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

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
A small part of the current tree:
...
--Diwas (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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