Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Definitions — non-lemma

[edit]
Note: This follows Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-08/Definitions — introduction, which edited the first paragraph of WT:EL#Definitions.

Voting on: Editing the next piece of WT:EL#Definitions.

Current text:

The vote “2006-12/form-of style” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.
The vote “2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.

Proposed text:

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, which is in bold when the linked term is in the Latin script.[1][2][3]

References
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/form-of style
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention
  3. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma

Rationale and notes:

  • The previous text contains two vote links concerning rules that were voted and approved. Specifically, one vote is about italic "form-of" definitions and the other vote is about bold links in "form of" entries. The proposed text states the actual rules.
  • Mentioning non-gloss definitions.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

[edit]
  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support – I have no objection to the text that is being added, but I think it would have been better if an description of what non-gloss definitions are had been proposed at the same time. — Eru·tuon 15:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose. My concerns on the talk page were not fully addressed. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose because it doesn't say what a "non-gloss definition" is. I think I have a vague idea, but the link to [[gloss]] is useless. Either define "non-gloss definition" or link the whole term to a page that explains it. (And yes, I think having the undefined term "non-gloss definition" in the policy is worse than the status quo!) This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

No consensus: 3-2-1 (60%-40%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2016-09/Definitions_—_non-lemma&oldid=41308768"