Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-07/Alternative forms header

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Alternative forms header

[edit]
  • Voting on: Replacing "Alternative spellings" header with "Alternative forms" header. This would include changing the example entry in WT:ELE#Additional headings and directing automatic cleanup from the "spellings" to "forms" header.


  • Vote starts: 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Bequw → τ 04:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support so I would not have to worry which header to use. --Vahagn Petrosyan 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. It seems crazy to have both and "forms" includes different spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Caladon 09:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I don't at present see sufficient value in keeping alt spellings. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yair rand (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support —RuakhTALK 19:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Ƿidsiþ 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) There is a distinction, but since some editors have already confused the two, going back and fixing all of them would be a royal pain.[reply]
  10. Support —Saltmarshαπάντηση 07:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose Neskaya … gawonisgv? 19:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Per the reasons DAVilla gave in his abstain. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 19:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you feel about entries that use both headers? Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose 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, usually with minor but discernible differences, varied across space (contemporaneous regionalisms or dialects) or time (sound changes) In languages with phonological or semi-phonological orthography, where differences in pronunciation are reflected in writing, this separation makes much more sense than in languages with etymological orthography such as English. Handling alternative scripts in languages which use >=2 of them is not always feasible in the inflection line, esp. if the script is alphabetic and/or there is lots of other inflectional information to be displayed, which would cause the inflection line to grow excessively long. I don't see which problem this unification effort is suppose d to solve: it seems to me to be a misguided attempt to reduce the number of headers by lumping lots of apparently similar things onto the same pile. --Ivan Štambuk 11:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I commented in the preceding discussion: (1) There is no need for one page to show all the inflections in all the scripts - just a link to the headword in the other script(s), and all the inflections in the script of the headword for that entry; inflections for the other script(s) go on the page with the headword in those script(s). (2) The distinction you are making alternative between spellings and alternative forms is not one that anyone else appears to either make or understand from the labels "Alternative spellings" and "alternative forms". (3) If you don't want to include other orthographies under "Alternative forms" (which apparently everyone else takes to include different spellings of the same word) then I suggest proposing an "Alternative scripts" header to contain the links to the headword in the other scripts, and seeing if there is any support for it. (4) The key point for me is that while I understand there is a distinction between alternative forms and alternative spellings, it is not a distinction that I think is worth making. Just as our not making a distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs for POS sections doesn't mean there isn't one, just that the value in making it is too low. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't claim that we need to list all the inflections in all the scripts in a single inflection line. I was referring to the fact that inflection lines themselves could grow pretty long, even without additional scripts of the lemma word. The example of Japanese that you mentioned is rather exceptional, since it's spelled concisely due to the nature of the scripts, and it doesn't have much additional inflectional information listed in the inflection line. Spellings of a word in a different script, or a different orthography, are not different forms of the same word; it's the same word. Mixing these with "real" alternative forms (in a sense I described them above) seems very awkward and non-intuitive to me. --Ivan Štambuk 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Robert Ullmann 08:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC) status quo is that "Alternative spellings" is used most of the time, and "... forms" where "spellings" is awkward or incorrect (not being spellings). The two can be treated as equivalent by anything reading the data. It is working as is; we should simply codify practice, rather than change the "spellings" header to something less sensible. It makes sense to users/readers, which is why we used it in the first place. Robert Ullmann 08:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain EncycloPetey 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Abstaining for now, but I'll switch my vote to "support" if it looks like it will make a difference. I'm fine either with the change or the status quo. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC), exact same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain. Personally I prefer "alternative spellings" when that's what they actually are, and "alternative forms" only if "spellings" is too narrow of a description. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to object. DAVilla 04:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's roughly how I feel, except that I don't feel strongly enough about it to not support. :-P   —RuakhTALK 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-07/Alternative_forms_header&oldid=39596832"