Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-10/Obsolete forms heading

< Wiktionary:Votes

Obsolete forms heading edit

  • Voting on: Allowing "Obsolete forms" heading to be placed somewhere before "Anagrams", containing obsolete forms.
  • Note: Obsolete forms are currently placed as "Alternative forms", e.g. at knowledge or chancellor.
  • Rationale: For the vote creator's rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-10/Obsolete forms heading#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Support edit

  1.   Support This is sorely needed. The definitions are the "core" of the dictionary, and having extra rubbish at the top of the page needlessly pushes the defs even lower down. This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your reasoning, and I think all alternative forms should be below the definition. (Cf. [[user:msh210/ELE]].) But I don't think we should separate obsolete forms from the rest, making people look in two places on the page for the same type of information.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Per my rationale on the talk page. Beyond that, let me highlight that great many English terms will have some obsolete variant spellings, while just a fraction of them will have a modern alternative spelling; thus, the proposal creates a chance of removing the entire "Alternative spellings" section from very many entries. Hiding the obsolete spellings in {{rel-top}} while keeping "Alternative spellings" section above definitions does not really help much: the section heading "Alternative spellings" still has to stay above definitions and keeps eating up premier vertical space at the top of an entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support per Dan, especially his response to Ruakh below. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose. I am all for making the definitions more prominent, but not by creating more confusing headers. The quantity of headers is what annoys me most in our layout. --Vahag (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose. I feel the same way as Vahag. Wrap the obsolete forms with {{rel-top}} if there are too many in a given entry. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose. I agree with the motivation here, but I don't think this specific approach is a good one. —RuakhTALK 04:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible for you to state specific reasons why this approach is not a good one? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just feel that an "Obsolete forms" section, in and of itself, is silly. The real idea here is to get obsolete forms out of the "Alternative forms" section, but if they belong anywhere in an entry, then that is clearly it. We should either (1) move alternative forms to a part of the entry where we won't mind obsolete forms; (2) remove obsolete forms from the entry entirely; or (3) accept the status quo. —RuakhTALK 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. You seem to think that an obsolete form is an alternative form, whereas I tend to see the two as mutually exclusive. As an analogy, while hard drives with rotating parts and flash memory are alternative digital storage technologies, punch cards are not an alternative technology to me; they are an obsolete technology. So according this mutually exclusive view, obsolete forms do not even properly belong to "Alternative forms" section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, but even aside from obsolete forms, we don't really reserve ===Alternative forms=== for true mutual alternatives; frequently one is used attributively and one predicatively, or one is used in the U.S. and one in the U.K. (and other places), or the like. They still all belong in a single section IMHO. (Incidentally, even if punch cards are obsolete now, there was probably a time that they did overlap with hard drives. It's not like everyone stops using one technology (or spelling), waits a while, and then picks up a different one. Given that we include historical words and historical languages, the distinction between "alternative" and "obsolete" is probably not cut-and-dried.) —RuakhTALK 22:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose. Like msh and Ruakh, I don't think obsolete alternative forms should be in a separate section. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose. (1) No more headings please (2) Too far from other alternatives (3) The yes/no decision on obsolescence would become more important. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose Ƿidsiþ 12:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Decision edit

Fails 3–6 in time, 3–7 by now.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-10/Obsolete_forms_heading&oldid=26393045"