Wiktionary talk:Votes/2023-11/Ordering of descendants in mainspace entries

@Chernorizets: Sorry for not bringing this up earlier, but the wording is lacking teeth. "Normally given" gives more wiggle room to go around than I'd like (especially knowing this project). More importantly though, if your goal was that this does not affect Reconstruction entries, it has to be in the portion that goes at WT:EL. Otherwise, it can be argued that it applies to them as well. I'm doing a bit of wikilawyering right now, but I do think that it's important for wording to be as precise as possible to limit future arguments over what exactly was meant. AG202 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AG202 the "normally" was from your recommendation on the wording of the vote about ordering etymologies :-) Is your suggestion to just nix that word?

As for the reconstruction entry caveat - fair. I'll reflect that in the text. Chernorizets (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Haha thanks, and thanks for the change related to Reconstruction entries. Hmmm I feel that for this vote it's better to be a bit more strict, vs the etymology one which seemed more lax. However, this isn't my vote to edit, and this specific wording suggestion is more optional. Maybe others can weigh in as well: @Theknightwho, @Vahagn Petrosyan, @Fay Freak AG202 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

”Normally” seems pretty meaningless here. It would at least mean “you need a very good reason outweighing bottability to do otherwise”, one which can hardly exist, as though the word wasn’t there. Otherwise it was worded “normally” because e.g. it wasn’t supposed to apply in the reconstruction space directly. And we are setting norms here anyway, so surely normally. Fay Freak (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have replaced "are normally " with "should be " per this conversation. I intend to make no further edits to the proposal's text. Thanks! Chernorizets (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I explained in a comment on one of the votes, my intent is to preserve the current ability to list descendants using either {{desc}} or {{desctree}}, rather than force some sort of "flattening" of the full descendant tree. I didn't include that in the wording explicitly, I suppose because I assumed it was implied. I've also just checked the documentation for {{desc}} which mentions {{desctree}} as "similar", save for the recursive expansion. That said, my assumption may be wrong - should there be an explicit mention that any {{desc}}-like template is fine? If so, how might we do that while keeping the text simple to read and understand?

Thanks,

Chernorizets (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Vahagn Petrosyan, Fay Freak, AG202, Theknightwho, Benwing2, RichardW57m for feedback/input.

In general, I'm not sure whether changing a proposed text once voting has started is a good idea, but I've done it once already, and I think based on the abstentions and oppositions, this might be an important enough point to address. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Chernorizets (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chernorizets hi just to confirm, in your proposal Classical Persian would be listed as as "C" not "P", correct? - سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} · ^بحث) 18:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sameerhameedy yes, that's correct. Chernorizets (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply