Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

What are the target names for these categories? "Portuguese poetic"? Also, would this effect lexical categories other than those listed on the vote page (such as derivations categories)? --Yair rand 08:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to rename from Category:pt:Poetic to Category:Portuguese poetic terms, though the decision is at the community's discretion. People are free to propose other names of lexical categories to be expressively listed on this vote before it starts. However, if a lexical category is not listed there, then its future simply is not directly decided by this vote. The derivations categories are a sensitive subject; it may be a good idea to rename them all, but it's a better idea to discuss this specific proposal and gather support of the community first. --Daniel. 08:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hm, if the derivations categories aren't affected by this vote, and they would require another vote to move, then this vote is pretty much locking in place more inconsistency... --Yair rand 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No! Making many inconsistent categories consistent is a step closer to more consistency. Definitely. --Daniel. 00:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Right now, the term categories beginning with language names are parts of speech categories, forms categories, names categories, and spellings categories (did I missing any?). If this vote passes, it will be all lexical categories except those of etymology. --Yair rand 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This vote is not meant to standardize "parts of speech categories, forms categories, names categories, and spellings categories"; that would be a big task. Most of them are indeed lexical already, while the categories of names are arguably not.
Also, note how we have two sets of "parts of speech categories": Category:Verbs contains English words about verbs and Category:English verbs contains English verbs. --Daniel. 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I've created Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories as a separate vote. --Yair rand 05:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why I intend to support this vote[edit]

I don't think that "archaic" and "vulgar" should be considered topics like mathematics, science, art, sport etc. Also we have Category:Portuguese idioms not Category:pt:Idioms. So we'll be more consistent if this passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Daniel. 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do we distinguish topical and lexical categories, though? Experience has shown that there isn't always a clear difference. I would support it if it meant dropping that distinction. —CodeCat 10:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any example of category whose status as topical or lexical is ambiguous?
One example of the usefulness of clearly differentiating between topical and lexical is:
Category:fr:Parts of speech with names of parts of speech in French.
Category:French parts of speech with categories of French words by their parts of speech.
--Daniel. 11:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, Category:French trees sounds like trees that are French, not French words for trees. I quite like the idea used by some other Wiktionaries of Category:Verbs (French) and Category:Trees (French), neither of which I find ambiguous. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
However, hypothetically, Category:Parts of speech (French) would be ambiguous. --Daniel. 11:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The French Wiktionary uses the wordy (example): Catégorie:Lexique en anglais des sports (translation: Category:Lexicon in English of sports). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That ambiguity can be solved by using "Category:Terms by parts of speech (French)" and "Category:Parts of speech (French)". --Dan Polansky 12:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Another one I hadn't noticed was Category:Terms with alpha privatives. So, any language then? Surely many of these would be Greek and Ancient Greek with an actual alpha, as opposed to a Latin A, or a Cyrillic one. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Why has the typically-uncountable slang become slangs?--Brett 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why I might oppose this vote[edit]

The vote looks quite okay, yet I might oppose it for one reason only: moving categories around is quite a job, and the option proposed in the vote does not seem the best one. The best option seems to remove the distinction between lexical and topical categories in the naming of categories by moving categories to something like "Trees (French)" and "Archaic (English)", as proposed above by various people. This would create some anomalies to be dealt with, (one solved in the above thread by using the names "Terms by part of speech (French)" and "Parts of speech (French)"), but I find it highly unlikely that these anomalies cannot be dealt with. Especially new users do not want to figure out whether to use "fr:" or "French " based on some sort of classification whose gray areas are disputed even by Wiktionary veterans. If it were clear that going for "... (French)" stands no chance of passing, I would support this vote or at least abstain. The problem the vote is trying to solve--naming inconsistency with respect to what is and what is not a lexical category--seems rather unimportant compared to the problem of overall lack of unity of naming of categories. --Dan Polansky 11:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to give all categories language code prefixes, so using fr: instead of (French). —CodeCat 12:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What the community preference is as regards prefix vs (French) could be figured out in a poll. If it turns out that the preferences are rather evenly distributed, the idea of unification could be dropped. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
A difference between lexical and topical categories would still exist even with the introduction of the language name between parentheses, since a category for types of nouns in French and a category for French nouns would serve wildly different purposes. I like the simplicity of "Category:French nouns" and "Category:fr:Nouns". My personal experience is that these names are often easy to type and remember. --Daniel. 12:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Some sort of unified system would be great! CodeCat, by all, does that include en:? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is just another anomaly that can be dealt with, by names such as "Nouns (French)" and "Terms for nouns (French)". I am sure there are more of them. The pair "Category:French nouns" and "Category:fr:Nouns" is hard to disentangle; it took me at least 15 seconds to figure out what the distinction is, with the knowledge of Wiktionary categories that I already have. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Category:Nouns with its 5 entries (collective noun, count noun, gerund, substantive, verbal noun) could be simply deleted. --Dan Polansky 13:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
noun#Derived terms and nominal#Related terms suggest together that Category:Nouns could be filled with approximately more 30 terms; yes, it could still be simply deleted.
The vote in question, which is the result of collective wisdom, is clear and well-done. Dan, I surely can see merit in the basic proposal of merging the name systems, but I think it would be easier to support it if a similarly detailed proposal was developed. There are various cans of worms in the process of cleaning up everything, such as the horrible small category tree comprised of Category:Letters, symbols, and punctuation and its subcategories; and a number of nonstandardized aspects of Category:English language. --Daniel. 13:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see how Category:Letters, symbols, and punctuation stands in the way of the alternative "... (French)" proposal. Nor do I see anything problematic in Category:English language.
I would not dare to create a complete detailed proposal for introducing "... (French)". I would choose a broad phrasing and first see how much support there is. Only then I would proceed to detail, tackling the anomalies one at the time as they are discovered.
I will think twice before opposing the currently discussed vote, though. Yet again, the vote seems to address a very minor problem while completely ignoring the truly significant one. --Dan Polansky 14:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why vote?[edit]

Why are we having this as a vote, rather than as an RFM discussion? Or, rather, two RFM discussions (one for #1 and #2, and one for #3)? —RuakhTALK 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a fairly significant change suitable for BP and an executive vote, IMHO. RFM is an obscure forum suitable for minor moves. OTOH 14-day vote would suffice. If RFM is not based on voting, then I do not know what it is based on. Due to the obscurity of RFM, things pass easier there as people do not take notice that something is going on there, so that would be a reason for going via RFM. --Dan Polansky 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think it was a "fairly significant change", but if you think it is, then O.K., I guess that's reason enough for a vote. :-)   —RuakhTALK 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it involves a mass renaming of some 500 categories = 50 * 30 / 3, which seems quite significant to me.
Detail: There are some 30 categories listed in the first proposed point, times, say, 50 languages (there are actually more languages but not all of them have these 30 categories), divided by 3 to be skeptical about the actual number of categories to be renamed. The actual number of categories to be renamed could be determined by counting instead of by estimation, of course. --Dan Polansky 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, just sheer scope and variation between the categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
To me, variation between the categories is an argument against having a single vote. Unlike categories should be handled in separate RFM discussions. And the number of languages seems irrelevant to me: whenever we delete or rename a category, it's almost a given that we'll delete or rename the like-named language-specific categories. —RuakhTALK 15:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)