Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/07/Category:Charts

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Charts

After the description, Charts should be a subcategory of Diagrams⁉ ↔ User:Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I clarified it by rewording the confusing part. See diff. Charts should definitely not be a subcategory of diagrams. Charts and diagrams are both very broad and general terms with many meanings in general discussion. They have both been subcategories of Category:Information graphics for a long time now, and I think that is where they should stay. And not as subcategories of each other. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks for response, but in German, Charts don't exists and is nearly equal as Diagramms. And the text you removed is 1:1 from the English article… ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's confusing, because the words are used loosely with varying definitions. enwiki doesn't seem to help much: en:Diagram lists charts and graphs as different kinds of diagrams, while en:Chart starts out by saying that a chart is also called a graph, but does confirm that charts can be a kind of diagram. It also says charts can be maps, and one could ask whether maps are also diagrams. --ghouston (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of diagram:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diagram

1 : a graphic design that explains rather than represents; especially : a drawing that shows arrangement and relations (as of parts)

2 : a line drawing made for mathematical or scientific purposes

Neither one sounds like charts and graphs.

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A diagram is a type of chart by their reckoning [1], but definitions will vary. Wiktionary has it both ways: a chart is a type of diagram [2] and a diagram is a type of chart [3]. I wonder if we should have a high-level category like "diagrams, charts and graphs", and let the subcategories distinguish well-defined types. --ghouston (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There's another discussion at Category talk:Graphs. Category:Graphs is a disambiguation. --ghouston (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chart

That's interesting that Merriam-Webster dictionary thinks it is in the opposite direction than any of us were thinking in our discussions on the Commons. That diagrams are charts. Things keep changing in English usage. But even though that definition may be true for some people, it sure does not feel like popular usage.

See also: Category talk:Information graphics. I like Orrling's comment:

What I like in the "Information graphics" form is that it makes very clear to every user - and most of us are probably not from North America - that it has the two distinct thematic kernels: information --- and --- graphics, now matched together to accomplish a specific idea. "Infographics" is very OK as much as other portmanteaus are OK, I just notice that "Information graphics" is more directly reflective of the actual essence preserving the whole "information" basis.

Information graphics or infographics includes a lot more than just "diagrams, charts and graphs". It includes maps too. See the intro to Category:Information graphics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographics

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

 Not done: no consensus, not much of a proposal found in this discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)