Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Usage notes

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Usage notes.

See diff.

Current text:

Proposed text:

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:

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

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Innocuous enough. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Hillcrest98 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Support profesjonalizm • reply 01:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Support. The only substantive change is the omission of "This section, whether identified by a heading or indent level may come anywhere. It should follow as closely as possible after the point that needs explaining.", but (a) the first of those two sentences is already covered by the note "(can be placed anywhere appropriate)" in the "Order of headings" section except that this proposal forces a heading rather than an indent level, which I support, and (b) I support removing the second of those two sentences.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   I should clarify that I think usage notes should be allowed without a separate heading. But here EL is discussing sections, and a separate section is delimited by a header always. Having an exception for usage notes would be unclear (what makes it a section, then?), inconsistent, and AFAICT against common practice. Any usage note without a header should not be in a separate usage section identified by indent level. I should also clarify that the second sentence to be removed, "It should follow as closely as possible after the point that needs explaining.", is already not practiced AFAICT, except for rather liberal values of "as closely as possible".​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   Waitaminute. Now I see that Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Headings proposes to do away with "(can be placed anywhere appropriate)". Therefore, I support this proposal only on condition that that one fails; otherwise, I oppose this one.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   For a while now common practice has been to put ===Usage notes=== only immediately after the definitions and inflections, and not to intrude between the definitions and inflections. Do you disagree with codifying that practice? --WikiTiki89 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   Do you (or does anyone) have stats on that? I know I've seen =Usage notes= elsewhere, though I don't recall seeing it recently.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   I don't have any actual stats. I have seen ===Usage notes=== intruding between the definitions and inflections sections, but people who I've talked to about it generally agree that it's better to put ===Usage notes=== after the inflections. I have rarely seen ===Usage notes=== under the pronunciation header, in which case, I have either re-organized the information to not require a header, or moved the section to after the definitions. I don't think I've ever seen it anywhere else, and I can't really imagine why anyone would put it anywhere else. --WikiTiki89 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

   Other than pronunciation notes, from which I remove any "Usage notes" header and leave under "Pronunciation", I move "Usage notes" header to immediately after the definitions. To the extent there is departure from this practice, I doubt that it exceeds in commonness that of putting translations before "Derived terms" or "Synonyms". DCDuring TALK

7. Support — I have issues with both the current text and the proposed one, but the proposed one is the better of the two. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
8. Support Seems uncontroversial (does it even need a vote?) Ƿidsiþ 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

   Dan Polansky insists that substantial changes need a vote even if not controversial. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

9. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Support -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
11. Support with the proviso that deleting the sentence "This section, whether identified by a heading or indent level may come anywhere." does not imply that the section must be placed in a particular place, whether that proposed under the current vote on Headings or not. --Droigheann (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
12. Support because the language is improved and apparently little confusion is introduced. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain. One thing that I don't like about this vote is how it does not tell me what it does; it only gives me a diff. No rationale is provided for the vote anywhere; I would expect it to be on the talk page. The vote seems to be about (a) formatting using bullets, (b) ensuring usage notes are only within usage notes section while I have also seen them elsewhere, and (c) setting {{m}} as the preferred way of mentioning terms. From his comments, I see msh210 has given thought to this vote, so let's hope it is okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

12-0-1 Passes --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)