[WikiEN-l] Types of categories

Wed Jun 7 19:43:51 UTC 2006

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>That brings up another, longer term, to-do for categories: they should
>be language independent.  For instance [[Marie Curie]] is in de: and
>en: (they happen to have the same title, but even if they don't they
>are linked via interwiki links).  [[Kategorie:Pole]] is linked to
>[[Category:Polish people]].  So there should be no need to categorize
>Marie Curie twice (multiply by the actual number of languages which
>have a Polish people category and an article on Marie Curie).
>
>This is pretty simple theoretically.  The only real problem is getting
>the multiple category schemes in sync.  Considering your point about
>how the German categorization scheme differs from the English one,
>this might be a lot harder in practice than it is in theory.
>
I think that this would be very difficult across projects, if only 
because the terminology is different, and there is a cultural element to 
determining distinctions.

To some extent I have dealt with som of this on the English Wiktionary 
as a byproduct of being all words in all languages, but with English 
definitions.  Category names there would also all be in English.  Thus 
[[Category:Mammals]] could have its usual hierarchical subcategories 
[[Category:Dogs]], [[Category:Rabbits]], etc.  It would also hve 
[[Category:de:Mammals]], [[Category:ja:Mammals]], etc. which could be 
developed in a parallel manner for  those other languages.  To 
facilitate sorting the language codes would always be lower cased, and 
the categories themselves would be upper cased.

>>>>Your definitions of taxonomies and attributes need work :-).
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Heh :) Input welcome! I think the distinction between "taxonomy" and
>>>"attribute" is probably a sliding scale. It comes down to what is
>>>natural. Do we really think in terms of "nobel laureates"? I doubt it
>>>      
>>>
>>Combining rigid rules with common sense is hard. I am tempted to quote your
>>line about inevitable disaster.
>>    
>>
>Personally I don't see the difference between taxonomies and
>attributes, as described.  But I suppose one (taxonomies?) could be
>described as partitioning (an article can only be in one taxonomy
>category) whereas attributes can be mixed.  Under that definition
>though, all taxonomies are attributes (but not vice-versa).  I'm not
>sure how close that definition is to reality though.
>
It's best not top get hung up on pedantic distinctions.

Ec