Jump to content

Category talk:Five

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 11 years ago by ElisaVan in topic = Category:One

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


= Category:One

[edit]

These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? —CodeCat 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? —CodeCat 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? —CodeCat 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
    1. I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
    2. Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.
    Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
    You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries:

The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by Robin Lionheart (talkcontribs); kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

And six has 29, seven has 21, eight has 32, nine 18, ten 25, eleven 20, twelve 18, thirteen 13. There are no categories for fourteen and above yet. —CodeCat 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Good. Now what is wrong with these categories? Why do you want them deleted? What is it that you do not like about them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
As topical categories by themselves I am not sure if there is anything really wrong with them, although I do think there should be less and broader topics rather than more and specific ones. The issue I have with these categories in particular is the precedent they set towards having categories for more and more integers without end. Judging them based on how many entries they (can) contain does not work, because more can always be added. —CodeCat 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Only attested entries can be added. I doubt that you can find a meaningful number of memeber entries for Category:en:Thirty-five. I challenge you to find ten candidate entries in Wiktionary for that category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Explicitly abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Now that some people have been working to create new categories and fill them all, I am leaning towards keep myself. But I do hope we keep the highest at 20 for now. —CodeCat 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Strong keep now that they have a lot of entries. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Keep em, they're well populated now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Kept as now well populated.--ElisaVan (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply