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.
The circles categories are a bit of a mess at the moment. What I cannot fathom is what purpose the category circle is serving that isn't served by either circles or circles (geometry). Therefore I propose
I don't really have strong feelings regarding such a category. I think it might make plain circles easier to find, but it's not a must-have. --Rimshot13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally sounds fine, I can see it would be good to have a category to put all those coloured rings in (simple svg circles of different colours) but I don't think 'plain circles' is quite right. Maybe also a category "Concentric rings" to match the page Concentric rings.
I will not have serious objections against a category for plain or simple circle-illustrations, but I wonder if it would not be better to leave them in/move them to category:circles, and make them easy accesible via a gallerypage. I started making one, plain circles, but decided to wait with the rest until it's decided whether there should be a separate category for them (in which case there would be no need for a gallery... ;-) Finn Rindahl18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. An extra name between parenthesis is usally for disambiguation, but there is nothing to disambiguate
3. This category contains geometrical figures and, in my opinion, “to show a circle” is not a pertinent feature in order to properly categorize geometric figures. --Juiced lemon19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for 1.: you're right of course, but I really wanted to fix circle first. 2. Well, yes there is. Anything with a circular form can be in the category circles, for example something like this. An image like this, on the other hand is about the geometric properties of a circle - it's therefore rightfully in the category Circles (geometry). Of course there is no need to separate these, but it is a natural way, I think, of diffusing the category. 3. That might be something to argue about, but I think in the example I gave it is quite a pertinent feature that this image contains a circle. --Rimshot21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've summarized the positions so far, you may vote here if you wish. I hope this gets the discussion a bit organized. For the other issues, it might be best to start under a new heading. --Rimshot12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGallery. If plain circles are what you are looking for, you should be given an easy way to find them. After some thinking I prefer a gallery, because it can group the circles by colour/structure/anything. I cannot think of a better name, but go ahead if you know one.--Rimshot12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this summary before. I believe we should go through with the three suggestions above, and I'm willing to take responsibility for expanding that gallerypage I started. I'm not going to vote, however, since I belive this is a matter that could (and should) be resolved by consent, and not by voting. If there were two distinctly different alternatives voting might be "the last way out", I don't believe that's the case here :-) Finn Rindahl12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there is no kind of process yet for CFDs on commons. I thought a "vote" might be a good way to make the different points of view clearer. --Rimshot13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having had another look I find I now see the point of having a category:plain circles as well, they're now easy available in the gallery (thank you rimshot!) and are just confusing category:circles... Sorry for speaking against this initially :-( Finn Rindahl22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started: I've moved the subcategories and pages, and placed a category redirect. A number of images still need to be moved. --rimshottalk12:38, 11 July 2007 (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.
Because the former was created first (by the same user, who has also created other apparent duplicate categories) and has more entries, perhaps? I think the choice is rather arbitrary, but we should avoid redundancy. —LX (talk, contribs)19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a lot of time to undo some of this user's edits. What is the purpose of Category:Round?
I think some users confuse categories with keywords. Categories are software features for browsing, and have to be cautiously used. --Juiced lemon20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suppose it's not the most meaningful name for a category. If either of the categories in question are kept, they should be used judiciously. Category:Circles would probably be a better category in most cases. "Round" isn't really well-defined geometrically or in any other way. —LX (talk, contribs)21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the deletion of Category:Round forms, so don't say I stray from the issue, when you are doing so. In any case, if you wish, we may discuss other issues here as well. I think that an image like this belongs rather to Category:Round than to Category:Circles. As I said, if we keep to the point we have a higher chance in finishing this particular discussion. If you want to discuss the merit of Category:Round or Category:Shapes, please start a new discussion. --rimshottalk12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A category is not needed in order to tag a picture. Another user explained in the village pump that you can add any tag with a template, like {{keyword}}. Then, you can search media files with the catscan tools, and select the templates you want or don't want.
Accumulation of category links doesn't help to browse through the database. I think that these links have to be limited, in order to allow the reader to understand the scheme of Commons category structures. --Juiced lemon11:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to that discussion? A quick search hasn't given me much information about this template. As Man vyi said, though, how am I to find pictures of round things? We can expect (most) users to know about categories, can we expect them to know about the CatScan tool? --rimshottalk12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was possibly refering to my suggestion tagged onto the end of this discussion (look for the paragragh Well, there is a solution™.) or other similar previous or subsequent versions. But I think the idea of tagging images by features that don't really describe the image but break it down to elements is re-creating a classification system that has previously been advocated Commons:Image_classification_system, but not adopted. "This is a system that does not describe the purpose or typical usage of an image, only its content" (eg a sheriffs badge is classified as a 'seven pointed star'). This seems to be the ultimate classification system thats starts with the idea of lets categorize it as 'round' - if this system is implimented our category system isn't really suited to it, but perhaps template tags could be used (but this is a huge job). As for the 'catscan' tool, it is on every category page, so is not completely obscure :-) --Tony Wills09:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. In that case, of course, the question remains: how do I come up with the idea to search for a template named round? The category system allows navigation through a tree, which makes for much more natural discovery of categories. As for the catscan link: there is no catscan link when you're using the Cologne Blue skin, as I do ;) --rimshottalk12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
