Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-05/Sign language entry names

< Wiktionary:Votes

Sign language entry names edit

Voting on: what system to use to transcribe sign languages.

  • Option 1: Use the notation described in Appendix:Sign language entry names for all sign languages, with no soft redirects from other transcription systems. (This is nominally/de jure the existing policy.)
  • Option 2: Use the notation described in Appendix:Sign language entry names as the default for all sign languages, with soft redirects from other transcription systems.
  • Option 3: For each sign language, use the system that is most commonly used outside Wiktionary to transcribe it, or another system as agreed upon by the community of editors, with soft redirects allowed from other major transcription systems that are used. (This is closer to actual/de facto existing practice.)
  • Option 4: Use Sutton SignWriting as the default transcription system for all sign languages. (Indicate whether you support allowing soft redirects from other transcription systems.)

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support option 1 edit

Oppose option 1 edit

  1.   Oppose —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose; I don't see why we wouldn't have soft redirects from other common transcription systems, somewhat like instances of languages having multiple scripts like Serbo-Croatian. --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose --沈澄心✉ 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose — Ungoliant (falai) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain on option 1 edit

  1.   Abstain Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 2 edit

  1.   Support Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose option 2 edit

Abstain on option 2 edit

  1.   Abstain --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 3 edit

  1.   Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support, as long as we're consistent within a given sign language as to which transcription system has precedence; if we weren't that would end up being pretty chaotic. --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support (and I agree with Uisleach). - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support (though I prefer option 2). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - seems the most sensible SemperBlotto (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support, as long as the sign is described accordingly in the entry. CAVALO^LISTRA has neither an annotation nor image to describe how it's supposed to be signed, and therefore is an utterly pointless entry as far as I see it. Alves9 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --沈澄心✉ 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support — Ungoliant (falai) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support — Pingkudimmi 08:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose option 3 edit

  1.   Oppose Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain on option 3 edit

  1.   Abstain Why don't we simply include what is attested in use? Do we have an example sign language entry with attesting quotations? Sign languages are produced by hand motions and what can be entered into Wiktionary are transcriptions (sequences of Unicode points) of these hand motions; is there anything like a corpus containing sentences marked up using these transcriptions? Or is there anything else acting as a corpus of actual usage? Well, to answer myself, '[...] and the "usage in permanently recorded media" condition includes any video media that has been widely distributed, including DVDs, broadcast television, and sign language dictionaries.' per Wiktionary:About sign languages. Then, what is an example attestation of a sign language entry using the video media? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Polansky: The practice of writing in sign is relatively new (as is the standardisation of sign languages in general). Most languages don't have have a well established transcription system yet, let alone a rich corpus to attest it. The Sutton SignWriting system seems to be the more up-and-coming one (both ASL and the British and Brazilian Sign Languages broadly employ it), but, as mentioned, it has some issues and might still take some time before it's viable on Wiktionary. I'd love to see it implemented, however. —Alves9 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 4 edit

  1.   Support, though my support for this is contingent upon the usability of the signwriting within wiki coding, which I don't have the expertise for; here I'm assuming it's usable. --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support for sign languages with no established system. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose option 4 edit

Abstain on option 4 edit

  1.   Abstain Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Option 3 wins - nothing really changes...--Kriss Barnes (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-05/Sign_language_entry_names&oldid=59885070"