Wiktionary talk:Categories and anyone: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==English== |
|||
This was copied from the Beer parlour: |
|||
===Alternative spellings=== |
|||
:What's about [[:Category:English nouns]] ? [[User:213.228.42.109|213.228.42.109]] 11:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''any one''' (two words) |
|||
"Categories" is a powerful tool which I would be loath to abuse. By categorizing articles according to whim we can only end up with an unworkable mess that is not of much use to anybody. The English nouns category is potentially huge. How would a non-contributing reader use it? |
|||
===Pronunciation=== |
|||
We need some sharing of ideas about how categories can best serve the purposes of Wiktionary before people go off into worlds of their own. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 17:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
IPA: [[WEAE]] /ˈæn.i.wʊn/ or /ˈɛn-/ |
|||
===Noun=== |
|||
:Yes, Categories is a bit powerful, especially for something like "English nouns". The Esperanto Wiktionary seems to be using them to replace indices (ex: [[:eo:Kategorio:EN]]) with subcategories for each initial letter (the list of English words starting with "A" is probably smaller than the list of English nouns, but that's still a lot...). On the Latin Wiktionary I've been using categories for etymology, (ex: [[:la:Category:Radices Graecas]]) with subcategories for individual roots (somewhat like the AHD does). This may not amount to smaller categories at the by-language level but I think it is more useful than plain indexing. —[[User:Muke|Muke Tever]] 21:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''anyone''' |
|||
:One thing we could be doing with categories that we are currently doing by hand is the Rhymes indices. —[[User:Muke|Muke Tever]] 21:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#one person chosen without thought; anybody |
|||
#*"The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." — George Bernard Shaw |
|||
==== Translations ==== |
|||
Again there are new contributors running around categorising english nouns and pronouns by person but not by number or formality or reflexivness or personal vs other. I really think we need to start talking about this and decide what type of categories we do and don't want, and how wide or narrow the categories should be if we are going to categorise every single entry. — [[User:Hippietrail|Hippietrail]] 03:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* Finnish: [[joku]], [[kuka tahansa]] |
|||
:I'm glad to see another voice in this discussion. I do find it difficult to suggest what might be the best approach to categorizing. I still think that "English nouns" is wasteful, as it would also be with verbs, adjectives and adverbs, but I would still be more open to conjunctions and prepositions. Even then the reversed order "Prepositions in English" could be more useful. Subcategorizing the pronouns spreads things too thin, and you can end up with one item categories. The items in a category should have something in common; all we are saying about the item in single item category is that it has nothing in common with anything. The piping symbol in categories is used to force a particular alphabetization. Thus [Category:Pronoun|P] and [Category:Pronoun|R] could be used to force sepearate lists for personal and reflexive pronouns on the category page. In other circumstances using language code pipes could have a similar effect. |
|||
==== Synonyms ==== |
|||
:Etymology as a cataloguing entry may be more useful for Latin which tends to have a more scholarly approach, but I don't think that most of the English contributors have reached the level of sophistication needed for this. |
|||
*[[anybody]] |
|||
====Related terms==== |
|||
:Some time ago I advocated the separation of the pseudonamespaces "Index:" and "Appendix:". The distinction would have had "Index:" used for languages, and "Appendix:" used for other kinds of lists. I still think that the distinction is a useful one, and would have relieved an already overburdened "Wiktionary:" namespace. I've hesitated to proceed because of the tremendous amount of work needed to ensure that we would not end up with a lot of broken links. "Concordance:" also came up as a possibility, and our Sherlock Holmes fan made some very strong points in defence of what he was doing; unfortunately he hasn't been actively developing his own idea, so we can ignore that issue in the short term. |
|||
*[[no one]] |
|||
*[[everyone]] |
|||
*[[someone]] |
|||
*[[anywhere]] |
|||
*[[anything]] |
|||
[[it:anyone]] |
|||
:There has been some discussion of the role of "List of ..." articles in Wikipedia, and whether these are effectively replaced by categories. I don't think so. A category is a bottom-up representation, and nothing can appear in a category unless it already exists. This is not the cast with a top-down list "List" whose elements can be items that we merely wish to have. |
|||
:I think that the most important queation to be asked is, "How can a category be most useful to the user?" If a user wants to find certainn information, how does he go about doing this? If he knows tha work=d and just wants to find out what it means the ordinary search function will do just fine. I know that extremely long and extremely short categories are mostly useless, but beyond that I'm not sure of what I'm looking for. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 16:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
If you look in [[Special:Categories]], you will see a number of different types of categories emerging: |
|||
1.) Those attempting to include all entries in an open class (like English_nouns or English_slang). |
|||
2.) Those attempting to include all entries in an closed class (like English_pronouns). |
|||
3.) Those attempting to construct a theme (like Harry Potter). |
|||
4.) Ontological categories (like English_parts_of_speech, which includes the articles on noun, verb, etc.) |
|||
5.) Thesaurus-like categories (well, there aren't any yet) |
|||
6.) Meta categories (like French_index) |
|||
For tracking open classes (1), it seems silly to rely on people both putting in the right header in the article and to assign the word to the appropriate category. That is to say, every time someone created a definition for an English noun, they'd have to remember to add it to Category:English_nouns. Also consider what happens when that category is better populated. When a class has hundreds of thousands or millions of members, the category display mechanism: a.) might not be the most computationally efficient way to store and retrieve membership data of , and b.) won't produce a space-efficient or user-friendly layout. |
|||
I propose there be a Special page or pages that track open classes (which is useful in certain ways). A script could be periodically run that classifies as an English noun all the articles that have <nowiki>===Noun===</nowiki> inside an <nowiki>==English==</nowiki> section, and so on for all interesting permutations. The appropriate Special page could be a member of Category:English_nouns. |
|||
The use of Wiktionary for ontological purposes (4) - essentially making it a wiki-based variant of WordNet or OpenCyc - seems interesting. The category system is a logical choice for making the maintenance of is-a-type-of relationships easy (hyponyms and hypernyms). Arguably, an ontological categories should not be connected to anything outside their strict hierarchy, except by article pages. Depending on licensing terms, the easiest thing to do might be to wikify the open portions of OpenCyc, preferably in an automated fashion. |
|||
Categories would also seem to be nice for thesaurus-making purposes; they might even replace "Synonym" and "Antonym" headers. Except that there's not really a way to assign only one sense of a word to a category, as opposed to the whole article. |
|||
They also seem handy for defining closed classes, constructing themes, and meta-organization. |
|||
Things could get rather ugly in terms of navigation, namespace conflicts, automated extraction, and hierarchy co-mingling. Perhaps we should designate distinct namespaces for each these "projects". Some of them need some relatively strict guidelines to make them useful; others can be more freeform. |
|||
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 05:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
== I am pro a thematic + language categorie: == |
|||
I am pro a thematic + language categorie: |
|||
* [[:Category:architecture in english]] |
|||
* [[:Category:architecture in french]] |
|||
* [[:Category:colors in french]] |
|||
* [[:Category:jobs in french]] |
|||
* [[:Category:jobs in english]] |
|||
* [[:Category:mathematics in english]] |
|||
* [[:Category:units in english]] |
|||
This allow to see all words to be used in a theme in a language. Moreover, these category, will be linked to the same category explained in another language. |
|||
see: [[:Category:English units]] and [[:fr:Catégorie:Lexique en anglais des unités de mesures]] |
|||
[[User:62.147.114.112|62.147.114.112]] 22:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:20, 30 May 2005
English
Alternative spellings
any one (two words)
Pronunciation
IPA: WEAE /ˈæn.i.wʊn/ or /ˈɛn-/
Noun
anyone
- one person chosen without thought; anybody
- "The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." — George Bernard Shaw
Translations
- Finnish: joku, kuka tahansa