Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-11/Allow semantic relations under definition lines

Allow semantic relations under definition lines
Voting on: Allow semantic relations to be placed directly under definition lines, in addition to L4/5 sections ( etc.).

The aim of this vote is to formalize an already common editing practice and to make Wiktionary easier to use for readers, especially on entries with many senses. See transclusions of synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms and hyponyms for examples.

Replace the section "Synonyms" in WT:EL with:

This is a list of words that have similar meanings as the word being defined. They are often very inexact.

Where several definitions of the headword exist, synonyms can be given in a separate list for each meaning:


 * 1) Summarise the definition for which synonyms are being given with
 * 2) List the synonyms for this definition, in alphabetical order and separated by commas, wikifying each synonym using
 * 3) Use one line for each definition, beginning each line with a bullet.

The synonyms section for might look like this: *, ,  *  , ,

To avoid identical lengthy lists of synonyms in many entries a single reference can be made in each to a common Thesaurus page:

* See also Thesaurus:apex

An alternative to listing synonyms in a separate section is their placement immediately under the corresponding definition lines with :

#: #:
 * 1) The point, in an orbit about the Earth, that is furthest from the Earth.
 * 1) The highest point.

The choice between the two formats is subject to editorial discretion.

Implementation:

All semantic relations placed under definitions are collapsed by default, similar to quotations, except for synonyms and antonyms, which are always displayed but might be partially collapsed if the list is very long.

For regular users a preference will be added to collapse all semantic relations by default. For consistency, every semantic relation which can be meaningfully grouped under a definition will have a correspondingly named template:, , , , , , ,.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Jberkel 01:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Your placement of various "nyms"
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/May
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2018/January
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2018/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Entry layout

Support

 * 1)  – Jberkel 17:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) . Excellent, commonsense rule. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , and would support the "stronger" policy of this being the exclusive format. - TheDaveRoss  15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , and would support this being the exclusive format. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per utramque cavernam 18:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  Fay Freak (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  —Rua (mew) 21:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) --Cinemantique (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 7)  -Stelio (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 8)  — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 9)  — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 10)  and may support the stronger policy after significant discussion. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I didn't like this at first, but now I find that synonyms help with the definition. --Vahag (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Droigheann (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I like these too. They save space and keep the stuff attached to the relevant sense, instead of potentially drifting out of sync by being in a different location. Equinox ◑ 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  —  Salt  marsh . 07:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Placing semantic relations in between definitions makes the entries so much harder to use as for perusing of definitions, as seen e.g. in cat and also in blanquette. It is especially so for longer and more complex entries. This could be addressed by making the semantic relation content collapsible, but then why has this not been done yet? We don't have a chance to experience this solution of collapsible semantic relations in between definitions. Furthermore, making semantic relations collapsible is a further step toward having lexicographical information hidden by default, which is far from perfect. For translations, having them collapsible is justified for there being potentially so many items in the translation lists. Moreover, the collapsible boxes are not collapsed per default on mobile devices. I do admit that it solves the problem of assigning a synonym list to the sense to which it belongs, but we do have a solution of using sense, and it is quite okay. Let me also emphasize that this concerns not only synonyms and antonyms but also hyponyms, hypernyms, meronyms and holonyms, leading to as many as 6 lists per definition, making the definitions even more harder to skim than would be the case otherwise in the uncollapsed state. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s quite pessimistic. At the point where we have 6 lists you can compile a Thesaurus entry. I trust editors to have senses of proportion – it’s lamentable if this freedom is not esteemed, but the chances being stifled is even more. I voted in favour because I am an anarchist and have high regard for free competition and chances for each format to improve technical details to greater satisfaction of the market. Fay Freak (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no free competition, and will not be. The switchers started switching entries to the new format some time ago, in edits that made no substantive contribution. They will continue the switching. I will have no say in keeping entries I have created in the old format; they have switched some of them and will switch more. This is kind of okay in that they are switching to what is an overwhelming majority preference. But it is not a free competition. There is no analogue of market going on as for the choice of the format. There would be a market if there were no switching: the content creators would choose the format. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You know entries you created don't belong to you, right? —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  for now: in principle I am not opposed to the proposal, but have a few concerns:
 * 2) * I have no problems with synonyms and antonyms being placed under definition lines, but if we add other semantic relations such as, , and so on, it seems to me that the block of text will look very unwieldy.
 * 3) * Should a thesaurus link also be placed under a definition line as shown below?
 * 4) * I'm doubtful that placing semantic relations under definition lines should be made the sole option. For example, what if a particular word is a synonym of all the senses of the entry? Would it not be easier to put the synonym under its own section rather than insert a synonym line after each definition?
 * — SGconlaw (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As it says in the vote, all but syn/ant will be collapsed by default, so it won't look unwieldy. The Thesaurus links should probably stay in Synonyms sections. As it says in the vote, it will not be the sole option. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So if there are, say, synonyms and a thesaurus link, do we put the synonyms under the definition and have a separate "Synonyms" section containing the thesaurus link, or do both the synonyms and thesaurus link remain in the "Synonyms" section? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to have the synonyms section linking to the thesaurus and to have senses with, etc. Maybe not for the same definitions though.
 * Regarding your last point, the problem with putting supposedly all-encompassing synonyms in a synonym section is that I have rarely found that the synonym applied to all the senses. Usually, it applied to all the definitions early in the entry's history, and as soon as a less common figurative or technical sense was added, it no longer worked, and made me unsure which definitions it did apply to. This is especially annoying for FL entries, where I don't know the language as well and therefore can't tell if the synonym actually applies to all definitions or not. It's much clearer if the -nyms are kept separate for each sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I thought it is intentionally avoided to specify possible formattings for Thesaurus links. When it is said “a single reference can be made in each to a common Thesaurus page” this precisely only says that synonyms in a Thesaurus section can be referred to (which is only declarative, because this vote would not be meant to touch the existence of Thesaurus entries and thus of linking them), not about the way this is done. I haven’t had peculiar ideas about formatting Thesaurus links to be honest, therefore I had not suggested any amendments for them before the vote started, and as it stands their placement is also subject to editorial discretion and to later developments (people have to try a bit how to link the Thesaurus and it is not excluded that a special template or more get created for linking Thesaurus entries under definition lines – all intentionally not regulated because the Wiktionary Thesaurus in total is underdeveloped and underused and Wiktionary is simply yet merely occasionally at the point of being a Thesaurus). Fay Freak (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that Thesaurus pages are sense-based, like is? —Rua (mew) 21:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What else could they be? As you see can see by already existing countless examples they are. We don’t duplicate content if a sense exists in various words, if that’s what you mean. Thesaurus:gay which redirects to Thesaurus:homosexual refers to Thesaurus:happy in a See-also section. Wiki-structure might be a bit problematic for Thesauri. Fay Freak (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thesaurus entries are sense-based. For instance, Thesaurus:sound has heading saying "Sense: a sensation perceived by the ear"; I made effort to make sure there is at most one sense per thesaurus entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I feel uncomfortable with this structure. It just feels clunky, looks bad, and adds lots of clutter between definitions. I understand the desire to group synonyms and antonyms with their corresponding definitions but maybe there's a nicer-looking way of doing this. I would definitely be opposed to deprecating the old way of doing synonyms/antonyms/etc. Benwing2 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I feel uncomfortable with this structure. It just feels clunky, looks bad, and adds lots of clutter between definitions. I understand the desire to group synonyms and antonyms with their corresponding definitions but maybe there's a nicer-looking way of doing this. I would definitely be opposed to deprecating the old way of doing synonyms/antonyms/etc. Benwing2 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision
Passes 19–1–3 (95% support). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)