Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2006-12/POS headers, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
POS headers
- Voting on: Replacing all "Abbreviation", "Acronym" and "Initialism" headers by genuine POS headers.
- Vote ends: 01 Feb 07
- Vote started by: Ncik 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion:
Wiktionary_talk:Entry_layout_explained/POS_headers#Shortened forms
Support
Support Ncik 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)- Support DAVilla 17:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Use
{{abbreviation of}}and put initialism info in the pronunciation section.- Thereby losing the distinction between acronyms/initialisms and abbreviations? That's even worse. Initialisms aren't supposed to have pronunciation sections, BTW. --Connel MacKenzie 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The current system works. If you say it's an initialism then it doesn't need a pronunciation section. Ncik's system also works. If you don't say it's an initialism in the POS header then yes, the initialism would have to have a pronunciation section, maybe just saying that it's an initialism. Wouldn't it be pretty clear, just by looking at the definition, whether the word was an acronym/initialism versus some other shortened form? If not I would be open to using a template different from
{{abbreviation of}}for those. DAVilla 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The current system works. If you say it's an initialism then it doesn't need a pronunciation section. Ncik's system also works. If you don't say it's an initialism in the POS header then yes, the initialism would have to have a pronunciation section, maybe just saying that it's an initialism. Wouldn't it be pretty clear, just by looking at the definition, whether the word was an acronym/initialism versus some other shortened form? If not I would be open to using a template different from
- The idea is to put a tag at the beginning of each definition. If you don't want to have a pronunciation section, that's fine, but Connel's claim the distinction between different types of abberviations would get lost is not true. Ncik 22:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Ncik, the inference you make in your sentece preceding this, is the first mention so far, that you'd even consider identifying the type. So, my hesitation is understandable, no? Would you care to spell out (perhaps back on the original discussion page) precisely how you intend for it to work, then? How would the current category information (that you've also objected to) be retained? --Connel MacKenzie 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Use a template {{initialism}} which categorises the page into Category:Initialisms. Ncik 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have you looked at
{{initialism}}? It is otherwise occupied, already. --Connel MacKenzie 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)- This is a bit unfair. What it's occupied by is the POS header that would be replaced. Still would be better to pick a different name though.
- It seems this proposal hadn't been fully talked out. Were there too few participants before? DAVilla 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have you looked at
- Use a template {{initialism}} which categorises the page into Category:Initialisms. Ncik 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Ncik, the inference you make in your sentece preceding this, is the first mention so far, that you'd even consider identifying the type. So, my hesitation is understandable, no? Would you care to spell out (perhaps back on the original discussion page) precisely how you intend for it to work, then? How would the current category information (that you've also objected to) be retained? --Connel MacKenzie 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thereby losing the distinction between acronyms/initialisms and abbreviations? That's even worse. Initialisms aren't supposed to have pronunciation sections, BTW. --Connel MacKenzie 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support henne 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I suggest that level 3 headers be strictly reserved for POS tags (or later probably the more linguistically correct forms such as Determiner etc., see the other discussion on the talk page above). Information such as initialism or acronym etc. should come in the etymology section.
- Support This same change has worked for "Idiom", though it hasn't carried through 100%. Idioms are categorized (or should be ... I've been working on that). These should be as well, regardless of the outcome here. With the POS header we can tell an idiom that acts as a noun from one that acts as a verb just like anything else. Articles are more informative as a result. In the case of abbreviations and such, different readings can be different parts of speech. I'd like to see (off the top of my head) National Broadcasting Company under Noun and Nuclear, Biological or Chemical under adjective. I agree with Connel that a Definitions section would probably be better, but that's a separate issue. -dmh 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: Thank you for starting this vote. Comment: POS can be indicated only when actually appropriate to do so. The collection of the A/A/I is a much more useful grouping for these terms. The third level headings were never restricted to only parts of speech. If they were, we wouldn't have 90% of the variety we currently have in the foreign language entry's third-level headings. The better way to fix the problem, is to eliminate all "so-called POS headings" and replace them with a single "Definitions" third level heading, adding qualifiers to the start of each definition line. Likewise, etymologies should be translation-style "disambiguated" yikes, that isn't a word, is it? and also consolidated into a single heading, eliminating the current hierarchical nesting. But that is far too large of a problem to address in this vote. --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)- Oppose EncycloPetey 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC) --EncycloPetey 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Williamsayers79 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Current system works fine. SemperBlotto 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cynewulf 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Jan's comment on the discussion page appears highly meaningful, though. They are too useful to just be replaced. --Tohru 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Robert Ullmann 11:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain
Abstain Jeffqyzt 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC) It would be nice to know what part of speech a particular A.A.I. (wait, which one is that? :-) should be used as, but most of the "normal" entry hierarchy no longer applies. Neither option seems optimal, but until something else is proposed...- Abstain Widsith 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Decision
- With 4 votes supporting, 7 opposed, and 1 abstain, this poposal is rejected. We will continue to use "Abbreviation", "Acronym" and "Initialism" as level 3 "part of speech" headers. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)