Category talk:Onomastics
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
We've got a category loop here that needs to be resolved.
- Currently
- Category:Onomastics → Category:Names → Category:Onomastics
It's parent ought to be changed to either Category:Lexicography or Category:Linguistics to break the cycle. — Carolina wren discussió 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is another example of the problems with the current category structure. Names, as such, are simply the subject area of onomastics, and thus make sense as a subcategory; on the other hand, onomastics is merely one aspect of the topic of names. At any rate, I have edited Template:topic_cat_parents/Onomastics to use "Linguistics" as the parent for now. (You're not actually proposing that the category be deleted, right?) -- Visviva 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are there actual bad consequences from having category loops? I'm not particularly in favor of them, but would like to know whether there is some technical need or, at least, benefit from avoiding features in our category structure. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, not proposing actual deletion, but
{{rft}}wanted to point the discussion to Onomastics, so I brought it here instead as the next closest alternative. As for bad consequences, I believe there are some external tools that try to walk the Category mesh, but it was mainly the illogic of the loop that bothered me. If there had been a single obvious choice for breaking it, I'd have done it myself, but I saw two.— Carolina wren discussió 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)- I think this is an
{{rfc}}issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is an
- No, not proposing actual deletion, but
- I would say they are a symptom rather than a cause of problems. But insofar as our category ontology is part of the overall Wiktionary product, they provide very poor user value. What this suggests is that some users are inclined to treat categories as if they were tags to put on anything that might be vaguely related to a topic, rather than as a way of categorizing entries. This problem goes much deeper than the odd category loop; check out Category:Cats and tell me if it has an organizing principle other than "something someone thought was at least tangentially related to either the word 'cat' or one of its various referents." -- Visviva 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The idea of tagging is getting much more encouragement from the rest of the on-line world than is the idea of structured categorizing. It would be nice if we had both ordinary-user-focused tags and more structured, less accessible categories. But my wish list is getting too long. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would say they are a symptom rather than a cause of problems. But insofar as our category ontology is part of the overall Wiktionary product, they provide very poor user value. What this suggests is that some users are inclined to treat categories as if they were tags to put on anything that might be vaguely related to a topic, rather than as a way of categorizing entries. This problem goes much deeper than the odd category loop; check out Category:Cats and tell me if it has an organizing principle other than "something someone thought was at least tangentially related to either the word 'cat' or one of its various referents." -- Visviva 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is this nominated for deletion? A category loop is not reason to delete, nor is it inherently a problem. A person arriving at either category could expect the other to be included. There is no technical reason to avoid category loops. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Striking as not actually nominated for deletion. -- Visviva 13:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- So is there any reason for the deletion template to remain on the category page? B7T 12:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so; template removed. -- Visviva 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)