Category talk:All sign languages

RFM discussion: October 2010–January 2016
The RFM are apparently read and replied by few people, and I think all of them already know what is the difference between Category:Sign languages and Category:All sign languages: one contains entries of languages, and other, categories of languages. One of them employs the "all" misleadingly, because the purpose of that word cannot be inferred by its English meaning; both categories should eventually contain all sign languages in different ways.

There are other categories that follow this principle of using "all" for that reason. Nonetheless, the purpose of properly distinguishing between categorization of entries and categorization of categories has not been fulfilled yet:
 * We do not have a Category:North Germanic languages to contain the entries Swedish, Gutnish and Faroese, or a Category:All North Germanic languages to contain Category:Swedish language, Category:Gutnish language and Category:Faroese language.
 * What we have is a third, inconsistent, option: Category:North Germanic languages for language categories. As a result, most entries of languages are not properly categorized per their families. Whether or not we want to categorize them that way may span a different discussion.

In addition, notably, one can elaborate different purposes of the word "all" in Category:All parts of speech and Category:All topics.

I hereby propose deprecating the "all" from language categories, by renaming them as follows: --Daniel. 05:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From Category:All sign languages to Category:Sign language categories
 * From Category:All constructed languages to Category:Constructed language categories
 * From Category:North Germanic languages to Category:North Germanic language categories
 * From Category:Romance languages to Category:Romance language categories
 * From Category:Algonquian languages to Category:Algonquian language categories
 * By extension, the other categories (that contain subcategories of languages, not the ones that contain entries), as above.
 * I don't really see the point. Category:All sign languages and Category:All constructed languages act as language family categories, and were split there due to a naming conflict with the topic categories. The existing names work fine, IMO. (Anyway, the sign language and constructed language topic categories are really overcategorization and should probably be deleted.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think many other editors would like to keep Category:Sign languages, Category:Extinct languages and Category:Constructed languages, with entries defined as languages, not categories of languages. That leaves Category:All sign languages, Category:All extinct languages and Category:All constructed languages beginning with "all" to be distinct from the other three. For that reason, I am proposing a naming scheme intuitive and consistent. As I said above, the word "all" in certain language family categories is misleading, "because the purpose of that word cannot be inferred by its English meaning; both categories should eventually contain all sign languages in different ways." Daniel. 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yair Rand. The topical categories are a bit overspecific and should probably be just deleted. -- Prince Kassad 13:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At Category talk:ja:Sign languages, there is a discussion whose result was splitting categories as explained above, by naming one of them with "all". Since both Kassad and Yair disagree with the result of that discussion, you may want to discuss that matter again. However, topical categories are generally expected to be subdivided many times, like how we have not only Category:Beverages, but also Category:Alcoholic beverages. Based on these and many others, I do not see the lack of Category:ja:Sign languages as a clear way to draw the line of overcategorization of language entries. Relatedly, Kumyk is a member of Category:Turkic languages; that entry can be easily recategorized if necessary, but it probably does not need to. --Daniel. 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Parts of this proposal seem to have been overtaken by events. Archived, five years later, without further action taken. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)