Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-09/Placement of "Alternative forms" 2 (weaker proposal)

Placement of section

I think it would be good to further specify where alternate forms could be placed, to prevent entries from becoming a mess. Specifically, I think they ought to go directly before synonyms (and after any intervening sections). "After the definitions" may be too vague. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy:  Done. Looks good? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup! Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Introduction of editor choice in section placement

This seems to me to be a bad idea in a general sense, as it tends to make pages more difficult for bots and other automated programs to read, and opens up room for dispute. I think moving alternative forms downward is important, but this proposal is not weaker so much as different, and it raises new issues. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't want this proposal to make pages more difficult for bots. But are you thinking of any bot tasks that would be more difficult to do, if this proposal passes? I think only bot tasks directly related to Alternative forms would become more difficult to do, to some extent. I think it's not a huge problem; but if it is, let me know.

• Bot task 1: Add (or remove) {{l}} in all alternative forms.
  • Solution: Search for "Alternative forms" sections, no matter what the header level or placement. (thus including level 3 or 4)
• Bot task 2: Check for entries that cross-link each other as "Alternative forms", and create a log to be revised.
  • Solution: Same as before.
• Bot task 3: Check all entries and see if their section levels are acceptable, and create a log of unacceptable entries.
  • Solution: Add "Alternative forms" in both the programmed list of "L3" sections and the list of "L4" sections
• Bot task 4: ?

I agree with you in that moving alternative forms forward is important, but it could not be done in the previous vote, (that said, 50%+ support is pretty good!) so I'm trying to come up with some sort of compromise. As I'm sure you remember, some opposers felt that it would be a bad idea to duplicate AF sections in entries with multiple POS sections. I disagree with them, and I'm okay with duplicating some AF sections. But if this vote passes, some entries can keep a single AF section to avoid duplication, if that is the wish of some people. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative forms for multiple etymologies/parts of speech

So what are we supposed to do about if an entry is a noun and a verb. So should we put the same "Alternative forms" section twice, once under the noun, and once under the verb? Wouldn't that get kind of repetitive? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If this vote passes and people want to keep these entries with a single AF section above the definitions, it's OK. Personally, I'd prefer using the AF section below the definitions in all cases and repeating it when necessary, but I'd accept if I'm in the minority here. This assumes that the AF is citable in all POS sections. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)