Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Disambiguation: namespace

• Voting on:
  1. Creating two namespaces: "Disambiguation:" and "Disambiguation talk:".
  2. Creating the alias "DAB:" for the namespace "Disambiguation:".
  3. Moving Appendix:Variations of "chan" to Disambiguation:chan. As a result, DAB:chan would automatically work as a shortcut to it.
  4. Moving all other appendices of disambiguation of letters and words to the new namespace. Examples of new pages would include DAB:a, DAB:ab and DAB:ac, which would be moved from Appendix:Variations of "a", Appendix:Variations of "ab" and Appendix:Variations of "ac", respectively.
• Rationale A: The proposed names are shorter.
  • Disambiguation:chan is 10 characters shorter than Appendix:Variations of "chan".
  • DAB:chan is 21 characters shorter than Appendix:Variations of "chan".
• Rationale B: The proposed names are simpler.
  • Both Disambiguation:chan and DAB:chan are devoid of spaces, prepositions and quotation marks. Appendix:Variations of "chan" is not.

• Vote starts: 00:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23.59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#"Variations of..." namespace

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-06/Disambiguation: namespace

# Support --Daniel 00:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Support Angel drinks 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) very nice idea
2. Support Ultimateria 17:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Can't hurt...

1. Oppose Tempodivalse 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) The new system would have small advantages as described, but I think it's not worth the effort to implement it. For instance, there's nothing stopping us from making a two-character alias for the Appendix: namespace, thereby fulfilling the goal of shorter titles more easily. Also, I'm not sure I like the "Wikipedisation" of a namespace named "disambiguation". For a dictionary, "appendix" seems most appropriate. Tempodivalse 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

   If, hypothetically, "AP" was the two-letter alias of the appendix namespace, then AP:Variations of "chan" would be the shortcut to Appendix:Variations of "chan". That's not much shorter or simpler, especially in comparison with the proposed DAB:chan.

   The appendix namespace is good for general purpose, while some well-defined specific purposes usually get their own namespaces, such as "Rhymes:", "Wikisaurus:", "Citations:", "Index:" and "Wiktionary:". I don't count "Concordance:", "Help:" and "Sign Gloss:" because one is abandoned and the other two are half-abandoned. The appendices of variations are edited often and have a nice standard format, like some namespaces, and are also linked prominently from many entries, through the {{also}} template.

   Would you like another title for the new namespace, should a new namespace exist? An alternative idea would be Variations:chan. I still think Disambiguation:chan is better, though, not to imitate Wikipedia, but because it's an accurate word for the purpose. --Daniel 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   That's an interesting idea! I'd probably support a "variations:" namespace; semantically, it's better than both what we have now and the current proposal. Note that I'm not categorically opposed to this proposal, but being something of a minimalist, I like to satisfy myself that proposed changes really improve the project and are more than a mere desire to "rearrange deckchairs".

   One other thing: How much effort, would you estimate, is needed to implement the proposed alterations? Tempodivalse 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   The creation of a new namespace is very easy: someone links this vote to a Bugzilla request and waits, then the new namespace appears magically (because someone else with really high privileges creates it).

   I believe a script of automatic edits should, rather easily, move all pages and update their links in some minutes. I can't guarantee making that script so soon myself, however. Given my recent patterns of repetitive edits, I should probably move the few hundreds of appendices manually during < 1 hour, and leave redirects, if no one beats me to it. --Daniel 18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose As Tempodivalse. Maro 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
3. We don't need shortcuts to namespaces that aren't often entered manually. Otherwise I like this idea but I have to oppose the vote because there is not sufficient discussion. Variations: may be a better option. Also, this might be tested before the namespace is actually created. DAVilla 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose I can't see the need for this. SemperBlotto 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose Gauss 21:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose. —Ruakh_TALK 21:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose. "Disambiguation" is the wrong framework to use in a dictionary, where every entry for a word with multiple meanings is effectively a disambiguation page. A agree with comments above that a "Variations" namespace would work. bd2412 T 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose --Daniel 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
   • I change my vote from support to opposition, per BD2412. I, too, agree with comments above that a "Variations:" namespace would work and a "Disambiguation:" one would not. --Daniel 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC), bordering on opposing. I don't see how the appendix namespace 'fails' to cover this function. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

   IMHO, for one, typing names with quotation marks is just cumbersome. If I remember correctly, people already deprecated names like Category:English words suffixed with "-hood" in favor of Category:English words suffixed with -ness before. --Daniel 16:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

   The quotation marks are less useful when addressed to a suffix like -ness than in an appendix of variations; for example (in my opinion) Variations of "me" implies variations of the two letter combination, while a Variations of me implies variations of the specific word (as in me, myself, and I). I do think, however, that "disambiguation" is entirely the wrong concept to have in a dictionary. The entries for words like cell and orange and set are effectively a disambiguation page because the word is susceptible to numerous meanings, and not because they are susceptible to numerous variations in capitalization and presentation. bd2412 T 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fails per consensus. --Daniel 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)