On 6/14/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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