Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Entry name: sign languages

Wording
I'd prefer if the wording was just

"For entries in sign languages, the entry name is a description of the gestures used. For example, FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack (ASL for food) uses the handshape "FlatO". See a list of handshapes at Appendix:Sign language handshapes. Additionally, the "Sign gloss:" namespace links to these entries using glosses as the page names: Sign gloss:FOOD links to FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack."

No reason to prefer ASL over any other. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Documenting existing practice
FYI: I don't like this naming system. It feels impossible to type or get to long names like FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack-FlatO@NearMouth-PalmBack Frontandback-Frontandback FlatO@NearMouth-PalmBack-FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack. I just created this vote to document existing practice.

BTW, there's an entry in Brazilian Sign Language that uses a completely different naming system with glosses. I love it: CAVALO^LISTRA. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Appendix:Sign language entry names already exists. We should just direct users to here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be in the Wiktionary namespace, though. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See the following section on this page. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Having sign language entries with long names like FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack-FlatO@NearMouth-PalmBack Frontandback-Frontandback FlatO@NearMouth-PalmBack-FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack is like if we had the English entries listed by their IPA pronunciations (e.g. it would be like having /fuːd/ be our main entry for the English "food"). Much like IPA, native speakers rarely know how these encoding systems and there's dialectical differences that would make it impossible to look up a sign using this system even if you wanted to put in the effort of learning it and typing it out. In Auslan, glosses written in the host language (English) seem to be well known and understood by signers—many Deaf people will mouth the English word for a sign as they sign—and glosses are used by sign language dictionaries. Sometimes one gloss might be used for two different signs, but that's not so different to splitting up an English word with two senses or two etymologies. There is a British Sign Language dictionary which arranges signs by their main handshape and other featuers, but as you can flip through it, it's not as impossible to use as our current system. I feel like we should move the bulk of the sign language entry to its gloss. Also, are we meant to have a "see also" at food that links to Sign gloss:FOOD ? Not sure this is the place for this discussion, and I'm guessing it's already been had ad nauseam before, but thought I'd throw in my 2c. Pengo (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't like it but I don't really use American Sign Language so there should be other people more qualified than me to say if these long names are a good thing or not. To me, it's kind like having DeeWyeEnAEmEyeTeeE instead of dynamite, I don't know how people would use these entry names. But still, I'd like to document existing practice, as said. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea having a "see also" at food that links to Sign gloss:FOOD. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A reason to oppose
I'm not sure what the point of this is. ELE already says "Some languages do have characteristics that require variation from the standard format. For links to these variations see Language considerations.". And ASGN already says it's policy, not modifiable without a vote, and it contains all you need to know about the entry name (which the proposed wording here does not contain or even link to, so this proposal seems not just pointless but actually detrimental). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replace the proposed text for: "For entry names in sign languages, see About sign languages." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this? For entry names in sign languages, see About sign languages. Additionally, the "Sign gloss:" namespace links to these entries using glosses as the page names: Sign gloss:FOOD links to FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think I would stick with the shorter "For entry names in sign languages, see About sign languages." Since we are using About sign languages for sign language information, perhaps that's where we should explain "Sign gloss:" (at the moment, it doesn't), not at WT:EL.
 * I have the impression that "Additionally, the "Sign gloss:" namespace links to these entries using glosses as the page names: Sign gloss:FOOD links to FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack." would make more sense if you explain first what exactly is FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack on the same page. (or if you already know what it is from experience) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So maybe this proposal should include both mentioning Sign gloss: in ASGN and mentioning ASGN in ELE. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited the proposal to mention Sign gloss: at ASGN. Since ELE already would link to the correct ASGN section, IMHO I don't think adding the same information to ELE is necessary. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Gloss namespace
It should be mentioned that glosses in the "Sign gloss:" namespace (currently) can only be ASL glosses. After all, Sign gloss:FOOD can only redirect to one entry. The other option would be to restructure the namespace to include language codes or names (like Sign gloss:ase:FOOD), but that would require a separate vote. --WikiTiki89 23:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But Sign gloss:FOOD is not a redirect, it is a list of 2 separate ASL entries. What's stopping us from adding "Brazilian Sign Language", "French Sign Language", etc. sections in Sign gloss:FOOD? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I take that back then. I hadn't actually clicked on the link and I misread the words "links to" as "redirects to". In that case, you should mention that the example is ASL. Something like this: Sign gloss:FOOD links to the ASL entry FlatO@Mouth-PalmBack. --WikiTiki89 00:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)