Came across this one:
[[Category:Football (soccer) terminology]]
The items in the category are not, as you might think, articles about soccer terms themselves. Rather, they are all concepts related to soccer, that have been put into this category for the (IMHO dubious) goal of producing an automatic "glossary" of soccer terms. It would seem to me that this category could be easily constructed by compiling all the entries of:
Football (soccer) laws Football (soccer) culture ...and probably lots of other categories that *should* exist.
I note that entries that are *only* in this category, and in no other soccer-related articles, are probably missing something. For example, [[Captain (football)]] really should be in some kind of "Category:Football (soccer) roles" or something.
Anyway, just something to bear in mind to extend my previous collection of category types. It could be just a type of thematic category, but this idea of building a glossary from a category is new to me.
Taxonomic/attributes (soccer laws) Thematic (soccer) Meta-attributes (stubs, 1911 etc) +Terminology (soccer terminology)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Came across this one:
[[Category:Football (soccer) terminology]]
The items in the category are not, as you might think, articles about soccer terms themselves. Rather, they are all concepts related to soccer, that have been put into this category for the (IMHO dubious) goal of producing an automatic "glossary" of soccer terms.
I've noticed some of these sorts of categories before, and in a vain attempt to keep them in check I added a guideline to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terminology that in theory would prevent them from becoming like this. In practice, of course, sigh... :)
I did manage to get [[Category:Computer terminology]] deleted and its contents merged into [[Category:Computing]] back then, though, perhaps a good approach for the more egregious examples that remain.
On 6/14/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I've noticed some of these sorts of categories before, and in a vain attempt to keep them in check I added a guideline to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terminology that in theory would prevent them from becoming like this. In practice, of course, sigh... :)
I did manage to get [[Category:Computer terminology]] deleted and its contents merged into [[Category:Computing]] back then, though, perhaps a good approach for the more egregious examples that remain.
Interesting, some of these categories, such as Category:Australian Aboriginal terms, seem quite legitimate. Others, such as Category:Gambling terminology, don't.
Why? (thinking out loud) Hmm. In the case of gambling "terminology", the fact that the article is about gambling instantly tells you that it's "gambling terminology". Perhaps a few rare cases aren't, but basically, any article about gambling strategy is going to involve special terminology. So, it's basically redundant.
However, adding the [[Kookaburra]] article to "Australian Aboriginal terms" is adding information, because most bird articles do not belong to that category. So, it cuts across other categories and actually adds something new.
Fwiw, Wikipedia really doesn't seem to be able to make its mind up on exactly how much "terminology" we accept. WP:NOT quite clearly says we don't teach people how to talk like a Cockney chimney sweep. Right after it clearly says that glossaries for specialized fields are ok. And right before it says that articles about items of slang may be appropriate.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Fwiw, Wikipedia really doesn't seem to be able to make its mind up on exactly how much "terminology" we accept. WP:NOT quite clearly says we don't teach people how to talk like a Cockney chimney sweep. Right after it clearly says that glossaries for specialized fields are ok. And right before it says that articles about items of slang may be appropriate.
Entirely by coincidence, I just happened across an article that seems to me like a perfect example of the sort of "terminology" article that's good to have in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_Gulf_War. Naturally, it wasn't in [[Category:Terminology]] or any of its subcats when I got there. :)
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
The items in the category are not, as you might think, articles about soccer terms themselves. Rather, they are all concepts related to soccer, that have been put into this category for the (IMHO dubious) goal of producing an automatic "glossary" of soccer terms. It would seem to me that this category could be easily constructed by compiling all the entries of:
Football (soccer) laws Football (soccer) culture ...and probably lots of other categories that *should* exist.
Captain Cynical sits on my shoulder and whispers in my ear: "that's to avoid all those maroons who would immediately AFD such a list on the grounds that it should be turned into a Category".
Sometimes i wonder if he's right...
HTH HAND
On 6/16/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Captain Cynical sits on my shoulder and whispers in my ear: "that's to avoid all those maroons who would immediately AFD such a list on the grounds that it should be turned into a Category".
Sometimes i wonder if he's right...
Can Captain Cynical tell me whether it's ok to have glossaries in Wikipedia? What about lists of terms? What about lists of dictionary definitions of terms? What about slang terms in certain subcultures? What about lists of such terms? What about individual definitions of various words?
(I think the answer is: Yes, no, no, maybe, no, yes but only if the article goes beyond that).
I'm still feeling guilty that I supported the successful deletion of "List of fighting game terms", whereas if it had been renamed "Glossary of fighting game terms" it would apparently have been ok.
Steve