DAG or Tree
Why limit to a tree? We don't want cycles, but I can certainly see the use of having a category be a subcategory of more than one parent. For example, Computing should fall under both Mathematics and Engineering.
- Sorry . . . a DAG being . . .? --Stranger 07:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Clarification of terms: A structure of categories is a tree iff each category has exactly one parent, except for the root category. A structure of categories is a DAG iff at least one category has at least two parent categories. Thus, the structure of Wiktionary categories is a DAG, or, phrased in less arcane terms, it is a structure that allows multiple parents. --Dan Polansky 08:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
How do we request categories?
I noticed that for the definition of juggernaut, there is a reference to a British English entry.
Shouldn't there be a way to designate the difference between British English and American English if the word or phrase is primarily attributed to one or the other?
Should these be a categories such as Category: British English, Category: American English? or is there some other prescribed notation to use on a specific entry. Something akin to [Brit.] or [Amer.]. Searches on Wiktionary, Yahoo, and Google have turned up no help on this topic.
- Use Template:US and Template:UK. The templates automatically categorize entries. Jon Harald Søby 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Categorizing words by language
Wiktionary:Categorization#Categorizing words by language gives the following example of ideal entry categorization:
- For example: Mare is a word in English, Latin, Italian, and Romanian, and has sections for each of those languages. It will thus belong to Category:English language, Category:Latin language, Category:Italian language, and Category:Romanian language.
Is that right? From my understanding of our category "tree", the word "mare" should be categorized in Category:English nouns, Category:Latin nouns, Category:Italian nouns, and Category:Romanian nouns and Category:Romanian adjectives, each of which is a descendant category of the "language" categories above. I apologize if everyone already knows this, but I ask in order to correct the ideal example and to correct the similar recommendation at WT:AJ#Categories. Rodasmith 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Leave out the English category and you get what our current practice is, yes. POS categories for English are discouraged (too large), but still maintained for other languages (still usable). IIRC, the discussion for English POS cats was in January or February in the Beer parlour (check archives). —Vildricianus 15:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/January-March 06#Category:English Adjective and WT:BP#Categories of the form <language>:<part of speech> agree that huge categories are undesirable. I'll update Wiktionary talk:Categorization accordingly. Rodasmith 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Should sets only have things that are in the set, or should they have related terms? (e.g. should Category:en:Horses contain neigh or only kinds of horse)--Simplificationalizer (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)