Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/AutoFormat converting context labels to templates

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

AutoFormat converting context labels to templates

[edit]
  • Voting on: AutoFormat converting labels on definition lines like (''label'') to the context template. It adds the language code when needed, and removes duplicate cats.
  • 片口鰯 edit fish to fish|lang=ja, keeps cat because of the sort key
  • reyv edit two labels, removes duplicate cat
  • motivo edit music to music|lang=it, entry now appears in it:Music
motivo is a good example of a knowledgeable user adding the Italian section, but missing out on the context label template, and thus the category, the sort of thing AF fixes. See the doc and talk page.

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Robert Ullmann 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC) sure ...[reply]
  2. Support Atelaes 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC) *sigh* I suppose AutoFormat does have such far-reaching consequences on Wiktionary that it may be for the best to have a vote on each of its functions. Well, as EncycloPetey has said, at least this will help force us to discuss and come to agreements on a number of policies which have remained ambiguous in the past. Again, keep up the good work Robert. Atelaes 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks ;-) I think it is perfectly reasonable to vote on something significant like this being added; at the very least it means that a number of people have looked at it. (Connel said in opposing the vote on AF itself that it would lock the features then listed in stone; as you can see that isn't true) Walking the policy procedure isn't that onerous. Robert Ullmann 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support *sigh* too :-) Coffee2theorems 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Williamsayers79 12:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support H. (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Definitely. I am curious though: how does it work? Wouldn’t it be safer to explicitly add {{context|, such that no non-existing templates are used? That always works. (I consistently do that manually as well.)[reply]
    See (as referenced in the documentation ;-) User:AutoFormat/Contexts. It knows what the templates are; there are many thousands of things you wouldn't want to just wrap context around. Robert Ullmann 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) See User Talk:AutoFormat#Converting context labels. Robert Ullmann 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Cynewulf 15:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC) This is a fine test; it wasn't clear that you intended to discuss each separately, and looked like a bad precedent. It still is flawed, in that it relies on your diligence (which is wonderful, by the way) to determine which changes are worthy of a vote, or not. --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose EncycloPetey 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) This breaks some of the categorization for entries like Mizar, whose context is (astronomy) but which should be categorized in Category:Stars. This automation probably won't work for technical terms and proper nouns as a result. --EncycloPetey 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Category:Stars mutually exclusive of category:Astronomy? I'd imagine entries like actor or actress might find their way into the former. --Connel MacKenzie 09:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you are saying is that (''astronomy'') is correct, but {{astronomy}} is wrong, we have a very serious problem with how we use context labels. That has nothing to do with AF. Robert Ullmann 12:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (And why do people get the idea that something has to be in one category? eh?) Robert Ullmann 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that William Sayers created {{chemical compound}} to display as (chemistry) and cat as Chemical compounds, if that is legitimate (?) then you can do the same with astronomy/stars. But you aren't going to find them unless they turn up in Category:Astronomy, i.e. unless something changed (''astronomy'') to {{astronomy}}. Robert Ullmann 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh frack it, EP, you created this problem. Mizar had template {{star}}, and YOU changed it to (''astronomy'') and an explicit Category:Stars! If you don't want stars to also appear in the Category:Astronomy edit the star template and change "context/template" to "context/tag"! Sheesh. Robert Ullmann 14:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Mizar (despite its edit history) is still a good enough example for discussion. I agree that AF's approach is more correct than EncycloPetey's, both in general and in this specific case. --Connel MacKenzie 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the change only because I couldn't remember which examples existed out there of this problem. I made the edit so there would be a concrete example to discuss rather than generalities (as Connel notes). Yes, this is a problem beyond AutoFormat, but it is still a problem. It's been on my mind for some time that by using the context tag the way we do, we force an entry to be categorized at the highest (and therefore least helpful) topical level. I find it interesting that you recommend editing template {{star}} back to the way I originally set it up before a mysterious mesage appeared on the template announcing that it was "wrong" and others descended upon the template and "fixed" it to the current problematic state. If I knew where the "wrong" message was generated, then I would know how to discuss the problem. --EncycloPetey 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The message (NAME MISMATCH) is just a warning, basically asking if you know what you are doing. DAVilla was just fixing it to use context, and didn't get it quite to where you had originally intended. As to finding examples, look at User:Robert Ullmann/Contexts; if you can't find examples there, they don't actually exist, so there isn't any use in contriving one ;-) Robert Ullmann 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose —Stephen 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (In my experience, it selects the wrong naming format too often and is just a headache.)[reply]
    What does "wrong naming format" mean? Examples? (might be better on User Talk:AutoFormat Robert Ullmann 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it puts Category:ru:Colloquial and Category:ru:Slang instead of Category:Russian colloquial and Category:Russian slang. It would be much better if we only used a single naming format, which would be like Category:Russian slang, Category:Russian nouns, but unfortunately there are some cases that are clearly illogical (e.g., Category:Russian mountains when you want to include not just the mountains in Russian, but also the Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, etc.). When a name is illogical then we need to use an alternative format, such as Category:ru:Mountains.
We could just use the Category:ru:Mountains style for everything, but "Russian slang" is much more natural than "ru:Slang", and if you are trying to find something in a particular language and are met with Category:scl:... or Category:npr:..., it can be difficult to find what you want. The language codes are useful in places where they are clearly needed, but they are not natural for "Russian slang". —Stephen 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We use (language) {POS) for POS cats, and (code):(topic} for the others. "Slang" is not a part of speech, so it goes in (code):Slang. "Idiom" is a POS, so we have Category:Russian idioms. If you want to argue that Slang (et al) should be handled that way, that isn't an AF issue, the issue is what the {{slang}} template should be doing.
Like I said, it would be preferable to use a single system for everything, and the easiest to use is "Russian slang", especially for someone looking for information. However, some cases are illogical so the ru:Mountains style is needed. Slang and idioms are only two examples, there are others. If we aren’t going to do it logically, it would be better to change everything to ru:Slang. These language codes cause me constant problems, both here and on Wikipedia. Almost every day I encounter a language that is only identified by a language code and it’s a constant hassle to figure out what it is. But using all codes would still be better than arbitrarily using codes for one thing and languages for another. I always use language names when language names are logical, and codes only when they are not. You may consider that it is not an AF issue, but the AF bot does what I said and it creates extra work. For me, it’s an AF issue. —Stephen 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be more consistent, not mixing systems depending on POS or not, the only option would be to have a marker such as a prefixed subspace: or suffixed (language) to indicate the language of a term, and its exclusion indicating English. I agree that this would be much more elegant. The subspace doesn't have to be the language code, but that's what it has been historically. DAVilla 12:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen this suggestion before, but suffixing the (language) to indicate the language of a term would be perfect. —Stephen 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]

Decision

[edit]
  • with a vote of 7-1-0, conversion to context labels is approved. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most votes run for a full month. Votes such as this should run for at least two weeks, and not closed if there is recent discussion. I'm sure everyone agrees Stephen's input is valuable.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2007-05/AutoFormat_converting_context_labels_to_templates&oldid=75275102"