Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Usage notes

Usage notes
Voting on: Editing WT:EL.

See.

Current text:

This section, whether identified by a heading or indent level may come anywhere. It should follow as closely as possible after the point that needs explaining. Curb the tendency to be long winded in this section; brief explicit notes tend to be more effective. These notes should not take the place of restrictive labels when those are adequate for the job. Be prepared to document these notes with references. Remember to describe how a term is used, rather than try to dictate how it should be used from your point of view.
 * Usage notes


 * The vote “2007-10/style for mentioned terms” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.

(none)
 * References

Proposed text:


 * Usage notes


 * These notes should not take the place of context labels when those are adequate for the job.
 * Describe how a term is used, rather than trying to dictate how it should be used from your point of view.
 * Curb the tendency to be long-winded in this section; brief explicit notes tend to be more effective.
 * When mentioning entries in running text, use the template, which italicizes entries written in Latin script.
 * Be prepared to document these notes with references.


 * References

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Usage notes

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Innocuous enough. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Hillcrest98 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  profesjonalizm • reply 01:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  The only substantive change is the omission of "This section, whether identified by a heading or indent level may come anywhere. It should follow as closely as possible after the point that needs explaining.", but (a) the first of those two sentences is already covered by the note "(can be placed anywhere appropriate)" in the "Order of headings" section except that this proposal forces a heading rather than an indent level, which I support, and (b) I support removing the second of those two sentences. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I think usage notes should be allowed without a separate heading. But here EL is discussing sections, and a separate section is delimited by a header always. Having an exception for usage notes would be unclear (what makes it a section, then?), inconsistent, and AFAICT against common practice. Any usage note without a header should not be in a separate usage section identified by indent level. I should also clarify that the second sentence to be removed, "It should follow as closely as possible after the point that needs explaining.", is already not practiced AFAICT, except for rather liberal values of "as closely as possible". &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Waitaminute. Now I see that Votes/pl-2015-12/Headings proposes to do away with "(can be placed anywhere appropriate)". Therefore, I support this proposal only on condition that that one fails; otherwise, I oppose this one. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For a while now common practice has been to put ===Usage notes=== only immediately after the definitions and inflections, and not to intrude between the definitions and inflections. Do you disagree with codifying that practice? --WikiTiki89 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you (or does anyone) have stats on that? I know I've seen =Usage notes= elsewhere, though I don't recall seeing it recently. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any actual stats. I have seen ===Usage notes=== intruding between the definitions and inflections sections, but people who I've talked to about it generally agree that it's better to put ===Usage notes=== after the inflections. I have rarely seen ===Usage notes=== under the pronunciation header, in which case, I have either re-organized the information to not require a header, or moved the section to after the definitions. I don't think I've ever seen it anywhere else, and I can't really imagine why anyone would put it anywhere else. --WikiTiki89 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than pronunciation notes, from which I remove any "Usage notes" header and leave under "Pronunciation", I move "Usage notes" header to immediately after the definitions. To the extent there is departure from this practice, I doubt that it exceeds in commonness that of putting translations before "Derived terms" or "Synonyms". DCDuring TALK
 * 1)  — I have issues with both the current text and the proposed one, but the proposed one is the better of the two. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Seems uncontroversial (does it even need a vote?) Ƿidsiþ 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan Polansky insists that substantial changes need a vote even if not controversial. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  with the proviso that deleting the sentence "This section, whether identified by a heading or indent level may come anywhere." does not imply that the section must be placed in a particular place, whether that proposed under the current vote on Headings or not. --Droigheann (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  because the language is improved and apparently little confusion is introduced. DCDuring TALK  18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) . One thing that I don't like about this vote is how it does not tell me what it does; it only gives me a diff. No rationale is provided for the vote anywhere; I would expect it to be on the talk page. The vote seems to be about (a) formatting using bullets, (b) ensuring usage notes are only within usage notes section while I have also seen them elsewhere, and (c) setting  as the preferred way of mentioning terms. From his comments, I see msh210 has given thought to this vote, so let's hope it is okay.  --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Decision
12-0-1 Passes --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)