Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Entry name section

Entry name section
Voting on:

1. Removing the subsection "Entry name" from WT:EL.

Current text and references:

The name of the entry is that of the word or phrase that you are defining. For languages with two cases of script, the entry name will usually begin with a lowercase letter. Exceptions include proper nouns, German nouns, and many abbreviations.
 * Entry name

Matched-pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks, can be defined together as single entries. Examples:, [ ] , “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?.


 * References

2. Adding a subsection "Entry name" within the section WT:EL. (it is a separate section located further down in the text) The new subsection is to be inserted above "The part of speech or other descriptor".

Proposed text and references:

The name of the entry is the term, phrase, symbol, morpheme or other lexical unit being defined.
 * Entry name

For languages with two cases of script, the entry name usually begins with a lowercase letter. For example, use for the English noun and verb, not "". Words which begin with a capital letter in running text are exceptions. Typical examples include proper nouns, German nouns , and many abbreviations. If someone tries accessing the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically.

For prefixes, suffixes and other morphemes in most languages, place the character "-" where it links with other words:, , , etc.

Some languages have variations in script. (English is written in Latin script, other scripts include Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Gothic, etc.) Compare vs. (both are Serbo-Croatian for in different scripts). Some languages allow separate entries for romanizations: for example, Japanese is romanized as kin'en according to the applicable policy.

When multiple capitalizations, punctuation, diacritics, ligatures, scripts and combinations with numbers and other symbols exist, such as (as in "frying pan"),  (the Greek god),  (meaning "all-") and  (Japanese for "bread"), use the template  at the top of the page to cross-link between them. When there are too many variations, place them in a separate appendix page, in this case Appendix:Variations of "pan".

Some variations of the same word kept in multiple pages include:


 * regional variations:, ; ,
 * historical variations:, ; ,
 * hyphenization/compounds:, ,
 * style variation: ,
 * some misspellings: see WT:CFI
 * uncertain capitalization: ,
 * different scripts: see above

Some page titles can't be created because of restrictions in the software, usually because they contain certain symbols such as # or |, or are too long. The full list of those entries is at Appendix:Unsupported titles. They are named using the descriptive format "Unsupported titles/Number sign", while using JavaScript to show the correct title like a normal entry.

Matched-pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks, can be defined together as single entries. Examples:, [ ] , “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?.


 * References

Notes:
 * This proposal is part of a wider project by User:Daniel Carrero of rewriting some parts of the WT:EL, as generally seen on Special:PermanentLink/35064941.
 * Some of the contents of this vote have been taken from the following 2 pages. They are old policy stubs which also have some outdated information.
 * Spelling variants in entry names
 * Redirections

Schedule:
 * Vote started: 00:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/October
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/October
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-10/Entry name section

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- looks good to me. Benwing2 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  -- Nothing in here that isn't already unofficial practice. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  but two minor points of note: (1) The situation at color/colour is different to the others, because the content is actually duplicated across the two entries. Should it be pointed out somewhere that this is an unusual situation? (2) "kin'en" is linked, but I believe policy is against the creation of such a page, so I wonder if the red link should be removed. This, that and the other (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Maybe we could add a note explaining that in some cases the content is actually duplicated in the entries. But there are also many regional variations where one entry is lemmatized and the other isn't. As in: "X-ize = (US) Alternative spelling of X-ise."
 * (2) What is the problem with kin'en, is it the apostrophe? I chose this word as a random example, it was specifically mentioned in About Japanese/Transliteration among many romanizations. But I could just as well take a blue link for a Japanese romanization, like chikara or other. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, I'd argue that whether the content of X-ize/X-ise is duplicated or lemmatized/delemmatized is not an issue for the "Entry name" section. It might be mentioned elsewhere in the policy, though. Also, kin'en was a redlink when this vote was created, but User:Metaknowledge went ahead and created it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignore my comment about kin'en; looking back, I don't know what I was talking about. This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  profesjonalizm • reply 17:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC) The policy section being expanded should state what the "Entry name" is and nothing else; the use of  is therefore out of scope. A lot of other material added seems out of scope as well, e.g. whether romanization entries are allowed, which seems to be a CFI matter. The reference to About Japanese/Transliteration as "applicable policy" is incorrect; it is not a policy. "Some languages have variations in script" is not a regulation and should not be in a policy. And there are probably other issues. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The vote passed. I think it's a nice improvement to EL. It succeeded in mentioning layout information in WT:EL that was not mentioned there before. Now to your points:
 * You're right that About Japanese/Transliteration is not a policy, it's a draft proposal. I suggest editing WT:EL without a vote to implement a non-substantial change:
 * Current text: "according to the applicable policy."
 * Proposed text: "according to About Japanese/Transliteration."
 * You said that "some languages have variations in script" is not a regulation and should not be in a policy. Good point. This is a language lesson rather than a regulation, maybe the whole paragraph could be cut off, (this would require a vote) since we already have a list of "variations of the same word kept in multiple pages", including the multiple scripts.
 * The full paragraph that I think we could remove: "Some languages have variations in script. (English is written in Latin script, other scripts include Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Gothic, etc.) Compare vs.  (both are Serbo-Croatian for  in different scripts). Some languages allow separate entries for romanizations: for example, Japanese  is romanized as kin'en according to the applicable policy."
 * I believe is fully within the scope of WT:EL. The template lists entries which could be confused with each other because of their similar names. I wouldn't mind hearing other ideas, though. Maybe a separate section like "Contents before the first language section" or something else.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  pending the addressing of Dan Polansky's concerns, which seem justified to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes 5‒1‒1 (83⅓% of non-abstainers voting in support). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)