Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2007-05/Categories at end of language section, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Categories at end of language section

  • Voting on: Specifying (in WT:CG) that all explicit categories should be at the end of the language section, one per line, with no other text on the line. This facilitates section editing by language, and results in all category references, including those in templates, appearing in language order at the bottom of the page.

Support

  1. Support EncycloPetey 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support DAVilla 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Within the language section, yes, when the category applies to any language (as I'm sure nearly all do). On a line by itself is fine, as it makes them much easier to spot. The rest is rather specific, and I'm pretty sure there must be some exceptions. I'm thinking of categories that apply to pronunciation or etymology specifically, which I have absolutely no problem with at the end of those sections. In fact I wonder if in the general case the categories shouldn't follow the definitions themselves. There can sometimes be a good number of translations, derived terms, etc. So I'm for a bit of flexibility there.
  3. Support Cynewulf 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Widsith 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support \Mike 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) If we cannot trust wikipedians to find a category when it's not at the bottom of the page, we'd have to assume they can't understand how it comes that an article is categorized as slang, just because it uses {{slang}}... And Connel: I guess we're lucky that the standard skin is no longer standard, as it displayed the categories *and* interwiki links at the top of the page... :P But to display categories grouped by language seems to be a good idea anyway.
  6. Support —RuakhTALK 18:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support --Keene 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC). This is how I was always told it was. --Keene 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support -- A-cai 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Robert Ullmann 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Williamsayers79 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support —Stephen 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Atelaes 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support --Dijan 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Tohru 00:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Beobach972 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (This is a logical placement. — Beobach972 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Oppose

  1. Oppose Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC) I hope this is no surprise to anyone I feel the reuse of existing Wikipedia tools to align the categories at the bottom of the page is more consistent (particularly for visitors from other projects; Wikipedia, Commons, Wikibooks, etc.) It also mimics the rendered layout, where all categories, regarless of language, are listed at the very bottom of a page (so why shouldn't one expect to find them at the bottom of the wikitext, as well?)
    Note: If, as I expect, this vote passes, then someone really ought to file a bugzilla to have the categories displayed at the end of each language section, on Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 16:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    Good idea. —RuakhTALK 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose H. (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I would rather like the categories to be put where they are meaningful. I.e. a category about an article having more than one etymology in (one of) the etymology sections, a category that it is about food in the noun part, not in the verb part and so on. This gives better overview, IMHO. But since nobody else seems to want this, I suppose the suggested option is best. In no case would I want them all at the bottom.
  3. Oppose --Richardb 12:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Put the category where it is meaningful. As happens anyway by the use of templates, and will continue to happen.
  4. Oppose Halliburton Shill 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Consider this a vote for putting categories at the end of the page. I like the idea of a standard location, but the page end would make it easier.--Halliburton Shill 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain Visviva 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Per Hamaryns above, this is obviously better than the alternative, but needs to be taken further. Given that categories are already included via templates in the pertinent section, what would be wrong with placing all categories in the pertinent section? This would, among other things, greatly facilitate future conversion to a more portable/flexible system such as wikidata (either by Wikimedia or by downstream users).
    At that point editing categories becomes almost impossible if the language section is a long one with multiple subsections. There could be more than one etymology section, more than one pronunciation section, three or four parts of speech, doxens of definitions... While our goal is to make things user-friendly and portable, we do have to do most of the category editing by template or by hand. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I may be spoiled since I work mostly on Korean entries and don't (usually) have to worry about multiple languages. But in order to assess the appropriateness of a category, wouldn't an editor have to look at the relevant section(s) anyway? I mean, if an entry is in a Danish etymology category, for example, one would need to check the Danish etymology section(s) to see if the category is correct anyway... and someone who is adding information on Danish etymology that calls for a new/changed category could most efficiently add that category in the same place that they add the information. -- Visviva 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Usually it happens the other way round. You notice a word in a category that should not be there; or, you find a category that is wrongly named and need to migrate all the entries. You therefore need to find where the category is coded in the entry. I would rather look in one place to find it that have to hunt though every bit of text and code in the entire language section to find it, especially since it might be coded in a template or might be hard coded. If they're always all together at the end of the language section when they're inserted explicitly, then I don't have to hunt for them. --EncycloPetey 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Has a bot been written yet, to find and convert existing entries? Or is the plan to have this apply only to new category additions, and let AutoFormat sort the rest out? --Connel MacKenzie 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    There isn't any specific bot; AF will sort out cats in entries it sees for some (other) reason. I would think it is a matter of sorting the cats into language sections in entries picked up for other reasons for a while, then at some point looking at hunting down the rest. AF does (as it stands at the moment) pick up entries from a pre-screen of the XML when it is otherwise idle for several minutes, the pre-screen could possibly be taught to find candidates. (of course, the cat sort is disabled at present) Robert Ullmann 14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia