Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Notes about pronunciations

Voting on: Adding a new rule to WT:EL#Pronunciation:

Rationale:

• In some entries, "Usage notes" sections have been found directly below the actual pronunciations, for notes about the pronunciations. Some users have been removing the "Usage notes" section and placing the notes in the "Pronunciation" section. (sources: see the discussions linked below) This vote is meant to officialize the "Pronunciation" section as the correct place for pronunciation notes.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Usage notes#Support
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Placement of "Usage notes"
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-02/Notes about pronunciations

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Weak Oppose. On the one hand either the concurrent vote on Usage notes placement sets a particular place for Usage notes, making this redundant, or it doesn't, leaving Pronunciation the one section which couldn't have a Usage notes subsection for no apparent reason (I don't take "some users are already doing this" as a reason for "so let's vote it in"). I'm also a bit worried that this might generate several future votes (Should the notes go before or after Rhymes? Should they always begin by "Notes: " or "Usage notes: " similarly to "Hyphenation: "? What, no template, just a bullet and text? &c). On the other hand I don't think it makes much difference to our readers whether the notes are under a subheader or in (a) bulleted line(s), as long as the information is there. --Droigheann (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I disagree that this shouldn't be allowed. --WikiTiki89 20:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose I looked at Ogham and at diff (either). Ogham says "see the usage notes" in its pronunciation section. I find the longer notes better in usage notes section even if they do not entirely belong there, or else they push definitions further down the page. A sidenote: We are not voting on the rationale, but echoing Droigheann, some users doing something is not a rationale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain What does officialize (a word used once in BNC and not all in COCA) mean in the context of this namespace? More importantly what does official mean in this context? DCDuring TALK 13:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry if I was not clear of if I used a rare word. To officialize = to make it official. This assumes that the proposed text is already something we want (that is, that we don't want pronunciation notes in the Usage notes section) rather than proposing something entirely new. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

2. This is so rare that I'm not sure it needs to be banned. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Abstain per -sche. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Abstain per -sche.  — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Abstain per -sche. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No consensus, with lots of abstentions that, in a differently-structured vote, might fall under an "Oppose this vote" heading. This, that and the other (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the accurate closure is fails 2-3-5. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)