Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Multiple pronunciation sections

Voting on:

• Proposal 1: In the case of multiple pronunciations:

  Option A: We should have multiple pronunciation sections.

  Option B: We should put multiple pronunciations in one pronunciation section (but special exceptions may be made for specific languages).

  Note: Proposals 2, 3 and 4 below only come into effect if we use multiple pronunciation sections.

• Proposal 2:

  Option A: If there are multiple pronunciation sections, they should be numbered.

  Option B: If there are multiple pronunciation sections, they should be repeated unnumbered.

• Proposal 3:

  Option A: If there are multiple pronunciation sections, the content to which the pronunciation applies should be nested under the pronunciation section.

  Option B: If there are multiple pronunciation sections, the content to which the pronunciation applies should follow the pronunciation section.

• Proposal 4:

  If there are multiple pronunciation sections, etymology sections should not be nested under pronunciation sections.

Rationale:

• Deciding if there should be some standardization of the formatting of multiple pronunciation sections.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#About: Pronunciation 1, Pronunciation 2, Pronunciation 3

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-02/Multiple pronunciation sections

1. Support It's been a while since I read the discussion, but I'm assuming that the multiple sections only are created when the pronunciations differentiate definitions, because everything else would be nonsense. Korn (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --WikiTiki89 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support -- we have already discussed the reasons for this. Benwing2 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Vahag (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support. Option A is poorly written and could be taken to imply we need to duplicate all the content of e.g. quahog about a dozen times (one section for each pronunciation), or at least that we should split up upbeat, neither of which I'm enthused about. - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose What about language-specific decision-making as the rule not the exception? DCDuring TALK 13:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose No good reason for this. Even if there were, this is not the way to solve such a problem. Tharthan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose — Sometimes proposal A would define the right course of action, and at some other times proposal B would define the right course of action. I don't think there is a need to legislate on this, but if a regulation is still sought, it should be a more nuanced one than either of those proposed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose: There is no rationale; "Deciding if there should be some standardization of the formatting of multiple pronunciation sections" is not a rationale for any of the discussed options. Option B--single pronunciation section--is what we mostly do and what WT:ELE specifies but since WT ELE also contains the flexibility clause, WT:ELE is good as is, and no policy change seems to be required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per I.S.M.E.T.A. and Dan Polansky. --Droigheann (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Support Korn (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Support, but only if they share a nest. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose What about language-specific decision-making instead? DCDuring TALK 13:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose No good reason for this. Even if there were, this is not the way to solve such a problem. Tharthan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've indented the "votes" above, which were copied and pasted from proposal 1, because they don't make sense in this section — if proposal 1 passes and we have multiple pronunciation sections, we're either going to number them or not... - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Korn (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
6. Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Support If I understand this correctly, Option A possibly means Etymology 1 at L2 > Pronunciation 1 at L3 > POS at L4. --Droigheann (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose What about language-specific decision-making instead? DCDuring TALK 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose No good reason for this. Even if there were, this is not the way to solve such a problem. Tharthan (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've indented the "votes" above, which were copied and pasted from proposal 1, because they don't make sense in this section — if proposal 1 passes and we have multiple pronunciation sections, we're either going to nest them or not. (Or if one of you actually opposes both nesting and listing the content after the pronunciation and wants to specify that the pronunciations should be after the content they apply to , perhaps like this, then re-instate your vote) - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose What about language-specific decision-making instead? DCDuring TALK 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose No good reason for this. Even if there were, this is not the way to solve such a problem. Tharthan (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose I maintain that the order of Pronunciation/Etymology should be decided case by case or possibly that etymology should follow pronunciation per default.Korn (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Korn. --Droigheann (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain — I'm inclined to support this fourth proposal, but I'd like to know if there are any arguments that have been made in favour of nesting etymology sections under pronunciation sections, because none are currently occurring to me. Are there any? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I brought forth that pronunciation is a spoken æquivalent to spelling and thus making it an entry-defining optional top level header would be an idea worth discussing, since it is what truly differentiates entries, much more than etymology. (Always with the restriction to pronunciations which do make a semantic difference and are not merely consequenceless variants.) Korn (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The vote has no consensus; Option B, which had the most support in Proposal 1, has no consensus 6-5 (55%), and Option A failed 1-5 (17%). As a result, all the dependent proposals are null. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: The other proposals are still relevant. The failure of Proposal 1 means that the status quo is still in place and, as far as I know, multiple pronunciation sections are not explicitly forbidden. The remaining three proposals say "If there are multiple pronunciation sections", and not "If Proposal 1, Option A passes", so they still apply to whenever there are multiple pronunciation sections and should be closed. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The vote's structure was very unclear, and I don't think I could close them in good conscience when it seems that much of the votership thought, like me, that it was implied to be dependent on multiple pronunciation sections being legislated, not being used in general. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to determine what the votership thought, except by asking them. The default should be to go with what the vote literally says. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I too thought was implied. -Xbony2 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The vote doesn't literally say "If there are multiple pronunciation sections", it literally says "if we use multiple pronunciation sections". Who is "we" now Proposal 1 has failed? --Droigheann (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Meta. Even if we were to close the other proposals, nothing would change: Proposal 2 shows no consensus (each of the two mutually-exclusive options got about even levels of support), proposal 3's option A (if one argues that it passed) is existing practice, and proposal 4 is also existing practice (that there is no ban on not nesting etymologies under pronunciations). - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how Proposal 3 Option A is existing practice. Could you link me to an example entry? I tried bow, row and record and their contents are not nested under, they follow the respective pronunciations (Option B), POS's are the same level headers as Pronunciations. --Droigheann (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

bow has multiple Etymology sections, with content (including pronunciation information) nested under it. That's the usual format. In cases where there are multiple pronunciation sections (sections distinguishing things by pronunciation), as in auraria and にじ, the content is nested under the pronunciation. (If anyone pursues a very legalistic line of argument that not only should proposals 2-4 be judged independent of the proposal whose passage they depended upon, but that furthermore proposal 3 should cover bow because it technically has "multiple" pronunciation sections, then I point out that frau also has multiple pronunciation sections: one in the English section, one in the Catalan section, and one in the German section; nothing in the vote says the multiple sections have to be in the same language section. I await your edit putting the POS headers in frau at L4...) - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't await with bated breath, for ye await in vain. In fact both the "at bow actually nested under Etymology" and the "maybe I've never seen this as it happens in languages I don't look at" ideas occurred to me, true to form, the moment I switched off my laptop. So thanks for the links confirming the latter. I don't like the way the L3 POS looks under the L2 pronunciation at にじ, but then I never liked the way L3 POS look under L2 Etymology anywhere, so I guess I can live with it, especially as "my" languages will aparently be virtually unaffected. --Droigheann (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I overlooked the note "Note: Proposals 2, 3 and 4 below only come into effect if we use multiple pronunciation sections." (despite the fact that I apparently wrote it...). Taking that into account, I would have to agree that it is unclear what was meant and proposals 2, 3, and 4 should be ignored. --WikiTiki89 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)