Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms"

Voting on:

• Fix the placement of the "Alternative forms" section directly above the "Synonyms" section, as a subsection of the POS section.

Rationale:

• Arguably, synonyms and alternative forms are related concepts.
• Removing "Alternative forms" from above the definitions is a way to promote the definitions.

Simplified entry examples:

• English hardworking:

==English==

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

# Definition.

(possibly other headers between the definitions and the alternative forms)

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

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

• Portuguese vocês:

==Portuguese==

===Pronoun===
{{pt-pron}}

# Definition.

(possibly other headers between the definitions and the alternative forms)

====Alternative forms====
* {{l|pt|vosmecês}} {{q|archaic}}

====Synonyms====
* {{l|pt|vós}} {{q|archaic or regional}}, {{l|pt|os senhores}} {{q|Brazil, formal}}

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/February#Alternative forms after definitions

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms"

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support, per Metaknowledge's comment below. The definitions should be as close to the top of the entry as possible. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   Later: My support is with some hesitation, because apparently this would result in duplication of alternative forms sections in entries with multiple POS sections; see Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms"#Question. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Weak Support. This is an improvement (per Metaknowledge) but still perhaps not ideal. I missed the discussion though. Equinox ◑ 02:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   For the record, I see this as a transitional step. If you have further ideas on how to emphasise the definitions, though, I wouldn't mind hearing them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   Moving the etymology and/or pronunciation below the definitions is one possibility, but it would need to be discussed further. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   I believe we shouldn't take up lots of lines with these, but include them all together for easy readability, like some print dictionaries: e.g. "color, colour: a shade produced by light, etc.". But I know it would be hard to implement. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

5. Support This, that and the other (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Support; I am persuaded that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
7. Support, but not without reservations. --WikiTiki89 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
8. Support assuming that a bot will move them to the right place with the right level. --Makaokalani (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

   Bots would not be able to decide which POS headers to put the terms under, so they would only be able to handle entries with one POS header. --WikiTiki89 14:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

9. Support embryomystic (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
10. Weak Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose Established custom, here and elsewhere. As an editor I want to leave an entry in a state in which I would like to find it as a reader. Droigheann (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   Our readers often complain that they can't find the definition because of all the stuff above it. This is a usability concern. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry, but if they can't find definitions because Alternative forms, Etymology and Pronunciation (of which IMO the first usually takes the least visual space) are above them, how do they find definitions for a 2nd POS and/or Etymology section, with Synonyms and Translations &c&c in between? Or a 3rd, given that now they'd even have to get through the same Alternative forms twice instead of once? --Droigheann (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose per this and this. In the arguments for this, what I'm seeing is exceptions to the rule, like obscure word X that has interesting alternative form Y that can be clarified by e.g. usage notes, or special language A that desperately needs some special care by e.g. a template; words can be related in so many different ways that synonyms is far from being the only alternative header to alternative forms. I usually see other dictionaries put alternative forms comfortably near the headword. Nibiko (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose — Alternative forms usually relate to a word, rather than a POS; accordingly, placing the Alternative forms header immediately after the Etymology header would make most sense. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose Alternative forms and Pronunciation usually apply to all POSes, which is why they are at the top. This proposal will lead to a lot of duplication for Armenian, e.g. adding the same dialectal form or Traditional Orthography spelling after every POS. --Vahag (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Approximately per I.S.M.E.T.A. and Vahagn. 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. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose Alternative forms (as the tantamount words) should apply to all POSes and at top as pronunciation. (The GUI for readers just looking wiktionary for definitions must change but this is another discussion). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose — In addition to what I.S.M.E.T.A. and Vahagn say, having alternative forms at the top reassures readers who have come from a "form of" entry that they have found the right definition. Putting it below the definition makes this more difficult. If alternative forms sections are too long, perhaps a system to hide less common forms by default, or to hide detailed information about each form, should be created. — Eru·tuon 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose Nesting of Alt. forms should only take place when there is more than one POS and the alternative forms do not apply to all of them. Korn (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Abstain. Moved to support. Each option has benefits and drawbacks. Placement above definitions desirably emphasizes important alternative forms (for e.g. differences in national standards) and lets a reader know they've reached the right page, but also undesirably emphasizes unimportant and obsolete alternative forms, and there is also ambiguity over whether some things are alt forms or synonyms (see BP discussion of hajduk). - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The fact that there's some ambiguity over whether some things are alt forms or synonyms has been used as an argument in favour of supporting this proposal and keeping synonyms and alternative forms together as consecutive sections. I agree with this reasoning, and I think this way: Arguably, if you have to place A, B, C, D and E in the alt. forms and/or synonyms sections of Z, but you don't know exactly whether they are individually alt. forms or synonyms, it's better listing them together as consecutive sections, for a better visualization of the whole list. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the alternative-form relationship is a morphological one, like related terms or derived terms, while synonymy is a semantic relationship. An alternative form must appear almost the same or appear to be pronounced the same. An alternative form can often be thought to be the same word which has received alternative typographic or written forms. The ambiguity whether something is an alternative form or a synonym is there, but is minimal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No consensus, with 10-9 (53% support). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)