Talk:Diagram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Visualization.
 

Article improvement[edit]

Good work on improving this article Mdd - it was in dire need of attention. I can accept your removal of the schematic diagram I introduced since, according to the definition you provide, this is probably better categorised as a technical illustration (pity that that topic is so poorly represented). I will try and get a better version of the existing flow diagram for the article. Dhatfield (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your copyediting. I hope to make some more improvements to this article sone, and the further respresentation of visualization techniques is Wikipedia. There is a lot of work here. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
At present some statements are scattered in the article on what a diagram is, but a more exact definition is already provided. The statements aren't very accurate, either; e.g. saying that "a diagram is a drawing with text" suggests that a map or a building plan is a diagram, which it is only in the broad sense. I like the two-part definition and I think the other statements should be merged in or go away completely. Rp (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I am trying to build an article here based on reliable sources. You got to be kidding if you say "use the two part definition, and loose the rest". This definition hardly explains any thing. There should be more and more accurate description in this article.
Now you refering to the statement "a diagram is a drawing with text" as not beeing accurate. I hereby just quote Lee E. Brasseur saying "Diagrams are essentially drwaings with text." (See p.71 5th last sentence.) I think this is an excellent general text, which I wish I could copy here as a whole. If you think you can do a better job here let me know.
Now I read your are a software developer, interested in formal models and formal languages. Wouldn't you prefer a detailled section in this article about diagrams used in software development? I think there is a lot of work here... and I think it is time somebody gives this some serious attention.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree with your closing remark! There is some information about diagrams in Wikipedia, but it is incomplete and poorly organized (which is partly due to the fact that there do not seem to be good, widely accepted definitions of terms in this area). But as I explained, Brasseur's remark is at least incomplete because not all drawings with text are diagrams. Rp (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we both agree, this article can need some further improvement. But first back to Brasseurs remark. She didn't just stated "a diagram is a drawing with text". She was (only) talking about the essence:
Diagrams, according to Lee E. Brasseur (2003), are essentially drawings with text. They consist of basic lines and shapes that convey an idea. The broad category of drawings in a larger sense can include very realistic portrayals of life or objects, but diagrams are a kind of drawing that tend to show a basic abstract structure rather than a more highly contextualized or detailed view. They can be thought of as providing something akin to the essence of a situation or an idea.
In this text Brasseur both links diagrams to drawings and explains the difference:
  • drawings give highly contextualized or detailed view
  • ... while diagrams show basic abstract structure
I think that it is important to mentioning these kind of links and essences. Now I agree that these statements are just words, and I is hard or even impossible to get a clear image right away. Probably some (more) illustrations in this article could help. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some sources for article improvement[edit]

  • Blackwell, Alan F.; Engelhardt, Yuri, Olivier, P.; Anderson, M.; Meyer, B., eds., "A Meta-Taxonomy for Diagram Research", Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning, Springer-Verlag  Unknown parameter |comment= ignored (help)
  • Blackwell, Alan F.; Engelhardt, Yuri, "A Taxonomy of Diagram Taxonomies", Thinking with Diagrams 98: Is there a science of diagrams?, pp. 60–70  Abstract: A large number of taxonomic approaches have been proposed for the study of diagrammatic representations. We have reviewed existing taxonomic systems as well as current research questions in this multi-disciplinary community. Based on this review, we propose a set of taxonomic dimensions that can be used for analysing and comparing existing taxonomic systems, and for assessing their relevance to specific research questions. The proposed framework also enables a comparative positioning of the various research endeavours in this multi-disciplinary field.

Looks useful - here is another useful read: Rp (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitions of "diagram"[edit]

The next talk item started by Wikicommons Category talk:Diagrams. It is copied here and restructured by Marcel Douwe Dekker

Here below are the definitions of diagram from major dictionaries. Note that some definitions include charts and graphs, and some don't.

  1. a figure, usually consisting of a line drawing, made to accompany and illustrate a geometrical theorem, mathematical demonstration, etc.
  2. a drawing or plan that outlines and explains the parts, operation, etc., of something: a diagram of an engine.
  3. a chart, plan, or scheme.
  1. A plan, sketch, drawing, or outline designed to demonstrate or explain how something works or to clarify the relationship between the parts of a whole.
  2. Mathematics. A graphic representation of an algebraic or geometric relationship.
  3. A chart or graph.
  1. (Geom.) A figure or drawing made to illustrate a statement, or facilitate a demonstration; a plan.
  2. Any simple drawing made for mathematical or scientific purposes, or to assist a verbal explanation which refers to it; a mechanical drawing, as distinguished from an artistical one.
  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

Now there is also a definition in Wiktionary, which seems to merge the first four give definitions. Wikitionary states on diagram:

  1. A plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works, or show the relationships between the parts of a whole; electrical diagrams show device interconnections [see schematics].
  2. {{mathematics}} a graphic representation of an algebraic or geometric relationship
  3. A graph or chart

In the article itselve a defintion is given based on Lee. E. Brasseur (2003). This states, that the term "Diagram" in common sense has two meanings:[1]

  1. A collective term for any visual information device, like the term "illustration" often used as a representative term, to stand for the whole class of technical genres, including graphs and tables.
  2. The specific class of visual display, that show qualitative data with shapes that are connected by lines, arrows, or other visual links.

Now it is interesting to make a comparison. I think it is quiet simple here.

  • The "Wiktionary definition" and "Wikipedia description here" are just complementary.
  • The four dictionary - and the Wiktionary - definitions give a registration of the most general different (two or) three meanings.
  • And the Wikipedia definition gives a more general reflection on the types of use of the term in real life: it gives an overview of the broad and the specific definition of the term diagram.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate list[edit]

Hi all. I think it'd be useful to move the list of types of diagram out into a separate page (or pages). There's already List of graphical methods, which covers Graph-based and Chart-like diagrams, but not everything else. There are also physical-based diagrams, such as the exploded view, maps, tectonic plate cross-sections, and the like (there's a book called something like "Advanced Geography by Diagram").

HTH, -- TimNelson (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been a list for quite some time, since 2004/05 and became a short introduction. Three months ago I started a process to turn this into a normal article, but got stuck in the process. Now I intent to loose the list here one way or an other. I don't know if a separate list will hold. There are a group of editors against this type of lists. You could ask the WP:LIST Wikiproject. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I did take the list in WikiCommons and started transforming it into a gallery, see here, but the same story there. I did update in Wikipedia the article chart article and started some general articles such as mathematical diagram, network diagram, cluster diagram and Plot (graphics). Now I can really think of anything a separate list of diagram would solve here. I think this article needs more work, and some more specific general diagram articles would help to get a better understanding of the whole matter.
Hi again. I just realized I allready created such a list, see User:Mdd/List of diagrams. I just didn't yet implemented it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article section(s) removed[edit]

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits which caused the copyvio have been made by me in two sessions:
  • Between July 19 and July 20, 2008, see here.
  • between July 24 and July 28, 2008, see here
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with those edits. They are short quotes or paraphrases and the sources are extensively referenced. If this is not the way to write Wikipedia articles, I don't know what is. Rp (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I will try to make a similar analysis as I did at Talk:Flowchart. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to check with the original source, which is in my studio. Using Google-books seems not enough here. I will get back here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This might take a little longer. I apologize. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes about diagrams[edit]

Interesting quotes about diagrams:

  • "A diagram, indeed, so far as it has a general signification, is not a pure icon; but in the middle part of our reasonings we forget that abstractness in great measure, and the diagram is for us the very thing."
  • "Diagrams are abstract graphic portrayals of the subject matter they represent".
    • Source: Lowe, Richard K. (1993). "Diagrammatic information: techniques for exploring its mental representation and processing". In; Information Design Journal 7 (1): 3–18. p.7.
  • "Graphs and diagrams can be classified into two broad categories depending on whether their application or use is for technical of for popular appeal."
    • Source: Frederick E. Giesecke (1993) Engineering Graphics. Prentice Hall. p.835
  • "Diagrams are schematic pictures of objects or events that rely on conventionally defined symbols".
    • Source: S.F. Kosslyn (1994). Elements of graphic design. New York : W.H.Freeman. p.238
  • "Diagrams are usually simplified figures, caricatures in a way, intended to convey essential meaning".
    • Source: Bert S. Hall (1996). "The Didactic and the Elegant: Some Thoughts on Scientific and Technological Illustrations in the Middle Ages and and Renaissance". in: B. Braigie (ed.) Picturing knowledge: historical and philosophical problems concerning the use of art in science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p.9

-- Mdd (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference LEB_03 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).