Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2006-03/Request for bot status: TheCheatBot 2

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/March#Request for bot status: TheCheatBot.

• Bot: User: TheCheatBot
• Owner/operator: User: Connel MacKenzie
• Purpose: Fill in plurals, exactly as is currently done manually, without templates of any sort whatsoever.
• Generation restrictions:
  1. Entry must not already exist.
  2. Root form must link the plural one or two lines after the ===Noun=== heading.
  3. Inflection can be provided by regular text wikification, template:en-noun-reg, template:en-noun, template:en-noun2, template:en-noun-unc, template:en-noun-both, template:en-noun-irreg, or any other template that wikifies terms.
  4. All but the last three two characters of the root form must match the plural form to be auto-generatred in this manner.
  5. Auto-generated only if there is no other inflected form (e.g. Verb 3rd person).
  6. ===Noun=== header of root term must be within an ==English== language section.
• Name: The cutsie name is in honor of http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail143.html as the character (a stuffed doll) named "The Cheat" became "The Cheat Bot" for this episode, by duct-taping on a box covered with aluminum foil.)

VOTE:

• For:
  1. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- Tawker 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- SemperBlotto 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- MGSpiller 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. I trust that issues of soundness will be worked out. Davilla 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keffy 06:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. With all due caution and plenty of checking/testing, please. --Dvortygirl 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. — Vildricianus 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (original objection was addressed)
  10. Interestingly, my piece (definition number 5) is also named The Cheat. --Rory096 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against:
  1. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (see below)

• Comments:
• Now that I have seen what this one does I can be a little less hostile; the description page should match what's above but that is only a matter of housekeeping. I reviewed what TheCheatBot has done, and in the one case where there was a questionable plural, abatiss, that questionable plural was already there in the article. The link to the name justification article didn't work for me, but the name is not an issue for me. It could still be misunderstood by others in the future. There seem to be adequate safeguards to prevent this bot from taking too big a swath.

It would be nice if the bot could double-check, much as a human would do instinctively. The ambiguous spelling rules are: -fs or -ves from single f; -fes (possibly?) or -ves from fe; usually -oes or rarely just -os for long o; -ces or -cs from c; not sure about q. The standard rules are, -ies from y proceded by consonant, or -ys by vowel (not sure about wy); -es from e; -ses from s; -shes from sh; -ches from ch; -zes from z; -xes from x. (Trying to remember if there are any more.) Otherwise just add -s. Davilla 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

These should have been checked by humans when they went on the root page for the singular in the first place. The bot should not be trying to analyse ambiguous spelling rules, just copying what's already there. Eclecticology 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The standard rules can be checked easily. This would avoid problems like adding just "s" to a word that ends in "s". The rarer ambiguous cases would not be checked for preciseness. If the bot doesn't ignore them, it would just make sure that at least one of the patterns fits. Davilla 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

this section moved a bit up:

• Problem: If we're going to have a "third person" bot, then there will be duplicate entries for some items. For example, consider that shop is both a noun and a verb in English, and so will have both a plural noun form and a third person verb form. I would vote for this bot IF the bot could somehow work in conjunction with ThirdPersonBot to create combined entries. That is, words that have both a noun and verb entry are treated simultaneously, so that we don't end up with only the plural or only the third person. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NotAProblem: At this point in time, I am skipping those. That was the intent from the start, but I had trouble parsing some templates initially. If there is both, that will be handled by a separate 'bot, not this one nor ThirdPersBot. That is, if I ever propose a 'bot again. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's good. Eclecticology 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • More importantly that we can find a consensus on one part of your original proposal. Eclecticology 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That I never propose a 'bot again?  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• The description on the bot user page could do with updating (it still refers to the original spec). MGSpiller 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• One step at a time is fine by me. Do the easy stuff (i.e. plurals only, 3rd person only) first then review & go for the harder ones which include both. MGSpiller 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Thank you for your kind words and support. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem, some wise person who's name is buried in some wiki flame war somewhere once suggested that you should try to bring more light than heat to an argument (or something to that effect). I try to keep to the spirit of that suggestion when I can. MGSpiller 02:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What is clear in my mind is that we started with a bot that would do many things. To arrive at a consensus that everyone could live with we may have needed to break these taks down into excruciatingly small bits. Now this one appears as though it will work, and a few of the others are likely to follow suit. That's progress! Eclecticology 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One format issue issue that should be looked at before this goes further is how the resulting line will look. Currently we mostly (including myself) have been using 'Plural of word' Another user suggested to me that word should be italicized or in quotation marks; after considering this I had to admit that he was grammatically correct. Another argument is that 'Plural of' should be italicized and word left in roman face since 'Plural of' is descriptive rather than definitive. These is a stylistic rather than a substantive issue, and I can live with any of these solutions. Are there general preferences? It would be nice to have a broad sense of direction on this. A similar issue will come up with some of the other bots mentioned below. Eclecticology 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much supporst your idea of italicising descriptive definitions (and accordingly not italicising what usually would be italicised). Ncik 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have not strong preference on the formatting of this type of entry. I chose the only prevalent format that exists today for this type of entry. Whatever format is decided upon, it should be consistent. If existing entries are 'bot re-formatted, would that need a separate bot request, or could that full under the aegis of this one? Is there consensus that the descriptive text should be italicized? Would that rule apply to all forms descriptions? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you just do the italicising if nobody objects here. It has an obvious advantage. Italicising should consequently apply to all descriptions of inflected forms. Ncik 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ncik, standardizing all entries this way would be a good job. Although I've always added these things with only the basic word italicized, the correcter thing to do is the other way round. — Vildricianus 12:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To summarize - Is it the fundamental consensus that the definition line for words should now be formatted

1. Plural of word.

and this includes the capital "P", and the full stop? Anyone may reformat a line in that way. If someone sets up such lines in any other way it could be changed, but there would be no penalty unless the guy is being a complete jerk. Eclecticology 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify the first sentence of Eclecticolgy's last comment: We don't want inverted italicising for all definitions, only those that are secondary descriptions. Examples include definitions that say

• that a word is an inflected form of another, ("dogs": Plural of dog.)
• that a word is an abbreviation of another, ("abbr.": Abbreviation for abbreviation.)
• that a word is a spelling variant of another, ("œsophagus": Alternative spelling of oesophagus)
• that an interjection is used as an expression of something ("ouch": Used to express physical pain.)

WT:ELE needs to be updated. Ncik 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• The more I see of this, the less I like the idea of superfluous italics. This is a faily major change to the formatting of nearly all Wiktionary entries.

What makes you think this change would affect "nearly all Wiktionary entries"? We don't have many inflected forms yet. And the number of abbreviations (around 3000) and alternative spellings (a few hundred at most, I'd say) is limited as well. Ncik 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ncik, I don't think there is consensus on your last suggestion for interjections. Actually, while all four suggestions seem reasonable, I don't think there is widespread consensus for 1, 2, 3 or 4. Again, such formatting changes would affect most entires, needlessly. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I crossed out the interjections. The situation is not as clear as in the other three cases. Ncik 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. OK. Thanks, yes, the interjections were the most problematic of those four. The wording you used was a little misleading; it seemed to me that you were talking about a generic convention for italics for all descriptive text. A convention like that would eventually affect all entries. But since that isn't what you were saying, now I'm left wondering why these cases should be so differently formatted from all the rest of the main namespace entries. That is, I think a definition/meaning line should look like a typical definition/meaning line as much as possible; the italics don't do that. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Although Ncik crossed it out, #4 is how this extends naturally to the other entries.

ouch =interjection= Used to espress physical pain.

: "Don't you dare stick that needle into my... ouch!"

excruciatory =adjective= Used to express physical pain.

: "He's not a good actor when it comes to excruciatory lines."

: "China has banned Google searches for the excruciatory emoticons."

Granted the second is made up, as I don't know any word that means exactly that, but you get how the two words are distinguished, an explanation of use from a definition of synonymy. Davilla 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now the 'bot flag has been approved, the layout issue is still pending. Among the possible options are the following:

1. Plural of ].
2. Plural of '']''.
3. ''Plural of'' ].
4. Plural of ''']'''.
5. ''Plural of'' ''']'''.
6. (Combined Davilla)

   (a) Plural of "]".

   (b) Plural of "]."

7. Plural of: ]. (Added Davilla)

#1 and #2 prevail right now, with #2 being the one I prefer. Even though I suggested enthusiasm about #3, I tend to dislike long lines of italicized text. Applying it in these instances would require us to consequently apply it in many more instances than is actually feasible or advantageous. The more I see of it, the less I think it's a good idea to italicize all descriptive text. Therefore, my personal vote goes to #2. (Should we turn this into a formal vote?) — Vildricianus 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll have to try yet again to say more precisely when italicising should apply: Italicising should apply if the definition is not a "primary" description in the sense that it is not a description of what the word being defined denotes, but instead is a "secondary" definition, i.e. describes the word being defined itself. Example: Dogs: Plural of dog. Italicised, because it describes the word "dogs" itself (in grammatical terms). A primary definition would be: Two or more members of the genus Canis. In most cases it is quite obvious what is a primary and what is a secondary definition, but I've come across examples where one couldn't tell. I'll try to find an example or construct one, and then post it here. Ncik 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: see u#Dutch for an example of ugly italicization. — Vildricianus 17:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

However, this is a rare example. We normally don't add illustrative sentences to inflected forms. These belong on the page of the uninflected form, even if they feature the word in an inflected form. Ncik 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then see ik#Dutch, me#Dutch, jullie etc. Note that I have applied your italicized proposal there to test it out. However, I can't see what you mean with "inflected forms". "U" is just a personal pronoun. — Vildricianus 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One could interpret me as the accusative of ik, and u as the second-person of ik, hence call these inflected forms. But since those three are personal pronouns, one wouldn't use this terminology. This, and the personal pronouns' massive irregularities if regarded as inflected forms, is why I deem it acceptable to have illustrative sentences in these cases. The number of pronouns and similarly affected words is clearly very small in comparison to the remainder of the lexicon. Ncik 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer a fourth option (added above). Italicization becomes a real problem with non-Latin fonts, so I would rather not use them around links to entries where it can be avoided. I do like the ides of bolding a word that is intended to be a main entry, particularly in this case, where the page is presumably to have little other than a link to the singular form. --EncycloPetey 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that emboldening text is any easier for browsers (fonts) than italicising. I just checked a couple of scripts (Hindi, Tamil, Japanese, Greek, Chinese) in my own browser, and italicising works fine with all of them but only Tamil letters get emboldened. Apart form that, since this is the English Wiktionary, and English is written in Latin script, neither italicising nor emboldening words in non-Latin script can cause any confusion. Ncik 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Italicizing doesn't work fine for Russian. Again, I fail to see what "the English Wiktionary" has to do with this. — Vildricianus 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Suppose it was a proposal not to italicise or embolden words in non-Latin script at all. Ncik 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Suppose. Suppose #1 is equally fine then for Latin script as well. — Vildricianus 12:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If we are not to italicize entry names, then that eliminates one of the more popular options in running, #2. I'm backing #3 and #5 since the distinction is logical to me and I don't like any of the arguments against. (a) Going through existing entries to apply a new standard has never been and should never be a deterrent. (b) The problem with u#Dutch and jullie is that the examples are also italicized. It's unreadable because there's simply too much italic text. I've suggested ways to eliminate the italics in quotations, but it didn't draw much attention. (c) Long descriptions of text can often be rephrased or formatted, as I have done for nibling and Martial. Davilla 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though this 'bot is concerned only with English entries, I agree with your conclusion, EncycloPetey. But it is still different from current practices. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Like Vildricianus my personal preference is/was #3 because I want them to stand out. However reading this I think perhaps #4 would do that job better. I don't think #2 will do that, it will just make the name of the main entry harder to read. But perhaps #5 would be even better, but I can live with #4. --Patrik Stridvall 09:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, #5, just as #3, still bears the problem of too much italicized text. I think EncycloPetey's #4 is by far the best up to now. — Vildricianus 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see #3 as having too much italicized text. The Dutch example given above seems to ba an extreme case where other solutions may be available. Our concern for now is with English language entries. Using italics follows the same reasoning that applies for tags like (Sports), or (Obsolete), etc. that we put at the beginning of a line. My second choice (#6 #6.a) is to use quotation marks in accordance with ordinary punctuation rules. Eclecticology 07:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though our concern is with English, we have to be consistent across the entire Wiktionary, right? Using bold text follows EncycloPetey's reasoning of directing the user to the main entry. — Vildricianus 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could throw support towards #7 #6.b. (7 formats? Only 6 people are commenting here!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm eagerly waiting for #8. — Vildricianus 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess you'll have to keep waiting. ;-) Davilla 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Status: Meta request forwarded, approved. Awaiting better resolution on formatting before proceeding. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No consensus seems to be emerging.  :-( --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No consensus has emerged. Although I'd lean towards format #7, the format #1 is the one that is clearly most used currently, so that is what I intend to proceed with. If the concept of "voting" is ever adapted, and used for this, these can then be 'bot changed. Without a conclusive vote, trying to keep the formats consistent for later change is the only reasonable approach. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I strongly suggest using #2 (or 4 or #6a), since #1 is orthographically wrong. Ncik 14:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wrong?" Um, no. Just consistent with the entries that already exist. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ncik, that's exactly what we're discussing, right? Are you planning to just repeat the above? BTW, does anyone think we should have a vote right now on this matter? — Vildricianus 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the main point of contention was italicising the definition itself. So for now I propose using #2 in order to get the orthography right, while avoiding the issue of italicising the definition. Can we agree on this? Ncik 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Although #1 is one of the formats I like least, my and your opinion won't ultimately count for anything until everyone's input has resolved in some conclusion. I would say go ahead with any format. I see objections above to every option save the newest (which hasn't had time to garner objection). I would have to agree with Vildricianus that #4 is the least contentious. And anyways, we bold headwords as well. However, it's not clear that bolding will be necessary in the end, so why do it now? Start the bot, but let's not end the debate. (Not that debates ending themselves is ever a problem.)

The question as I see it is how to categorize these. It might makes sense to first vote on the use of italics for distinction of definition-use. Combined with that proposal would be a commitment to end the italicization of examples and quotations, with their new style deferred for a later vote. If that proposal fails, we continue with the use-definition distinction by first voting on using a colon as in #7 before other style differences. The colon does this job well in some cases, but it cannot when no synonymous phrase is given. Hence italicizing, if uglier, is more versatile. With the field narrowed, we can more sanely choose among the remaining options. Davilla 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with anything but #1 and #7. Ncik 22:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I follow Connel's reasoning to proceed with the bot right now, following #1 as this is currently the most prevalent format.
2. I tried to compile a summary from the above; I failed. In general, this debate numbs the mind and leaves me currently fairly indifferent as to what the final outcome will be. As long as the plurals are there. Any formatting could afterwards be redone by the bot.
3. If someone wants a vote on this, then please put it forward; I don't feel like doing so.
4. Personally, I support either #1 or #4. In addition to any italicization, I dislike both colon and quotation marks. Personal opinion is what will make the difference here, so perhaps we do need a vote. — Vildricianus 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you support something that is orthographically wrong? Incidentially, I don't think format #1 is much more common than #2. Ncik 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty certain that the majority of plural entries that I entered matched format #1 - before the template was changed to be format #2. In either case, what exists is a mix of the two. Considering the disdain for italics expressed here, I think #1 is the better (more consistent) short-term choice. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what about format #1 is it that you assert is orthographically wrong? Some compelling (and not-so compelling) arguments against italics have been raised. I still don't understand why you object to format #1. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Format #1 is wrong as it does not quote the referenced word. If you haven't learnt this in school, I recommend the Wikipedia article on quotation marks. No arguments against putting the referenced word in italics have been raised. The above discussion was about italicising the whole definition. Ncik 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument against all italics may have been archived with the original proposal. EncycloPetey did object to putting the referenced word in italics in this section though. My observations remain: format #1 matches the majority of existing "plural" entries and format #1 matches the majority of all other existing English Wiktionary entries. I think it would be best to remain consistent with these, so that future conversions (if a format is ever agreed to) have fewer cases to search for. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, and I object to wrong orthography. This is certainly a stronger argument than EncycloPetey's observation that certain fonts have difficulties displaying italicised non-Latin script, especially since the bot will only be concerned with English entries. Ncik 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

# The other argument I was referring to was against all italics in entries.

What are you referring to? Who proposed not to use italics anymore? Ncik 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

# Your proposal is still inconsistent with the rest of the entries in Wiktionary.

As I said, and you admitted, there already are entries in format #2. But considering the amount of entries the bot will create, this is not relevant anyway. Ncik 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

# Your proposal has not have consensus!

Neither has any other. The only thing I'm asking for is correct orthography. Ncik 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 14:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So you are just repeating what you said above. Great. Thanks for the extra delay. You are correct that format #1 no longer seems to have consensus either. Are you asserting that proceeding with it would be harmful (in light of the reformatting that conceivably needs to be done to all ~ 3,000 - 5,000 entries if/when consensus is ever reached?) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• The "italics" comments were on my talk page (you posted there, before and just after the section, so I assume you saw it and chose not to comment.)

...I'd like to recommend against putting English words in italics (as in the recent run of past participles). Reason 1: italics is usually reserved for foreign words by editorial convention. Reason 2: Despite what most people think, italics does not emphasize a word visually -- it merely makes them "small and hard to read", as one of my friends has put it. --EncycloPetey 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I missed it. As to reason 1: Would such a convention make sense in our multilingual dictionary? Do we want

Plural of "pizza".

for the English word "pizzas" and

Plural of pizza.

for the French word? We could make the convention subject to language headers to avoid this, though. As to reason 2: First sentence is irrelevant, since we don't aim at emphzsising words. We are concerned with orthography. I disagree with EncycloPetey's friend. Ncik 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As a dictionary, we are always talking about words. No other dictionary seems to follow the Wikipedia orthography "rule" you cited above (that seems like a reasonable rule for prose, but dictionaries are technical listings.) I don't think the approach of further fragmenting layout conventions by languages would be helpful to anyone...just more confusing to everyone.

Depending on what platform I am using, I sometimes agree with EncycloPetey's friend. Some platforms have "better" font families installed by default, while many others do not.

I maintain that format #1 still has the most support on this "voting"-type thread. It is also the most consistent style that matches all other entries on Wiktionary the best. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are always talking about words, but we also use words to talk about them. The orthographic rules Ncik mentions were specifically created to help make the distinction between use and mention required when using words to talk about words, hence my vote for the italicized version below. Rodasmith 20:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Why then don't we do it in all other entries? Because it is a style convention, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether the convention you mention was chosen from a list of candidates, but if so, neither do I know why an orthographically poor choice was made. Regardless, we should avoid supporting a poor choice based on an appeal to tradition. Rodasmith 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, tradition or not, I agree with E.P.'s friend - on some platforms the italics are hard to read. I also maintain that consistency will allow for changes in the future more easily. I also believe the prose formatting conventions (for use/mention distinction) are not applicable to a technical listing, such as this dictionary. Instead, our chosen style should be our chosen style (like all other dictionaries.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting for readability:)

Consider what the unquoted format does for the following:

• plural of adjective
• plural of magnitude magnitude."]
• plural of noun
• plural of one
• plural of plural
• plural of singular
• plural of three
• plural of uncountable
• plural of verb

I hope the above examples illustrate that standard use-mention othography is important not just in prose, but whenever words in one language talk about words found within that language. Rodasmith 19:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that your examples omitted the wiki-links, which in this context, make that distinction. Just not as explicitly as in the syntax that you'd like. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (edited) 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Links don't make that distinction, because many definitions link terms from the grammatical descriptions themselves, e.g. "subjunctive mood conjugation of ...". Rodasmith 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should link "subjunctive". — Vildricianus 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Because it's commonly known term? If that's the reason not to link it, there is a slippery slope with more obscure gammatical terms (e.g. jussive, copula...). Rodasmith 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, because the words should be defined in an appendix rather than individually. Davilla 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The links are probably the absolute least distiction that could be made since we are trained to ignore them when reading. In some cases there may be no distiction whatsoever, for instance in printing, which doesn't often preserve them. Davilla 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rodasmith, excellent examples! Davilla 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone has a better idea? I suppose all parties would be comfortable having these plurals bluelinked while they're still alive. Might possibly lack interest, yet, even with three votes this could be finally "agreed on". Other options not allowed; this is only a partial democracy.

Is 4/17 Midnight GMT a good deadline for this vote? (1 week.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. — Vildricianus 07:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please extend this deadline. I hadn't been online for quite awhile, hence didn't know about this vote. I don't think this is the appropriate place to hold it anyways, since hardly anybody will read this discussion anymore. Ncik 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you just voted. I think everyone else has seen it. And your method here has been to be as obstructionist as possible. So what the heck? Why not add another week. Or were you thinking just another day or two?

You say the Beer Parlour is not read? I find that incredulous. I see you've "re-advertized" it with a current posting. I think that is good - I too would like to see more people's opinion on this matter. But moving this now would be a horrible mistake. Moving this vote would garner claims of foul play from both sides, wouldn't you agree? Or is that your intent, to delay this bot more by claiming an invalid vote (even though we don't normally even do any such thing.)

Ncik, the original routine bot request has been stymied by you for months now. Perhaps it is more accurate to say the delay is from my pandering to your series of pointless petty complaints. What are you so afraid of? --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Enough people have read it by now. Note also that I did plan to extend it because you hadn't been here since. However, since you've seen it now, I think we can close it on the aforementioned date. — Vildricianus 09:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• -- Format #1: Plural of ].
  1. Support. — Vildricianus 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Not really necessary to have more visual distraction than necessary -- Tawker 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Dvortygirl 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Less typing, less clutter.
  5. --Widsith 07:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. --SemperBlotto 10:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kipmaster 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC) for consistency (since the other one is ugly for some scripts)

     Would you consider an format only for Latin script?

• -- Format #2: Plural of '']''.
  1. Support for roman script entries. Rodasmith 20:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. As per Rodasmith. Davilla 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ncik 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. As per Rodasmith. --Patrik Stridvall 08:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. \Mike 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I would prefer the descriptors to be italicized to the word being italicized, but one of them should be.

• -- Format #3: Plural of ''']'''.. Here's why:

1. Format 1 is incorrect and we should definitely not be using it. Compare Christmas is coming with "Christmas" is coming. The first means "it will be Christmas soon", while the second means "the word 'Christmas' is coming" (perhaps it's about to be entered into Wiktionary). The wikification of the word to be looked up is not sufficient, as we might, perhaps, decide that we want to wikify "plural" as well, or, indeed, all words used in definitions. We probably won't, but the same applies to less well-known grammatical terms (for example, consider this definition of "was": "third-person singular indicative present tense of to be"). We must indicate that we referring to the word and not actually using it. We should not be lazy and sacrifice clarity by omitting a few keystrokes.

I'm against format 2 because I think headwords should be emboldened when referred to, as they are emboldened when they feature as headwords in their respective entries. This is the policy of most print dictionaries (eg: foo: see bar). I prefer to reserve italicisation for non-English words.

Looks like I might be too late anyway - has the bot already done its stuff? — Paul G 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not "too late" as the bot has not added any entries past the initial test batches. I'd like to note Vild's reasoning for limiting choices to only those two possibilities though. We are not other dictionaries, we have a community accepted format in use for years, and no consensus is emerging (still!) on this topic. Again, if one or the other can be decided on, the bot can go forward. At that point, it would be reasonable to suggest alternate "offical" format choices, to convert all entries (prior existing entries, bot-added entries and future entries) to whatever format all can agree to. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't see any consensus emerging, but both Vildricianus and I noted that the least objected distinction was to bolding the stem word. Granted it isn't currently done for these pages, but by current practice it would be done in the etymology at least. You can also restrict bold to Latin script. A vote between #1 and #4 would still be close, but necessary to be sure. You know, like Chris Berman says: "That's why they play the game." Davilla 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem very helpful, therefore I must have misunderstood it? We are not other dictionaries and we have a community accepted format that has been in use for years. The main argument is that Ncik all-of-a-sudden wants to change how Wiktionary functions. To make his point, he is obstructing this vote with claims that dictionies all must follow his style, when in fact, most do not. And "we" (Wiktionary) certainly never have. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Darn, there's no end in sight. Too many people seem to attach a great deal of value to these minor aspects of "style", but perhaps fail to realize that Wiktionary has little to no consistency regarding them. Take a look at the style of our main contributors, they're all different from one another. They use different headers, different header levels, different italicizing or boldening, begin sentences with a capitalized letter or not, end it with a period or not, etc. At this point of the wiki, maintaining a consistent style is not feasible and merely obstructs the adding of content, which is what we're all about nowadays. Style is for bots to implement when the content is more fossilized than it is now; bots can change everything we want to see changed, so why let it bother us now? This bot is meant to add content. Sure it would have been nice to see a consensus (at least we can say that we tried), but apparently we're not ready to have that regarding our style. Let's draw a line here, let's archive this thing, and let's keep an open mind on all this when we are up to discussing our style in another, probably the last, phase of Wiktionary. Certainly we won't attract people by having the "right" orthographical style, or frighten them by having the "wrong" one, as long as we have red links for susceptibility, assiduity or unwillingness. — Vildricianus 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)