Wiktionary:Votes/2015-09/Adding a collocations or phrases namespace or section

Adding a collocations or phrases namespace or section

 * Voting on two questions:
 * Should we add a namespace and tab (similar to the Citations namespace and tab) for common collocations/phrases and translations thereof, or add a section (similar to Synonyms, Related terms and other sections), or neither?
 * If a namespace or section is added, what should it be called?
 * The format of the section or namespace can be decided by discussion; this vote does not mandate one. One possibility is [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:goods&oldid=34155370 mocked-up at Talk:goods]; note how SOP translations are linked to their component parts.


 * Rationale: there has been support (1, 2) for listing common collocations and translations thereof. Listing them in their own section beside existing sections like "Synonyms" and "Related terms" would keep all information in the entry, but make the entry longer and more cluttered. Listing them in their own namespace and linking to them via a -type template a "Citations"-like tab would keep the entry from becoming more cluttered.


 * Technical note: If both the vote to add a namespace and the vote to add a section have enough support to pass, the one with the most support will be implemented.


 * Vote started: 00:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2012/April
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Talk:sentimental value

Support adding separate namespace

 * 1) . For years, a number of editors have opined that typical collocations, though not strictly fixed/set or idiomatic, are of use to the language learner and translator. However, they are often deleted at RFD (e.g. bank deposit). If we added a namespace, we would have a place to store them without compromising the idea that mainspace entries should be idiomatic; furthermore, storing collocations in a place associated with the main entry seems to match what other dictionaries feel is intuitive / expected by readers: Langenscheidt's Standard German dictionary, for example, doesn't include "one minute to go" as a headword (it isn't set or idiomatic), but it includes that phrase and its translation under "go" (so as to show how to construct that phrase in English and German). In turn, a namespace is preferable to a section because our entries are crowded enough as it is, and it will take a lot of space to list even just the most common collocations of each sense of a polysemous word, and the translations thereof (see a possible format, subject to change based on discussion, [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:goods&oldid=34155370 at Talk:goods]). - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) . — Ungoliant (falai) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) . Having the collocations in the main entry would clutter it up far too much. Putting it on a separate page allows for a greater number of them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  I would really like this new namespace to be included in default search. DCDuring TALK  01:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) . Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  A LGRIF  talk  11:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 7)  I know this vote does not include specifics about content and formatting, but looking at existing online collocation dictionaries, I think a separate namespace might be a better solution. Take a look at the word "guarantee" at the English Collocations Dictionary or at Oxford Collocation Dictionary. We also plan to add translation tables, so the material can get quite long. --Panda10 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose adding separate namespace

 * 1)  This is a proposal to add collocations and their translations to a new namespace. The most likely result is the inclusion of an indiscriminate collection of a huge number of translation tables with very low added value. No requirement on usefulness of translations is being made, only that the collocations are common. For that matter, "most beautiful" is a common collocation of "beautiful". Compared to the translation target practice and rationale, this is not only indiscriminate but also has much worse support for traversal from one non-English language to another in that the collocation is not on its dedicated page, e.g. "returned goods" would be on Collocation:goods with at least 10 other collocations of "good" rather than on returned goods. Similarly, instead of anglistika --> English studies --> Anglistik, we would have anglistika --> Collocations:studies --> Anglistik, and Collocations:studies would not probably be linked from anglistika per our current format. For an example collocation page with translation tables, see e.g.  mentioned in the vote proposal. I favor the inclusion of a small number of high-value translation targets in the mainspace over inclusion of a huge number of collocation translation tables in a separate namespace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the solution would then be to exclude any collocations that are simply following expected patterns (e.g. "most beautiful" is the regular superlative of "beautiful" and "is running" is the present progressive of "run"). If some collocations can simply be translated literally, to and from most other languages, without the translation being faulty, then perhaps they could be excluded as well (though that would be hard to control). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  Collocations should either have regular entries per CFI, where applicable, or not be included at all. This seems like a way of ghettoing them into oblivion, and I imagine that every RFD discussion afterwards will simply suggest sweeping problematic phrases off to another namespace. Let's not create separate tiers of entry, it has hardly been a conspicuous success for Phrases or Citations. Ƿidsiþ 11:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Fragments entries even more, and will most likely not even get noticed by casual users. Or it would require awkward links (in entries themselves) to point to the namespace section, as has happened with citations. Jberkel (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  per all of the above. DAVilla 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) . Not needed. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  per Ƿidsiþ. --Droigheann (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support adding section to entries

 * 1) . — Ungoliant (falai) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  - another namespace seems overkill, a collapsible box fills the same function much simpler. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Vorziblix (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) . Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  – Jberkel (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) ; a namespace would be better than a section but a section is better than nothing. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose adding section to entries

 * 1)  I oppose indiscriminate inclusion of collocation translation tables anywhere, no matter what namespace. And translation tables is what this vote is about, per its wording and per the example  mentioned by the vote. For more see, my post at . --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  provided we can agree to have entries like elder brother. DAVilla 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) . I don't see the point. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  per DAVilla. --Droigheann (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) . I think entries will become too cluttered if collocations are added on the same page. This is one of the things I dislike about most online dictionaries. If we want to have good coverage of collocations, we should keep them on a separate page so they don't clutter up the main entry. If we wanted, we could have a link to them, like we do for citations under the "quotations" header. This would allow for a short explanation of the word "collocations" or whatever word we choose, and direct people to it so they don't miss it, as they might were it a separate namespace, but also keep the main entry clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think, mainly on the grounds of translation tables per Dan above. (I suspect that most collocations that need to be translated should have their own entries anyway, but I realise my sense of idiomaticity is broader than that of many editors.) Ƿidsiþ 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  A LGRIF  talk  11:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain about adding section to entries

 * 1)  If there is no possibility of amending default search to include the collocation namespace, I would accept this, however relucantly. DCDuring TALK  17:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Support "Collocations"

 * 1) . — Ungoliant (falai) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  I oppose addition of namespace, but if it must be added, it should better be called Collocations, not Phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Vorziblix (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  the mock-up is a set of "collocations", and if that's is what the space will consist of, then this is the best term (but it if is also to have phrases, such as "you out of your mind" or "thanks for nothing" etc., as well, then it should perhaps be called "collocations and phrases" .... they are not the same thing) — Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  Not a significantly more obscure or scholarly word than "etymology" or "cognate" etc., which we do seem to use. Equinox ◑ 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, though most such things are in the mainspace where users will see them anyway (the meaning of "cognate" can be gathered based on context). If it were to become another namespace, most users wouldn't click on it, I don't think, though they would probably get an idea of what the word meant from seeing the head-phrases on the page. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  A LGRIF  talk  11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Panda10 (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain about "Collocations"

 * 1)  I don't really like either option. Isn't this what a "usage dictionary" covers? Why not use that? I'd be fine with just calling it "Usage" (or "Usages"), but I have a feeling you lot would say that's too general. Other possibilities: "Terminology", "Phraseology", "Contexts", "Expanded Translations", "Translation Targets", "Direct Translations", "Specific Translations", "Additional Details" or "More Uses" (section header only). Since Wikisaurus is a made-up word, it's obviously not beyond the pale to just make something up. So what about "Usage-Matrix" or "Translationary"? WurdSnatcher (talk)
 * 2)  – Jberkel (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Support "Phrases"

 * 1) . In the BP discussion, two editors wrote that despite having degrees in linguistics they had never seen the term "collocation" before coming to Wiktionary (Chuck Entz and JohnC5); several other editors commenter that they too had not seen "collocation", so I'm persuaded that something else would be better. Of the alternatives, "phrases" seems most accurate and enticing; "combinations" (mentioned in the BP) is perhaps not inaccurate but I think it's unintuitive (it sounds like it'd refer to "dog" → "doghouse"). - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  (but I prefer collocations). — Ungoliant (falai) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) . "Collocation" is really a better word for it, but it's less user friendly. I highly doubt that most users of Wiktionary would know it, and I haven't known it for long myself. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  Also acceptable, but I prefer "collocations". Equinox ◑ 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Question 1: Both options fail with no consensus (7-7-0 and 6-7-1, respectively). Question 2: Although irrelevant, "Collocations" beats "Phrases" (7-4, with two abstentions). --WikiTiki89 14:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, Collocations beats Phrases 7-2 since two of the supporters of Phrases indicated that they prefer collocations. Not that it matters, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)