Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma

Descriptive, optative, normative, mandatory?

"Non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.) are generated by templates, linking back to the main entry. The default CSS style for non-lemma definitions is as follows: The link is bold[1] when written in Latin script or another script that allows boldface; the rest of the definition is italic."

Is it intended to be a true description of every instance of a non-lemma? Is it a wish? Is it a norm? Is it a command? DCDuring TALK 14:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I added more bullet points in the vote. Yes, it is intended to be a true description of every instance of a non-lemma. I am attempting to document rules that I believe are already established. Did I make any mistake in the description? Are there exceptions for some languages?

About wish/norm/command... Maybe "proposed norm"? It only goes into effect if people want, after all. Incidentally, I'll repeat something that is already in the vote description, but seems important in this discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention already passed in 2010, so italic non-lemma definitions was already voted and approved
• Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/form-of style already passed in 2006, so bold links to the main entry in non-lemma definitions was already voted and approved
• The current vote has other rules; I hope they pass like the previous two.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of a vote if you don't make it clear what the force of it is supposed to be? If it's an accurate description, then we don't need a vote to make it true: it IS true. Please get your thinking straight on this. If you can't you shouldn't be proposing ANY votes. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just being polite and trying to know what you think when I asked: Maybe "proposed norm[s]"? Of course they are proposed norms.

The voted norms are already true, yes. (unless someone voices an objection to be discussed) But a vote is required to edit WT:EL, per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Vote requirements for policy changes.

Re "what the force of it is supposed to be": if the vote passes, the proposed text will be part of WT:EL. See WT:EL#Flexibility for information about the force of the policy as a whole. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Too many details that can be omitted

There are two many details that don't need to be mentioned. --WikiTiki89 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly would you remove? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost everything. --WikiTiki89 20:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That does not sound helpful. I would be in favor of shortening the description somehow, but these are actual layout rules. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Like this:

Non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.) are treated as non-gloss definitions, linking to the lemma form in bold.

References

--WikiTiki89 20:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I created the vote today with that short description you copied, but then I added more bullet points for parentheses, romanizations and so on. Maybe I should start this vote with just that single line, but if it passes, eventually I could create a second vote to expand the explanation about non-lemma definitions?

I'm asking you because in my opinion, the most important thing to do is to remove both instances of "The vote ... is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details." Giving a lot of details is secondary to this. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I made some changes from your original version, which I also didn't like. --WikiTiki89 22:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not notice that you made some changes. I'm basically using your version, except I am stating that the rest of the definition is italic, since I miss that and it was specifically voted and approved. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And I'm specifically not stating that, because it is implicit in the non-gloss part. Also, the way you said it was technically incorrect and I didn't see an easy way to fix it. --WikiTiki89 22:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it's implicit in the non-gloss part. WT:EL does not say anywhere that non-glosses are italicized. Can we explicitly put "italic" or "italicized" somehow in the voted text? When possible, I like to try and state in WT:EL any layout information that is true because it was voted and approved.

Thanks for fixing the technically incorrect part, anyway. I realize I can't say "the rest of the definition is italic" when the parentheses and some stuff inside them aren't. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Italics is just typography. If I'm a blind user reading a Wiktionary page, it might be spoken to me in a louder or faster voice, to indicate emphasis. The specific slanting shape of the letters doesn't matter. Equinox ◑ 23:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's not documented anywhere, but we do have a policy of non-glosses being italicized, and glosses not being italicized. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with keeping "are formatted as non-gloss definitions", as long as WT:EL mentions that non-glosses are italicized, otherwise this piece of text is going to be meaningless to new readers. If, like Equinox said, this is just typography and somehow falls outside the scope of EL, then I'd like to create a separate policy page to document voted style policies. I'd suggest WT:Entry style, but the shortcut WT:ES is taken. Maybe WT:Default style (WT:DS). I prefer when voted policies are properly documented. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

WT:EL should definitely mention non-gloss definitions. --WikiTiki89 13:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I edited the voted text to mention them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's where they should go. Non-gloss definitions should have their own short subsection, because there is a little more explaining to do. --WikiTiki89 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to expand the voted text with more information about non-glosses? If you do, please consider not making a subsection for it.

Usually, when I propose edits to WT:EL, I propose getting rid of subsections. Before Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-07/Pronunciation 2 passed last month, there were subsections for "Homophones" and "Rhymes". One reason this bothered me is that there were no subsections for "IPA", "Sound" and "Hyphenation", and I felt there was no need to keep very large explanations for each piece of information.

Eventually, I'd like to propose getting rid of the subsections "Context labels" and "Abbreviations" from WT:EL#Definitions and make the text a bit shorter, if possible. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Subsections are good, because they help people find things. Now of course that doesn't mean that we need to make the subsections very long. I don't think the non-gloss stuff needs to be added in this same vote. --WikiTiki89 15:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I just don't want to lose the voted information that non-lemmas are italicized. I would proceed with the vote, as it is, and maybe expand it in a later vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You're not losing that information. It's been voted on and it's a policy even if it's not yet explicitly written on the page. And we're planning to add to the page anyway. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Even though I accepted removing all bullet points and keeping the vote short per what you said, without the words "italic" or "italicized" I think I would vote oppose. The lack of "italic"/"italicized" is a step backwards. There are probably 100+ layout-related rules that we follow but EL doesn't mention. Please, let's not willingly add up one more. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

How is it a step backwards? The current version says absolutely nothing. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The current version links to the vote prominently, without explaining it. Without the words "italic" or "italicized", this is converted to a vote reference that is not reflected in the actual policy text. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

argh

I almost want to oppose this on principle because you keep starting votes without prior discussion. This time you specifically mentioned that you are skipping prior discussion! Equinox ◑ 20:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I initially wanted to create this vote to convert 2 vote links into a single line of text, but got carried away and added extra bullet points. Damn. Per Wikitiki89 in the discussion above, maybe I should revert that last action and let the vote be just about the single line.

For A) minor changes in wording that don't affect regulations, or B) things that were already discussed before at some point, I believe a new discussion is not needed (besides just a BP warning: "hey, I created a vote!") unless someone wants to create one, or else it sounds like a waste of time. What other votes did I create without prior discussion?

Besides, I think I managed to edit like 1/4 or 1/3 of WT:EL through votes. And most of my EL votes are not even about suggesting new rules or anything, they are just about documenting existing practice. Usually I can't create huge votes to edit whole sections because they are exponentially harder to pass, so I have to create lots of votes for small stuff. WT:EL has 270+ sentences. (I just counted the 276 dots) At 1 sentence per vote per week, (or 2 sentences per vote once every 2 weeks... you got the idea) I'd already take 5 years to review the whole policy if all votes passed. 1 year passed since I started doing it. 4 years to go per this account, apparently! (I'm ahead of schedule) Usually I do create discussions, but for small stuff, I was thinking, maybe I shouldn't. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL, you literally have a Five-year plan... If the reason for not pre-discussing is that "having lots of small discussions is annoying" then that definitely maps to "having lots of votes is annoying". Maybe prioritise, rather than going through everything from top to bottom? I have to admit I find it slightly alarming that someone has so much legislation they want to create, that they literally have to queue it, and do it in small chunks. It's like having a Wiktionary EU! (Disclaimer: I mostly like the EU. Stupid Brexit.) Equinox ◑ 22:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also not convinced that we actually need to review and change every sentence of policy just because they are there. Some of it's fine. I would be inclined to wait for actual problems rather than digging for them. But it's just me. Equinox ◑ 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This link is the revision from 1 year ago, before I started creating a lot of votes. Some sections that are noticeably different in the current WT:EL or were created in the meantime include: Pronunciation, Entry name, Interwiki links, and Language. A lot of ideas were revised and proposed by other people. One thing I consistently did was merely choosing where to edit at the moment.

I agree with your idea of prioritising... Usually I'm choosing sections where I seem to be able to think of a more-or-less "final" version, to avoid proposing changing everything again in the future. By this logic, once EL is done, it's done. (Incidentally, I think I am unable to go literally from top to bottom because I've been planning to edit the actual sections "Language", "Part of speech" and "References" in the middle of the policy before editing the useless repetition called "The essentials" -- now there's just "References" to go!)

Actually, it was going to be an one-year plan, but turns out it was not possible.

I know that's a lot of text from both revisions, but feel free to compare and see if they were an improvement or not. My opinion is this: before, EL was shit; now, it stinks less. Again, this is about documenting actual rules rather than creating new rules, so the phrase "so much legislation they want to create" may be a little misleading. To this day, I think a user would learn more by reading entries than by checking EL, and I'm ashamed to see that we link the policy prominently everywhere, including in the welcome of all users. Wonderfool recently listed a few suggestions of edits to EL on my talk page. I like this gem from the older revision of the policy: "[The language] is almost always in a level two heading". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Latin

Pardon for posting without reading through the entire page here first (and therefore possibly duplicating), but the previous votes specific boldfacing for Latin-script lemma forms only. If this is supposed only to provide text in EL for those old votes, then it's too broad. Note also that Hebrew-language lemma forms in form-of sense lines are larger rather than bolder.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

When the vote was first created (see this revision), it was saying:

• Non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.) are generated by templates, linking back to the main entry. The default CSS style for non-lemma definitions is as follows: The link is bold when written in Latin script or another script that allows boldface; the rest of the definition is italic.

Currently, it says:

• Non-gloss definitions are italicized. Non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.) are treated and formatted as non-gloss definitions, linking to the lemma form in bold.

I removed the reference links when copying the texts. Should we restore the part "hen written in Latin script or another script that allows boldface"? Or maybe just mention "Latin script" for now? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew script allows boldface: we don't use it only because it's less far legible than our solution.​—msh210℠ (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Just Latin script it is. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@msh210: The way I see it is that certain scripts, such as Hebrew, have a different interpretation of the word "bold". I don't think this fact needs to be mentioned everywhere that the word "bold" is mentioned. --WikiTiki89 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Lemma not italicized

We need to say that the lemma is not italicized. As it currently stands, we would have to italicize the whole text "plural of dog" in the entry dog. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The lemma is a mention within the italicized non-gloss defition. Mentions are italicized. Something that needs to be italicized within already italicized text is de-italicized. It's basic grammar. --WikiTiki89 11:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's so obvious, maybe the proposed text is OK and I would vote support because I would trust you on that. I still don't like that de-italicize the mention! is not mentioned anywhere on WT:EL, but then again, it never was. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)