Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-10/Obsolete forms heading

Rationale
Currently, entries collect links to obsolete forms under "Alternative forms" heading, which is a prominent place on an entry. I don't think obsolete forms to be a prominent or highly noteworthy content, so they should not take such a prominent place. I therefore propose to create "Obsolete forms" heading, to be placed somewhere before "Anagrams", to host obsolete forms.

Examples of entries with obsolete forms:
 * chancellor: chanceler, chanceller, chaunceler, chaunceller, chancelor, chancelour, chancellour, chauncelor, chauncellor, chauncelour, chauncellour
 * knowledge: knolege, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech, knaulege, knaulage, knawlage, knoleche, knoleige, knowlache, knolych, knawlache

Using "Alternative forms===[^=]*{{qualifier.obsolete" search in AWB, I have found 2277 entries with obsolete forms, including encyclopedia, December, September, October, November, merchandise, head, abalone, abbess, ability, able, abode, abominable, abomination, raptor, abashed, servant, the, acceptance, acceptor, avatar, etc.; the dump was from 2013-09-07. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they should all be grouped in the same line, or as a subheader (to make space for years and similar)? I'm also annoyed at seeing obsolete forms/spellings that fell out of use centuries ago listed alongside used words (dialectal forms and similar). We're giving too much prominence to them, and some editors like to promote them at the very top of entries. (Them being the "true spelling" and so on). ===Alternative forms=== should IMHO be primarily reserved for things like American/British spelling variations, not chauncellour. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would oppose it; just use {{temp|qualifier|obsolete}} and put into a box if there are really that many (like knowledge). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, {{temp|qualifier}} should suffice. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO splitting alternative forms into two sections is unhelpful. I hadn't really thought about 'prominence'as Dan Polansky puts it, as I don't read all of entries, or necessarily read everything in order (by which I mean from left to right and from top to bottom) I skip straight to the bit I want. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, because you know where to find the bit you want. If our goal is a useful and easy-to-use dictionary, then we should improve presentation in such a way that it's easy for visitors to find what they want, too. (But TBH, I'm not sure that the current proposal really helps with that.) —Ruakh TALK 20:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But obsolete forms are not really alternative forms. And by my estimate, people only rarely look for obsolete forms. Those who do look for them should be able to find them by typing "obsolete forms" or "obsolete" in their browser's find function even when they are placed at the bottom. Moreover, you cannot easily skip to the bit you want with tabbed interface, as the section headings for "Noun", "Translations" etc. are no longer there, so you have to scroll. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)