Wiktionary talk:Votes/2007-06/Level of basic headings

Definitions section

I'd like to see a proposal for rearranged ELE entirely, with a ===Definitions=== section, and all other headings peer (L3) level headings, under the language. Is that out of scope for this? --Connel MacKenzie 08:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of scope, although that could be addressed in a subsequent vote. I'm working from the top down. For now considering "Definitions" equivalent to "POS" should make it clear that this hasn't approached that level in the hierarchy. I've already had to strip out consideration of subheadings in order to make this one clearer, plus preface this vote with the current one about Etymology/Pronunciation order. DAVilla 12:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Description and example do not fit

A lot of the possibilities are inconsistent: ===Pos=== (4) and stuff. Please correct before starting the vote. H. (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost got them all, just had one slip by! DAVilla 14:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cases

Any workable option has to handle each of the following cases: (the numbers themselves are meaningless, just for reference)

Case 1

No pronunciation or etymology, one or a couple of POS.

This is the 90+% case for entries in the wikt. Essentially all of the non-lemmata, regardless of language; plus many others

POS is the only header (except for possible "L4" attributes), must be at level 3.

Case 2

Either pronunciation or etymology or both, with one or so POS to which they are applicable

This is the 90% case for entries that do not fall in case 1.

Presently we use etymology at L3, pronunciation at L3, in that sequence if both occur, and and POS at L3. POS could be at L4 in this case, but then it nests somewhat inconsistently under either or both etymology or pronunciation.

Case 3

More than one etymology. Same pronunciation for all.

This case is the most frequent when there is more than one etymology. In many non-English languages, this is the 100% case, as spelling and pronunciation are 1:1.

Here we need multiple etymology sections, presumably at L3. Pronunciation could be repeated at L4 (strict reading of present WT:ELE) or simply placed at L3 at the top (often done in practice, particularly for entries in languages with one pronunciation and many etymologies. Korean hanguel entries are a good example).

Minor point: Japanese hiragana entries would be a better example, because we are now more accurately indicating long vowels with {{ko-pron}}, which tend to vary based on etymology. The major premise here is spot on, though. Rod (A. Smith) 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

An alternative is to place the pronunciation at L3, and make all the etymologies subordinate, but this adds little to the structure.

Case 4

More than one pronunciation. One etymology.

For example some English words in which the noun and verb have different pronunciations, but also sometimes (rarely) depending on sense.

Presently we differentiate the POS within the pronunciation section by glosses or whatever. Could be pronunciation at L3 and POS at L4.

Case 5

More than one of each, that don't nest.

Simplest resolution is etymology at L3, pronunciation at L4 repeated when necessary. This is current WT:ELE style.

Some analysis

Most of the options in the present vote/straw poll do not handle or address one or more of these cases. The one that comes closest is (almost, but not quite) the status quo. IMHO, we make no progress without one coherent alternative proposal; it might be simply a well-specified refinement of current practice. Robert Ullmann 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take on the status quo. I don't think (at least by my understanding) that any of the options matched this. Note that I consider all pronunciation variations to be always be fully contained within a single header per etymology. If necessary, for multiple etymologies, it can be duplicated. I would say that most words have regionally variable pronunciations, and this is not very meaningful to the definition.

(simple)
(1) =Word=
(2) ==Language==
(3) ===Etymology===
(3) ===Pronunciation===
(3) ===POS===
(4) ====Synonym====
(4) ====Antonym====
(4) ====Etc.====

(multiple etymologies)
(1) =Word=
(2) ==Language==
(3) ===Etymology1===
(4) ====Pronunciation====
(4) ====POS====
(5) =====Synonym=====
(5) =====Antonym=====
(5) =====Etc.=====
(3) ===Etymology2===
(4) ====Pronunciation====
(4) ====POS====
(5) =====Synonym=====
(5) =====Antonym=====
(5) =====Etc.=====

Note that in a perfect wiktionary, I would be happy to allow POS to fall one level below Etymology in all cases. However, as has been pointed out, we need to allow skeleton entries where neither etymology or pronuciation has been provided. --Jeffqyzt 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Note also that per the current conventions, these will never be provided for most "form of..." entries. Thryduulf 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that in some future incarnation, it is envisaged that these *will* have the "full treatment". Of course, that would still be some years distant, and because there are so many basic forms still missing this has not been a priority. --Jeffqyzt 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)