Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-03/Bolding letters in initialisms

Bolding letters in initialisms

 * Voting on: Whether, within the definitions line of initialisms, the first letters of the initialed phrase should be bold or not.


 * Example: Armoured Combat Vehicle in ACV, which may be coded as Armoured Combat Vehicle.


 * Vote starts: 00:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 24:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Yair rand 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:BP#Bolding letters in initialisms, March 2010
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-03/Bolding letters in initialisms

Oppose bolding

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Daniel. 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. I do see the rationale for wanting this, but it looks too patronisingly stupid and unnecessary in obvious cases (like the ACV example given above). I might consider supporting it specifically for the more complex cases (midsections of several words reassembled), but even then I think an explanation in English probably suffices. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I think the consensus reached in the Beer Parlour was clear enough on this.
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose per Equinox. —Ruakh TALK 23:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] This vote, branded as being about "initialisms", I assume applies only to words composed of initial letters of other words, not about things like DNA. Also, only to words pronounced spelled out, not those pronounced as words. I oppose. (I would oppose on certain more general grounds, too, but those are not up for discussion here AFAICT.) Because of the limited scope of this vote, and because it does not allow for the third option of italicization instead which was discussed in the BP, I am dissatisfied with it. (Perhaps I should have said something before it opened, but I had no idea anyone was going to open it.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 19:22 z 
 * 7) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. Dan Polansky 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC). I oppose bolding. I oppose adding italics, underline or any other typographical marking as well. This is a good vote to have. --Dan Polansky 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Yair rand 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Didn't I delete this vote? And did anyone actually fix up the wording or discuss the vote itself? And didn't we come to pretty clear consensus in the BP anyway? --Yair rand 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Decision

 * Vote fails. --Yair rand 05:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realized now, almost a year later, that the wording of this decision is ambiguous: "fails" can be taken to mean that the proposal to effect a rule has failed so that no rule was effected. In fact, though, the wording of the proposal and the options implies that the decision is a new rule, that initialisms' definition lines' spelled-out forms' initial letters should not be boldface. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but in that case I think the vote is invalid, for not providing a way for voters to oppose both options. —Ruakh TALK 17:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think in normal Wiktionary terms, we'd say that option 1 failed and option 2 passed. I agree we wouldn't word a vote like this anymore, but rather "support bolding of letters in initialisms" and "oppose bolding of letters in initialisms". I don't mind a rerun, but it might be nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't with the wording of the two options, but with the absence of an "oppose" (or "status quo") option. Admittedly, this was compounded by a wording problem (the second option was made to look, misleadingly, like a "status quo" option), but even the best wording wouldn't have solved the main problem. (At most, it would have made the main problem more obvious. As it is, it seems to have taken a year for anyone to notice it!) —Ruakh TALK 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not just quibbling here. Some of the voters' comments suggest that they meant "I oppose a policy of always bolding" (a true "oppose" or "status quo" vote), rather than "I support a policy of never bolding" (an "option 2" vote, presented here as "oppose"). So we can't infer that option 2 would have passed if there had been an explicit alternative. —Ruakh TALK 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, good point. Scratch my initial comment that the winning option is "no bolding". &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)