Category talk:Statistical charts and diagrams

Rename to Category:Statistical charts

There are no real diagram types in this field, only charts and graphs. So I propose to rename this category to Category:Statistical charts -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the reason to start this category in the first place was, that Wikipedia also has a w:Category:Statistical charts and diagrams. I will take a closer look at that first, and maybe start a procedure to change that category name also. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter to me which category name is used. I am not sure there is a need for this category at all. All charts and graphs are based on statistics and numbers as far as I know. I think the category should be eliminated and the subcategories put in "Charts by type". --Timeshifter (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all charts are statistical based. Examples of non statistical charts: Category: Nolan chart, Category: Natal charts, Category: Flow charts, Category:Vowel charts, so the category:Statistical charts makes sence for Pareto charts, Bar charts, Control charts, etc. So there are defined types of charts that fit in, but not all, and most are not in yet!--WikipediaMaster (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I suggest we redirect this category to Category:Statistical charts, and move the relevant images to it. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about how Wikipedia categorizes things. They make many mistakes, or they have their own reasons. Wikipedia categorizes articles too, and not just images. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe deleting this category is a good idea. I will take an other look at it. It rather depends or the current images can be relocated.

About your second remark: I am worried about the Wikipedia categorization and articles around visualization. I have allready created more then about 25 new articles there, and will procedeed. I think it is very important that the two, the English Wikipedia and Wikicommons, match. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have studied categorization a lot, and sometimes there are good reasons for Wikipedia categorization to be different from that on the Commons. Sometimes Wikipedia consolidates articles and images in parent categories because there is little reason to create subcategories on Wikipedia when there are no articles to put in them, and there are no images to put in them either. Especially when the image is already categorized in the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and most users missunderstand this category (not theme but a type category).--Ma-Lik (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)