Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/English headers over Translingual

Voting on: Changing WT:ELE so that the first point under "The essentials" is changed from:

Language lets you know the language of the word in question. It is almost always in a level two heading (See Wiktionary:How to edit a page for some basic terminology we use). In most cases the language header contains a language in its traditional meaning. Priority is given to ==Translingual==; this heading includes terms that remain the same in all languages. The symbols for the chemical elements and the abbreviations for international units of measurement are but two examples of translingual terms. English comes next because this is the English Wiktionary. After that come the other languages in alphabetical order.

to be:

Language lets you know the language of the word in question. It is almost always in a level two heading (See Wiktionary:How to edit a page for some basic terminology we use). In most cases the language header contains a language in its traditional meaning. Priority is given to ==English== because this is the English Wiktionary. Translingual comes next; this heading includes terms that remain the same in all languages. The symbols for the chemical elements and the abbreviations for international units of measurement are but two examples of translingual terms. After that come the other languages in alphabetical order.

Support Yair rand 01:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Generally, people are more likely to be looking for information on the English word than for Translingual information, IMO. --Yair rand 01:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ƿidsiþ 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not even sure people know what "Translingual" means. I'm not even sure I know what it means.[reply]
Support DCDuring TALK 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikiPedant 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support just as readily as I would support moving English under the E's. As long as it's going to be an exception it may as well be first. DAVilla 07:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Daniel. 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I consider the Translingual definition more important than the English definition, and more likely to be searched, in the entry Homo sapiens. If examples of other entries containing both English and Translingual sections are provided to me, I may change my vote. --Daniel. 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about no or an? --Yair rand 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those Translingual entries are language codes which may be the subject of some debate if WT:Votes/2009-12/Proposed inclusion of words and abbreviations with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments fails (which is likely). I'm doubtful they could pass the CFI normally. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that vote ended a few hours ago. However, the general consensus is, I'm fairly certain, to include ISO codes, even though it is not written anywhere in CFI that any symbols are included. --Yair rand 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well put it to the test WT:RFV#jv. I tried to pick one that would be easier to search for. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EncycloPetey 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BP discussion.--msh210℠ 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neskaya ^contribs^–^talk? 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Usually when there's both entries some of the Translingual definition are valid for English. Is it common for this not to be true (English & Trans but where none of the Trans definitions are valid in English)? This is the only time where I could see wanting English over Translingual. --Bequw → τ 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per Bequw. Most of the time the translingual term is used in English (hence translingual) so this wouldn't achieve a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I would have to look into the issue. English over Translingual makes sense, and Translingual over English also makes sense. This vote contains no justification or analysis of pros and cons or costs and benefits with which I could agree or disagree. --Dan Polansky 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]