Wiktionary talk:Votes/2009-09/renaming enPR to AHD

Rationale
Moved from vote page:



I propose that we restore the "enPR" transcription key to its original designation of "AHD". This would affect the wording of the headings of the English pronunciation key‎, the wording of the link transcluded by template:enPR, and eventually the location of the enPR template itself. With Votes/2007-02/Renaming AHD, we voted to change the name of our AHD transcription system to the current enPR. However, the result is plagiarism: despite some of the arguments at the time, this clearly is nothing but the American Heritage Dictionary system, with the minor exception that long after the vote a new distinction was added, /i/ for the y in city. However, this has not actually been implemented in any but a handful of articles; nearly all instead use standard AHD /ē/ for this vowel. Even if it were fully implemented, it's an insignificant difference. If we're going to use the AHD system, we should give them proper credit, and not pretend that this is an invention of our own. There was some inconclusive discussion at Beer_parlour_archive/2009/January about moving this key back to AHD and creating a new key specific to Wiktionary. Several people have indicated that they would like to gradually modify the current key until it's a system unique to Wiktionary. However, maintenance of pronunciation is rather intermittent on Wiktionary, and repeated modifications of a key while it is in use in thousands of articles would only create a mess. IMO, if we decide to go the route of a Wiktionary-specific key, we should create a new template with the new key; once the key is stable, we could start converting AHD transcriptions in articles to the new system. In the meantime, however, the AHD system is legally still AHD, not "enPR".

(Note: the "I" in the above quotation is kwami.)

—Ruakh TALK 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed?
The current text of the vote doesn't make clear what we're actually supposed to vote on. From the title of the vote, and from this sentence of the vote text:


 * If we're going to use the AHD system, we should give them proper credit, and not pretend that this is an invention of our own.

I surmise that the proposal is to "give [AHD] proper credit" by renaming enPR back to AHD; but by no means is the vote text explicit about this. (All told, the vote text reads more like a rumination on the topic than like an actual proposal to be voted on.)

Which is my long-winded way of asking that the vote text be rewritten in a way that makes it more obvious what a "support" vote means and what an "oppose" vote means, and that removes most of the essay-ness (though a brief, one-to-two–sentence summary of the rationale would be fine).

Additionally, and relatedly, the lack of "Discussion" links is disconcerting, since I know from personal experience that this topic has been discussed at least three times, across several different fora. Since the current "Discussion"-links section looks like the default generated by the preload-template, I assume this was simply an oversight?

—Ruakh TALK 05:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that clearer? kwami 08:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Much clearer, thank you! —Ruakh TALK 12:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it still lacks any links to all the discussions prior to the current round of debate, especially the two critical votes that followed the one currently linked. It would save so much time if the previous arguments were linked to, rather than having to all be reiterated. --EncycloPetey 05:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then link them. kwami 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)