Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Unifying on Inflection heading

Unifying on Inflection heading
Voting on: Abandoning Declension and Conjugation headings in favor of an Inflection heading. Editing WT:EL accordingly, and giving a go-ahead for large-volume replacements of Declension and Conjugation headings with the Inflection heading.

Alternative proposal: Use Declension and Conjugation headings whenever such distinction is applicable. Thus, for instance, switch all Latin verb inflection headings to Conjugation.

Rationale: see the talk page.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to: 23:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2018/April
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Unifying on Inflection heading

Support unifying on Inflection

 * 1)  I see elegance in having only one type of heading for the purpose. The talk page of the vote has Ngram searches suggesting, while not proving, that the Inflection heading should not cause problems to users. Even for those who would be puzzled at first, scrolling to an Inflection section and seeing a table of inflected forms will quickly disclose what it is; and for many languages, the collapsible bar of the inflection table says Declension or Conjugation anyway. The term inflection is no less accurate than declension or conjugation; it is less specific, to no detriment that I can see. I saw people talk of what is "appropriate" on the talk page, and I don't know what it means in this context; I understand "accurate" and "having benefits and drawbacks". In the English Wiktionary, Latin and Ancient Greek seem to have quite a few entries with Inflection heading (not all of them), and I don't remember anyone complaining; I also saw PIE verb entries with Inflection heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I originally thought I was proposing to go for one heading type instead of having two heading types. But if it is true that some people's plan is to aim towards all three heading titles for some languages (Irish is mentioned below on the page), then there is even more elegance in the proposal than I thought: the reduction of the number is greater, and a Wiktionary reader is going to have to eventually learn what "inflection" is anyway since it will be used at least to a limited extent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  __Gamren (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  - DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't think the word inflection is really that uncommon compared to conjugation and declension. Particularly I think inflection is probably significantly more common a word in English than declension, which is a term I first learned when starting a course in Latin. The provided statistics are ambiguous and open to interpretation, so if more definitive statistics emerged to the contrary then I would be willing to change my vote. By definitive I mean demonstrating a much more common understanding of the term "declension" than "inflection" or "declined" than "inflected" among native English speakers. Finsternish (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  I keep forgetting there's different terms for this singular concept anyway. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unifying on Inflection

 * 1) . "Conjugation" and "declension" are far more commonly used than "inflection". Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No comments allowed, thank you. This is a vote, not a discussion. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a vote and discussion in one, per long-standing English Wiktionary practice. Comment are generally welcome. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above statement seems untrue as formulated; it depends on who uses the terms. Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Unifying on Inflection heading has some Ngram searches; one that is in my favor is, while one that is less so is , but even here, inflected is not losing that bad. An interested reader my prefer to read the referenced section to get more detail and more balanced presentation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As Wikitiki89 pointed out on the talk page, people don't usually say "conjugated forms". Searching for X + "forms" is likely to bias your results towards specialist works and leave out most language learning materials and works written by laypeople. Moreover, specialist works are probably overrepresented on Google Books already, because it's counting unique works, not copies. For instance, a textbook used by millions of students gets the same weight as a journal article that is only ever read by a handful of academics—each work counts as one hit. Ngram searches are useful for answering many questions, but I don't think they're a good tool for figuring out which of these terms is more understandable to the general public. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you that limitation of the searches. They may be a bit biased toward specialist works. But then it does not seem generally true that '"Conjugation" and "declension" are far more commonly used than "inflection"'; they may be more commonly used in publications for lay learners, but not in general, since in general involves both specialist and lay publications. The thing is, I don't underestimate the general public in their ability to pick a new term that they immediately see visually exemplified in the mainspace. And for Irish, they will have to pick that term anyway, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  per talk page. -Stelio (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) . At least for languages I'm familiar with, such as Spanish and Latin, the terms used in language learning materials are "conjugation" and "declension". I think many (maybe most) English-speaking language learners would assume that an "Inflection" header in a dictionary would be about intonation, not conjugation or declension. "Conjugation" and "declension" are clearer and more standard terms to use, at least for many languages. (I'm not basing these claims on Google Books results, which are likely to be biased towards specialist works, but rather on my own judgment as a native English speaker.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That assumption about intonation, if real, will be dispelled real fast; in Inflection section, a new user will see a table of forms of which they think of as "declension" or "conjugation". The new user will learn the professional linguists's terminology, and there will be simplicity of information structure design. Or they would, if this proposal passed, which seems unlikely. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) . --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) . --WikiTiki89 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  DTLHS (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Panda10 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) . ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain as for unifying on Inflection

 * 1)   I see merit on both sides. On the other hand, simplifying headings is usually a good idea but "declension" and "conjugation" give the reader more information (that the word being inflected is a noun or verb respectively). Obviously when they read on, they will find out if the word is a noun or verb anyway so it's not a big deal. Perhaps it should depend on the language in question although that would create more inconsistency overall.  Gizza  (t)(c) 23:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Support unifying on Declension and Conjugation as far as possible

 * 1)  per talk page. -Stelio (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) . --WikiTiki89 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  Ƿidsiþ 07:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unifying on Declension and Conjugation as far as possible

 * 1) . "Whenever such distinction is applicable" is an unacceptably vague rule. (e.g. Korean adjectives are traditionally "conjugated", not "declined".) Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No comments allowed, thank you. This is a vote, not a discussion. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a vote and discussion in one, per long-standing English Wiktionary practice. Now to the objection: The vote does not say whether Declension or Conjugation should be used for Korean adjectives, and that's fine. The vote does not try to set up principles for a hard to overview variety of languages, and cover various corner cases, and I don't see why it should. It would require more expertise than the authors of the vote could possibly summon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) . Just too poorly worded, and I don't like the idea of telling people what to do when it comes to languages from Africa and Asia that don't traditionally use this rather European linguistic terminology, or adapt it (as in the case of Korean). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I originally wanted to abstain so that this proposal can pass if it has significantly more supporters than the main proposal. However, the main proposal is currently 5:6 support:oppose so there are not significantly more editors who want declension/conjugation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  DTLHS (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) . --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Panda10 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) . ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain as for unifying on Declension and Conjugation as far as possible

 * 1)  . I support this for Latin, but different languages have different needs, and this vote is too poorly written to account for that. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Μετάknowledge: What do you think of PIE? Do you have an example of language that is poorly covered by the proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that Mahagaja brought up the excellent example of Irish on the talk page. Perhaps you should have looked there first. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * About Irish, Mahagaja says "[...] I personally tend to use all three: Declension for nouns and adjectives, Conjugation for verbs, and Inflection for prepositions in languages like Irish that inflect their prepositions". I do not see how the vote creates a problem for Irish since the vote says "Use Declension and Conjugation headings whenever such distinction is applicable. [...]" If neither Declension nor Conjugation applies to Irish prepositions, then Inflection can be used, consistent with the vote text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The other thing is the lack of elegance in information structure design that resorts to three different titles for what is essentially one type of section, within a single language, Irish. In my view, my proposal is elegant and ultimately user-friendly, possibly causing a minor inconvenience for some users at the beginning. It abolishes a low-added value differentiation; a set of rules for differentiation that is not so straightforward to overview and specify in general across languages is dropped, in favor of simplicity while retaining accuracy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue here is your ignorance of Irish. You are willing to take Mahagaja's word for it as a result. Now let me tell you that articles are often considered to decline in Irish, but we have chosen to use 'Inflection' for them instead of 'Declension' to differentiate from how nouns decline. This proposal would not permit that. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? When did we decide that? The table at says "Declension", and has ever since I added the section . —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean preposition, but got the whole thing muddled. It seems that my ignorance of Irish has gotten in the way as well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the proposal and not me ("you should", "your ignorance of Irish"); I am not the subject of this vote. Let's collect information relevant to the proposal, including such information that can lead to a better proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a better proposal; I think that the status quo is adequate. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The status quo is inconsistence even within individual languages: some Latin and Ancient Greek verbs carry Inflection heading, some Conjugation heading. It is acceptable, yet suboptimal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  for now. I'm inclined to think it would be better to deal with this on a language-by-language basis, because there might be some languages for which "inflection" is the standard term. I certainly support doing this for Latin, Spanish, and Catalan, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * at this point. I definitely am in support of this for the languages I'm familiar with that use both conjugation and declension. Like some of the others, I'm concerned about wording, and I'd like to leave room for languages to opt out of this if it doesn't suit them.  If we were to have a vote for this for the Romantic languages, for example, I'd be all for it.  Or a separate vote with a well-worded version of this alternate proposal. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Decision

 * I extended the vote by one month in the hope we get more input. I know there is the charge that this is a fishing for the result that I want. My response is, the vote is now 6:6, and it can turn in both directions, the direction that I like and the direction that I dislike. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I extended further. Extension mechanism: if there were new votes added in the previous extension period, extend by one more month unless 6 months were already reached. The mechanism has no bias toward passing or failure; the only bias is in the first decision to extend. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good practice. The first extension was fishing for the result you want (yes, it can turn in both directions, but the vote would have failed if you hadn't extended it the first time, so there was a possible gain but no possible loss to you from extending). The second extension is just needlessly lengthening the vote and adding to the bureaucracy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first extension could be seen as fishing for the result that I want; the obvious benefit is that it enabled collection of more input. There could be a loss: if I did not extend for the first time, there would be indeterminacy, which would give hope for my proposal to prevail in future, whereas with the extension, there was the risk that there will be so many opposes to the main proposal that it provides evidence of consensus for the other direction, regardless of the nuances of the formulation. The second extension is not really any addition of "bureaucracy": the page already exists, everything's in place, and the extension just makes it possible to collect more input. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the second extension; one was enough. It is unreasonable to claim that not enough votes have been cast. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Granger and Metaknowledge. No need for another extension. --WikiTiki89 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in a minority, obviously, but let me note that I do not claim that "not enough votes have been cast" but rather than an extension is 1) beneficial, and 2) would follow a mechanism showing no bias either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to the above discussion, I am closing the vote. Both proposals fail, the first one 6–9–1, and the second one 3–7–3. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)