Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Inclusion of regular inflected forms

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Inclusion of regular inflected forms[edit]

  • Voting on: Replacing the current content of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Inflections,
    Although it is not forbidden, there is no particular need to include completely regular inflections such as cameras or asked. To the extent that they are present, they should indicate what inflection is intended and link to the stem form, and should not merely redirect.
    Irregular forms such as geese and were should have their own entries, because people unfamiliar with the irregularity will look for them under the inflected form. Inflected forms — whether regular or irregular — with idiomatic meanings, such as blues or smitten, should have their own entries, with the predictable meanings distinguished from the idiomatic.
    with
    The entries for such inflected forms as cameras, geese, asked, and were should indicate what form they are, and link to the main entry for the word (camera, goose, ask, or be, respectively, for the preceding examples). Except with multi-word idioms, they should not merely redirect.
    At entries for inflected forms with idiomatic senses, such as blues and smitten, predictable meanings should be distinguished from idiomatic ones.
  • Vote ends: 8 September 2008 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 25 August 2008 23:59 UTC

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Thryduulf 00:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support I like where this is headed. :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support When the inflections actually exist (ie, meet CFI), we should absolutely include them. Since this is a web-dictionary, we're going to have people copying-and-pasting "asked" or "cameras", rather than typing the lemmas manually, so the whole original basis for regular inflections being "optional" is unfounded. It's also possible, albeit starry-eyed, that the wiktionary database could be used in open-source spellchecking efforts and so on and so forth- in which case, all inflections should be present (even plurals of proper nouns when appropriate, but that's another can of worms). In summary, not a paper dictionary blah blah, why on earth would we NOT include regular inflections? Language Lover 00:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    Incidentally, in English we're really lucky that you can pretty much only inflect once and it's done. In Japanese or Esperanto, you can inflect inflections indefinitely. In Japanese, it's not just a theoretical possibility, either, some words which have been inflected 3 or more times could still meet CFI (like 食べたくなかった) :) Language Lover 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC) --EncycloPetey 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry EP, but signing it twice does not make your opinion count twice. :P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support 24.29.228.33 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Bequw¢τ 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Rod (A. Smith) 03:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support.msh210 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support TBC 05:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support. bd2412 T 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

  • Passed 13–0–0.—msh210 22:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)