OCS alternative forms and spellings
[1] - please stop doing this for OCS. There is a reason why these two are separate.
I agree with BQ here, if they're synonyms they go in the synonyms sections, but entries shouldn't use both alternative forms and spellings. The second is just a more specific case of the first.
Alternative spellings is for the spellings in the alternative script (Glagolitic/Cyrillic), and alternative forms if for variant forms of the same word. OCS corpus is stratified geographically and diachronically, so some words have variant forms reflecting different sound changes in different dialects or epochs.
I too agree with BQ - there is no reason why any entry needs both "alternative forms" and "alternative spellings".
Both Japanese and Serbian, which also use multiple scripts, put the form of the word in the other scripts on the inflection line. Is there a reason this is not done for OCS? Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Spelling in another script is not an "alternative form" of a word - it's the same word in another script. spelling is also not a more specific case of form: spelling implies alternative script or orthography (which could all be "proper" and in simultaneous use), while form encompasses various kinds of etymologically related variants of the same word. In languages with phonological orthography, where differences in pronunciation are reflected in writing, which is the case with OCS but not e.g. English, the difference is much more obvious. dzvězda and zvězda cannot be treated as synonymous; they're as "synonymous" as e.g. English color and colour. Yes the scrips could be handled in the inflection line, and that's probably the best solution, but that will not work in case where there is more than 2 scripts used for a language. For now, merging these two sections, in case of OCS at least, doesn't make sense to me.
I think you're just taking a narrow view of the term "form" whereas others (including myself) are taking a broader view. I want a single general header as people's distinctions between "forms" and "spellings" are often vague and contradictory (as seen here). The key information is still represented under a unified header (the script qualifier accomplishes this). Putting the different scripts for a word on the inflection line is a problem for both layout (when multiple PoS exist) and clarity (a non-inflection being on the inflection line).
What exactly is vague and contradictory in my distinction of spellings/forms? I don't see how having different headers is an issue at all. In case of OCS at least, the distinction makes a lot of sense. Yes in case of multiple PoS these would all have to be repeated, but most editors editing in multiscriptal languages apparently prefer it that way (and so do I). Just because it's called inflection line by convention doesn't mean that it has to contain only inflections.
Well, pretty much everyone who has commented on the vote about alternative forms/spellings and in the discussion leading up to the vote appears to be of the view that "alternative spellings" is a subset of "alternative forms". It doesn't make any sense for OCS to use a different definition of the terms than the rest of the Wiktionary.
Regarding the repetition of the different scripts, this is a good thing as not everybody will read every definition on every page - e.g. someone might only be interested in the verb and skip the preceding adjective and noun POSes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
spelling is not more specialized in meaning than form. Words with different spellings are the same words in different script or orthography. Variant forms of a word are different words, closely etymologically related but with different pronunciations, reflecting regional or temporal changes. The unification scheme that you're advocating mixes different scripts, and mixes wikilinks to additional and different information (variant forms) with wikiliks with identical content in a different script.
"Yes the scrips could be handled in the inflection line, and that's probably the best solution, but that will not work in case where there is more than 2 scripts used for a language."
Japanese manages to show three scripts on the inflection line without any issue. Are there any languages that use more than three scripts? Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sanskrit is written in almost all Indic scripts, although we currently only use Devanagari. Perhaps it works for Japanese, but I don't think that handling 2+ additional scripts would work in the inflection line in alphabetic languages with rich inflection some of which would have to be listed in the inflection line too. The whole line would be too long. Serbo-Croatian has historically been written in 2 other scripts beside Cyrillic and Latin: Glagolitic and alphabetic form of Arabic script. There is no way that these 4 would all fit in the inflection line beside the usual information listed. There is the preliminary template {{sh-variant}} to handle this, based on the successful usage of {{fa-regional}} for Persian variant forms, but it's not used yet. Template-based table approach seems to me superior than either of those two alternatives.
I don't really see why all the inflections would need to be shown - surely just the headword. All the inflections in the alternative scripts would be shown on the entry for the headword in that script. e.g. (picking an OCS verb at random) ⰉⰕⰉ (ITI, “to go”) would contain a link to the Cyrillic spelling of the headword (ити (iti)) and all the inflections in the Glagalotic script. ити (iti) would contain a link to the Glagalotic script headword, and all the inflections in the Cyrillic script.
If you arrived at ⰉⰕⰉ (ITI) and wanted to know the second person plural present tense you'd find the Glagalotic on that page, and could then either follow the Cyrillic headword or go to the Glagalotic entry for the particular verb form, which would display the Cyrillic version of the headword.
If you don't think that these should be in "Alternative forms" with the same simple label as they are now (e.g. Cyrillic: ити (iti)) then perhaps we should think about having an "Alternative script" header (which is clearly differentiated from "Alternative forms" and offers no chance of confusion with it)?
Anyway, this conversation should probably be happening on the Beer parlour or Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-07/Alternative forms header, but I've got no idea how to easily move, copy or summarise a liquid threads discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)