Hi Solomon! I see that you're trying to help with our categories, but I have reverted some of your recent edits. Some of these are because they are not appropriate for membership in the category. For example, nigger is a slur (and is categorised as such), but though it is a word used in a racist context, it is not a type of racism or a thing relating to racism, so it does not belong in Category:en:Racism. Creation of new kinds of categories should not be done unilaterally, but instead requires discussion and should be added to our central database of categories. That's why I deleted Category:en:Genocide — it needs to be discussed first, because it is not entirely clear if having that category at all would be useful, or whether it has too much granularity for the purpose of a Wiktionary category. I've given you the standard welcome message below.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
I meant that categories ought to generally be of moderate size: not so granular/specific that only a few things can fit in them, and not too broad without having subcategories of their own. Oh, and to explain further about Category:en:Genocide, what you were adding to it was mostly names of specific genocides, rather than anything relating to the idea of genocide itself. Perhaps Category:en:Genocides would be appropriate, but we aren't Wikipedia, so we tend to avoid categorising those things encyclopaedically (compare the fact that Category:en:Wars does not exist either). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Actually, i think there is enuf material to justify “Category:en:Genocide”:
The articles Carthage, Carthaginian peace and Punic War belong, on the grounds that the Punic Wars ended in the Roman destruction of Carthage, and act which i firmly believ amounted to genocide; hence the term “Carthaginian peace”. Also, the articles cosmocide, planetcide and terracide belong: If you destroy an entire planet, that means genocide of anyone who livs there. linguicide belongs: deliberately killing a language is officially recognized as a form of genocide; and i agree with such a classification, because if you kill off a group’s language, you destroy a good part of their identity. Judeocide belongs because it is strongly suggestiv of the Holocaust. Nazi Germany and Nazism belong because likely the most notorious thing about Nazi Germany is the Holocaust. gas chamber belongs because such things ar best known for being used in the Holocaust.
Also, articles which belong in “Category:en:Genocide” but which havn’t been created, but which should be created:
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello and thank you for adding these descendants of different PIE roots! That said, would you please use the {{PIE root}} template instead? Cleaning up your categories is very time intensive and frustrating. —JohnC522:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Also, I noticed that you were adding the template to categories- it should only be added to entries, since categories aren't terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I propose three new categories:
"Category:English terms with etymologically unjustified un-phonetic spellings". (Or should the category title read "etymologically-unjustified" [with hyphen]?) Basically, terms with un-phonetic spellings that do not represent the true etymology of the word (e.g. an obsolete pronunciation), but are, basically, rogue spellings. Members would include (there are many others):
ache: Spelling adopted because it was wrongfully thought to come from Greek ἄχος (ákhos); older spelling, ake, is more etymologically justified and fits the pronunciation better.
cinder: Should have been ⟨sinder⟩, but spelling was corrupted under influence of a similar (but not etymologically-related) French word, cendre.
could: ⟨l⟩ is not etymologically justified (compare can, know) but was apparently added by analogy with should, would.
ghastly, ghost: ⟨h⟩ added by Dutch printers under the influence of cognates in Dutch.
⟨–ise⟩ (finalise, organise, realise): Spelling with ⟨–ize⟩, which is standard in the United States and Canada, is actually more etymologically justified, and fits the pronunciation better. The suffix is from Greek -ίζω, which is still used in Modern Greek.
island: ⟨s⟩ was added because it was wrongfully thought to come from Latin īnsula.
ptarmigan: ⟨p⟩ was added because it was wrongfully thought to come from Greek πτερόν (pterón) 'feather, wing'. In fact, the word ptarmigan (or tarmigan) is from Scotch Gaelic.
(English-language printers and suchlike in c. the 1500s and 1600s had a habit of 'etymologizing' words: altering spellings [usually at the expense of orthographic transparency] to reflect their supposed [usually Latin- or Greek-based] etymologies. As you can see, sometimes the etymologies they had in mind were mistaken.)
Said category ought to include words with soft ⟨c⟩ or ⟨g⟩, where ⟨s⟩ or ⟨j⟩ would at least not be less etymologically-justified:
"Category:Reconstructed lemmas" would be, except for subcategory Category:Reconstructed terms by language, specifically for unattested, reconstructed languages.
"Category:Reconstructed lemmas" would make things considerably easier for me. I love to read about proto-languages; and, when i go to Category:Lemmas by language, i would no longer hav to jump to "Pr-" to get to all those fascinating reconstructed terms (usually under "Proto-__"). Also, if i am reading e.g. Category:Proto-Indo-European lemmas, and i went back to Category:Lemmas by language by clicking on said category-name below, i would no longer hav to make the jump to "Pr-" again.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I created a new article, weekness, as a misspelling of weakness. I felt justified creating such an article, given that i myself, hav at least twice made that spelling mistake in recent years alone. (The first instance was some time after i started editing Wiktionary, the second was just now, inspiring me to create the article.) Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I re-created the article Cumbric, which was previously deleted. I strongly defend my re-creating it; there is a Wikipedia article on it, and it is a very significant subject; said language was spoken in Hen Ogledd (The Old North) until ?1200. Also, there is British sheep-counting, which is based on Cumbric. Even "hickory dickory dock" in the nursery rhyme, is apparently part of said sheep-counting.
There is even material on Youtube attesting to its significance:
[1] “The oldest Welsh Lullaby: Dinogad's Smock (Pais Dinogad)”
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Short answer: don't do it. You obviously don't understand how our category structure and templates work and you're causing module errors as well as making English categories different from all the others. Besides: just in general, you shouldn't be making changes to things linked to by hundreds or even thousands of entries without getting consensus or at least knowing what the consensus is. Although there are some types of categories that need special treatment, topical categories should all work fine with {{auto cat}} alone. If they don't, something is wrong. In the case of Category:en:Nuclear warfare, it had to be added to the appropriate module first so that no one has to add all the same things separately for the categories for French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and dozens of other languages. Our system has its flaws, but making incompatible changes here and there just makes things inconsistent and even harder to figure out. In effect, you're reinventing the wheel, but with all kinds of weird pointy things sticking out of the tread... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I see that you're succumbing to a problem that you've had in the past, wherein you try to add everything possible to a category. Our topical categories are not intended to cover the maximal possible range of entries, but rather to be useful. Just because a weapon was used in the American Civil War doesn't mean that it belongs in that category, nor in the categories for all the other wars it was used in. If you find yourself unsure of whether to add a topical category or not, err on the side of not including it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The article secessionist also belongs; to an American at least, it is mainly suggestiv of secessionists in the South at the outbreak of the US Civil War. As does the article Lincoln; it is strongly associated with Abraham Lincoln. (And it is not as common a surname as Smith or Taylor, so it is easy for it to be connotationally associated mainly with a specific person or thing.) (Equivalent for the article Abraham Lincoln, an eponym for an emancipator or reformer.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you're listening. Even if the term is frequently associated with its use in that war, or is in reference to a person whose actions were most notable in connection with that war, it doesn't mean that someone perusing the category for terms about the war is going to find these useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
In the same vein, I reverted the addition of the category en:William Shakespeare from Caesar because we don't have a sense for "Julius Caesar" as the name of a play, a character in the play, or even as a real individual. We only have a sense for the surname because this is a dictionary. If there's no relevant sense, don't add a category. That's why I allowed Shylock in the category (although it might easily be deleted...). Ultimateria (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I've given you a short block because you've repeatedly ignored our reversions of and messages about unwanted categorization. For the same reason that I gave at Talk:Ophelia, which you didn't respond to, I'm removing the Harry Potter and fictional character categories from Dobby, Snape, Hermione, etc. If there is not a definition for a fictional character, then categories related to that character are not welcome. Ultimateria (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have blocked you yet again for repeatedly ignoring us and adding peripherally related words and alternative spellings to categories. If you continue to do this, we will be forced to give you longer and longer blocks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds17:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wikimedia categories are navigational aids: they provide a way of finding other entries that have something in common with the one you're starting from. It's not a matter of whether they "belong in" anything. Putting two terms in a category that are already prominently linked to each other as alternative forms accomplishes nothing except putting clutter in the way of finding things. Ask yourself: "will someone need the category to find this term?"
There's also what I call the "well, duh!" factor: repeatedly and systematically pointing out the trivially obvious can be extremely annoying to anyone with half a brain. Yes, a noun and the almost-identical adjective formed from it have things in common... well, duh! Of course they do. Next thing, you'll be putting U-boat and U-boats in the same category, since "they both belong", or World War I, World War 1, and World War One. Please stop treating our readers like brain-dead idiots. Thank you. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Please don't add fictional characters like this. Wiktionary does not include them. Maybe famous old Greek mythology, but not recent pop culture like Harry Potter. See Talk:Fluffy: it was removed long ago in the past. Equinox◑11:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
On the article Hermione, i added that 'Hermione Granger' is overwhelmingly the main use of said name nowadays. Why did you remove that? It is so true! You can easily verify it by googling 'Hermione' (and omitting the 'Granger' part). (On Google Images, if i look up 'Hermione', the first 70 results rarely if ever include anything not referring to Hermione Granger.) On Wikipedia, the article Juliet (1-word title) refers to the character in Romeo and Juliet; on the grounds that that's the primary use of said name. Equivalent, of course, for the Wikipedia article Romeo, Desdemona, or even Ophelia (even tho Ophelia is not uncommon as a given name). Therefor the Wiktionary articles Juliet, Romeo, or Desdemona, or even Ophelia, etc. belong in Category:en:William Shakespeare. Why should Harry Potter characters be held to a fundamentally different standard than Shakespeare characters? That's plain discriminatory! Especially since HP is nowadays overwhelmingly more famous than Shakespeare. (True, the Wikipedia article Hermione is a disambiguation page, rather than a full-fledged article [or redirect to Hermione Granger or some other article]; but that does not change the fact nowadays, Hermione Granger is by far the main use of the name Hermione. I hav even considered whether, on Wikipedia, "Hermione" should redirect to "Hermione Granger" [in which case the disambiguation page "Hermione" would hav to renamed "Hermione (disambiguation)"].) Likewise, by far the most famous use of the name Snape is HP character Severus Snape. Also, the words "recent pop culture like Harry Potter" implies a contempt for Harry Potter; and, per neutral point of view, HP characters should not be held to a fundamentally different standard than characters from other series. And the words "famous old Greek mythology" are hypocritical; given that far more people know and talk about Hermione Granger than Hermione in Greek mythology, or for that matter, Hermione in The Winter's Tale by Shakespeare.
If the Wiktionary article Hermione doesn't even mention Hermione Granger, or the Wiktionary article Snape doesn't even mention Severus Snape; that's like having the Wiktionary article Juliet, or Romeo, not mention the Shakespeare character. I repeat: HP characters are not fundamentally different from Shakespeare characters. Btw, i hav seen a foto of a sign that said "When Voldemort is president, we need a nation of Hermiones!" (approx. words); Voldemort of course refers to Tronald DumpDonald Trump; and any educated person should know who Hermione is.
Anyone who claims, that Hermione Granger is not nowadays overwhelmingly the primary (i.e. most common and famous) use of the name Hermione; is simply denying reality. (Hermione Granger will probably remain the primary use of said name into the forseeable future; Harry Potter has been too popular for too long.) Why should this info be excluded from the Wiktionary article, if it is so true? After all, on the article "sic semper tyrannis", i added that the most famous use of said expression, is probably when John Wilkes Booth supposedly used it. I am okay with differences of opinion. I am not okay with people blatantly denying reality, including using such a denial to justify edits to Wikipedia or Wiktionary. If you Google 'Juliet', results not referring to Juliet of Romeo and Juliet are massivly more common; than results not referring to Hermione Granger, if you Google 'Hermione'. Yet the Wikipedia article Juliet (one-word article-title) refers to said Shakespeare character specifically. At that rate, the notion that the Wiktionary articles Juliet, Ophelia etc., belong in Category:en:William Shakespeare; but the Wiktionary article Hermione should not be placed in Category:en:Harry Potter, or even mention Hermione Granger; is a blatant double standard. How is it not a double standard?
Wiktionary articles oft link to Wikipedia, with "Wikipedia has an article on: [something with same or similar name]". Some articles hav multiple such links. (It shouldn't hav too many such links, as that seems like clutter; four such links seems like a reasonable max.) It can't hurt if Wiktionary article Hermione had a second such link; the obvious choice would be to the article Hermione Granger; anything else, is something much less well-known.
I realize, putting articles in "Category:en:[Name of fiction series or author]" should be done sparingly; there may be many, many fictional characters with said name, so the list of categories could become way too long. (Likewise, the article Leonidas probably doesn't belong in Category:en:American Civil War, just because of Confederate General Leonidas Polk; he is not clearly the primary or predominant use of said name.) So an article on a character's name should be put in said category only if said character is the primary, or one of the primary, uses of said name. It seems to be generally agreed (and i agree) that many Shakespearean names fit the bill. At that rate, the name Hermione should easily fit the bill for Category:en:Harry Potter. (Many other names likely won't: e.g. Neville; there is Neville Longbottom, but this is not clearly the main use of the name; for example, there was British Prime MinisterNeville Chamberlain. Or Fluffy; there is a monstrous three-headed dog by that name in Harry Potter, but he is a somewhat secondary character; and who knows how many pet cats or dogs are named Fluffy?) Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:en:Chemical elements had 224 articles placed in it directly. This is almost twice as many as the 118 known chemical elements, so it might not make sense. Also, it makes the category harder to read; you have to sort out the generally-accepted names of known elements, from other things. In order to declutter said category, i created Category:en:Systematic element names. To remove articles from being placed directly in Category:en:Chemical elements, i removed the 'element' template, which givs the preceding and following elements. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A Wiktionary article may link to Wikipedia via a box on the side, saying, "Wikipedia has an article on [something with the same title, or at least a related thing]". I hav sometimes added such links, only to hav them removed. Any guidelines on what such links should or shouldn't be there? Some articles hav several such links. However, logically, an article shouldn't hav too many such links; it is clutter. (Would you agree?) Also, at the bottom of the article (or rather, the English-language entry of said article), there may be a section titled "Further reading" or suchlike, with link(s) to Wikipedia. Which method of linking to Wikipedia, "Wikipedia has an article on" or "Further reading", is preferable and under what circumstances?
A possible argument against linking to Wikipedia via "Wikipedia has an article on" or "Further reading": There is already a link to said Wikipedia page, embedded in the Wiktionary article's main text, often via the wikicode "{{w|", so said link, via "Wikipedia has an article on" or "Further reading", would be redundant. Would you agree?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See “Category:en:Lanthanide series chemical elements” and “Category:en:Actinide series chemical elements”. These should be titled “Category:en:Lanthanides” and “Category:en:Actinides”. Please avoid such blatant clutter. And why is “Category:en:Lanthanide series chemical elements” placed in Category:en:Radioactivity? Only one lanthanide, promethium, is radioactive. Also, there is debate over whether lanthanum, lutetium, or both count as lanthanides, so i recommend that both article be placed in “Category:en:Lanthanides”. Likewise, there is debate over whether actinium, lawrencium, or both count as actinides, so again, i recommend that both article be placed in “Category:en:Actinides”.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Not everything remotely connected to nuclear physics is automatically "nuclear warfare"! Please stop adding more categories. Jberkel23:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
You're still adding these… Can you not find something more useful to do than mass-adding categories to arbitrary entries (in language you don't speak)? Jberkel08:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In edits like this and this, you're incorrectly removing the capitalization of the first word of the English definition. If you're using a script that's removing "redundant" link piping (like some scripts designed for Wikipedia do), please fix it; if you're doing it manually, please stop. Cheers! - -sche(discuss)02:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Don't go too crazy with this. Yes, HP uses everyday words like "wizardkind" and "spell" and "gnome" but these do not need the category. They are not HP-specific. There are many other HP wikis if you want to go deep into fandom. Equinox◑21:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I have blocked you for 3 months for repeated edit warring and continuing to add categories where you have been warned not to do so. You were previously blocked for 2 weeks then 1 month for this same behavior so I've increased the block accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
E.g. you added reacción en cadena to CAT:es:Nuclear warfare and re-added it twice more after being reverted each time. You were warned above by User:Jberkel in Feb not to do this, and didn't respond to the warning but continued doing it, and were warned again in June again by User:Jberkel, and again didn't respond to the warning. Your block log shows you've been blocked several times for this already, so you can't profess ignorance like you're doing. Benwing2 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
You're again adding categories as you see fit, even if they are only indirectly related to a term. Try to find something more useful to do here. – Jberkel11:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You are indiscriminately adding the "Corruption" category to entries not directly connected to it. As an example, according to our definition, a profit monger wants to make as much profit as possible, but the definition doesn't say that this is achieved via corruption, so it's misleading to have it in there. Jberkel15:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to remove articles from said category if you see fit. However, feel free to discuss the removal on a talk page if you think the removal is likely to be controversial. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What do *you* think, which ones are justified and which ones are not? Do you actually consider this when you add categories, or do you have some automated process? Jberkel23:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
On "Talk:Hermione", i wrote (wikicode as in original):
Why do links to the Wikipedia article "Hermione Granger" keep getting deleted? It seems irrational to hav a link to the Wikipedia article "Hermione (mythology)" but not to the article "Hermione Granger"; given that Hermione Granger is overwhelmingly more famous and is overwhelmingly the main person or thing that the popular mind thinks of when it thinks of the name "Hermione". I hav tested it many times: a Google search (whether Google Images or plain Google) of an unqualified "Hermione" givs almost no results that don't refer to Hermione Granger. Besides, this is a double standard: the Wiktionary article "Luna" includes a quote from Harry Potter, referring to Luna Lovegood; said text includes a link to the Wikipedia article on said Harry Potter character. So, when the Wiktionary article "Hermione" includes a quote referring to Hermione Granger, there might as well be a link to the Wikipedia article on said character.
Later i added on said talk page (again, wikicode as in original):
Even on Wiktionary articles not placed in Category:en:Harry Potter, it is considered reasonable to include links, when appropriate, to Wikipedia articles related to HP. For instance, on the Wiktionary article “Draco” (note: on Wiktionary, unlike Wikipedia, the first letter of an article title is case-sensitive), it says, “Wikipedia has an article on Draco Malfoy”. The Wiktionary article “Luna”, includes a quote referring to Luna Lovegood, and links to the Wikipedia article on said character. And on the Wiktionary article “naga”, i added a link to the Harry Potter Wiki article “Nagini”; in the words of said link, “a Harry Potter character who was probably named after said term (meaning snake)” (link to Wikipedia, as in original); and that edit seems to hav been accepted. (This makes me think that on the Wiktionary article “Hermione”, a link to the Harry Potter Wiki article “Hermione Granger” is appropriate; i added such a link, but it was deleted.)
But on the Wiktionary article “Hermione”, all links to the Wikipedia article “Hermione Granger” hav been deleted, even tho she is nowadays overwhelmingly the most famous use of the name “Hermione”. (A Google search of an unqualified “Hermione” givs very few results that don’t refer to her; in a search of an unqualified “Hermione” on Google Images, the first 50 results often include precisely zero ones that don’t refer to her.) This is a double standard, and does not do justice to Hermione Granger's status as overwhelmingly the most famous use of said name! So a link to the Wikipedia article “Hermione Granger” is more than appropriate. In fact, given that Hermione Granger is overwhelmingly the most famous use of the name “Hermione”; the idea of not including the Wiktionary article “Hermione” in Category:en:Harry Potter, is questionable.
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
IUPAC recommends that deuterium and tritium should be called by the chemical symbols “2H” and “3H”, not “D” and “T”, respectively. [1] I strongly support IUPAC’s recommendation, for multiple reasons. So i hav been adding this recommendation onto relevant articles on Wiktionary, such as “deuterium”, “tritium”, or “heavy water”; usually in a “Usage notes” section. Okay?
See “Category:mul:Inorganic compounds” and “Category:mul:Chemical formulae”. For both categories, i used wikicode so that cases of “D” meaning deuterium, and “T” meaning tritium, are alphabetized as “H²” and “H³” respectively. This way, in both categories, all references to hydrogen (any isotope, or isotope unspecified) are alphabetized as “H”; so that references to the same element are together, as they should be. Indeed, that is IUPAC’s stated reason why the symbols “²H” and “³H” should be used, rather than “D” and “T”: so that chemical formulae are alphabetized correctly, with all references to the same element being together. The proper notation is that the superscript denoting atomic mass number is before the chemical symbol (²H, ³H etc.), not after. However, in said wikicode, i put said superscript after the chemical symbol (H², H³); so that the symbol would actually be alphabetized as “H”, and hence together with other references to hydrogen, rather than as “²” or “³”. (Not that said wikicode, of putting the superscript after the chemical symbol, is actually visible on the article thus sorted.) Okay? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I created "Category:en:Chemical notation". I think it should be renamed "Category:en:Chemical nomenclature and notation" or "Category:en:Chemical notation and nomenclature", to better justify expanding its scope to include nomenclature, rather than just notation in the strict sense.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nothing that has been placed somewhere deliberately is useless; in general you should not be deleting things where you're not sure of the purpose. Benwing2 (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Do not change the proper "lb chemistry" to that italic stuff. It breaks categories and goes against all our semantic formatting rules. Equinox◑21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you have questions about "too many categories", how many is too many should not be your decision alone. Discuss at WT:BP and get consensus first. In any case, our "lb" templates must be used, and not italics. Equinox◑21:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I accept. Does "breaks categories" mean something more than simply removing an article from being placed directly in a certain category? "goes against all our semantic formatting rules." I accept that. (Btw, where would i find out more about the "semantic formatting rules"?) Is it okay if i replace "lb chemistry" with "lb [e.g. organic chemistry or physical chemistry]" as an alternativ way to remove an article from being placed directly in Category:en:Chemistry? (I.e. "that italic stuff" would not be used.) Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Changing to "organic chemistry" etc. seems fine; it is merely making the gloss more specific (but please make sure those are actual categories: they seem to be okay because they turn into blue links). Regarding the semantic stuff, I don't have time to write an essay on it, but we have our system for a reason. WT:GP can help if you need more help. It's the same reason that you use meaningful markup in HTML, like table for a table, instead of using (say) paragraphs and images to fake a table. You want it to be machine-readable what it means. Formatting is only good for the human eye. Equinox◑21:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I accept. However, i will want to read your comment a few times so that i can better understand it. I understand what "turn into blue links" means. Using paragraphs and images to fake a table, sounds like a real hassle, so i (like probably most other editors on Wiktionary or Wikipedia) am unlikely to do it anyway.
Another thing. Another possible way to remove an article from being placed directly in a certain category, would be to simply remove the gloss, i.e. remove "lb chemistry" or equivalent. (Again, none of "that italic stuff".) In what cases would this be acceptable? It seems reasonable to do, if it is obvious what the definition is about.
Also, it would be nice to hav more categories into which you can place an article by simply using "lb [subject]" (hence creating said blue link): that way you can both provide the gloss and place the article in said category, in one piece of wikicode, making the wikicode more concise and hence prettier; also, the blue link looks pretty in this case. For example, if one could place an article directly in Category:en:Sugars by simply writing something like "lb sugar", or directly in Category:en:Alkaloids by simply writing something like "lb alkaloid". This would make it even easier to declutter a category while avoiding "that italic stuff". How can we modify a category so that articles can be placed directly in it via that "lb [subject]" method?
(I was about to bring this up myself, and indeed did so on RFC.) I gather that what you are trying to do is move isomers out of the general chemistry category and into a category of just isomers, since there are so many? In such cases you should probably ask in the Grease Pit or Beer Parlour what the best way to accomplish that is (although in this case, I hope the discussion at RFC will sort it out). It's probably by someone adding "isomer" as a label that'll categorize into "Category:Isomers" (or something) and perhaps still display "chemistry", the way e.g. "Greek god" categories into a separate category from "Greek mythology" but the label itself still displays "Greek mythology". - -sche(discuss)23:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
