't understand the need for any extra note here. That note on the category diagrams is enough:

... Diagrams, charts and graphs are to be categorized:

by theme: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.
by type: 3D, timelines, animated, tree, ladder, block, etc.

As far as I can see there is no need for an extra rule here. Now I agree my understanding of English is sometimes very poor, but this is also a strenght. I want sure that things are kept simple.

Now your message in simple words is: "Don't forget to also categorize the images by theme". Now you could add this message in the over 100 categories created under diagram/chart/plot by theme... But I really oppose such a kinds of random messages only here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just your lack of understanding of English, but your obvious attempts at spin. Which is especially problematic considering you don't know understand the issues to begin with. You still don't understand the points of the note. Most people will not look for graphs in a chart category. You refuse to understand or acknowledge this point. Even if Category:Line charts is categorized under Category:Graphs by type. Your complete stubbornness on this issue serves no purpose. Why not just allow those of us who want things clearer to have our way now and then. I am not asking to put this note on "over 100 categories". It is not necessary. It is only necessary on categories with misleading names like this one. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and expanded note[edit]

Extra info for readers is a good thing, MDD. Otherwise why have you created so many galleries?

I went ahead and added an expanded note to the category rather than waiting for you to rewrite it. You do not seem to be making good-faith efforts at cooperation here. So there is little point in waiting any longer. Here is a revised and expanded note:

Note: Since line charts are also graphs please categorize them in a subcategory of Category:Graphs such as 'Category:Graphs by theme' so that people can find them. "Line charts" can be a confusing name for someone looking for graphs. Many people look for graphs by their theme (also known as their topic or subject matter). Graphs are not likely to be found by interested readers if only categorized in this "Line charts" category and in the top category of Category:Graphs.

Since you refuse to rewrite the note, I rewrote it and expanded it to explain better why line charts also need to be categorized in Category:Graphs by theme, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation: Find support first[edit]

The situation is real simple here. There should be some support for this kind of large complex reminders first.

The category is now in a normal configuration, just a over 100 other categories in the field of diagrams, charts, graphs and plots.
If you want to add a large add-in here, first find some supporters

I simply don't agree with your actions here. First you want to eliminate this category, now you want to leave a confusing message. There seems to be no reasons other then your own imaginary concerns. So this is a matter of cooperation here. Find some support, and I find more opposition. Don't continue to add-in the same kind of remarks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation. Try cooperating, not spinning facts[edit]

Why don't you try cooperating, MDD, instead of just talking about cooperating? You so rarely cooperate with others who make suggestions, or who disagree with you. Stop spinning a few simple sentences into "large complex reminders." Many categories have a few sentences of helpful info. Your actions look ridiculous here. Here is the latest note:

Note: Most graphs could be called "line charts" also. Many readers will only look for graphs in graph categories. These graphs are not likely to be found by most readers if only categorized in this "Line charts" category. Please categorize them also in Category:Graphs by theme so that readers can search for graphs by their subject matter. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are becoming really annoying. Try to convince somebody else, who can convince me. Your messages just don't seem to make any sense to me. You seem not to undersatnd what a line chart is, and want to share your confusion with every body here. Please keep this to your self. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say this short note is "large complex reminders"? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design of a other notification here[edit]

I can agree on making an exception here with a "note". But I am still trying to figger out what kind of message this should be. I would start a message with:

Notification: All images in this category, like all diagrams, charts and graphs, should be categorized by theme also, such as: Astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc. Appropriate categories could be found under Category:Graphs by type or Category:Charts by type.

This is a general type of message, which could be added on some other controvercial places. Is this some thing you can live with? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will work. Thanks. I clarified some English ('note' is correct, not 'notification'), and added a sentence. Also, I think you meant to use theme categories. Here is the slightly revised note:

Note: All images in this category, like all diagrams, charts and graphs, should be categorized by theme also, such as: astronomy, biology, economics, politics, etc.. Appropriate categories may be found under Category:Graphs by theme or Category:Charts by theme. Line charts are graphs so some people may look for them in the graphs by theme category first.

The last sentence can be removed, of course, when this note is used in other categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can compromis with that sentence, but I made a little change. A line chart is both a chart and a graph. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs gallery[edit]

As I said earlier you might explain line charts as part of a graphs gallery. I started one here:

Graphs

Maybe model it after the other galleries that you have done for charts and graphs. See a list of chart and graph gallery pages linked from here:

Charts and graphs

Such as:

This is a better use of your time than arguing and drama on talk pages.

By the way, I thought the Commons preferred plural names for category and gallery pages. Maybe ask some admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agee a gallery would be a mayor improvement here, and I am thinking about it's design. As to the sigular and plural names. I think:

galleries should be sigular, because in an other gallery one should be able to link to both the singular and the plural form easily. The easiest way to accomplish this is to make it singular.
just categories should be plural

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is no rule concerning singular or plural names for galleries. Categories should normally be plural. See Commons:Categories#Category name. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply smart to keep the galleries singular if you want to start making inline links between the galleries. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be slightly easier when making inline links, but plural names for galleries is better English. Back to the English problem again. You are not a native speaker of English, and you just don't realize or care much about the many clarity problems you create. I don't have this problem with most other non-native speakers of English. They are willing to take advice. Why are you so unwilling to take advice or to compromise at times? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. It is efficient and effective to keep the galleries singular. Plural can´t be just better English then singular. I don´t have to be a nattive speaker to understand that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are compilations of images. They are not single images. There is a simple way to make inline links work for both the singular and plural forms of a name. That is what I did with the graphs page. Click these links to see what I mean:

graph redirects to graphs.

Feel free to edit that page. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Line charts

Contents