Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/ELE level 4 header sequence

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

ELE level 4 header sequence[edit]

  • Voting on: Sequence of appearance of headers within a POS section. This does not address what level the headers should or shouldn't be at. This is specifying the strongly preferred sequence when they appear at level 4. By "level 4" we mean the level one greater than the POS-type header; if/when a POS-type header occurs at level 4, this sequence refers to level 5.


The practice of "improving" votes is invalid, and cannot be permitted.

Preferred sequence to be:

  • Usage notes noting that this can be placed anywhere appropriate
  • Inflection, or Conjugation for verbs, or Declension for nouns and adjectives, only present in non-English entries
  • Quotations when not given under a particular sense
  • Synonyms
  • Antonyms
  • Other allowable -nyms
  • Derived terms
  • Related terms
  • Coordinate terms
  • Descendants
  • Translations only present in English entries
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Remember: this is not about whether any of these should be at level 4, just the order! There are a few other things used at level 4 (such as Scientific names) that can be resolved separately when they are documented in policy.


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Robert Ullmann 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    Support DAVilla 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Specifying some order is good at this point, even if tweaks can refine it later. DAVilla 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sure, why not? —RuakhTALK 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Thryduulf 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC) - Note that the "Mutation" header (used in Welsh entries) should be placed as if it was "Conjugation" or "Declension".
    Someone really didn't want you to vote on this one! :-) —RuakhTALK 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Reminds me of a Students' Union election when I was at university. I was told in no uncertain terms that I didn't exist! Thryduulf 00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    You exist? I thought you were a mutation. Yes, at about where conjugation et al are, but that is probably specific to Welsh (is there an about Welsh page yet?) Robert Ullmann 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The barman asks, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and poof! he vanishes. --EncycloPetey 05:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. \Mike 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Rod (A. Smith) 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 05:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jeffqyzt 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I actually have a reservation about "See also", in that there are lots of cases where it applies to the word, and not to a particular POS. (However, I'd rather see the order codified than quibble at this point.) In those cases where "See also" is at the same level as the POS entries, how would that be handled? Would it be duplicated? --Jeffqyzt 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I see that this doesn't discuss level, just order. --Jeffqyzt 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    See also is only mentioned in WT:ELE as an L4 header, for things other than terms related in ways that have their own headers (Antonyms or whatever). But in practice, it is usually L3, for the whole language section, often linking to wikipedia etc. Yes, this is only the sequence if it is at L4 (POS+1) Robert Ullmann 14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Since this specifies subordinate order only, I don't see any reason not to let AutoFormat shuffle these around for us. On the other hand, the "other -nyms" (including "coordinate terms") should be eliminated, but that can be a separate vote. I like the wording above; if these are at the same level as POS headings, obviously AutoFormat must leave them where they are. --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Cynewulf 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC) w:Vote of confidence
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support H. (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC) This is what I have been doing, roughly.
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Neskaya talk 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)



  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Oppose Abstain DAVilla 06:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC) The new wording (that is, Robert Ullmann's original wording) seems to suggest that the part-of-speech header must be one level above than these subordinate and misnamed "level 4" headings. There are a couple of options for Etymology, Pronunciation, and POS where the headings in question could be at the same level as the POS, namely, those options in which POS is always one at a level higher than both Etymology and Pronunciation. Since I would like to leave that possibility open, I object to this vote on those grounds, unless a clarification could be given on this point.
    These headings occur now at level 3 and 4 when a POS is at 3, and 4/5 when a POS is at 4. This sequence referred to in this vote is precisely that at POS+1, not some ambiguous sequence "under" or "at a level above" (?) or following the POS. Rearranging the headers in some unspecified manner is entirely outside this question. (Hey, we've just mentioned Descartes before dehors ;-) You attempted to change the text from a precise specification to something amorphous and undefined. Robert Ullmann 07:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    The new vs. old wording aside, would this vote currently accommodate a case such as ===Etymology=== (3), ===Pronunciation=== (3), ====POS==== (4), ====Dependent terms==== (4), ===Independent terms=== (3) in which the sequence of dependent terms (Synonyms, Translations, etc.) falls at a level which is not one greater? DAVilla 10:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    As I've said before and will keep repeating: if you've got a better idea than the status quo for arranging headers, then write down one coherent and complete proposal. If you can't do that, you haven't thought it out well enough yet. It is an important exercise: if you understand it, you can write it down. If not, poof! ;-) Robert Ullmann 07:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't have a better idea. I like this one. I just want to be clear on the meaning. I know how much this can mean in terms of your AutoFormat bot, so I'd like to see something pushed through. In fact, it was at your request originally that I'm still, months later, throwing up these basic formatting clarifications. It's really arduous if anything. DAVilla 12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)