Wiktionary:Votes/2008-12/Amending ELE to Homophones Template

Amending ELE to Homophones Template

Voting on: Amending the relevant homophones examples in the WT:ELE to the homophones template. If you want to see the proposed edits in context, they have already been made in WT:PRON#Homophones on 11/24/08. The homophones template has been around since Feb 2008. Since there has been no objections to the homophones template in the BP, this vote will end concurrently with EncycloPetey's proposal vote. These are the four proposed edits:

 * {{temp|homophones|rite|wright|write}}

* {{homophones|rite|wright|write}}

* {{homophones|beta}} {{i|in [[non-rhotic]] accents}}
* {{homophones|rite|wright|write|ride}} {{i|in accents with [[flapping]]}}

Vote ends: 23:59 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Vote started: 0:00 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote created: AZard 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion:
WT:BP#Amending ELE to Homophones Template

Support

Support --AZard 00:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose EncycloPetey 08:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) The {{i}} template is too generic. My preference for such situations is to use {{qualifier}}, unless something suitable is built into the {{homophones}} template. However, there may be others who prefer the general template {{i}}. This is an unresolved issue as far as I am aware, so advocating one over the other in ELE. For example, in the abstains, I see Rod advocates using {{a}}, a practice with which I disagree. --EncycloPetey 08:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand anything about pronunciation section formatting, so I'm going to stay well away from this vote. However, it appears that {{i}} is already in WT:ELE. So, unless I'm missing something, this vote has nothing to do with that particular bit. So.....if your only reason for oppose is that, then perhaps you should actually be voting support. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative templates came into existence following the addition of {{i}} to the ELE. It is my understanding that the more recent and more specific templates are preferred over {{i}} in certain cases (e.g. {{context}} and {{a}}). With regard to homophones, I don't think there is a standard common practice in play, so selecting one for ELE without discussion seems a bad idea to me. --EncycloPetey 11:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really confused. How can you say there is no standard for homophones? Isn't the ELE the standard? Per Section 1 of the ELE, "Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct." The ELE has a current standard for homophones, which should be presumed correct:

* Homophones: [[rite]], [[wright]], [[write]]

* Homophones: [[beta]] {{i|in [[non-rhotic]] accents}}

I agree with Atelaes' logic. The current standard for accents in the ELE is {{i}}.

I was under the false impression that the homophones template was the new standard, but wasn't reflected in the ELE. Please accept my apologies. I have no intentions of selecting a new standard without the proper discussions. As mentioned before, I am equally happy with the current ELE standard for homophones. If this vote fails, which it looks like will happen, I will happily change all homophone entries back to the current ELE standard. --AZard 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand me, please. I do agree with the new {{homophones}} template usage, but I don't know that a majority would agree. This is one situation where I don't have a clue what the community opinion is, and where the ELE and presumed best practices don't match at all. --EncycloPetey 09:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Abstain —Stephen 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I don’t understand what is being changed to what, so I shall abstain.[reply]
If you look in the Homophones section of the ELE, WT:ELE#Homophones, the current formatting is: --AZard 15:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
```
* Homophones: [[rite]], [[wright]], [[write]]
```
Abstain Rod (A. Smith) 23:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC) For the last two examples, I would have used the following instead:[reply]
* {{a|non-rhotic}} {{homophones|beta}}

* {{a|in accents with [[flapping]]}} {{homophones|rite|wright|write|ride}}

Rod (A. Smith) 23:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think this is ready for prime time just yet. "Non-rhotic" and "flapping" should link to the Glossary, so while it's great to have details spelled out, I couldn't support the unfinalized example you give. DAVilla 07:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incremental change. It is not meant to fix all related problems. I'm not saying that the homophones template is perfect. I believe this change will make the ELE better. The sense template has been around since 2006. Is everyone waiting for the perfect sense template, before updating the sense template into the ELE? --AZard 14:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really thought this vote would pass without a problem, but maybe I'm wrong. Right now, there is one vote for support and one vote for oppose. The voting time is almost over, but I think we should talk about the consequences of this vote. If this vote passes, then the Homophones template is approved and will be updated into the ELE.

If this vote fails, then the Homophones template has not been approved by the community. That means the ELE current formatting must remain as the approved standard. That means all current entries with the Homophones template must be reverted back to the ELE formatting. That means new edits with the Homophones template should be considered as violations of the ELE and should be treated as vandalism.

Personally, I don't care specifically about the Homophones template itself. All I care about is an ELE that reflects the community standard, and consistent application of that standard. --AZard 13:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be easier to work from the bottom up. That is, Wiktionary:Pronunciation is considered a "draft", and it can be amended more easily (i.e. without a formal vote). I suggest leading a discussion there to generate a comprehensive guide to homophones. Once the details have been agreed upon, it should be a simple matter to prepare a summary for the ELE itself. In the meantime, the new guide can be found from the ELE by following the link to the more narrowly focussed page. Please note that the vote I put forward was relatively easy to pass in part because several lengthy discussions occurred over the past two years. --EncycloPetey 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, but I am perfectly fine with the current homophones section in the ELE. On the other hand, it seems you, Rod, and DAVilla might have some ideas on improvements, so I encourage you all to pursue your ideas. --AZard 15:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

1-1-2 no conclusion