Wiktionary:Votes/2020-04/Style changes to the criteria for inclusion

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

Style changes to the criteria for inclusion

[edit]

Proposal: Make the following changes to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion

  1. Un-bold all text in the body.
  2. Un-italizice all text italicized for emphasis, i.e. leave titles or word mentions italic.
  3. Replace all manually created "See also" links with instances of {{see also}} at the top of their relevant sections.
  4. Replace all manually created mention links, both italicized and plain, with uses of {{m}},
  5. Replace serial commas and serial semicolons respectively with instances of {{,}} and {{serial semicolon}}, using the shortcut {{;}} for semicolons.

Rationale:

  1. Bold text is not used to specifically communicate meaning, is used when plain text would suffice, and is used in a way looks like a heading, but is not.
  2. Italic text makes the style of the page seem more conversational rather than explanatory or matter-of-fact. The latter is more standard for technical and documentation writing.
  3. Standardization of formatting to match content pages and to allow for conformation to user preferences. (See here for an example of how users change display.)
  4. Standardization of formatting to match content pages and to allow for conformation to user preferences. (See here for an example of how users change display.)
  5. Standardization of formatting to match content pages and to allow for conformation to user preferences. (See here for an example of how users change display.)

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support change 1

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support The headers should be enough to draw the reader's attention. Elsewhere, bolding provides no adequate change of meaning and may confuse the reader regarding the importance of certain sections. In WT:SOP, the top sentence has the only bolded words in this section thus shifting emphasis to the top while the sentences below are the most important as they are the ones that describe the policy. If any of the words or sentences below were bolded, however, the reader may be led to believe that these are the only sections necessary to read (bolding is particularly problematic in WT:BRAND, "Given and family names," "Genealogical content," and "Company names" with each having a bolded introductory sentence). Generally speaking, while bolded words can shift attention to the desired area, they also deemphasise the other important areas. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor quibble: in WT:SOP, the first sentence is actually most important: it defines the term "idiomatic", which is then used in the main policy "[...] including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Having read the post by Ilawa-Kataka above, I now realize it is probably a good proposal. There will be a minor loss of emphasis, but the overall gain in removal of arbitrariness of bolding seem worth it. A policy is a policy, whether bold or non-bold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change 1

[edit]
Oppose unbolding all words; e.g. bolding in the following seems useful: "[...] attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: I am honestly unsure how the bolding in the example you provided is useful and/or conveys meaning. I would appreciate more detail on how that is the case, thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The boldface does not convey meaning, but it highlights two most important principles/keywords of the whole policy. Removing the boldface would not be a major loss, but it does not seem to be an improvement either. But I am not sure; let's see what other think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Dan—the bolding generally seems useful to me to draw the reader's eyes to important points and terms (in fact it could probably use a bit more for consistency). —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Dan and Nizolan. I do support unbolding entire sentences, but key words should be kept in bold. Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Question: Assuming this change does not receive consensus support, would those of you who currently oppose it support a similar change reworded to only included blocks of text in the set of things to unbold? That is to say, a proposal to only unbold words were two or more words are bolded in a row? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still like "sum-of-parts" to be bolded (depends on whether you count that as one or three words), but other than that I'd support that proposal. Imetsia (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Nizolan, including for blocks of words. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain change 1

[edit]
  1. Abstain —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change 2

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support; the examples provided in the oppose section are convincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support John Cross (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change 2

[edit]
oppose un-italicizing all text italicized for emphasis: while I cannot quickly find any example of this in CFI, italics is used for emphasis in general, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of italics in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion include: "Terms in reconstructed languages such as Proto-Indo-European do not meet the criteria for inclusion", "They are about the name as a word", and "We do not quote other Wikimedia sites". —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find your examples convincing and am switching to support: the italics does not seem ideal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Italics emphasize some important words or add stress to certain clauses of a sentence. The examples provided exemplify this. Though I'd support a closer examination of items that should and shouldn't be italicized, I oppose a blanket ban on italics on CFI. Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imetsia: I recognize that this is just a semantic distinction, but I think it is worth noting that the proposal is not to ban italics from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, but instead to remove all emphasizing italics from words. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand that. I worded it as a "ban on italics" just in the name of economy of word (and to not sound too repetitive with my word choice), though I can now see that wording might have been imprecise. But my basic position is still that the current italics on CFI are helpful because they stress important words and phrases. They therefore should be kept. Imetsia (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain change 2

[edit]
  1. Abstain. The language is also informal in numerous places. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change 3

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Equinox ◑ 10:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support John Cross (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change 3

[edit]
  1. Oppose replacing all manually created "See also" links with instances of {{see also}}; there is no visible benefit to the reader and the less a policy page depends on templates with low-added value for it, the better; then it needs fewer updates driven by various template changes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain change 3

[edit]
  1. Abstain Seems like make-work to me, but I have no principled objection. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Pointless but harmless. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change 4

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support John Cross (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change 4

[edit]
  1. Oppose replacing all manually created mention links, both italicized and plain, with uses of {{m}}; no added value visible to the reader, and the less a policy page depends on templates used in the mainspace, the better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Dan Polansky. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain change 4

[edit]
  1. Abstain Not unreasonable, but not necessarily in need of standardization. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support change 5

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, I don't see why not. —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change 5

[edit]
  1. Oppose replacing serial commas and serial semicolons respectively with templates: this kind of trivial concern should be a non-concern for a policy page. In a similar vein, some pages use British spelling and other use U.S. spelling; it is inadvisable to start introducing templates to create some preferred rendering that makes no semantic difference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose This adds no value that I can see, standardization notwithstanding. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Personally I'd ban the templates altogether. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Droigheann: Can I ask why you would prefer the templates for serial commas and serial semicolons be deleted altogether? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Goes beyond what I perceive as a reasonable degree of personalisation. Like having a template for, say, having a {colour/color} option in definitions, or {ground floor/first floor} in usex examples &c. (Or, thinking of another recent vote, a template for making the first letter in a definition line upper or lower case.) --Droigheann (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, that makes sense to me. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oh, heck no. --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per Dan Polansky. I like standardisation, but this seems an awkward way to do it. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain change 5

[edit]
  1. Abstain ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2020-04/Style_changes_to_the_criteria_for_inclusion&oldid=65676087"