Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2006-05/User:TheCheatBot format

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/May#Vote for User:TheCheatBot format.

~~Fourth revote cancelled and restarted~~

Comments:
1. I presume ~~multiple~~ changing votes are allowed, and I will consider doing it ~~only~~ if it appears that another variation I like could overtake the one I chose. In fact the one I chose is not the one I prefer, but from previous votes it would seem to be a run-off between the first two options. Davilla 21:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. While I prefer the traditional use of italics to signify use-mention distinction of latin script words, the last round of voting indicated that option #4 had little support. Following Hippietrail's lead of using css to give users a flexible experience, however, I'd like to add the following option:
  # {{plural of|word}}
  
  I suggest the above to help us achieve consistent results and to allow users to customize their monobook.css if they wish to distinguish use from mention with italics. Would anyone strongly object to my adding it to the above voting options? Rodasmith 01:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
  See "words" for the css solution in use. For most users, it appears in style #1 below. For me, it appears in format #4 below, because User:Rodasmith/monobook.css has the "italicized singular" option below. To apply any of the following styles to the template-driven example at "words", copy the corresponding code into your User:YourUserName/monobook.css (and refresh your browser cache):
  
  Plain (consistent with majority of existing entries):
  .use-with-mention { font-style: normal; }
  
  .mention { font-style: normal; }
  
  Bold singular:
  .use-with-mention { font-style: normal; }
  
  .mention { font-weight: bold; }
  
  Italicized qualifier:
  .use-with-mention { font-style: italic; }
  
  .mention { font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; }
  
  Italicized singular:
  .use-with-mention { font-style: normal; }
  
  .mention { font-style: italic; }
  
  Please let me know if you have any questions or difficulty using this framework. Rodasmith 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Nice work. I'm glad to see people joining the effort to CSS-ize Wiktionary. A couple of comments: Why not just call it "mention" since it's not both a use and a mention, "use-mention" is the name of the distinction. Also, I would like to see "Regular ..." for the regular cases, at least as an option via CSS. I'm trying to think of ways to make it dependant on script too. Different people may want to emphasize non-latin scripts in other ways. Maybe Template:mentionXX where XX can be AR FA RU TH etc as in my XXchar templates? Or we could just use HTML's language feature - does anybody know how well that works in combination with CSS on current browsers? — Hippietrail 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I followed Hippietrail's advice and adjusted the css name to be "mention" for the mentioned word and added a style for the using sentence. Note that using a template-driven solution allows us to refine it easily with language-specific styles later. Rodasmith 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking outside of the box. Yes, I'll change my vote to that as well. I'd appreciate it if you came up with (assuming you haven't already) the various css solutions to display them in the varieties spelled out ~~above~~below. I can think of a dozen minor issues offhand, but I'd support this as it is the first open-ended solution.

Done. See above. Rodasmith 05:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues:

What should be the default? (I for one, could care less. But I'm sure it'll become an issue eventually.)
Can we simplify this vote by choosing the default style for the template-driven solution later since this vote is supposed to let us run the bot? Rodasmith 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. One reason is that the use of templates themselves may evoke negative response. Another is that we may as well kill two birds with one stone, as that is still the only remaining point of contention against running the 'bot. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the css to italicize "plural of"?
I updated my post above to show that. Rodasmith 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do I capitalize the first caracter of an arbitrary string (not just Plural) in css?
To capitalize the first letter of each word, the css would include the style "text-transform:capitalize;". To capitalize just the character of a multi-word string, the string would need to be marked up with the a span around the first character or the first word. Rodasmith 05:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for multiple votes, I'd recommend against that - we are striving for a simple vote. Allow me to rearrange things a little, since this is being restarted on the very first day... --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the FIFTH re-vote being held on this topic.

Since the last vote died in the Beer Parlour archives, (waiting for Ec and Ncik to return and comment) I'd like to try again. Please vote only once. This vote will last for two weeks, ending on May 24th, 24:59:59 UTC. Adding addition formatting choices will automatically restart the vote, with only a one-week duration from the time the choice is added, or the original end date (whichever is later) to allow time for people to change their vote.

Note: This vote will end shortly. Those who have declined to vote, while otherwise contributing (ignoring notices on their talk pages) will probably be regarding with less weight, as the matter clearly is not important to them now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all who participated. User:TheCheatBot is currently running the first 100. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How should the approved 'bot TheCheatBot format English plural noun entries?

consistent with majority of existing entries: # Plural of [[word]].
- For:
bold singular: # Plural of '''[[word]]'''.
- For:
italicized qualifier: # ''Plural of'' '''[[word]]'''.
- For:
italicized singular: # Plural of ''[[word]]''.
- For:
template driven: # {{plural of|word}}
- For:
1. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rodasmith 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. \Mike 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Widsith 09:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. —Vildricianus | t | 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Stephen 11:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Patrik Stridvall 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. MGSpiller 22:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Clear winner --Dangherous 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More inflection templates? edit

For users who are not bots who restrict ourselves to English nouns, there could be instances where we would like a similar template but with a user-chosen string instead of "plural of". But such a template would definitely benefit from the aforementioned possibility to adapt whether to italicize depending on the script. I'm unsure about how to implement it, but if anyone can do it, it'd be great! \Mike 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to show an example of such additional templates, Mike. A key is to identify the purpose of the optional italics so that we can create a sensible css style. Just let me know a scenario where you would want to apply such a template so I can demponstrate. Rodasmith 16:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the template option, but it doesn't seem to allow piping, which might be important for some languages. For example gewat at the moment links to [[gewitan|ġewitan]] and [[gewitan|ġewītan]] – both the same page but the second one usefully distiguished with a macron. I know that isn't a plural but you see what I mean. Can anyone comment on this? Will that be impossible with this template? Widsith 08:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can be solved by adding a second parameter. —Vildricianus | t | 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really know what that means but I'm sure it'll work. Widsith 09:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Plural of [[{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]]. perhaps? —Vildricianus | t | 09:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vildricianus. I put your above code into {{plural of}} to enable piped links. Widsith, could you provide an example of a plural term whose singular link should differ from the singular form displayed so that I can show that example in the template documentation? Rodasmith 16:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a simple example is stān ‘stone’, plural stānas. Entered as stan and stanas respectively, with macrons piped in as per modern editors/dictionaries. Widsith 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See "stanas". Rodasmith 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! Those entries should be split into separate entries with {{see}} on the first line. What printed dictionary uses "piped" hyperlinks? This seems like a very poor example, as it is directly in conflict with existing Wiktionary practices. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there's a separate policy discussion to have regarding whether we allow piped diacritic-stripping links. Let's not let it derail this cheat-bot vote. Rod (☎ Smith) 02:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, I have raised this with Connel on his Talk page. In fact piping is well established here for OE, Latin, Russian stress marks, Arabic vowels etc. Widsith 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Sorry for the noise. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait to vote on the style of the template:plural of page. :-P Davilla 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't have to vote. With Rodasmith's proposal, you can choose whichever you like with CSS. —Vildricianus | t | 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the default style? I guess the vote actually pertains to use-mention, however it is those classes are decided here. Davilla 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on the voting method used here. I think it is appropriate in this case due to the small number of voters, their communication, and the ability to guage the outcome and change one's vote. I'd just like to point out that, from a purely theoretical aspect, restriction to one vote when there are multiple options is not the best way to reach consensus (in its most basic sense a majority) because of the spoiler problem. I know that wiki does not equate with democracy, but as voting methods are a particular interest of mine I would hope that some people here would be interested in pursuing a technical treatment of what's considered "fair". If so I suggest looking into approval voting, which is applicable to this case and probably one of the most transparent methods. On the other hand I would have to say that the multiple votes taken to resolve this one issue are a clear indication that there is a good-faith effort to reach a consensus and to treat all contributors' opinions fairly. Davilla 15:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, that's what I thought you were getting at when you first suggested it. I am very mildly against approval voting, as I'd prefer a simple vote. But hey, it's a wiki - if you guys want to redo this in a "superior" manner, well, I guess I can't object. Does anyone else (besides Davilla) feel strongly one way or the other, about the "approval voting" style at this point in time? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I feel very strongly that this vote is going well, and I wouldn't even object to the one vote restriction unless it were a plurality rather than a majority that constituted a consensus. It was brought up just for your information and future reference. Davilla 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with the template based solution is that it only works for users who have a monobook skin. Eclecticology 08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Every skin is equally customizable as the monobook one. The default code will be in MediaWiki:Common.css, which is loaded for all skins. I guess this should be made more clear on the various pages where using the monobook.css stuff is explained. —Vildricianus 13:50, 2 June 2006 (U T C)