Voting on: Changing the name of our {{AHD}} pronunciation system. The term AHD was originally an initialism for American Heritage Dictionary, but as this is the propietary name of a particular dictionary, it may be inappropriate for use here. Note that this vote concerns only the name of the system, not its use or content. Vote for as many options below as you like, though do not vote for Option 0 if you vote for a change, and vice versa. If there is no single clear winner, we will have a run-off vote between the two most popular options.
Oh, absoutely. You instantly understand that it is intended as an American dictionary-style pronunciation. (Don't ask me to explain/try to figure out why that doesn't work for "MW" or "M-W". But it doesn't...only AHD.) --Connel MacKenzie21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Speaking for myself, when I saw AHD I believe that I did instantly recognise this initialism. However, I have used the American Heritage Dictionary (not daily but often enough). The problem is the misnomerhood. I instantly recognised it but thought is was the very same system as used at AHD. It wasn't until after a few weeks at Wiktionary that I realised that it wasn't the AHD system but simply a system similar to those used in AMerican dictionaries. In the mean time I'd even put a couple of external links to AHD's pronunciation guide (note the Wikipedia article that {{AHD}} links to does not have such a guide). Jimp00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding one or both of you, but I think the thought is that the English Wiktionary might want to have (say) an {{frPR}} for French that reflects the distinctions in various forms of French without needing to give a separate transcription for each form of French. —RuakhTALK22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change name to PREL, for Phonemic Representation in Extended Latin.
SupportKeffy16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) -- Yeah, it's hideous and unintelligible, but I very reluctantly pick it for three reasons: I don't want to keep "AHD" inaccurately; it's the only one of the alternatives that expresses the difference between AHD and our other two transcription systems (all are equally phonemic [see rants elsewhere or feel free to ask for a new one :-)], equally of English, and equally adapted to/by Wiktionary policy); it doesn't sound like it's the approved "Wiktionary" format; and I'm a sucker for the poor guy who doesn't have any votes yet. (Is that four? Never said I could count.)[reply]
SupportTohru03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Assuming this as a generic term for our proprietary phonemic representation systems of various languages.[reply]
SupportJimp 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) This is the best option in my opinion. It describes what this is in clear terms without risk of ambiguity. It's good having Wiktionary in the title so as to dispell any notion that this system has any official status or recognition outside of this dictionary. How about an option 5 i.e. option 1+4 i.e. WEPR? Jimp00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Of course, this misimpression would be dispelled by a quick look at a few entries. However, might we give the impression that this is the system recommended (over IPA/SAMPA) at Wiktionary? How about OOTEPRUAW ... one of the English phonemic representations used at Wiktionary? Jimp00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainDAVilla03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I don't think we should be inventing acronyms that aren't understood outside of this small community. I'm all for change, but not to something indecipherable.[reply]
The two most prefered options: Option 2 & Option 4. 2+4=6. Combine them and get an Option 6 i.e. WenPR (which doesn't even look as goofy). Jimp00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]