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