Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Verbs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
  • Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Category:Verbs}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add :
    {{Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/09/Category:Verbs}}
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Do we need both of this: Category:Activities and Category:Verbs? Is verbs the right category name? I think a verb is a part of speech, a word that indicates an action, an event, or a state, but a verb is not the action, event or state. --Diwas (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I support to merge it into Category:Activities. Commons isn't a dictionary but a media file repository. --ŠJů (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No need to do the same discussion as in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Verbs again and again. --Foroa (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, i forgot that Commons belongs not only to Wikipedias but also to Wictionary and many others projects. The lexical aspect can be useful to categorize. --ŠJů (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Verbs was about deletion. Here we talk about a merge and the best name and category tree design. If both categories are merged, and there are a See also Category:Avtivities in the Categorie:Verbs page, you will find all the activities indicated by verbs as fast as now. In the Category:Verbs must only content like Category:French pronunciation of verbs or illustrations of lexicalic or gramatical knowledge. It is not a good category tree to put all the activities indicated by verbs as subsubcategories of the following categories: Words, Writing, Verbs, Book market, Literature, Linguistics, Econonic history, ... Why should be a smoking vulcano categorized in a subsubcat of Category:Book market? If you want the word verbs then I suggest a main category Category:Content by verb or Category:Activities indicated by verb directly under Category:Topics and under no other categories. --Diwas (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)--Diwas (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that categories relating to activities may be subactegories of category:Activities, and that only topics of linguistics should remain in category:Verbs. --Javier ME (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Estoy de acuerdo en que las categorías que se refieran a actividades podrían ser subcategorías de category:Activities, y que solo los asuntos lingüísticos deberían mantenerse en category:Verbs. --Javier ME (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It is the other way round: verbs is a superset of activities as verbs can relate to things that are are not directly activities such as emotions (hurting, loving), smiling, looking, smelling, heating, ... --Foroa (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if resting or being idle are (no) activities. Perhaps, it is a good way to have both categories because they are not 100 % equal. But i suggest to put the verbs-category near to the top, this way:

--Diwas (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The following way is not my favorite, but not very bad?:

--Diwas (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another question: Should be every category directly in the verbs-cat? Category:Jogging is a subcat of Category:Running, should it categorized directly in the verbs-cat?--Diwas (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, there is a loop in the tree, cause
  • the category of writing as a Concept/Content/Process is not separated to the category of writing as a word/verb/part of speech
  • the category of verbs (list of all the verbs as Concepts/Contents/Processes/Statusses/...) is not separated to the category of verbs as a Part of speech/topic of Linguistics
  • the category of words (list of all the words as Concepts/Contents/...) is not separated to the category of words as a Part of speech/topic of Linguistics.
--Diwas (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
A small part of the current tree:
--Diwas (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A category "Verbs" does not make sense since there are no images or movies of verbs. The only thing that would make sense would be a category "spoken verbs" with sound files. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cwbm's right. It doesn't make sense. Verbs are parts of speech; they aren't the actual activities themselves. "Verbs" aren't the subject here. Rocket000 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No consensus: Stale discussion. King of ♠ 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)