As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Help talk:Topic

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The introduction is great, thanks! One thing though: Wouldn't it be better to discuss or propose topics on this discussion page instead in the beer parlour? --dh 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. Or create a page "list of topics" and discuss them on its discussion page. This second option would help to distinguish the discussions about the "topic" annotation as such and the discussion about the list of topics. --Kipcool 11:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. Though it's not really worthwhile as long as the list is as short as it is now.
Would it be possible to have an automatically generated list of topics similar to the list of classes, with the difference that it takes hyponomy into account to create a nice hierachy? --dh 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I could do something like classes.php for the topics without too much effort.
Adding to it the hyponomy relationship to have a hierarchy is somewhat more complicated and would take much more time to do. --Kipcool 18:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, just a list would be nice for starters. Everything else can be done later... Or would it be possible to have a namespace "Topic", so that we could extend the manually created list by a link (Topic:ExampleTopic), that lists all the DMs for the given topic? --dh 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding examples to the list of topics[edit]

I think it would be nice to put one or two examples in the list, to have an idea of what belongs to each topic. And/or have the above feature that shows what is in a topic, in a way similar to the classes. --Kipcool 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Being able to list all DMs that are assigned to a given topic, either on an extra page or on the DM page of the topic, similar to hypernyms/hyponyms etc., would definitely the better solution. How difficult is it to implement something like this? --dh 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the list of topics[edit]

Economy vs. trade[edit]

I am not sure of the difference, or rather I am not sure what goes in the topic "trade". Isn't a general topic "economy" enough? --Kipcool 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not to sure about this either. I've added it because the distinction was made somewhere (but I forgot where...).

Mythology vs. Classical Mythology[edit]

In my opinion, a general topic "mythology" is enough. It should be clear from the definition whether it is classical mythology or not. --Kipcool 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that topics are not only for human readers but also for computers (think automatic text parsing, sense disambiguation, machine-translation etc.). And for them it is not that easy to distinguish DMs by reading their definitions. Besides, it is nice to have the possibility to create lists with DMs/expressions relating to a certain topic. If the topics are too broad they become useless. --dh 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes but topics are not only for computers, but also for human readers ;-). The more topics you have, the more problem a human will have to assign the correct category, and the more complicated it will be to define the borders (though I agree that at the moment, we are still well limited, so there is not too much problem) --Kipcool 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Christianity[edit]

I think Christianity should be subset of religion rather than mythology, and I also think that a general topic "religion" is enough, instead of having one topic for each religion. So, in general, I am more in favor of limiting the number of topics by having only general ones instead of using subdivisions. --Kipcool 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've expected a reaction like this, though actually Christianity etc. are mythologies (or mythologies are/were religions), with the only difference that, in opposite to classical, greek etc. mythology, they are still in use, i.e. have priests and devotees. I don't have a problem with creating a general topic for religion, but that would run counter to limiting the number of topics (at least if one thinks that "Christianity", "Judaism" etc. should have extra topics, as I do).
In regard to limiting the number of topics: I agree that we should keep the number of topics as low as possible, but a certain degree of granularity should be maintained. For example, we should at least list the 5 main religions (Judaism, Hinduism, Budhhism, Islam, Christianity) as it would be good to have the possibility to list all DMs having "Christianity" as topic. Besides it sometimes is even neccessary as some terms have different meanings in different religions/traditions (For example, "enlightenment" means something different in Hinduism and Budhism.)
ok... maybe you are right about having a topic for each main religion.
So, maybe my question can be simplified now to: "should the upperset be named mythology or religion?". Anybody browsing through a list of topic will expect to find "religion" somewhere. --Kipcool 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, for me it makes perfect sense to list "Christianity" etc. under "Mythology", but I understand that people are not used to it (and that it even might hurt feelings...). --dh 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with all other topics so far. --Kipcool 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the topic religion and put Christianity there. Then I noticed the discussion here. ;-) I agree that Christianity is just a cult like any other, but mythology is still not the right category. Mythology and religion are treated as different things pretty much everywhere in literature, so we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. --Tosca 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Science as a top level topic[edit]

But we certainly should limit the number of top level topics, that is, add a topic "science" and assign biology, chemistry etc. as sub-topics. This way we could have both: granularity and clear arrangement. --dh 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We can show science in the hierarchical tree as comprising biology, chemistry, etc. as you say, but I am wondering if we need science as a topic itself. By that, I mean: are there concepts that will be in "science" because they cannot be classified in one of its sub-topics? --Kipcool 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, though I can't think of an example right now, there are definitely terms that belong to the more general topic "Science" rather than a specific subset (maybe "methological", "empirical", "trial and error", "double blind" etc. would be examples). Besides it is useful to have the possibility to select all DMs belonging to any of the subsets of "Science", even if nothing is assigned to "Science" itself. Though the general rule should be to be as specific as possible when assigning a topic.

Fireball[edit]

And what about things like that: DefinedMeaning:Feuerball (7186)? I believe a topic should be created to include roleplaying terminology. But it probably shouldn't be a top level topic, though I don't know right now what it should be a subset of. Maybe "literature"? --dh 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
well, it is not really roleplaying terminology, but fantasy terminology (in that it is for video games inspired from fantasy)
and fantasy as a subset of literature is ok for me (containing orcs, fireball, elves).
otherwise, for the roleplaying aspect, I'd say that a topic "video game" should be enough, containing words such as "spawning", "mmorpg", ... --Kipcool 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, though I am not sure about "video games" as I don't think it should be a top level topic but also don't know what it should be a subset of. --dh 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm should be a subset of "game"? On the English Wikipedia, they further put game as a subset of "sports and games", but not sure about this one. --Kipcool 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Apart from "Video Games" it could have subsets like "Soccer", "Basketball", "Chess", etc. as they all have a specific vocabulary. --dh 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To come back to the original topic: DefinedMeaning:Feuerball (7186) should go under "Games and Sports" in a subtopic called either "Fantasy" or "Roleplay" since there are a lot of terms that are not really borrowed from fantasy literature such as "Lebensenergie" ("life energy"), "Trefferpunkte" ("hit points"), "Schadenspunkte" ("damage points") etc. --dh 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What about DMs like DefinedMeaning:chiàgnere (7709) or DefinedMeaning:full (6098)? Not every DM needs a topic, I think. If we tried to do that we would end up with thousands of topics. Maybe we can have fun with that later, but I think that right now it wouldn't do any good. What worries me is the lack of bot operations. Whatever we introduce, there is no easy way to change it or get rid of it. --16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
DefinedMeaning:full (6098) would go under something like "Drugs" :), but you are right, not every DM needs or should be assigned to a topic. --dh 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)