Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-09/Statistics header

The (now archived) WT:BP discussion was started because of the Prjoect Gutenberg statistics ({{rank}}) only, but the vote suggests that all future statistics should be confined to a statistics header. I think this is an unfortunate decision, as there can be other future sources and kinds of statistics, that might well fit under usage notes (which past tense form, grew or growed, is more common? has that varied over time?) or etymology (when was the word first used, and when did it become more widely used?). Indeed, much of what today goes under the etymology heading can be labeled "statistics", so would that have to be moved? --LA2 07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why do you interpret this vote as confining statistical information to the proposed Statistics header? That was not its intent, since as you say, statistical info can fit in other sections. The vote intends to just allow another header and briefly mention how it could be used (not how other headers shouldn't be used). Please edit if you think this is unclear. --Bequw → τ 13:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

As noted in the vote (currently), the Statistics header is already allowed. I'm not sure then what this vote hopes to accomplish. If the desired result is simply that the {{rank}}ings move, then perhaps the vote should be on that specifically rather than on allowing a header.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Better put, Statistics isn't expressly allowed or disallowed by the ELE. Since the ELE clause I cite is so vague, I see this vote to codifying consensus that I thought emerged from the discussion about {{rank}} as necessary. The vote could be just about , but, by being a bit more general, I think the vote gains a bit (it's obvious to others that statistics would be encouraged for other languages and data-sources) and hopefully looses nothing. Let me know, however, if people actually oppose this generality. --Bequw → τ 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply