Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral

Number vs. numeralEdit

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Use "number": Category:English cardinal numbers, Category:French ordinal numbers, etc.Edit

  1.   Support Ƿidsiþ 12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2.   Support. This has the downside that "cardinal numbers" and "ordinal numbers" have semantic meanings as well as syntactic ones (aleph-null is a cardinal number, but aleph-null is not), but I've yet to hear a better proposal. —RuakhTALK 17:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    There's also a problem in that, if we opt to use "Number" as a grammatical category, then Category:Spanish ordinal numbers can't be used, since it would imply something about the grammar of Spanish ordianls that is not true. Spanish ordinals are grammatically adjectives, not numbers/numerals. The same is true in most (all?) Romance languages. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I don't understand. I expect I'll have a series of questions, but starting with the most basic — what do you mean by "if we opt to use 'Number' as a grammatical category"? Do you mean, like, using ===Number=== as a POS header? —RuakhTALK 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    Yes. If "Number" is used as a POS and thus a grammatical category, the propsed names will cause problems. We need to sort out the POS headers first to avoid such possible complications. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    Ah. I don't consider that a problem. If I'm understanding you, your argument is roughly this: "'number' is not a coherent part of speech, because in some/many/most languages, ordinal numbers are adjectives; therefore, if use ===Number=== as a part-of-speech header, some category schemes will cause complications". I, however, would argue this: "'number' is not a coherent part of speech, because in some/many/most languages, ordinal numbers are adjectives; therefore, using ===Number=== as a part-of-speech header will cause complications." —RuakhTALK 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  3.   Support I guess it's the best choice we have. -- Prince Kassad 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  4.   Support Per COCA: Numeral is more restricted to the graphical symbols and largely excludes the spoken word & number is a very inclusive term. The grammar (PoS) seems a separable matter. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      Support Dan Polansky 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  5.   Support Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC) seems the most 'natural English to me'
  6.   SupportInternoob (DiscCont) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I want this to pass.
  7.   Supportlexicógrafo | háblame — 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  8.   Support Robert Ullmann 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Use "numeral": Category:English ordinal numerals, Category:Spanish cardinal numerals, etc.Edit

  1.   Support. I don't like it as much as "numbers" — to me "Arabic numerals" means 10 or ١٠(10), not عشرة‎, and "Arabic cardinal numerals" isn't much of an improvement — but I'm O.K. with it. —RuakhTALK 17:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      Support Dan Polansky 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  2.   SupportInternoob (DiscCont) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  3.   Supportlexicógrafo | háblame — 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose bothEdit

  1.   Oppose EncycloPetey 17:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) This is backwards. We should choose the header and then worry about categorizing the entries. Having the category names drive entry content is ridiculous. The vote also does not make it clear whether meta-pos-categories like Category:Spanish numerals will be affected by this vote. --EncycloPetey 17:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    From what I can see, this vote says nothing about Category:Spanish numerals. --Dan Polansky 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    That's my point. It leaves the answer to that problem up in the air, with no proposal. --EncycloPetey 01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    We can't do everything in one vote. It makes the vote needlessly complicated, and at the end you just get disputes about what the result of the vote should be. Even though you might like it that way, we cannot solve all the problems Wiktionary has within one single vote. -- Prince Kassad 06:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    You've made (another) bad assumption. I did not ask for one vote to solve everything. My point is that this vote is ambiguously worded, and therefore we will end up with exactly the kind of disputes you are fearful of. --EncycloPetey 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    You are mistaken: There's no ambiguity. The vote explicitly and pointedly does not include those meta-categories, and will not directly affect them. —RuakhTALK 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    Where is this point made explicit. I don't see that. The vote says it applies to categorization of words like first, and so it implicitly covers the meta-category. --EncycloPetey 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    It explicitly says that it applies to categorization of words like first, and then it gives a few examples of what that means. There is nothing to suggest that it covers the meta-category; ergo, it does not cover the meta-category. Meta-categories were discussed on the talk-page long before the vote started, and one benefit of the current wording was said to be that it does not cover them. If this vote passes, and you want the analogous result to be applied to meta-categories as well, you'll have to start a separate vote for that. There is no ambiguity here. —RuakhTALK 22:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I agree, this is backwards. First decide the PoS name (I'm for 'numeral'), only then the subcategories. --Vahag 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Presumably, who voted for category name using "numeral" is going to vote for "numeral" as opposed to "number" in a vote for part-of-speech header. So the pragmatic and IMHO quite safe way is to support in this vote that category name which corresponds to your preferred part-of-speech name. Or else, if many people oppose in this vote for the out-of-sequence reason alone, this vote will need to be rerun after the coming vote for part-of-speech headings for number-denoting words. --Dan Polansky 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    That's a bad assumption. I advocate for "numeral", but not for "ordinal numerals" for Romance languages, since that category of words are not grammatically numerals in romance language. --EncycloPetey 01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    I guess you're right: A voter who supports the part-of-speech heading of "adjective" for ordinals can oppose filing of ordinals to "Category:English ordinal numerals", wanting to file them to "English adjectives" instead.
    But a voter who supports the part-of-speech heading of "Ordinal (number|numeral)" for ordinals can safely support one of the options given above instead of waiting for another vote to clarify part-of-speech headings. --Dan Polansky 10:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    However, we have not had that decision yet. I for one, do not support "Ordinal X" as a pos-header at all (for any value of X), and this vote doesn't ask for that opinon either. The POS decision should come first. --EncycloPetey 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Daniel. 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC) per EncycloPetey. --Daniel. 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose I'm all for numeral, but cardinal numeral and ordinal numeral appears rather pleonastic to me, and I'd prefer English cardinals, English ordinals etc. For other types of numbers (distributive, multiplying, fractional...) perhaps different categorization scheme would be more appropriate? At any case, I think that categorization should be solved on individual numeral-type basis (with context labels {{cardinal}}, {{ordinal}} etc.), as well as possibly individual language basis if some different terminology is preferred. --Ivan Štambuk 06:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose (see EncycloPetey) —Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose, changing from support. The more I think about it, the more it seems that EncycloPetey is right that we first need to clarify part-of-speech headings for numerals. If ordinals get classified as adjectives in the part-of-speech heading, it may be objectionable to file them to "Spanish ordinal numerals" category, as that category was supposed to be a part-of-speech one. --Dan Polansky 10:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    PoS and this category can be distinct, as needed. Clearly each language needs to address grammatical questions, such as PoS(s), for its number words. Categories provide a means beyond translation tables for unifying these across languages. The text of each category page can provide helpful information about grammar. The category pages themselves can probably usefully be categorized to group languages by the grammar of their treatment of number words. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    If categories for number words do not track the part-of-speech headings for number words, what justifies the use of "Category:Spanish cardinal numbers" as opposed to "Category:es:Cardinal numbers"? The former indicates a grammatical or part-of-speech category while the latter indicates a topical category. --Dan Polansky 12:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    We had a vote on this where it was voted to use the full language name. This vote is binding, therefore it will be "Category:Spanish cardinal numbers" no matter what the outcome of any other votes may be. -- Prince Kassad 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    The vote can be overruled if new arguments convince people to vote otherwise. We are not doomed to use the results of the vote for eternity. --Dan Polansky 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    Be it as it may, I am changing back again. I support the use of "ordinal number/ordinal numeral" in part-of-speech headings in all languages, including English, rather than supporting "Adjective". CodeCat just told me in Beer parlour that in Dutch ordinals are not inflected unlike adjectives. That makes ordinals a special grammatical category in Dutch. So the category names proposed in this vote will mostly fit the part-of-speech headings that I support. The part-of-speech for number words is a huge can of worms as far I can see, requiring multilingual considerations. Better pretend that all number words get grammatically classified as cardinals and ordinals than wait one more year until someone comes with a worked out, solid mutlilingual alternative proposal instead of a list of open questions. If the coming vote on part-of-speech headings turns some surprising results, we may undo the result of this vote with yet another vote. --Dan Polansky 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    There and back again, or on the convergence of oscillating systems taking part on Wiktionary votes. Actually, I think the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories should probably be overturned. I have now had a look at W:cs:České číslovky (Czech numerals) and refreshed my memory on the fact that all sorts of words are classified as "numerals" by the traditional Czech grammar of numerals. Some of these behave like adjectives ("druhý" - second, "dvounásobný"), other like adverbs ("dvakrát" - twice); they classify "několik" (several) as an indefinite numeral. What lumps all those number-related words together under the single head of "numeral" is not their grammar but their semantics. Therefore, there should be no single grammatical category for numerals. Hence numerals have to be treated as a topical category if some other sorts of numerals other than cardinal and ordinal should be included in a subcategory in the categorization scheme. Recently in Beer parlour, EncycloPetey mentioned that Latin has "distributive" and "adverbial" numerals.
    Whatever the case, my recent swings in this vote have shown that I do not know and understand all the relevant issues involved as deeply as needed: that could lead to an abstain, but most of voters who supported in [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories]] seem to have shown no indication that they understand the underlying issues either, especially in the multilingual context. --Dan Polansky 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


  •   AbstainInternoob (DiscCont) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Please count this as a vote for whichever of the two "support" options gets the most votes. I'm completely indifferent to the issue, but I want this to pass. I don't see why the "backwardness" is such a problem. —Internoob (DiscCont) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    If you are indifferent and want this to pass, the best thing you can do is to vote for both options, just like Ruakh did. As only then is your vote going to count in support of each option. An abstain vote has the same effect on the counting evaluation of the vote as no comment at all.
    Or you can wait until several days before the end of the vote, and then cast your supporting vote to that option that looks like the one with more supporting votes: that is even more unambiguous. But casting support to both options should do the job of making it as likely as possible that at least one option gets a supermajority support. --Dan Polansky 06:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    I suspect he'll do exactly that. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    Oooh, okay. —Internoob (DiscCont) 16:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)



  • Fails. Fourteen editors voted overall; none abstained. Of the fourteen, eight (57%) supported "English cardinal numbers" (etc.) and three (21%) supported "English cardinal numerals (etc.)", with the latter being a proper subset of the former; neither had enough support to pass. (It may be said, however, that "English cardinal numbers" is far more popular.) Of the six editors (43%) who opposed both options, five (36%) indicated that their opposition was not to these specific options, but rather to the principle of voting on categories now and on headers later: they feel that the reverse order is preferable. (Fortunately, none seemed to suggest that the two questions must be addressed simultaneously.) One can also imagine that some of the "support" voters might share this view, simply to a lesser degree, though none indicated that explicitly.

    So, as a next course of action, it seems reasonable to try to tackle the question of headers.

    RuakhTALK 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)