Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Headings

Voting on:

1. Adding a new L2 section Headings to WT:EL, below the L2 section "Basics".
2. Removing other lists of headings, as shown below.

See diff.

Text to be added:

==English==
===Noun===
====Translations====

Text to be removed:

==English==
===Alternative forms===
===Etymology===
===Pronunciation===
* Phonetic transcriptions
* Audio files in any relevant dialects
* Rhymes
* Homophones
* Hyphenation
===Noun===
Declension
# Meaning 1
#* Quotations
# Meaning 2
#* Quotations
     etc.
====Usage notes====
====Synonyms====
====Antonyms====
====Derived terms====
====Related terms====
====Translations====
====References====
====External links====
===Verb===
Conjugation
# Meaning 1
#* Quotations
     etc.
====Usage notes====
====Synonyms====
====Antonyms====
====Derived terms====
====Related terms====
====Translations====
====Descendants====
====References====
====External links====
===Anagrams===
---- (Dividing line between languages)
==Finnish==
===Etymology===
===Pronunciation===
===Noun===
'''Inflections'''
# Meaning 1 in English
#* Quotation in Finnish
#** Quotation translated into English
# Meaning 2 in English
#* Quotation in Finnish
#** Quotation translated into English
====Synonyms====
====Derived terms====
====Related terms====

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/December#WT:EL new votes
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Headings

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --profesjonalizm • reply 01:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Strongly oppose. (1) It uses the terms "L2" et al. without explaining what they stand for. (2) It prevents "Usage notes" from being anywhere other than as a subsection of the POS section. (3) It does away with the lede text that clarifies that these headers, unlike e.g. POS, are optional. (4) It implies that "Production" is a good header for any entry, which it's not, and offers no guidance on how to use it. (5) It does away with the text "The list below is not an exclusive list; other headings may be essential in some circumstances. An order for these headings is recommended, but variations in that order are also allowable." which is a major change that's being proposed AFAICT without prior discussion (and one I think I disagree with).   There are probably more problems, too; these are some that presented themselves immediately to my attention.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   @Msh210: Thanks for taking the time to think about this. No sarcasm intended: maybe long oppose votes are my favorite kind of oppose votes, since we have multiple things to fix and/or discuss here.

   I agree with points 1, 3 and 4. I believe I can rewrite the vote adding these missing points to the text. Should we cancel and restart this vote right away or should we allow more time for discussion? If this vote passes, it's a substantial improvement over what it replaces IMO and other things can be added in a later vote; if it fails, we can have the other vote anyway.

   About point 1, is explaining everything really necessary? Some people argued against EL being a how-to guide (I can provide actual links to these statements later if you want, but maybe creating a poll on that would be way better, other people would probably have different opinions), we have help pages for that. Compare WT:NORM, it's a list of rules without explanations (other than the introductory text); I like it. But anyway, the proposed Headings text already explains what are level 1, level 2 and level 3, so I'd just add the abbreviations: "level 1 (L1)".

   I disagree with points 2 and 5. Point 2 is being discussed at the "Usage notes" vote.

   About point 5, I insist on having an exhaustive list of headings on EL. The proposed text includes an exhaustive list of headings. (I hope we didn't miss any) If a new heading is so important, it can be added to the policy later. Wiktionary is not known for giving much freedom for headings anyway, if an editor invents a new heading it would probably be converted into the usual headings by someone else. AutoFormat used to categorize all entries with non-standard headers, I believe.

   And, is the proposed text wrong in stating that the headings appear in this specific order? Is there any reason to use different orders in two entries? If yes, can the other heading orders be listed or explained in the policy?

   Are all deviations from that order wrong? Can we allow bots to look for all instances of incorrect section order and either fix them or mark them for later inspection? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

   Re my point 5 — Like I said, I think I disagree with this change; I'm not sure. There probably aren't any entries with deviant headers, but that should be easy to figure out for sure. I'm guessing there are entries with a deviant order, and for good reason, but, again, that should be easy to find out. But no one has done so; my main objection in point 5 was not that the change is bad but that it's major and being voted on with absolutely no prior discussion AFAICT.   Also, if I found these five problems so easily, then the lack of discussion before the vote was written probably has led to other problems that people would have found.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

   Regardless of the result of this vote, I'm thinking of creating a second vote to address some of the points raised here. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose — Re the set-up when there are multiple numbered etymology sections, neither See also, External links, nor References should ever occur at level 3 before a numbered etymology section. Moreover, Related terms and Descendants can sometimes occur at level 3 (where there are multiple POS sections and the terms in question relate to all those POSes). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose per msh210, especially points 2 (the vote on Usage notes proposes deleting the mention of its being placeable anywhere, but the proposed text doesn't explicitly state that it must have a set position between Compounds and Synonyms, and rightly so, this is the one section whose placement should IMO definitely be flexible) and 4 (to which I would add "Readings" - what's that at all? I've never seen such heading here). --Droigheann (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

   @Droigheann: About "Readings", see the entry 愛#Japanese. In Japanese, kanji like that usually can be read in multiple ways, that's why there's a "Readings" section for them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

   I see. Well not exactly, but then my knowledge of Japanese is nil and it lead me here, so I accept the concept. --Droigheann (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose largely per msh210. Also, the vote makes too many changes, with no justification or explanation. I don't see why we would want to change policy without having a clear idea of what the changes in policy actually are. A diff of the whole change does not give such a clear idea. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per msh210. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose I thought that descendants are well placed after Translations, being outside of the language in the L2 header. There also remains some ambiguity in the placement of "Related terms" and "Derived terms" in entries with multiple PoSes under the same etymology. Should they be split by PoS, even though it is sometimes not obvious where they should be placed, if not entirely fanciful? Don't they belong before "Translations", being relevant to the headword in its own language? Note that these questions point to different locations for "Related terms", before and after "Translations". DCDuring TALK 18:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• 2-6-0 Failed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)