Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-01/Allow script names as L2 section headings

• Voting on: Allowing the name of a script (writing system) to be used as the level 2 header in an entry.

This vote proposes to allow the names of scripts to be used as level 2 headers in entries, in addition to languages such as "English", "German", "Translingual" etc which are already allowed. All scripts currently listed in Category:All scripts would be allowed as L2 headers, except for the following:

• Hindu-Arabic script (this is a more complicated case and needs further discussion)
• Japanese (this is not a script; Hiragana and Katakana are)
• Old Cyrillic (this is not strictly distinct from Cyrillic, it is mostly modern Cyrillic with some obsolete letters)
• Traditional Han and Simplified Han (these are both to be combined as simply "Han")
• Undetermined (a placeholder, not a script; compare Category:Undetermined language)

The name in the header would be a script name such as "Latin", "Cyrillic", "Devanagari" or "Han" followed by the word "script", to make sure it doesn't conflict with a language name. Two possible exceptions may be made that would not require "script", since they already have names that imply a kind of writing system:

• Canadian syllabics
• Egyptian hieroglyphics

Please indicate in your vote whether you agree or disagree with these two exceptions. That is, whether you prefer ==Canadian syllabics== as the heading, or ==Canadian syllabics script==.

Rationale:

The purpose of L2 headings is to state which entity (language) an entry "belongs to". Currently we only treat languages as such distinct entities in entries. However, although characters often can be said to belong to a specific entity, that entity is a script (A belongs to the Latin alphabet, not to any specific language), and our current practice is to list characters as ==Translingual==. Nevertheless, we've never categorised such characters in the Translingual categories; compare 人 which is categorised as a "Han character", with , which is categorised as "Translingual punctuation mark". Presumably it is desirable to have our categories and section headings reflect similar treatment (also in light of cleanup lists like User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections). So it is probably better if we treat scripts as distinct "entities" alongside languages, and allow their names as section headers.

This proposal specifically does not intend to specify which characters belong under which headings, only that the headings themselves be allowed. After all, we do not have any policies to specify which words belong to which language. If there is any ambiguity, they should presumably be discussed on an individual basis. It also does not specify any technical modifications that would be required to support it. It is implied that certain modifications to bots will need to be made, but this is left to the operators of those bots.

• Vote starts: 00:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Vote created: —CodeCat 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:Beer parlour/2012/December#Script names as section headings for characters

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-01/Allow script names as L2 section headings

1. Support --Daniel 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I agree to some concerns about being not very well thought-out but I didn't take part in the discussion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Support because I like the idea in principle. It's not necessary for every last detail to be thought out. DAVilla 03:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose Not very well thought-out. What about the sorting of these entries: would they be all at the top like Translingual, or would they disappear beneath the pile of language headings, which is really not a good idea? For languages common to many scripts, like the period, I suspect this is going to turn into a big mess. -- Liliana • 00:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

   Well, if it's not thought out well, why didn't more people help to think it out? Things like this should be raised before they come up for a vote. —CodeCat 01:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

   I'm still pretty uncomfortable with it as well. I raised my concerns on the talkpage, but they don't seem to have been met (not that you have to meet them, but I'm not likely to support as is). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose Maro 21:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose  I don't understand the intent of this. Maybe the rationale needs some examples. A dictionary for a language has the terms of that language. Other things, like letters and symbols not representing terms, grammatical rules, computer-langeage keywords, RGB colour codes, Unicode code points, etc., don't belong in the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2013-01-24 22:44 z

   Do you think we should get rid of entries like ,? —CodeCat 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   It isn’t a dictionary entry defining a word or term is it? Really belongs in an appendix, where a different header structure might be appropriate. —Michael Z. 2013-01-25 15:24 z

   I understand that, but I'm not sure if that is within the scope of this vote. On the premise (of current practice) that such symbols get entries in the main namespace, do you agree that scripts should have their own headers? —CodeCat 15:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

   Seems like mixing apples and oranges, to me. We have a structure that goes term–language–P.O.S.–inflection–senses. Since each term/page is indexed under its orthographic expression, it already belongs to a particular writing system/script. I don’t see how tossing symbol–script––description into the same bag and shaking it up can be anything but confusing (example, please?). Wouldn’t a separate namespace be a solution for this? —Michael Z. 2013-02-05 00:08 z

   I don't fully understand your "structure" notation, so I apologize if this makes no sense, but — we already have entries for these characters, so we currently have two structures, term–language–P.O.S.–inflection–senses and character–Translingual–T.O.C.–headword–description. This proposal merely changes Translingual to script in the latter structure. —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose weakly per Mzajac's good point of 2013-02-05 00:08 z. (FWIW I disagree with his point of 2013-01-24 22:44 z.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Abstain I think the idea is a good one — and I completely disagree with the Mzajac (talk • contribs)'s implications in his comment above — but the implementation of the idea seems shaky. —Ruakh_TALK 07:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

   Do you think I should call off the vote? —CodeCat 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

   You mean, per w:Wikipedia:Snowball clause? I have no idea. —Ruakh_TALK 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

   I would like it to have a better chance of succeeding... but there would need to be more discussion on it first. —CodeCat 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fails, 3-4-1. --Yair rand (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)