Disliking lexicons

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disliking lexicons

Hi. Do you dislike the existence of categories like Category:English colloquialisms and Category:English archaic terms, or do you dislike only Category:English lexicons?

Daniel.10:22, 17 May 2011

It is the subcategories that bother me. E.g. Category:English nouns contains terms that are nouns, whereas the subcategories of "Category:English lexicons" contains terms that have a colloquial or dated sense. It seems to me, that this structure implies that terms are colloquial or dated, which is mostly not true. When they were topical categories it didn't bother me quite so much. Ideally we would use labels or tags, but I don't think it's possible with the current software.

For now I'll simply limit my use of {{colloquial}} and {{dated}} to terms where it really describes them, and use {{qualifier}} when it is only a minor sense of the term that's colloquial or dated.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)13:18, 17 May 2011

Please don't ever use {{qualifier|archaic}} in archaic senses because it would not categorize their respective entries.

If you're going to mentally separate the entries that are archaic from the ones that merely have an archaic sense, you should also note that most members of Category:English nouns only have a noun sense, in addition to other senses.

Therefore, you didn't actually gave any reason for "Category:English nouns" to be more appropriate or less bothersome than "Category:English archaic terms".

Daniel.13:35, 17 May 2011
  1. The point of using qualifier, was to avoid categorization.
  2. To my mind nouns and verbs that are homographs, are distinct words, not merely different senses.
  3. I did give a reason. That you think otherwise is simply an indication of us disagreeing.
Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)13:47, 17 May 2011

There are ways for you to try to solve the conflict that arises from that disagreement, such as either actively requesting new categories that are more precise to your tastes, or passively using only the current ones.

Deliberately denying easy coverage for some highly-used categories is bad, not only because you have to waste some time and a tiny amount of server resources by typing and saving "qualifier|", but also because other people expect to find archaic senses there. In fact, it becomes worse if you don't actually use that category, because you are only denying categorization for everyone else.

Daniel.14:21, 17 May 2011

I actually suspect that the template "qualifier" uses a lot less server resources than any template calling "context", so it's just a minor inconvenience for my self.

You may see it as deliberately denying coverage, but I see it as trying to save users from getting false impressions. As an example pølse ("sausage"), can have a minor sense of "poop", which could be labeled dated, colloquial, humorous, childish, rare, slang and vulgar; but I don't think the term belongs in any of those categories. But as I think childish merits mention I used qualifier. Anybody who thinks differently may edit the page. I just don't want to be responsible for categorization that I don't approve of.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)16:48, 17 May 2011