Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Definitions

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Definitions.

See diff.

Current text:

Definitions

The definitions are the most fundamental piece of dictionary information but do not have their own header. They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#). Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop. The key terms of a definition should be wikified.

The vote “2006-12/form-of style” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.
The vote “2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.
Abbreviations (subsection)
See Wiktionary:Entry layout explained/POS headers for discussion of the appropriate part of speech for different types of abbreviation

The “definitions” of entries that are abbreviations should be the expanded forms of the abbreviations. Where there is more than one expansion of the abbreviation, ideally these should be listed alphabetically to prevent the expanded forms being duplicated. The case used in the expanded form should be the usual one — do not capitalise words in the expanded form of an abbreviation that is made up of capital letters unless that is how the expanded form is usually written.

Where the expanded forms are entries that appear (or should appear) in Wiktionary, wikify them. Expanded forms that are encyclopedic entries should also be wikified and linked to the appropriate Wikipedia entry. When the expanded form does not merit an entry of its own, either in Wiktionary or Wikipedia material, wikify its component words and give a gloss (italicised, in parentheses) after the expansion explaining what the term means (see SNAFU for an example).

See PC for an example entry.

Context labels (subsection)

A context label identifies a definition which only applies in a restricted context. Such labels indicate, for example, that the following definition occurs in a limited geographic region or temporal period, or is used only by specialists in a particular field and not by the general population.

Many context label templates also place an entry into a relevant category, but they must not be used merely for categorization (see category links, below).

One or more labels may be placed before the definition:

wikitext result

# {{context|informal|lang=en}} An ] or ].

  1. (informal) An informant or snitch.

Details in Wiktionary:Context labels.

References
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2

Proposed text:

Definitions

Each entry contains one or more definitions, within the POS section, below the headword line. They are numbered using the character # in the wikitext. Sometimes, they are grouped into subsenses. The key terms of a definition should be linked to the respective entries.

Some definitions are treated as sentences: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop. In language sections other than English, the definition generally consists of a simple translation into English, rather than a full definition. If necessary, additional information (such as a gloss) should be included to ensure that a translation is not ambiguous or broader than intended. For example, run can indicate a motion of the legs, but it can also refer to the flowing of a liquid. Words that cannot be easily translated can have full definitions.

If appropriate, use context labels at the start of the definition to indicate that it only applies to a certain context: for example, to indicate that it occurs in a limited geographic region or temporal period, or is used only by specialists in a particular field and not by the general population. Many context label templates also place an entry into a relevant category, but they must not be used merely for categorization. See also Wiktionary:Context labels.

wikitext result

# {{lb|en|informal}} An ] or ].

  1. (informal) An informant or snitch.

For non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.), templates are used with predefined text, linking back to the main entry. In the definition generated by these templates, the link to the main entry is bold when written in the Latin script. The rest of the definition is italic.

  1. plural of word

For abbreviations, (Examples: PC, USA, SNAFU) do not capitalise words in the expanded form unless that is how the expanded form is usually written. Where the expanded form is an entry that exists (or should exist) in Wiktionary, link to it. Otherwise, if appropriate, link it to the appropriate Wikipedia article, if it exists. When the expanded form does not merit either a Wiktionary entry or a Wikipedia article, link it to its component words. You may expand the definition with a gloss if appropriate.

Some languages have romanizations linking back to the main entries. It is required that each romanization entry contain at least one definition line in the wikitext.

References
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2
  3. ^ 2006-12/form-of style
  4. ^ 2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention
  5. ^ pl-2013-03/Romanization and definition line

Rationale and changes:

  • Removing "The definitions are the most fundamental piece of dictionary", it's a comment rather than a rule.
  • Removing " do not have their own header", no need to say what they don't have. Arguably, the POS header is their header.
  • Expanding upon the idea that "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.", mentioning other type of definitions: "In language sections other than English, the definition generally consists of a simple translation into English, rather than a full definition."
  • Mentioning: "Sometimes, they are grouped into subsenses."
  • Writing out the actual formatting rules of Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/form-of style and Wiktionary:Votes/2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention, rather than just linking to them.
  • Removing "The “definitions” of entries that are abbreviations should be the expanded forms of the abbreviations." Sometimes, the expanded abbreviation is in the etymology section, not in the definition.
  • Removing "Where there is more than one expansion of the abbreviation, ideally these should be listed alphabetically to prevent the expanded forms being duplicated.", does not seem common practice.
  • Compressing the explanation of where to link the expanded forms in a single paragraph; arguably, that information does not need its own subsection.
  • In particular, replacing "Expanded forms that are encyclopedic entries should also be wikified and linked to the appropriate Wikipedia entry." by "Otherwise, if appropriate, link it to the appropriate Wikipedia article, if it exists." Arguably, existence in Wikipedia is a more objective criterion than whether an entry is "encyclopedic".
  • Mentioning three abbreviation examples (PC, USA, SNAFU), together in the same line. The original text had two examples (PC and SNAFU) in separate lines.
  • Removing bold formatting from "a definition which only applies in a restricted context"; arguably, it's unnecessary.
  • Compressing the explanation of context labels in a single paragraph; arguably, that information does not need its own subsection. In particular, "Details in Wiktionary:Context labels." does not to be in a separate line.
  • Adding an example of non-lemma definition, properly formatted: "plural of word".
  • Removing three separate references to the same vote (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2) in consecutive paragraphs.
  • Reordering some of the ideas. Original order: introduction, form-of definitions, abbreviations, context labels. Proposed order: introduction, form-of definitions, context labels and abbreviations.
  • Using {{lb}} rather than {{context}}, as approved at Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux.
  • Replacing "wikify" by "link"; "wikified" by "linked".
  • Mentioning the fact that some entries are romanizations linking back to the main entries. The requirement that each romanization entry have at least one definition line was voted at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-03/Romanization and definition line.
  • Making sure another WT:EL section is voted, a step in the direction of having WT:EL completely voted.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. Support DCDuring TALK 23:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Mountebank1 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    Vote struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose The treatment of some definitions as "sentences" and some as simple "translations" is controversial. It would be better to leave this whole bit out (for now, at least). --WikiTiki89 16:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    The proposed text does not instruct on how to choose between sentences and translations, it merely documents that we have these types of definitions. I know they are controversial, but is there any way we can mention these two types of definitions in the least controversial way possible? I'm not sure the fact that these two types of definitions exist is controversial; but I know some attempts to unify or standardize them are. The status quo of the policy is: "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop."
    Also, WT:EL#Variations for languages other than English says: "However, a translation into English should normally be given instead of a definition, including a gloss to indicate which meaning of the English translation is intended." If WT:EL#Definitions is able to explain about this accutrately, I'd like to propose the removal of that sentence from WT:EL#Variations for languages other than English later. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose DCDuring TALK 13:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    @DCDuring, you voted both in support and in opposition. If you don't strike out one of them, I think that the closer should simply ignore both your votes on this page when calculating the percentage in support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    Oppose --Ce mot-ci (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Permanently blocked user. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Wikitiki, it seems. I read up to the following text: "In language sections other than English, the definition generally consists of a simple translation into English, rather than a full definition. If necessary, additional information (such as a gloss) should be included to ensure that a translation is not ambiguous or broader than intended." Additional information such as gloss AKA abbreviated definition should be added rather often or nearly always rather than only "if necessary". And "a simple translation" suggests a single word rather than a list of target terms. I'll grant that current ELE is already defective in that regard but unvoted defective things are less harmful than voted-on defective things. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Abstain. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Fails 1-3. I considered extending the vote, as the level of participation wasn't huge, but it looks like what is needed is some additional discussion and idea-sharing before another, revised vote. In particular, it might be beneficial to attempt to revise this section of WT:EL in a more piecemeal fashion rather than doing it all at once. The opposers seemed to only oppose small parts of the proposed text, but the way this vote was set up, it was an all-or-nothing affair. A multi-proposal vote might perhaps be effective. This, that and the other (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia