Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Independence

Authors writing for the same periodical

Just a comment. I have seen some suggest that cites from multiple authors writing for the same periodical should count as not independent. I don't agree with this: but I support the weaker suggestion that cites from multiple authors writing for the same periodical should count as not independent with respect to spelling choice, if the works are such that the periodical's editorial staff chooses spelling. (This will depend on the periodical and sometimes on the individual work therein, and may be hard to determine.) The current proposal includes neither of those suggestions but is still better than the status quo IMO, which also didn't.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Section heading

I have change the section heading of the new section to remain "independence" rather than being renamed to "independent". Section headings should better be nominal as far as possible, that is, nouns and noun phrases. --Dan Polansky 08:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OTOH:

Headings that meet the requirement of nominality:

• Attestation
• Idiomaticity

Headings that do not meet the requirement of nominality:

• Conveying meaning
• Spanning at least a year

The fact that the section heading "independent" or "independence" is between two headings that are not noun phrases supports the section heading "independent". --Dan Polansky 08:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The ===Attestation=== section has this list item (among others):

3. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year, or

(emphases mine). It then has only three subsections: ====Conveying meaning====, ====Independence====, and ====Spanning at least a year====.
So I think the second one is supposed to be ====Independent====.
—Ruakh_TALK 12:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is about having noun phrase headings, regardless of the part of speech used by the calling sentence, as it were. WT:CFI says that "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic", but we have no headings "attested" and "idiomatic" but rather "attestation" and "idiomaticity". But I admit, as I have done above, that "Conveying meaning" and "Spanning at least a year" fits "Independent". Feel perfectly free to revert me. This is a minor cosmetic issue, which can be dealt with by dealing with all of "Conveying meaning", "Independent" and "Spanning at least a year" headings at once later, if one will want to. --Dan Polansky 13:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. I agree that the Conveying_meaning/Independent/Spanning_at_least_a_year format is wrong (I especially dislike that each section starts with the pronoun "This" referring to the section-header), but I think that being consistent about it, within that microcosm, at least makes it slightly less wrong/confusing. Since this vote is only about the Independence section, it can only bring consistency by changing that section. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording

Sorry I'm late. This is a great improvement, but the wording could be much simpler:

Independent

Only distinct, independent uses should be counted for attestation. Independent uses of a term:

• Are in different sentences
• Are by different authors
• Are not quotations of each other, or of the same source

Maybe for the next revision.... —Michael Z. 2012-03-11 21:33 z

Yeah, that would have been better. (Mostly. I'd still want to keep the proposed first and last sentences instead of your first sentence — the first sentence for parallelism with the sister sections, the last sentence to drive home the point — but your "core" sentence is presented much better. C'est la vie.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)