Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Entry name section

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

Entry name section[edit]

Voting on:

1. Removing the subsection "Entry name" from WT:EL#Basics.

Current text and references:

Entry name

The name of the entry is that of the word or phrase that you are defining. For languages with two cases of script, the entry name will usually begin with a lowercase letter.[1] Exceptions include proper nouns, German nouns, and many abbreviations.

Matched-pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks, can be defined together as single entries. Examples: ( ), [ ], “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?.[2]


2. Adding a subsection "Entry name" within the section WT:EL#The entry core. (it is a separate section located further down in the text) The new subsection is to be inserted above "The part of speech or other descriptor".

Proposed text and references:

Entry name

The name of the entry is the term, phrase, symbol, morpheme or other lexical unit being defined.[1]

For languages with two cases of script, the entry name usually begins with a lowercase letter.[2] For example, use work for the English noun and verb, not "Work". Words which begin with a capital letter in running text are exceptions. Typical examples include proper nouns (Paris, Neptune), German nouns (Brot, Straße), and many abbreviations (PC, DIY). If someone tries accessing the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically.

For prefixes, suffixes and other morphemes in most languages, place the character "-" where it links with other words: pre-, -ation, -a-, etc.

Some languages have variations in script. (English is written in Latin script, other scripts include Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Gothic, etc.) Compare реч vs. reč (both are Serbo-Croatian for word in different scripts). Some languages allow separate entries for romanizations: for example, Japanese 近縁 is romanized as kin'en according to the applicable policy.

When multiple capitalizations, punctuation, diacritics, ligatures, scripts and combinations with numbers and other symbols exist, such as pan (as in "frying pan"), Pan (the Greek god), pan- (meaning "all-") and パン (pan) (Japanese for "bread"), use the template {{also}} at the top of the page to cross-link between them. When there are too many variations, place them in a separate appendix page, in this case Appendix:Variations of "pan".

Some variations of the same word kept in multiple pages include:

Some page titles can't be created because of restrictions in the software, usually because they contain certain symbols such as # or |, or are too long. The full list of those entries is at Appendix:Unsupported titles. They are named using the descriptive format "Unsupported titles/Number sign", while using JavaScript to show the correct title like a normal entry.

Matched-pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks, can be defined together as single entries. Examples: ( ), [ ], “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?.[3]




  • Vote started: 00:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)



  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- looks good to me. Benwing2 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nothing in here that isn't already unofficial practice. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support but two minor points of note: (1) The situation at color/colour is different to the others, because the content is actually duplicated across the two entries. Should it be pointed out somewhere that this is an unusual situation? (2) "kin'en" is linked, but I believe policy is against the creation of such a page, so I wonder if the red link should be removed. This, that and the other (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    (1) Maybe we could add a note explaining that in some cases the content is actually duplicated in the entries. But there are also many regional variations where one entry is lemmatized and the other isn't. As in: "X-ize = (US) Alternative spelling of X-ise."
    (2) What is the problem with kin'en, is it the apostrophe? I chose this word as a random example, it was specifically mentioned in Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration among many romanizations. But I could just as well take a blue link for a Japanese romanization, like chikara or other. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    That said, I'd argue that whether the content of X-ize/X-ise is duplicated or lemmatized/delemmatized is not an issue for the "Entry name" section. It might be mentioned elsewhere in the policy, though. Also, kin'en was a redlink when this vote was created, but User:Metaknowledge went ahead and created it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Ignore my comment about kin'en; looking back, I don't know what I was talking about. This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support profesjonalizmreply 17:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC) The policy section being expanded should state what the "Entry name" is and nothing else; the use of {{also}} is therefore out of scope. A lot of other material added seems out of scope as well, e.g. whether romanization entries are allowed, which seems to be a CFI matter. The reference to Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration as "applicable policy" is incorrect; it is not a policy. "Some languages have variations in script" is not a regulation and should not be in a policy. And there are probably other issues. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The vote passed. I think it's a nice improvement to EL. It succeeded in mentioning layout information in WT:EL that was not mentioned there before. Now to your points:
    1. You're right that Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration is not a policy, it's a draft proposal. I suggest editing WT:EL without a vote to implement a non-substantial change:
    2. You said that "some languages have variations in script" is not a regulation and should not be in a policy. Good point. This is a language lesson rather than a regulation, maybe the whole paragraph could be cut off, (this would require a vote) since we already have a list of "variations of the same word kept in multiple pages", including the multiple scripts.
    3. I believe {{also}} is fully within the scope of WT:EL#Entry name. The template lists entries which could be confused with each other because of their similar names. I wouldn't mind hearing other ideas, though. Maybe a separate section like "Contents before the first language section" or something else.
    --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain pending the addressing of Dan Polansky's concerns, which seem justified to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


  • Passes 5‒1‒1 (83⅓% of non-abstainers voting in support). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)