Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-08/Prioritizing definitions

Placement of "Pronunciation"
As mentioned on the Discord server when this idea was thrown around there, and as mentioned in the recent comment made, pronunciation should not be at the very bottom of entries as that's one of the main reasons why people consult an online dictionary, especially for English. Almost all other major English dictionaries that track pronunciation put it at the very top, and if we're aiming for aligning ourselves with them, then we should do the same. It doesn't have to be the same way that it's been done to this point; there are options like the way that fr.wikt places it, where it's in the headword line, as seen here: bonjour. However, putting it at the bottom, especially after Descendants and Translations seems rather counterintuitive to me, if "Pronunciation is prioritized over Etymology because it is more useful to the average user." Also, it needs to be addressed how entries where there's an overarching pronunciation section for multiple etymologies/entries would be handled, as under the proposed rule, they'd either come at the very bottom under everything or there'd be significant repetition. The Production section for Sign Language entries should also be mentioned. Overall though, this vote seemed more directed towards moving the placement of the etymology section, so not exactly sure why pronunciation was moved as well without that much discussion. AG202 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation Is Always First; Etymology is Fine As Is
Comment In this proposal, Etymology and Pronunciation are after Translations. To my knowledge, this policy would put Wiktionary at variance with all other English dictionaries, because 'Pronunciation' always comes first. Comparison: See. In this Oxford dictionary entry, 'Pronunciation' is directly below the title of the entry and the definitions are after that, followed by an 'Origin' section. I would say that if anything in Wiktionary were to be moved, it would be the 'Etymology' section, but I wouldn't put it below 'Translations' since 'Etymology' is more closely related to the subject of the actual entry than any translations of a term would be. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment: if you look at the dictionaries in 'Further reading' on Bigfoot, you'll see that all the "origins" and etymology sections are at the bottom of the page. However, I just don't see how Wiktionary is going to reorganize a page like O if Wiktionary isn't splitting words based on Etymology. I personally judge Wiktionary superior to Wiktionary's predecessors in placing Etymology where we do instead of at the bottom of the page. (Thanks to Ultimateria for moving my comment here.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Amen to that! I'm also struggling with the notion of placing etymology at the bottom – it's a clear-cut divider in my opinion and putting it anywhere else will only lead to (more) confusion. For instance, what are we to do with entries like Swedish kör or kön where the etymologies are vastly different, as are the pronunciations? Do we have a single pronunciation section with both pronunciations, but add pertinent qualifiers? As I see it, this forces us to provide (short) definitions in the pronunciation section, then lengthier ones further down, just above different etymologies hoping that people somehow get it. In all honesty, I wouldn't change the current order, but if we must, I suppose I might be persuaded to at least consider placing pronunciation at the top. (personally, I prefer the way the French Wiktionary adds pronunciation – they use the page much more efficiently than we do). As for the etymology section, please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't move it! Those sections tend to be lengthy, so they just look out of place so far down at least from an aesthetic and user-friendly point of view. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very surprising to see user-friendliness to be used as an argument for rejecting the proposal. Although the current design is my "native" entry layout, I immediately thought that the solution employed at Norwegian Wiktionary (which current proposal reminds of) is both user-friendlier and more æｓｔｈｅｔｉｃａｌｌｙ appealing as soon as I encountered it. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Smaken är som baken I guess. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What about heteronyms?
Would you propose a "Pronunciation 1/2/3" system? Queenofnortheast (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I've just added new text covering different pronunciations. Plus it codifies the current practice for heteronyms, which isn't written down anywhere. Ultimateria (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Alternative forms
@Ultimateria i think Alternative forms should be added to, in case a word with alternative form(s) has more than 2 parts of speech. eg. hindi word सांवादिक whiche is both noun and adjective can be written as साम्वादिक also — Svā rt ava  • 16:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've updated the proposal. Thanks for the suggestion! Ultimateria (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not using full lines for headers
Just repeating a point I've made elsewhere: every other major dictionary (print or online) packs its definitions into paragraphs, which save space and work well on small mobile phones etc. This vote discusses the juggling of headers, and each header still takes an entire line (big waste of space). In the longer term we need to discuss not having headers that eat up a full line each. Obviously that will have major ramifications on link anchors, collapsible citations, etc. and won't be easy, but I think it has to be addressed... Equinox ◑ 20:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Derived terms etc. subordinate to etymology?
I see that, in the provided mockup, sections such as ‘Derived terms’ and ‘Translations’ are subordinate to the ‘Etymology’ section — not just occurring after it, but being deeper by one header level. Is this intentional? I would guess not from the description of changes given on the vote page itself, but if it is, is there some reason to prefer doing it that way? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was unintentional, I didn't realize I did that even after someone else referred to it because L4 and L5 look so similar. Thank you! Ultimateria (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe focus on APIs?
Since nobody can agree on this stuff: perhaps we should focus on APIs, and encourage casual developers to create their own "formatters" that could present entry data in different ways. And then: survival of the fittest. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)