Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-02/Amending ELE Order of Headings

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

Amending ELE Order of Headings[edit]

  • Voting on: Specifying in the "Order of Headings" section on ELE that "Anagrams and other trivia" sections should go between Translations and See also sections, and re-ordering the ELE sections Derived terms, Related terms, and Descendants to match the "Order of Headings" section. The resulting ELE can be viewed in this edit (which I then reverted, pending the outcome of this VOTE).
  • Vote ends: 23:59 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 0:00 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote created: JesseW 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I considered this trivial enough that preliminary discussion was unnecessary.


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support JesseW 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, although I could do without the "and other trivia" bit. -- Visviva 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, me too -- but the section on Anagrams mentions "other trivia", so I thought it better to slot them into the Order of Headings, too. If you started a VOTE to take out the mention of "other trivia", I'd probably support it. JesseW 06:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 07:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Panda10 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Robert Ullmann 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) You should have had a bit of discussion: there would have been a chance to point out that as "See also" is often an L4 header (others for a particular POS), it will come before "Anagrams" which must be L3 at the end. Slotting it (Anagrams) in where you did is structurally broken. Re-ordering the descriptive paragraphs is just fine; if you stick to that there is no issue. Robert Ullmann 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    Since the Order of Headings section is part of the Headings-that-arn't-POS-specific section, I presumed that it only provided guidance about the order to put these sections as L3 sections, and/or it suggested the order to put those entries as L4 sections only if more than one of them was used in a particular POS. I'd certainly support a future proposal to clarify the ELE on this point, but I don't think suggesting that Anagrams should go before See also when they are both at the same level is a harmful choice. JesseW 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose. Although discussion is always helpful beforehand, I'm not going to act pompous and pretend like I know better. As JesseW says, this doesn't break anything if see also is at the same level as anagrams. I'm opposing because see also is usually used in place of a more fitting header like related terms (and incidentally shouldn't the examples given be at level 4 anyway?) so I'd rather not see any mention of it. If it were listed, then I would like an example of what might be appropriate there before deciding that words are more important if completely unrelated in meaning, etymology and pronunciation except that they're spelled the same not counting the order of their letters. DAVilla 18:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    But, but, this proposal doen't change anything about "see also" sections! Please, do make a proposal to remove mentions of "see also" sections from ELE -- I might even vote for it -- but don't vote against this proposal (about clarifying the position of Anagram sections) because "see also" sections are misused. JesseW 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'd be happy to vote in favor, but I need an example of a legitimate "see also" term so as to judge which should be given precedence. DAVilla 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Robert has a point there (as usual). -- Gauss 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    He certainly does -- but his point would be best resolved by passing this proposal and passing a proposal to clarify sections like "See also" and others that go both within POS sections and on their own as L3 sections below the POSs. Opposing a proposal this trivial just makes it seem even more hopeless to try and get (slightly more complex) problems like Robert's ever resolved. JesseW 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    Also, I don't find it good style to conduct the previously omitted discussion within the vote. -- Gauss 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    As you wish. I shall (belatedly) start a discussion on the WP:BP in preparation for the next proposal. Everyone, feel free to consider this withdrawn, if that would be helpful. JesseW 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)



  • Proposal withdrawn by nominator