Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/Placement of "Alternative forms" 2 (weaker proposal)

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Placement of "Alternative forms" 2 (weaker proposal)[edit]

Note: This is a follow-up to Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms". It ended as no consensus in March 2016, with 10 supports (52.6%), 9 opposes (47.4%) and 0 abstentions. This is a "weaker" version of that vote, as discussed here.

Voting on:

Allowing editors to be free to place the Alternative forms section in either of the following places, on a case-by-case basis. Individual entries should be discussed, in case of disagreement.

  1. Before the definitions. Details:
    The Alternative forms is to be placed before the definitions; more specifically, before the Pronunciation and Etymology sections, using the same header level as both the Pronunciation and Etymology sections1. (this is the status quo)
  2. After the definitions. Details:
    The Alternative forms is to be placed after the definitions; more specifically, directly before the Synonyms section, with the same level as the Synonyms section2.

Footnotes:

1 Concerning the type 1 (Before the definitions), it is out of the jurisdiction of this vote to answer the question: "In case of numbered etymologies, should we place Alternative forms before Etymology 1 or as a direct subsection of Etymology N?" This question remains, no matter whether the vote passes or fails.
2 Concerning the type 2 (After the definitions), if the entry does not have a Synonyms section, the rule remains: the Alternative forms section is to be placed after Usage notes, Inflection, Conjugation, Declension, Mutation and Quotations; the Alternative forms section is to be placed before Antonyms, Hypernyms, Hyponyms, Meronyns, Holonyms, Troponyms, Coordinate terms, Derived terms, Related terms, Hyponyms, Descendants, Translations, See also, References and External links.

Rationale:

  • Arguably, synonyms and alternative forms are related concepts, and sometimes it makes sense to place both together.
    • Both sections are lists of terms with the same meaning as the current term.
    • If you are in doubt whether a term fits in Alternative forms or Synonyms, it helps to show both sections consecutively.
  • Removing Alternative forms from above the definitions is a way to promote the definitions.
    • Definitions are more important than alternative forms. Readers are likely to be more interested in definitions than in alternative forms. This is a way to avoid forcing readers to scroll down or read past the upper sections if they don't want to.

Simplified examples, concerning English entry hardworking:

Type 1. Before the definitions.
==English==

===Alternative forms===
* {{l|en|hard-working}}

===Adjective===
{{en-adj}}

# Definition.

====Synonyms====
* {{l|en|industrious}}
Type 2. After the definitions.
==English==

===Adjective===
{{en-adj}}

# Definition.

====Alternative forms====
* {{l|en|hard-working}}

====Synonyms====
* {{l|en|industrious}}

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support[edit]

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support insofar as it is a step towards having them all directly preceding the "Synonyms" sections. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —CodeCat 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support; I am persuaded that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, as in the previous vote, especially with this vote's allowance for the current setup to continue in any entries where it is more desirable to us. An advantage of the current placement is that readers may want to see pertinent alternative forms (like US/UK differences) at the top of the entry to reassure them that they are at the right entry; a drawback is that potentially long lists of obsolete, archaic, uncommon, and/or equally-standard alternative spellings take up space that pushes the definitions down, which is especially noticeable when there are a lot of alternative spellings, as in voivode and Muhammad. There is also sometimes ambiguity over what is an alternative spelling and what is a synonym (for instance at voivode or hajduk, where different spellings may be from different languages). This proposal does not solve that issue (forms still have to be listed in one place or the other, or both) but does mitigate it (the sections are now next to each other). - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support —Enosh (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. The French Wiktionary has been doing so for a long time. See fr:color#en for example. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I am already handling it like that for Middle Low German; I'd sworn this proposal already had consensus. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am nervously going to say Support, since it's going to take a long while for me to adapt to this new format when creating entries. I still think it is the right thing to do, though. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — I think perhaps both options should be allowed, but neither prescribed to be used in all cases. When there are multiple POS headers that all have the same alternative spellings, as at color (which has a Noun, Adjective, and Verb all spelled the same way), it doesn't make sense to have a separate Alternative forms header with the exact same content under each POS header. Conversely, when there are different Alternative forms for each POS or Etymology, it doesn't make sense to describe them all under the Language header, with appropriate disambiguators (for Etymology 1, for Noun); it would be simpler to put the Alternative forms under the appropriate Etymology or POS header. (I can't think of an example of the latter case.) In short, perhaps Alternative forms should be placed in one position or the other depending on which POS or Etymology it applies to? (I am not sure if this is carefully thought through, so I apologize if it doesn't make sense.) — Eru·tuon 23:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose For the same reason as in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement_of_"Alternative_forms": The proposal increases the actual number of occurrences of Alternative forms heading, since now they are a node subordinate to language, while in the proposal, they are a node subordinate to part of speech. For example, in color we only need one alternative forms section but with the proposal, we would need two. In color, what really pushes definitions down the page is the etymology section, not alternative forms. On a slightly related note, I proposed to exclude obsolete forms from alternative forms, which would drastically reduce the number of entries that have alternative forms header, but the vote did not pass; that would really help promote definitions over "alternative forms" sections. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "synonyms and alternative forms are related concepts": I don't agree with that: synonymy is semantic relation while being an alternative form a morphological one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    About semantic vs. morphological relations. AFs still need to be attested for each part of speech. (I wonder if they need to be attested for each sense of the main entry, but that's beside the point.) In the set of main entries with multiple POS sections and nonzero alternative forms (which are exactly the entries that may have duplicate AF sections), there must be a non-negligible number of AFs that don't apply to all POS sections of the main entry. I admit I don't have any actual numbers.
    Besides, synonyms and alternative forms fit the broader set of "stuff you can substitute for the current word". For "hardworking", you can write either "hard-working" or "industrious".
    If people want to avoid duplication of AF sections, you can still have it at the top in entries like color even if this proposal passes. That said, my opinion is different from yours: I think it is really better to place the AF as an L4 section after the definitions, before the "Synonyms", and I don't think the duplication is a problem. In my opinion, it is better to place the AF twice below the definitions, than once at the top of the language section in color. I'd like to promote the definitions this way.
    For the record, your vote about Allowing "Obsolete forms" heading to be placed somewhere before "Anagrams", containing obsolete forms. is this one: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-10/Obsolete forms heading. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain I prefer above the definition, but apparently I can't vote just for that. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Passed: 10-1-1 (90.90%-9.09%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited WT:EL to match. I also edited hard-working as one of the first entries using the new format. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/Placement_of_%22Alternative_forms%22_2_(weaker_proposal)&oldid=41132650"