Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories
cat:Langname etymology edit
The current proposal has Category:Spanish etymology containing both subcats of Spanish words and subcats of words derived from Spanish. I do not like that idea at all. Perhaps I'm alone though. (The proposal as of my last edit did not have that.)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The format seems confusing to me, to have both the etyma and the descendants of a language in the same branch of the category tree. I'd prefer having a "Terms derived by language" head category (preferably with a better name if possible). One problem is, where would that category be categorized into? Category:Etymology? That would also cause confusion, as its subcategories wouldn't follow that pattern. --Yair rand 09:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
other etym cats edit
The following categories should IMO be dealt with by this vote also: Terms derived from constructed languages, Words from Shakespeare, Fictional derivations and its subcats, and Words derived from place names.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Older proposal edit
Here is a proposal from an older revision of this vote. I'm going to change it, so I'm leaving it here in case anyone is interested.
- Category:Etymology by language
- Category:Etymology by family
clarity edit
The vote as currently worded is very unclear to me. I don't know what will be in each of the proposed categories if it passes.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- [1], for example, is much clearer.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I clarified the vote since your first message of this thread. Is it any better to you? --Daniel. 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"English etymologies" to contain non-English terms edit
In this revision, "English etymologies" is proposed to be a supercategory of "Terms derived from English" and "Japanese terms derived from English". That sounds wrong: I tend to read "English etymologies" as "English terms by etymology", so it should contain no Japanese terms, regardless whether they are derived from English.
This seems to be the same issue as the one raised by msh210 at #cat:Langname etymology on 5 April 2011. Sorry for being late to the discussion. --Dan Polansky 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Reduction of scope edit
This vote should IMHO be so reduced that it contains a minimum logical unit of work: a minimum bundle whose execution is already meaningful and such that the result of the execution does not need to be newly renamed by subsequently voted steps. The reduction that I imagine is this: remove the point 1. Categories of source languages and 3. Umbrella categories, including source families, leaving only the point 2. Categories of target languages in the proposal. The point 2. alone creates enough room for disagreement. After the point 2. passes, passing the other points should not be any harder, while trying to get point 2. passed alone seems easier. The proposal can be seen in this revision. --Dan Polansky 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I reduced the scope as you requested. Anyone, feel free to comment on this decision. The removed categories are here:
- "Categories of source languages."
- English etymologies
- Japanese etymologies
- Terms derived from Japanese (← Japanese derivations, just the categories)
- English terms derived from Japanese (← Japanese derivations, just the entries)
- Terms derived from Japanese (← Japanese derivations, just the categories)
- "More umbrella categories."
- "Categories of source languages."
- OK. I reduced the scope as you requested. Anyone, feel free to comment on this decision. The removed categories are here:
- --Daniel. 23:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what would be the parent categories of Category:English terms derived from Japanese if this passes? Would there just be no category for sorting by source language? --Yair rand 12:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the categories above will be created after all, but they are not part of the vote anymore. It creates less points of contention that way. —CodeCat 12:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- CodeCat is probably right in assuming that these umbrella categories will be created if the vote passes, simply because it is the only proposal of umbrella categories that we have, not counting older revisions of the vote. Naturally, anyone is free to make additional proposal of sets of umbrella categories; we just are not going to vote for them for now. --Daniel. 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the categories above will be created after all, but they are not part of the vote anymore. It creates less points of contention that way. —CodeCat 12:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what would be the parent categories of Category:English terms derived from Japanese if this passes? Would there just be no category for sorting by source language? --Yair rand 12:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Bold and italics edit
This diff, which added a lots of italics and some boldface, seems like a worsening of the vote, adding typographical elements that needlessly disturb, IMHO anyway. The boldfaced categories are meant to be leaf categories, which can be indicated without the use of boldface. Especially boldface should IMHO be avoided as much as possible, to be used in heading-like elements of the page, and in those elements that that should be quickly found when skimming the page. --Dan Polansky 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was using various techniques to make the vote clearer after a complaint of lack of clarity. In particular, I like the idea of emphasizing leaf categories and finding them quickly when skimming the page; all other categories exist mainly to find the leaves, after all. You and others may think differently. --Daniel. 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that you are using the typography for tagging and not just in vain. I would use some non-typographic tag, such as "(MC)" for "each member of the category is a category" and "(MNC)" for "each member of the category is a non-category". As an alternative, I would use symbols such as "(*)" and "($)" placed after the category name, or just * and $. This is not a sufficient reason for me to oppose; I am just pointing out what I think is a poor use of typography. I appreciate your clarification. --Dan Polansky 10:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)