Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories

Derivations categories

 * Voting on:
 * Creating all the categories listed below (i.e. "English terms derived from other languages", "Japanese terms derived from other languages" and their children), except the ones that would have zero members, if any.
 * The proposed result is creating, for each target language, a category tree organizing terms by their origins. If a term came from Japanese to English, it is then categorized into "Category:English terms derived from Japanese".
 * Expanding the new tree to cover all the applicable languages and families.
 * For example, "Category:English terms derived from Japanese" is mentioned whereas "Category:French terms derived from Spanish" is not; however, both categories are supposed to be created.
 * Deleting all old conflicting categories (which use the system of language codes instead of language names).
 * For example, "Category:es:French derivations" will not be necessary after "Category:French terms derived from Spanish" is created. As a result, "Category:es:French derivations" can be deleted.
 * Here is the category tree. When applicable, for comparison between the old and the proposed systems, the names of old equivalent categories are listed between parentheses.
 * English terms derived from other languages (← Etymology, a number of categories)
 * English terms derived from Indo-European languages (← Indo-European derivations)
 * English terms derived from Germanic languages (← Germanic derivations)
 * English terms derived from West Germanic languages (← West Germanic derivations)
 * English terms derived from Japonic languages (← Japonic derivations)
 * English terms derived from Japanese (← Japanese derivations, just the entries)
 * Japanese terms derived from other languages (← ja:Etymology)
 * Japanese terms derived from Indo-European languages (← ja:Indo-European derivations)
 * Japanese terms derived from Germanic languages (← ja:Germanic derivations)
 * Japanese terms derived from West Germanic languages (← ja:West Germanic derivations)
 * Japanese terms derived from English (← ja:English derivations)
 * Japanese terms derived from Japonic languages (← ja:Japonic derivations)

Notes:
 * This proposal nominally changes the categories from "topical categories" to "lexical categories" (according to the common practice that dictates that the latter should mention language names, not language codes). In addition, the new names are more intuitive, since they use plain English and don't require knowing language codes. (Many other categories do mention the codes, which is a separate subject.)
 * The current derivation categories have their contents filled by, which is programmed to work only for "topical categories", thus should this vote pass, that template will naturally not be used anymore for the affected categories. One way to work around this issue and still have consistent categories would be simply creating a new template for them.
 * The current categories of derivations (e.g. Category:es:French derivations, etc.) are populated by and . Should this vote pass, as a result, these two templates should be adapted to conform with the new naming system.
 * The proposal deliberately includes terms derived from families to languages but not vice-versa. (For example, "English terms derived from Germanic languages" but not "Germanic terms derived from English".) It reflects better the existing categories and etymological relationships.


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23.59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Yair rand 05:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Daniel Carrero

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Daniel 18:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Yair rand 18:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —CodeCat 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Nadando 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Tempodivalse  [talk]  19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Leasnam 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support as better than the current system, especially in light of the other renaming going on. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 10:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC) For one thing, ‘Etymology’ is not the same as ‘terms derived from other languages’. Currently Category:Etymology contains things like Category:Biblical derivations and Category:Suppletion. What happens to them?
 * Presumably, nothing. Nothing is specified, so nothing happens. Category:Suppletion could go to WT:RFM, it's treated as a topical category right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppletion already passed a vote for moving a few weeks ago. —CodeCat 13:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This vote deliberately does not include changes to "Biblical derivations" or "Suppletion" because I (and a number of other contributors, apparently) like to do things one step at a time. The current proposal, in its simplicity, is huge enough without expressly extending to non-language etymologies. You know, ‘Etymology’ is not the same as ‘terms derived from other languages’. --Daniel 12:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose The naming scheme seems too verbose and is much harder to visually parse than the old scheme. Besides, once we switch to tabbed view in the future, this would be handled at the presentation level omitting language codes/names altogether. Solves a non-problem IMHO, and only introduces maintenance horror that would take months to sort out.  --Ivan Štambuk 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose   I'm just not crazy about these ideas. To me this is an ain't-broke-don't-fix-it سه‌ناریو. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's not broken, though. Especially now that the lexical categories have already been moved over. It's not the category structure itself that's in question, it's the naming. —CodeCat 19:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the "Notes" of the proposal sum up pretty much everything. The proposed names are more readable, whereas the old names require language-code savviness, which is too technical. That's, at least, my opinion. --Daniel 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think our current naming structures are fine. Since all our editing requires knowing some language codes, I don't think that's a problem. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, editors should understand what is "pt" or "fa" or "fr" when they see them. However, hopefully, noneditors are expected to use the categories too... Everyone understands language names, while the knowledge of language codes is more-or-less restricted to us. --Daniel 22:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree where you say that everyone understands language names. Maybe in general, but I've gotten in huge arguments with dipshit knownothingfuckingretards who didn't know that Slovene and Slovenian are the same, that Farsi and Persian are the same, that Hindi and Urdu are moooostly the same... A lot of languages have a lot of variations in their names. I'm even tempted to start a vote on, which really should be Slovenian. That's another thing: If we do this, then every time we change a language's name we'll have to change its whole structure for etymology. I know that doesn't really happen with frequency, but still. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We also sometimes deprecate codes, like bs, hr and sr for sh, or zh for cmn, or vls for nl. —CodeCat 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not fantastically common, either. In one of those cases, three were replaced by one (which I think still needs to be replaced by hbs or whatever the iso blablabla-3 is) so that's even less work than just a 1:1 change. Anyway, I doubt based on this line of conversation that either of you will convince me that anything about the current structure needs to change. Oh, except for the language family ones. I do rather prefer "Romanian terms derived from Germanic languages" to "ro:Germanic derivations", but still prefer "ro:Russian derivations" to "Romanian terms derived from Russian" or any variation thereof. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 23:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Dan Polansky 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain. —Ruakh TALK 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes. --Yair rand 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created a template for the new categories: . It works like other category boilerplate templates. The first parameter is the language code of the terms being categorised, and the second is the code of the language or the family from which the terms originate. Leaving out the second parameter creates the top-level category, such as Category:English terms derived from other languages. Leaving out the first creates an umbrella category for categories of all languages, such as Category:Terms derived from English.
 * The categorisation of this template depends on for individual languages, and  for families and their super-families. This means that changing either of those templates will automatically change the category structure as well, so that they always match. Languages and families that have no entry in those templates will be categorised into the top-level category.
 * Right now there is a conflict in the codes between proto-languages and their families, which share a code. So for the time being, derivation categories for proto-languages can't be created, until this conflict is resolved. —CodeCat 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see we didn't just jump into this without a plan for swift implementation. Lol — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 00:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Votings stats: 8:3:2; 72.7% = 8 / (8 + 3). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)