# Should Wiktionary have topical categories?

Some Wiktionaries use topical categories while some large ones, e.g. the German one, do not. What is some of the best reasoning?

## Wiktionary should have topical categories
### Pro

* Pro Users learning a language often work with vocabulary packs and topical categories can serve the purpose.
** Objection That they serve this purpose well is not obvious given how comprehensive (containing too many items) the categories are. Vocabulary packs are selective whereas the topical categories are not. Thus, one could want to learn e.g. some names of common birds, but going to Wiktionary:en: Category:en:Birds does not help in any way.
* Pro Topical categories are a management tool: one can find out e.g. the coverage of minerals or weather, and aim at completing the coverage.
** Objection That purpose could be served by an appendix featuring a list. Unlike categories, a list can contain redlinks and it can be a table rather than merely a list. There is generally much more flexibility in list-featuring pages than in categories.
* Pro Topical categories are used by many language editions of Wiktionaries, including English, Spanish, and French. Not conclusive yet suggestive.
** Objection German Wiktionary, a large dictionary made by a meticulous and quality-oriented culture, does not have them. Also not conclusive yet suggestive.
*** Comment: German Wiktionary uses what they call "Verzeichnis" (register or index), e.g. Wiktionary:de: Verzeichnis:Deutsch/Staatennamen, so they have less need of topical categories. And the example of Wiktionary:de: Verzeichnis:Deutsch/Staatennamen shows that one can do more with such a page than with a category, here map country names to inhabitant names.

### Con

* Con Topical categories largely duplicate Wikipedia's categories. For instance, the English Wiktionary biological taxonomy categories duplicate taxonomical structures.
** Objection That does not need entirely be that way; one does not need to replicate the full encyclopedic structure. Thus, one can e.g. have a large category for birds with no subcategories if one wishes.
** Objection Even if they do, that does not mean that the benefits of having that structure directly in the dictionary are not worth it.
* Con Expanding on the above, topical categories are encyclopedic content.
** Objection The question is whether content is useful to have in a dictionary, not whether it is encyclopedic. Definitions of chemical elements are encyclopedic content in so far as they are covered by an encyclopedia.
* Con Topical categories are not uniquely determined by external sources, thereby being somewhat arbitrary. The partial arbitrariness leads to consideration/debate overhead on which categories to have and how to structure them.
* Con Expanding on the above, topical categories are original research.
** Objection While some aspects of topical categories are original, the assignment of an item to a category, e.g. a mineral name to minerals category, is usually not.
** Objection They are original research only to an extent to which Wikipedia's categories are original research, and Wikipedia does not reject having categories.
* Con Topical categories are fundamentally inessential and not core dictionary content.
** Objection That does not mean they should not exist, that is, that their benefits do not outweigh their cost or creation/maintenance overhead.
* Con Expanding on the above, creation/maintenance of topical categories steer attention away from what is really important.
* Con Topical categories create an opportunity for useless editors to show activity in that domain only.
** Objection In so far as the categories are useful, the activity is not useless, nor are the editors engaging in it.
** Objection Attracting more editors is a pro, not a con: some of them may find other useful things to do in the dictionary. There is a lot of rather trivial/mundane work to be done.