Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Categories of names


  • Vote starts: 00:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --Daniel 02:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    This proposal improves the categorization system very much, by clarifying what we expect of certain categories. I do hope it passes. If it fails, then I and/or other contributors of categories will still have some questions to answer or ignore:
    • Category:en:Planets contains ice giant, but Category:en:Islands does not contain skerry.
    • Should we add skerry to Category:en:Islands? If yes, why? If not, why not?
    • Should we remove ice giant from Category:en:Planets? If yes, why? If not, why not?
    • What average readers expect when they see the name "Category:en:Islands"?
    • What admins and other experienced Wiktionarians expect when they see that name? Is the purpose of that category clear, at least to them?
    • Language codes are understandable? Can an average user see the difference among Category:en:Islands, Category:de:Islands, Category:fr:Islands, etc.?
    • Can users learn about language codes by reading instructions? Should we expect them to?
    • Does the name "Category:en:Islands" implies that it should contain only proper nouns? Do we want it to be restricted by only one part of speech, anyway? If John Doe adds archipelago, islet and skerry to the category, will he be disrupting Wiktionary? (If he is, will his edits be undone, and will someone post an explanation to his user page, and perhaps block him shortly to give him time to learn the ways of Wiktionary? What will we say to John Doe then, and what should be learnt by him?)
    --Daniel 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support I think this is a good idea. I have no real opinions on the names themselves, but I agree with keeping categories for names of things separate from categories for terms about them. And since we already have a category tree for names, it makes sense to fit these categories into that. There is also Category:en:Demonyms which fits into this, but isn't covered by the vote. —CodeCat 11:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    Notably, as I said in a BP discussion, our current categorization system strongly indicates that Category:en:Demonyms is a wrong name anyway, because we would either have to have:
    --Daniel 12:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support I like this one better than the new etymology cats. — Laurent — 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. This fits in with my general view that we shouldn't have topical categories. It switches "rivers", a topical category about rivers in general, to "names of rivers", a quasi-sorta-POS-like category. While I'm not happy about having a "naames of rivers" category, it's certainly better than a pure topical category: hence my vote in support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Obviously (and this is related to why I voted in support), if this is effected then the relevant categories will need to be purged of members that are not names of (e.g.) rivers (e.g.) and are instead merely on the topic of rivers, like tributary.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Most of these categories are populated with proper nouns only, anyway. The entry tributary (defined as "A river that flows into a larger river or other body of water.") currently is not a member of any topic category about rivers in general. --Daniel 09:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support Caladon 18:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support —RuakhTALK 21:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support —Stephen (Talk) 07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I really prefer the format of Category:fi:Mountains, but it has become clear over the years that this format is confusing for many editors and they think it is just like Category:Finnish verbs, so that they want to write Category:fi:Verbs. The proposed new format is verbose, but I doubt that verbosity will be an obstacle for most of us. —Stephen (Talk) 07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. Support Ivan Štambuk 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Rivers in English, etc., is simpler, but as it's ambiguous and no better name has been proposed... Lmaltier 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote, but you are 10 days late; so it doesn't count. --Daniel 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I as not aware of the date. But better names might be Names of rivers in English, or Names of rivers (English)... Lmaltier 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC) More categorisation mania. The names proposed just seem horribly clumsy and long-winded to me. Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    Pardon me for intruding in the middle of the opposing votes. I just like to provide countercounterarguments, so here's one:
    --Daniel 12:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Liliana • 00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Long-winded, take long to type and read, difficult to guess. If you want to group these categories with surnames/given names (which are not specific entities), it can be done without changing simple and good names like Category:en:Rivers. And if inclusion of the word river in the Category:en:Rivers bothers somebody, why should river be in any topic category at all? Category:English nouns, and some ====Synonyms=== and possible Thesaurus link is enough.--Makaokalani 14:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    The word river is not a member of Category:en:Rivers. That entry does link to Category:Rivers through a See also section. --Daniel 16:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    You said "If you want to group these categories with surnames/given names (which are not specific entities), it can be done without changing simple and good names like Category:en:Rivers".
    I think you got it backwards. The idea of the Rationale C is not merely grouping categories, as in making Category:en:Mountains and Category:English given names be members of the same supercategory (Category:en:Names or Category:English names? Both? I don't know.) We (most certainly) don't even need a vote for that.
    The idea is making consistent names. If one category of proper nouns starts with "English" and other starts with "en:", then there is something wrong. If we have Category:en:Mountains for names of mountains, then one possible consistent choice (albeit problematic for other reasons) would be Category:en:Given names for given names. --Daniel 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    Please, Daniel. The rules about category names are not sacred - they can be changed. DAVilla's idea of Names: and Topics: namespace is also worth considering. I have seen many "reforms" in my life where only the names change - usually into something long and bureaucratic. What sounds consistent to you might sound monotonous to others. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Makaokalani 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    Basically, there are no rules — sacred or otherwise, changeable or otherwise — about the category names listed by this vote, which was created to (hopefully) make some rules. The proposed new names are a means, not an end. The proposal is not just having longer names, it's having better names. I already explained what "better names" means. If you have even better ideas, feel free to share them (and, preferably, their reasonings) with us. This includes developing DAVilla's short-lived and shortly-discussed idea of Names: and Topic: (linked here). --Daniel 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Maro 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. Oppose SemperBlotto 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Oppose DCDuring TALK 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC), in particular deleting the old categories. Some words which are not names of x will still be related to x and shouldn't necessarily be decategorized simply for the 'convenience' of Wiktionary editors (not Wiktionary readers as a group). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, this suggestion does not conform to my minimalistic viewpoint. The current category system is quite satisfactory. The time used to make these alterations would be better used expanding and improving existing content. Besides, this is the English Wiktionary; English should be the "default" language in a category when no other tongue is mentioned. Tempodivalse 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    No, it shouldn't. If I'm not mistaken, after this voting ended, there should be no category where the lack of a language implies English. --Daniel 14:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    I must be behind the times, then. I've not edited this site for some weeks and wasn't aware of the vote. But, if we are to follow the result of that vote, we should surely use the abbreviation "en:" instead? That issue notwithstanding, the proposed alterations are not intuitive. It's not likely the reader would think to type that particular string of words in the search box. Tempodivalse 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, the current categories use "en:" as a result of that vote, such as Category:en:Lakes. (While, notably, other categories use either "en:" or "English", based on a number of reasonings. Examples: Category:en:Biology and Category:English nouns.)
    There are a number of pros and cons of the proposal voted here, but, specifically, I think typing particular strings of words in the search box is not an issue. You know, it's the search box, so if the proposal passes and you type "category:lakes" there, you'll still see the names of categories of lakes. --Daniel 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    "Continents" and "en:Continents" is shorter than "English names of continents". Using your search-box argument, people are just as likely to find the former categories as the latter. I'm not saying this proposal is necessarily bad, I'm simply unconvinced that it is more advantageous than the current arrangement. Tempodivalse 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    OK. --Daniel 19:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, ah.. it's way too long to type (which in turn, would introduce more typos). Unless there is a dropdown box of some sort that I can go - click click done, then no. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    See ].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    HotCat shows a list of categories that start with the characters you type. That way, if this proposal passes, you can type "English n" to see a list of categories that start with "English names of". --Daniel 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. Oppose -- Yair rand 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain Alexdubr 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    It's a great idea to have separate categories for proper names and terms, but what should be the category for terminology? If there is Category:Names of rivers, what is the category for river proper, also for creek, brook etc.? And what about bed, bank and others?
    We probably won't need a category specifically for terminology of rivers. I would rather want one for the terminology of water (i.e., terms relating to water), which would be much more comprehensive, including creek, waterfall, ocean, puddle, humidity and dozens of other examples. Currently, we have Category:en:Water for that, but it's almost empty.
    People didn't formally decide what would be the long and explanatory naming system for categories of terminologies, if we will have one. Even if people decided that, I wouldn't include it in this vote, simply because it is wiser doing huge projects piecemeal. If this vote passes, we can subsequently decide what to do with the other categories.
    Notably, this poll indicates that Category:English terms relating to rivers or Category:English terms relating to water would be a popular choice. However, the status quo, Category:en:Rivers or Category:en:Water is a popular choice of that poll too. --Daniel 11:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    Among other questions, you asked: "If there is Category:Names of rivers, what is the category for river proper?"
    Well, Category:English names of rivers certainly would not contain the entry river, because "river" is not an English name of a river. However, that entry could be linked from the introduction of that category, nevertheless. Simple examples of linked text would be "See also: river" and "Main entry: river". Or we can do it Captain-Obvious-style: "This category contains English names of rivers." --Daniel 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. . Have we established a general policy of using "English names of" for words generally? I thought English was the default language, so it didn't need to be named in categories at all. If the former is the rule, I would support this proposal insofar as these categories are intended to contain only proper nouns. bd2412 T 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    See ].​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Abstain. If it gets decided that code prefixes for languages should no longer be used in names of topical categories, and if it gets decided that long names of topical categories should be used such as "German terms relating to physics" instead of "Physics (German)", then the proposal made in this vote seems acceptable, even if it is not my favorite right now. The latest state the discussion on these questions is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2011/May#Straw poll: Topical category languages. --Dan Polansky 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. I don't like this proposal, but I'm not going to vote against it because nothing I would prefer, like putting the language in parenthesis, is going to have enough support. DAVilla 05:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    Parentheses ... now that's an interesting idea, reminds me of how they do it at Wikipedia. I would almost be tempted to support that. Tempodivalse 14:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia