Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Automated transliterations/old

Voting on:

Removing this rule from WT:EL#Translations:

Adding this rule in its place:

Rationale:

• This vote is expected to codify common practice. It is believed that people are not supposed to "add a transliteration or romanization" at all times; rather, there are times when automatic transliterations are to be used, as described in the proposed text.
• The statement "Note however that only widespread romanization systems may be used." is incorrect. Not just any random transliteration system may be used, it should follow the appropriate Wiktionary-established conventions, as states in the proposed text.

Notes:

The earliest versions of the current rule apparently are:

• diff: "If that language does not use the Roman alphabet, it is helpful to add a transliteration or romanization." (by Eclecticology on 28 December 2005)
• diff: "If a word is translated into a language that does not use the Roman alphabet, it is helpful to add a transliteration or romanization. Note however that only widespread romanization systems may be used. See Wiktionary:Transliteration." (by Ncik on 15 March 2006)

This was before the advent of Lua/Scribunto, and automatic romanizations.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Officializing automated romanizations
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Automated transliterations

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Crap, I supported without reading the discussion. Indeed, SC is an issue (although I'm not sure I agree that we shouldn't have some policy statement on this). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose We should be saying less rather than more. Such as "Translations not in the Latin script should display a transliteration." How it's displayed is irrelevant to this section. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   I agree that we should be saying less than more (I've made some votes with the intent of cutting down the explanations from EL and getting down to the actual business) This sentence could be deleted as superfluous: "In some cases, the transliteration is supplied automatically by the software."

   In any event, I'd like this vote to pass, because it's an improvement over the status quo, which asks people to "add a transliteration", when actually there are times people should not do that because it's added automatically by the software. And, at least we should have this actual, important regulation: "The transliteration should follow the appropriate Wiktionary-established conventions for the language in question (see Category:Transliteration policies); do not use any other transliteration system." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Then maybe you should have read what I said in the Beer parlour before starting this vote. --WikiTiki89 17:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Are you talking about this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, especially the last sentence. --WikiTiki89 19:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   In that diff, you had clearly said about Serbo-Croatian, my apologies for not including that in the vote proposal. But I disagree about the last sentence of your diff: "even this much should not be part of the Translation Table policy, but general transliteration in links policy". IMO, WT:EL#Translations is much more qualified as our translation policy than WT:TRANS, a draft proposal. Sure, we can build a proper translation policy sometime, but as of now, I believe WT:EL is the best we've got. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain I think Wikitiki's point is valid; we should leave transliteration policies to their own page, rather than this one. But I think we should also remove the bit that says transliteration should always be included. The new text is an improvement in that regard, but it goes too far. —CodeCat 16:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Are there any non-Latin script languages that should not have transliterations?--Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Any that have an automated one, for starters. Also Serbo-Croatian. —CodeCat 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Serbo-Croatian is a great point that no one had mentioned before, because it has both Latin and Cyrillic entries. Let's change the proposed text to allow for that specific situation.

   "Any that have an automated one, for starters." does not make a lot of sense to me because I was thinking along the lines of "all entries must have transliterations, be it manual or automated". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

   Correction: @Wikitiki89 had said about SC in diff. My apologies. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89, CodeCat, Metaknowledge:

Withdrawn early. See new version of the vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Automated transliterations.

Feel free to edit the proposed text before the vote starts.

(Scheduled date: February 13) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)