Category talk:Importance

Where is the documentation that justifies this? It seems completely redundant to the content that is ideally under our semantic relations headers and WikiSaurus. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Importance
Note before we started, I created this category as it has/had nine entries, all of which were added by. Allow ultra-specific topical categories is bad enough; this is more like a category for synonyms, and to me, is redundant to a synonyms or see also section, or Wikisaurus, just create WS:importance instead. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to keep this category, either with this name or with a similar name such as Category:Value. However, DCDuring, in this history page, expresses his disagreement by stating that it is redundant to Wikisaurus and a Synonyms section. He also deleted most of its members, except 9 random ones.
 * He didn't say what page or section. However, Wikisaurus and Synonyms sections are restricted by meanings and parts of speech: we have one for adjectives meaning low importance and another for adjectives meaning high importance. We don't have any linking to nouns like importance or adverbs like importantly as synonyms.
 * The Category:Importance has members of multiple parts of speech and multiple languages, as expected of a topical category. Many English words may be simultaneously members of Wikisaurus pages and similar topical categories: for example, we have Category:Tea and WS:tea. The Wikisaurus version is more restricted and more sophisticated by displaying various types of relationships of English nouns (though proposals of implementing Wikisaurus in other languages have been discussed, and WS pages of other parts of speech may be linked within the "See also" section if applicable), and the topical category is more abrangent and more simple by simply listing all the terms that involve tea in the easily readable and editable standard used by numerous sites powered by MediaWiki. --Daniel. 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete, I'm tempted to say this is deliberate vandalism, an attempt to harm Wiktionary content. What's next, Category:Awesomeness? Category:Hilariousness? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite what you've said, I think that this is redundant to synonyms sections, WS and see also sections. &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very best, it's not a topical category of a part-of-speech style category like English nouns; it would need a new category tree, like English synonym categories, or English related term categories. Indeed you could split the category between WS:importance and Category:English terms derived from importance. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. To the extent that this undocumented category might have intellectual coherence, it is included in the idea of semantic relations which are a family of L4/5 headers and also derived and related terms. This makes me wonder about a few things, but especially what criteria warrant the creation of a topical category, let alone a tree of categories of supposed application to every language. The category realm has become yet another private playpen, following individual Appendix subpages. If only such creative energy could be used for good. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that Category:Importance is not redundant to synonyms sections and WS pages; it is. Or rather, it will be redundant, once people move the contents from the category to Wikisaurus pages, since this idea was brought up after I started to organize the contents by using the category.

Mglovesfun and DCDuring, please stop being overdramatic. I'm tired of having to deal with conflicts based on poor yet aggressive arguments. Vandalism? Private playpen? Suggesting that Wiktionary would be so easily harmed by a new category is offensive to a project I like.

Internoob, thank you for your opinion. My conclusion may sound sarcastic, but it isn't. If people are expected to always find it better to navigate between multiple WS pages subdivided by parts of speech and nuances of meaning instead of one big and comprehensive topical category, I'm fine with that. --Daniel. 04:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that Wiktionary could be offended. I also didn't know you like it! This category isn't topical, it's synonyms, antonyms, related terms, derived terms and see also. --Mglovesfun (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be describing Category:Three. --Daniel. 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This would lead to a set of categories for qualities AKA properties such as Category:Greatness, Category:Hilariousness, Category:Heaviness and Category:Hardness, which might work and be nice for some purposes, but it is unclear whether this is a topical category and where it belongs in the topical category tree. I would like to see at least a sketch of a plan for creation of such categories before I could support the category. --Dan Polansky 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not suitable as a category name. ---&gt; Tooironic 22:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)