Voting on:

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

Current text and references:

2. Adding a subsection "Entry name" within the sectionWT: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:

Notes:

• This proposal is part of a wider project byUser:Daniel Carrero of rewriting some parts of theWT:EL, as generally seen onSpecial:PermanentLink/35064941.
• Some of the contents of this vote have been taken from the following 2 pages. They are old policy stubs which also have some outdated information.

  Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names

  Wiktionary:Redirections

Schedule:

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

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk)18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Restoring WT:ELE
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Entry name
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/November#About the "Entry name section" vote
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/November#Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Entry name section - started
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-10/Entry name section

1.  Support --Daniel Carrero (talk)03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support -- looks good to me.Benwing2 (talk)07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support -- Nothing in here that isn't already unofficial practice.Smurrayinchester (talk)09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4.  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)[reply]

   (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 withkin'en, is it the apostrophe? I chose this word as a random example, it was specifically mentioned inWiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration among many romanizations. But I could just as well take a blue link for a Japanese romanization, likechikara or other. --Daniel Carrero (talk)04:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   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, butUser:Metaknowledge went ahead and created it. --Daniel Carrero (talk)06:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

5.  Supportprofesjonalizm •reply17:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.  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 toWiktionary: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)[reply]

   The vote passed. I think it's a nice improvement to EL. It succeeded in mentioning layout information inWT:EL that was not mentioned there before. Now to your points:

   1. You're right thatWiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration is not a policy, it's a draft proposal. I suggest editingWT:EL without a vote to implement a non-substantial change:
      • Current text: "according tothe applicable policy."
      • Proposed text: "according toWiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration."
   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.
      • The full paragraph that I think we could remove: "Some languages have variations in script. (English is written inLatin script, other scripts includeGreek,Cyrillic,Arabic,Hebrew,Gothic, etc.) Compareреч vs.reč (both are Serbo-Croatian forword in different scripts). Some languages allow separate entries for romanizations: for example, Japanese近縁 is romanized askin'en according tothe applicable policy."
   3. I believe{{also}} is fully within the scope ofWT: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)[reply]

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

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