Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Description

Images

Re: "The Description symbol may be useful for someone without the right Unicode fonts, to know what a symbol looks like." If this is indeed our aim (and it hardly seems like what a dictionary should be doing), then we should simply include graphical images, not wordy descriptions. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point about adding images. I removed the text you quoted from the vote's "rationale and notes". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Two of the symbols you give as examples don't display properly for me, so having some sort of alternate representation of what Unicode symbols look like, whether descriptive or pictorial, would be helpful. On that note, is there a way to enable my browser to support all Unicode symbols? I've tried to figure it out before, but with no luck. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you need to download and/or buy more fonts. It may be a good idea having a lot of different fonts: a good one for Braille, other for Japanese, other for Thai, other for Georgian, other for random symbols, etc. (I don't actually understand Thai or Georgian so I used them as random examples) Or you can try searching for some fonts that are advertised as "Unicode fonts", which have a wide range of characters from different scripts. I use a font called Symbola for a lot of symbols. It looks nice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Coherent description may not even be possible

There's another issue with the icons and emoji: they may not even have a consistent visual description: "the shape of the character can vary significantly" [1]. And this is even true for letters and numbers, which might be curly in one font and chunky in another. Does a lower-case g look like an 8, or is the tail left open? Does the number zero have a diagonal crossbar? Equinox ◑ 08:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll say what I think about the examples you gave. But really feel free to give more examples if you want.

In the vote, there are some specific examples of what exactly I'd put in a "Description" section:

• 📞 = "A telephone receiver."
• 💾 = "A floppy disk. Depending on the font or emoji set used, it could be turned upside or downside."
• ⚤ = "Interlocked Mars, male symbol (♂) and Venus, female symbol (♀)."
• 🔇 = "A speaker with a stroke. Sometimes, shown as a speaker with a prohibition sign (🚫)."
• 🚫 = "A circle with a 45º diagonal line inside it, from top left to bottom right. It is usually completely red."
• 🗕 = "A horizontal bar at the bottom of the image, representing a minimized application."
• ☞ = "A hand pointing right using the index finger."
• ⚠ = "An exclamation point (!) inside a triangle."

If you click any of those symbol entries, you'll see that all the descriptions are currently already written in the entries. I used the Etymology section for that. Do you support using the Etymology section for that information? Would you change something? In the vote, I argued that these are actually descriptions, not etymologies, so at least if we are using the Etymology section to keep a description, then we might as well use a Description section.

Thanks for linking to that Unicode page. The first emoji in the chart is "U+1F36D LOLLIPOP". There are 4 varities of the lollipop displayed in the page. In the Description section for "U+1F36D LOLLIPOP", I would probably write just 2 words: "A lollipop.", which is simple. I don't think I would write: "The spiral is sometimes of a blank texture, other times it is alternating black and white. In emoji, it might be 2 colors, or sometimes lots of colors. Blue, yellow and red are kinda common."

I don't know it I should change (simplify) the floppy disk example, per the Unicode page. It currently says: "may be turned upside or downside", but it should really be obvious, like describing the lollipop as "may be vertically aligned or inclined to the side". Concerning variations in symbol orientation ("may be up, may be down, may be left, may be right"), I don't have an opinion as to whether we should mention it in all symbols and emoji.

I'm more interested in describing symbols and emoji than letters and numbers, but I realize a "Description" section is going to appear in letters and numbers too if allowed, so it's good to discuss it.

I'd probably oppose saying: "this letter is curly in one font and chunky in another". Some fonts are entirely curly or entirely chunky. I'd probably oppose saying, for a given letter: "it is the same width as other letters in a monospaced font." This is just info about the monospaced font.

For lowercase "g", I support saying: "the tail may be closed or left open".

For number "0", I support saying: "it may have a diagonal crossbar".

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Section title

The choice of "Description" as a header seems poor. All of the information that we provide is somehow descriptive, including things like pronunciations. Perhaps it should be "Visual description", or "Shape". Equinox ◑ 14:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a poll about "Description" vs. "Shape" vs. "Visual description" vs. "Etymology" for visual descriptions? Really, I'd like to avoid "Visual description"; it is too long for my taste. I like "Description" more than "Shape"; it feels like it should be the visual description.

If someone said to me: "Describe the Venus symbol.", I would probably say its shape.

If someone said to me: "Describe the Eszett." (ß), I would probably say its shape, too. They probably would not ask that way if they wanted to know specifically the pronunciation of ß. I get that pronunciation and meanings are descriptive information; but, correct me if I'm wrong, visual descriptions are the first thing that comes to mind, and there's little room for confusion. If the Description section is allowed, probably nobody is really going to use it to place pronunciations, etymologies, related terms, definitions, etc.

That said, "Shape" is a good 2nd place in my opinion. If we have a poll or something and people want it, that'd be fine with me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Poll: Description section. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:💬

See Talk:💬 for a discussion about placing a shape description in the "Etymology" section of 💬. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also: Talk:🔗. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Extend vote?

This vote is going to end in 3 days, and currently has only 8 participants (5-3-0). Maybe we should extend it by 1 month?

Currently, the vote would fail. If 1 more people supported it, it would pass. Either way, this small turnout is not a great indicator of consensus. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)