Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Language 2

< Wiktionary:Votes

Language 2 edit

Editing WT:EL#Language. This is a follow-up to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Language.

Current text:

Language

Each entry has one or more L2 (level-two) language sections. For example, the entry sea has different meanings in English and Spanish, both on the same page. Priority is given to Translingual: this heading includes terms that remain the same in all languages. This includes taxonomic names, symbols for the chemical elements, and abbreviations for international units of measurement; for example Homo sapiens, He (“helium”), and km (“kilometre”). English comes next, because this is the English Wiktionary. After that come other languages in alphabetical order. Language sections should be separated from each other by a horizontal line, generated with four dashes (----).[1]

For languages that have multiple names, a single name is chosen that should be used throughout Wiktionary. Typically, this is an English name for the language. See Wiktionary:Languages for more information.

References
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Language

Proposed text:

Language
  • Every entry has one or more language sections.
  • All language sections are ==Level two==.
  • The order of language sections is: Translingual, English, then other languages in alphabetical order.
  • Language sections are separated from each other by a horizontal line.
  • For languages that have multiple names, a single name is chosen to be used throughout Wiktionary. See Wiktionary:Languages.[1]

See Help:Language sections for more information.

References
  1. ^ Originally, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Language. Revised by Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Language 2.

Changes:

  • Removing all the how-to parts and explanations from WT:EL#Language and leaving only the actual regulations plus a link to Help:Language sections. (The help page is freely editable. Currently, it contains more comprehensive explanations, directed at new users.)

Rationale:

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support edit

  1.   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Pengo (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support, although having “(----)” follow the fourth bullet point would clarify what is meant by a "horizontal line" without bloating the text too much. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose Yet more of this nonsensical desire to have policy and editor guidance in separate places. It's as if some people think we are here to write legislation. Really, with the exception of some particularly well-written and self-contained laws, how pleasant is it to read an Act of law? By stripping out all the helpful and useful advice from the policy, we turn it into a very dry sequence of rules and stipulations, which does not always convey the "bigger picture", and doesn't help users, particularly new users, learn more about the way we work.

    If editors really want to get rid of helpful advice from our policies, they should be prepared to create some nice, comprehensive, up-to-date documentation pages to replace the direct links to our policies from the "Help" and "Community portal" links in the sidebar. This, that and the other (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been called out at least twice for proposing some policy ammendment that has some explanation and/or rationale in it, rather than just the regulations.Exhibit A Exhibit B. To be fair, I've heard a thousand different opinions about my proposed ammendments so I'm pretty sure I've been called out for removing explanations in a policy, too, but I don't remember where exactly.
    I'm in favor of having policies only with regulations and that's it. IMO, it's better use of the space available. If all regulations had explanations, then it would likely at least double the size of our policies. (this would include this example in particular: add --- between languages for style/standardization purposes, it adds a line above the language name in addition to the line that is added automatically below the language name) When we remove explanations, the policy shrinks and thus is quicker to read. Help:Language sections was intended as a long explanation; it goes on and on about the subject. I don't know if I went too far or if I got it right (we can edit it freely anyway), but help pages have plenty of space we can use. IMO it's better using help pages to go all the way and teach new users what exactly we mean by language sections than leaving short single-sentence explanations in the policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Help:Language sections is a nice page; thanks for writing it. If all EL sections are accompanied by documentation pages of this standard, cross-linked with the relevant policy section, my complaint is somewhat placated. But the problem at the moment is Special:WhatLinksHere/Help:Language sections... no-one is going to be able to find this useful help page. This, that and the other (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your nice comments about the usefulness of the help page. I linked the help page to the WT section, and one of the proposals of this vote is linking back the EL section to the help page. What are other places we can use to link to the help page? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose The original is better in many ways. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Droigheann (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I made this vote specifically because some people said the current text was unclear. I'm open to other suggestions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well my suggestion is that the current text is clear, but those who say it isn't are of course free to support this vote. --Droigheann (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I tried to make the text as clear as possible because of the last vote, but people may disagree with my assessment or oppose the vote for other reasons. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of those who complained about the text being unclear. All it really needed was a thorough copyedit, not a complete refactoring. To be more concrete I've done so here. This, that and the other (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other: Ok, it looks like your idea can be described as having an actual list of rules with a few explanations/introductions, like the explanation of what exactly Translingual means for us. I'd support that, but I'd prefer if the different points used bullet points like in this vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose DCDuring TALK 13:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose For one thing, the prosed change removes an explanation of what translingual section is for. Also, this vote page does not state any expected policy impact; in the middle of the typographic and formulation changes, is there any actual impact on policy? Why was "Typically, this is an English name for the language" removed? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose New wording does not improve the page. I'm in agreement with SemperBlotto. --Neskaya sprecan? 07:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Decision edit

No consensus 6-6-0. This, that and the other (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Language_2&oldid=37589293"