Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:V)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Votes

The page Wiktionary:Votes consolidates policy votes and procedural votes that take place on Wiktionary. It formalizes and documents the consensus building and voting policy. For an archive of previous votes, see Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline and Wiktionary:Votes/. This header is at Wiktionary:Votes/header.

Main sections of this page: #Current and new votes, #Recently ended votes and #Proposed votes. See also /Timeline.

Current and new votes

CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3

  • Voting on: Removing the item "use in a well-known work, or" from WT:CFI, placing ", or" at the end of the item "clearly widespread use". Thus, no longer having full entries for words which are only used in one or two well-known works, and instead, using Template:only in or an equivalent to redirect users to an appendix of nonces words found in well-known works (handling cases where a string is a well-known nonce in one language and an attested word in another like this), while not limiting Template:only in to this use.
  • Rationale: Similar to that of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 2, but recognizing that some users think it is necessary to spell out that an appendix will be created. (The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC). As per Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 2#Rationale. A single occurrence of a would-be word in a work, even if a well-known one, is insufficient evidence of wordhood. I do not see why the presence in a well-known work makes something more of a word than the presence in a less-known work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nonces that don't get repeated are not worth repeating. DAVilla 04:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. To the extent that this provision is actually used, we might as well just have an appendix of words coined by James Joyce. bd2412 T 13:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. An appendix of words coined in certain works or by certain authors is ok, but if they're not actually used by anyone (which is what 3 attestations are meant to show) then I don't think they belong in the main part of a dictionary. The status of a work may of course make the words in it more known, but it doesn't make them more used which is the crucial point here. —CodeCat 12:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This, that and the other (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It' "all words in all languages". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Ivan Štambuk: (a) Should English dictionary-only words be placed into Wiktionary mainspace, as per "all words in all languages"? (b) Should words present only in Urban dictionary be placed into Wiktionary mainspace, as per "all words in all languages"? (Now, the attestation requirements prevent both.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: All words attested in running text, excepting words in lexicographical works which should be included but with references. Single attestation should be enough. The only criteria should be that the intent was to convey meaning to the other party in conversation. The boundary between 1, 2 or 3 occurrences is arbitrary and pointless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Ivan Štambuk: So would you accept a single attesting quotation to convey meaning even in works that are not well known as sufficient? Would you entirely drop the "in permanently recorded media" requirement of WT:ATTEST as well? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes I've argued against it many times. There is no such thing as permanent and Wiktionary's Citations namespace + editor verification should suffice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Ivan Štambuk: From what you say, it seems you want haydayıcı, ünalgı and sınalgı included as Turkish words, as per Citations:haydayıcı, Citations:ünalgı, and Citations:sınalgı. A single occurrence in use to convey meaning in any corner of any internet discussion would lead to a Wiktionary entry. Re: "There is no such thing as permanent": The word "permanent" does not mean "absolutely everlasting"; there is a relativity built-in into the word "permanent". Put differently, "permanent" is not synonymous to "eternal". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    There is no relativity, it does mean exactly that. The argument goes that paper and USENET are somehow "permanent" as opposed to digital storage. I hope that Google someday shuts down spam-infested Groups when it becomes unprofitable as well as its illegal endeavor Books, so that CFI must be changed and citations-gathering reorientated towards true language as written by the ignored 99%. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Again, "permanent residence" is not one that last forever; nor will "permanent makeup" last forever. Check dictionaries and their example sentences for "permanent". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    On another note, I have some sympathy for being more inclusive about less well archived sources, but accepting single quotation from then as you propose is to accept one-off noise, not language that people actually use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Those are specific legal and idiomatic meanings. Normally permanent doesn't have an upper time boundary absent implied physical parameters of duration of the object that it is being applied to (like makeup which can last for how long? days?). I've skimmed definitions in 20+ English dictionaries installed in GoldenDict and none of them indicates any degree of temporal relativity.
    There difference between the one-off and three-off noise is arbitrary and irrelevant. If the word is used, it should be added. Especially so for words in well-known works which are likely to be looked up by lots of people. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think these are unusual meanings of "permanent". My bet would be that at least half of all uses of "permanent" are in a sense that does not require that the thing lasts forever. Do an exercise, and try to find attesting quotations of the word "permanent" in the meaning of "lasting literally forever". Negatively specified things such as damage can be permanent in that sense, but permanent residence, permanent makeup, permanent employment, permanent camp, permanent war, permanent magnet, permanent income, permanent teeth, amd permanent settlement are some of the examples of what I am talking about; you will surely find many more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    It cannot last literally forever since the object it's applied to cannot last forever. Almost all of the phrases that you mentioned have specific meanings and are not sums of parts, but in general permanent is synonymous and replaceable with adjectival counterparts of forever: perpetual, eternal, everlasting and so on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    I would argue that if a word is coined by an author and used in a book without explanation, it does not necessarily convey any meaning at all. After all, how could an author intend to convey some meaning if they already know that nobody has ever heard of the word and has no way to figure out what it means? Imagine that someone had included "the food there was supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" in a book, and that was the only attestation of that word in literature ever (so assume Mary Poppins doesn't exist). Can such a word be understood to convey meaning? Or what about the countless nonce terms in Jabberwocky? —CodeCat 12:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    That is debatable in individual cases. Some of them indeed don't have any meaning and are made up for artistic effect, but most of the nonce words do. But even those that don't have any obvious and/or certain meanings usually have speculated meanings that are valuable for lexicographical purposes. We have speculated meanings for words in extinct languages, speculative etymologies - nonce words in modern languages should not be an exception. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I think what we need before we can vote on this is an investigation into what kinds of words other than nonce words will be affected by this. Do we have a list of words that are only attested in a well-known work? --WikiTiki89 15:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that even nonce words would be affected by this. To my knowledge, thus far every nonce used in what's claimed to be a well-known work has been cited independently. I suppose that's the power of well-known works. DAVilla 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    @DAVilla: The following has only one cite in the mainspace: bababadalgharagh.... Ditto for contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality. The cites have to be in use; talking about the word does not count. Nonces are listed at Category:English nonce terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. I abstain because I am not confident that I have a full understanding of what this criterion implies and whether that is desirable. I am not familiar with the usual interpretation of this criterion and I think the vote initiator tells only one side of the story. Therefore I do not feel capable of making an informed decision. Keφr 18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision


Keeping common misspellings

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)'
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 08:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Pengo (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. I
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support this addition, BUT the text should be added in the place suggested by msh210 below (after, or as part of, the sentence " The misspellings may well merit entries."). I can't help but wonder whether the other supporters realise that the location suggested in the vote (directly after the heading) would render that part of CFI a bit incoherent. This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Status quo is that we do as proposed here: keep common misspellings and not rare ones, with the degree of commonness unspecified. Thus, whether this vote passes or fails will change nothing practically. I oppose it because I don't like the wording. Specifically, the clarification "Rare misspelling should", etc., as above, should come at a place in the CFI where it fits in context, viz in lieu of, and clarifying, the current sentence "The misspellings may well merit entries". Putting it immediately after "Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings:" and well before the existing CFI discussion of commonness of spelling (in the following paragraph), as here proposed, is better avoided in my opinion.​—msh210 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    I admit that the section WT:CFI#Spellings needs editing and pruning, including removing things that are IMHO wrong or irrelevant ("A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to provide references for support.", "Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard [...]"), and removing things that become less relevant or irrelevant if this vote passes. However, starting the section with one clear sentence that captures the existing practice is a good start, IMHO. I don't even know how many people want to keep common misspellings, and after this vote, we should know. Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing your specific proposals on how to modify the wording of the section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    Re "Anyway…", please see above: "Specifically, the clarification 'Rare misspelling should', etc., as above, should come at a place in the CFI where it fits in context, viz in lieu of, and clarifying, the current sentence 'The misspellings may well merit entries'."​—msh210 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any discussion on this at all. What does this change? Any examples? -- Liliana 12:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Liliana-60: The proposal aligns CFI with the actual common practice. Do you oppose inclusion of common misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    The concept of "misspelling" is already quite dubious in a dictionary that tries to be descriptive and not proscriptive. How are we deciding when a misspelling is a misspelling and not an alternative form, especially in the light of cases like haĉek? Of course, I can understand the fact that people don't want one-off typos to be included (especially since we still accept Usenet for citations and they're very, very common there since it's so easy to typo thanks to the awkward layout of contemporary American keyboards), but if a word manages to appear three times in independent publications spanning at least a year (and thus passed proofreaders and the like) why are we excluding them? It's not like we're gonna run out of space anytime soon. -- Liliana 16:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Liliana-60: I think the concept of misspelling can be worked out in a useful manner that is neither prescriptivistic nor authoritarian; I did so to my satisfaction at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013#What_is_a_misspelling. If a spelling is very close to another spelling but is 1000-times less common, it is very likely a misspelling. By marking it as a misspelling, we do not tell people what they ought to do; we merely tell them that the spelling was very likely not intended, and that the spelling is very likely to be replaced with another one when present is a text submitted to a copyeditor. I do not oppose including attested vanishingly rare misspellings as long as they are marked as misspellings, but I suspect other editors do oppose it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain This is status quo, and I applaud trying to codify it. However, I'd prefer if the wording were found in place of or closer to "misspellings may well merit entries". Saying it earlier supplants the explanation that your correct spelling may look incorrect to me, and that's a more important point. Certain spellings, although they are rare, are still considered correct in some circles, and should neither be removed nor labeled as misspelling. DAVilla 03:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    @DAVilla: The added wording says nothing about what is and what is not a misspelling. Thus, the added wording does not supplant (replace, supersede, render ineffective) an explanation that "your correct spelling may look incorrect to me". I admit that the proposed change leaves "misspellings may well merit entries" in place, while this should be removed. It can get removed in a subsequent vote, together with "A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to provide references for support.", and "Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard [...]"). The order of sentences seems okay to me: we first say that rare misspellings are excluded and only then discuss what a "misspelling" is; likewise, we first say that we include things that are attested and idiomatic, and only then discuss what "attested" and "idiomatic" means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I am in two minds on this subject. My gut feeling is to scrap all misspellings on the grounds that it is difficult to determine between common misspellings, those that are not so common, and those that are downright rare. Then there's typos... I can see the merit in retaining the most common misspellings, but the big problem is where to draw the line.
    Slightly off-topic, the Wiktionary spellcheck is capable of creating what I consider to be misspellings, by converting British English spellings to American English. I find this highly annoying. It also changes foreign words (with similar spellings) to English ones, so one has to be on their guard all the time. Donnanz (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    Wiktionary spellcheck? What are you talking about? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    If you don't use British English, you won't know what I'm talking about. Donnanz (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    I do. I want to know what is this Wiktionary spellcheck you mentioned. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    Well, I assume it's a Wiktionary spellcheck, I have only come across its characteristics on Wiktionary. If I type in a word like "realise" it is automatically changed to "realize". The "correction" has to be manually overridden. Donnanz (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    That's odd. It might be something your browser is doing... or I suppose it is always possible that someone wrote a spell-check gadget and your account has somehow come to have it turned on. If you're still having this issue, please bring it up in the GP. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain per DAVilla, msh210 and proposer. -- Gauss (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Decision


Romanization of Sanskrit

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 23:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The thing about languages without scripts (or in extinct scripts) is that every other language is going to transliterate that language into its own script. Sanskrit has no native script of its own, and has been presented in many different scripts on the Indian subcontinent alone. Presenting it only in Devanagari is about as misleading with respect to this aspect of the language as presenting it only in Latin would be. bd2412 T 17:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. There are whole books of Sanskrit written in Latin script, so I see no reason to exclude Sanskrit in Latin from the dictionary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keeping it simple. Develop reverse transliteration modules and use them for advanced (ambiguous) transliteration search purposes, like the system in Spoken Sanskrit. Wyang (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now.
    • I'm not convinced that Latin is an alternative script for Sanskrit and Roman entries should be created at the expense of Devanagari entries. Even if it's proven that Devanagari is not the native script for Sanskrit, it's not Latin, anyway, Latin was used to to reference individual words or phrases, we should let users see Devanagari entries with romanisation. Any Sanskrit texts written in Roman or other scripts just shows that it is/was not easy to use Devanagari and it was popular language in some regions, if somebody wrote in Sanskrit using other scripts. It's easiER now. Let's help users use Devanagari and other complicated scripts and help them find what they're looking for. Can't give a technical advise how but it's probably possible. I have no problem with hard redirects, if they don't conflict with existing entries and using {{also}} the way it was done at maha when there IS a conflict.
    • I also think that allowing romanised Sanskrit entries won't improve the state of Sanskrit contents at Wiktionary and will mislead users that it's OK to write Sanskrit in Roman and it is its native script. Regarding the actual vote - there should be a sample entry to show how a Romanised entry may look. If the vote passes, I strongly oppose any definitions included in romanised entries, only links to Devanagari script entries. Loanwords from Sanskrit into English and other languages should, of course be allowed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      This vote does not propose that "Roman entries should be created at the expense of Devanagari entries"; it proposes that Latin-script entries are created alongside Devanagari entries. Furthermore, the vote gives clear primacy to Devanagari, since it constrains the romanization entry to "the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry." Therefore, I really don't understand what you are saying. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This won't go well. Sanskrit is written in a hell of a lot of scripts - do you want to accept all conceivable romanizations for a single word from all the Indic scripts? -- Liliana 22:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • That begs the question, what is the right script for Sanskrit entries? Is it only Devanagari? This vote is about romanization, not transliteration into any Indic script. As far as I know, there is no prohibition against making Sanskrit entries in other Indic scripts, and this vote does not affect that one way or the other. bd2412 T 03:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      That's not the issue. Every Indic script is romanized differently. Take Tamil, for example. It lacks a whole lot of consonants that are present in other Indic scripts (since it doesn't have any aspirants and voiced consonants), so a romanization of a Sanskrit word from Tamil will inevitably be different. This can be extended to all the other Indic scripts too. Thus we could end up with a huge pile of romanizations just for one single word. -- Liliana 09:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      What if we restricted romanized Sanskrit entries to IAST? Then there would be only as many Latin-alphabet entries as Devanagari entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      IAST only is more palatable but even IAST would not be needed if Wiktionary searches could be restricted by languages. Reverse transliteration (without diacritics) is worth considering. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      @Liliana, I see your point about having romanizations of numerous scripts, but are we romanizing the Devanagari transliteration of Sanskrit, or are we really just talking about transliterating Sanskrit, irrespective of other transliterations? Are these two different things? bd2412 T 12:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dijan (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I support IAST as the primary spelling for Sanskrit, and Devanagari and other spellings should be bot-generated from IAST entries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    IAST is the most standard and common transliteration of Sanskrit (by definition) but it's by no means the primary spelling, even basic textbooks on Sanskrit teach Devanagari as the primary script. IAST is only a tool to help both writers (writing about Sanskrit, not in Sanskrit) and the readers. BTW, the current vote suggested allowing ANY attested romanisation, which made it unacceptable, even for IAST fans. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm primarily against Devanagari because its usage smacks of pro-Hindu POV. Sanskrit has millenia-long tradition being written in Tamil and other Indic scripts, and is much older than Devanagari. Textbooks that use Devanagari are mostly 19th and early 20-th century - today on unis it's always taught in IAST, and Devanagari is taught for practical literacy purposes. IAST is culturally neutral and should be primary spelling per NPOV policy. Latin script also is the most powerful means to transcribe various forms of written Sanskrit and to map among them in an algorithmic fashion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. The arguments for whether Latin is one of Sanskrit’s scripts or just transliteration seem to go both ways. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. For now; I tend to support. What if the "modicum" constraint is an unnecessary compromise to appease the irrational hatred of romanization? What if there is consensus or near-consensus to actually allow Latin Sanskrit in full? What makes Devanagari better suited for Sanskrit than Latin in this English Wiktionary? If Sanskrit is widely attested in Latin (is it?), I do not know what gives Devanagari the right to supremacy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Decision

Fails 3–5–2 (37.5%). No change in policy is effected: the status quo is maintained.​—msh210 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Allowing attested romanizations

  • Voting on: Whenever a romanization of a word in a particular language (whether it is an ad-hoc romanization or one derived from a formal romanization scheme) is attested three times as per WT:CFI#Attestation, and the word in its native script meets WT:CFI, the romanization will have an entry. That entry will contain only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry. For example: svobodnyx is attested in these citations, and the word it is a romanization of (свободных) meets CFI, so svobodnyx will have an entry with the L2 header ==Russian== which will look about like this (link).
  • Rationale: See the BP discussion, particularly the section #What are romanizations for?. In short: readers may encounter and want to look up romanizations (e.g. when bibliographies cite, in transliterated form, works written in Chinese or Russian, users may want to look up the words that make up the title), and making entries for those romanizations is the best way of getting those readers to the native-script forms of the words.
  • Technical note: romanizations which are subject to lower requirements due to other votes (e.g. romanizations of Gothic, which per other votes are not required to be attested) continue to be subject to those lower requirements.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I would prefer that this vote be withdrawn, because the outcome of the vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Excluding romanizations by default will likely render it moot. Absent agreement to exclude, there is no need for a vote to include. It was proposed that these votes be combined, and that should have been done to provide the proper range of options. A conflicting outcome, of course, would default to the existing CFI, absent a rule stating otherwise. bd2412 T 00:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    The fact that people can't even agree on what the status quo is certainly adds a level of ...interestingness... to this series of discussions. You and Dan think romanizations are already allowed and only the vote to exclude them is needed; I and Anatoli and Ungoliant and seemingly also Renard think they've always been excluded and so [only] the vote to allow them is needed... I do hope one or the other vote passes (I think the same person should close both, when it's time); otherwise, we'll have run quite a caucus race to get back to still disagreeing on both what the status quo is and what should be done going forward. lol - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    As an attorney, I prefer to adhere to the rule of law, and not a rule of anarchy pulled out of someone's backsides. bd2412 T 02:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I prefer the rule of law, too. :) If only we agreed on what the law was. You and Dan prefer to interpret "romanizations" as "words" and interpret CFI as including them, yes? But surely you've noticed that many other users have disagreed with your interpretations, hence my comment. (Case law is demonstrably that romanizations have been deleted or moved unless a vote has allowed them. If anything were to be characterized as anarchic, attempting to overturn that precedent through simple re-interpretation might be it.) - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, I doubt that "precedent" supports a blanket exclusion. We have tens of thousands of romanizations, including a number of romanizations that are not from Asian scripts, but are included in this corpus as loanwords or the like. The only cases that I'm aware of are ayubowan, which was kept as an "English" word, and mahā, which is still an open discussion itself. No one has batted an eye at the proposition that tovarich is an "English" word when it is obviously a transliteration. If that is the standard we are using, there are citations enough to enter tens of thousands more transliterated words from many scripts and describe them as being as "English" as apple pie. bd2412 T 12:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    To be clear, when I speak of romanizations, I'm speaking of entries that have the L3 ===Romanization===, and have definitions like "romanization of [foo]", and have the same L2 as the original (native-script) words do. I'm not speaking of loanwords, which in most cases don't contain the word "romanization" anywhere, even in the etymology section. The line between the two is not 100% unblurry, but citations of "ayubowan" in the middle of [otherwise] English sentences suggest it's a loanword, whereas "O raspoznavanii nekotoryx svojstv kontekstno-svobodnyx grammatik, I-ya Vsesojuznaja konferencija po programmirovaniju" is (IMO) clearly a quotation in romanized form of a long string from another language — in this case, a proper noun, name of a specific work.
    Importantly, if citations show something to be a loanword, it should have an entry even if the same string is also a romanization — hence e.g. both shojo and shojo exist.
    - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @-sche:, I would certainly agree that there is room for a great deal of flexibility on how entries are presented, what sorts of headers or limitations are used for the definitions themselves. Surely there is some middle ground that we can reach here. bd2412 T 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. If it can be attested and doesn't violate NOT, it should be allowed an entry. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support as a straight-forward reading of CFI. We should make CFI explicitly support uses like Latin macron dropping and Esperanto diacritic normalization as well as not every single transliteration form ever, but that seems to be the role of a different proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose.
    Languages can borrow terms from each other even if they use different scripts. For example, Флорида (Florida) is a Russian word and Tokyo is an English word.
    Languages have native scripts. For example, Latin is the native script of modern English but is not the native script of Arabic, even though non-Latin scripts may be used to write English and Latin may be used to write Arabic.
    Just because an unbroken sequence of letters is attested, it doesn’t mean we should include it. For example, we shouldn’t include rare misspellings and typos, typographical variants such as words in upper case due to being in the beginning of a sentence, or in all-caps, or using obsolete type variants (perſon), words with auxiliary diacritics (Latin macrons, Serbo-Croatian tone diacritics), words only used in reference to a fictional universe nor random keyboard-smashings that happen to be citable. I hope that transliterations will remain in this list.
    In some cases it is useful to have romanisation entries, like Gothic which uses a script that few computers support by default. In my opinion, our current system of allowing individual languages to have them after case-by-case analysis is sufficient. Using {{also}} to include words whose romanisation matches the pagename also helps.
    (note: I am talking about romanisations as a level 3 heading, not about words whose etymology involves romanisation, like Tokyo). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Languages can borrow terms from each other, but there will still be some terms that fall in the cracks. If people were more liberal about permitting italicized terms used in running English text, there would be less push for romanization entries.
    Languages do not have native scripts. Languages have various scripts that are used to write them, frequently several scripts reaching a dominant position at some point and place, and most languages being written in multiple scripts. We may have a hard time attesting Arabic in Latin script, but dismissing a whole writing tradition on phones because of some prescriptivist attitude about which script Arabic is written in is absurd.
    Latin macrons and Serbo-Croatian tone diacritics are about reducing complexity without losing information. I'm part of the informal consensus that Esperanto entries should have standard diacritic use, instead of a dozen different ASCIIfications, so I do understand that. But it's important that we don't throw out important data, and this started with someone who could not find a transliterated word in Wiktionary. Essentialist platonic arguments don't do anything to convince me that we should ignore reality.
    To claim we write Gothic in the Latin scripts because of computers is to deny history and the current reality of the language. Go find someone who speaks Gothic and ask them to translate something for you; they will write down the answer in the Latin script, just like everyone who knows the language has done for over a hundred years, in the same script as every book of Gothic text ever printed. We can not and should not blind our eyes to how people use language in reality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Written languages have scripts, and Wiktionary is a text-based resource, so we must organise our content based on writing. If they don’t, you won’t mind if I reply to your comments in whatever script I prefer? ᛁᚾ ᚱᚢᚾᛁᚳ ᛋᚳᚱᛁᛈᛏ?
    Most Gothic is written in Latin script because philologists writing about it never cared to use the same script as the surviving texts. That few computers support Gothic by default is just one more reason why including Gothic romanisations is useful. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Can you please convey your point without the sarcasm? This is the English language Wiktionary. You should not need to be told that we have discussions in English, using Latin script, not what comes across in my browser (and probably in those of others) as a series of boxes. Our definitions and headers are written in the English language, and in the Latin script, and it should also come as no surprise to you that our readers are likely to be looking for things in Latin text. If it amuses you to thwart and confuse readers, and prevent them from finding what they are looking for, I suspect that there are other websites better suited to providing that kind of entertainment. bd2412 T 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    No matter how you cut it, Deseret is a script of English; it was created by English speakers for English and used only for English. Does that mean it's okay to post in Deseret? Written texts have scripts, but users of languages can be remarkably flexible in what scripts they use, in a way they aren't, e.g., phonologically.
    Which makes Latin the most common script for Gothic, and what we have for Gothic not romanizations. That's the script people use for Gothic, like it or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. There are other ways to make users searching for transliterations happy. The proposed action is not the wisest and most efficient way of achieving that. Wyang (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dijan (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Liliana 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I think it would be bad for us tp include romanizations (which aren't words any more than a picture is a word). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision

Fails 3–7 (30%). Thus, no change in policy is effected.​—msh210 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Excluding romanizations by default

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The policy on allowing pinyin, Jyutping and Japanese romaji should also be reviewed. This dictionary should not have any romanisation entries. Search by transliteration is the function that should be developed instead before this chaos of writing everything foreign in the Latin script gets out of hand. Wyang (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Wyang that we should build this into search. We don't, for example, include transliterated versions of English words into other scripts (AFAIK) and this should be no different. Equinox 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It's a nice sentiment, but shouldn't we first see if such a function can be enabled, before voting based on it potentially existing? Also, what do we do where the romanization of one word is the same as an existing definition for another word in a Latin script (like wang)? bd2412 T 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Requirements should drive development, not vice versa. The search has definitely been improved since I first arrived here. Equinox 19:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dijan (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Hell yes! Allowing romanizations was a big mistake from the very beginning. -- Liliana 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Why? I've gotta say: I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments put forth by the supporters of romanization exclusion. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC) I see no good reason for excluding attested romanizations, that is, attested per WT:CFI#Attestation, which includes the requirement that they convey meaning; for instance, romanization listed next to a non-romanized form in a dictionary does not convey meaning. We are not running out of digital storage; and these romanizations are not difficult to maintain. If we accept the argument that searching for romanizations finds the target native-script page and thus the romanization pages are unneeded (attested or not), we would exclude dedicated pages for rare alternative forms, place them only to Alternative forms section of the most common form, and let the reader use search to find that. A further consequence of acceptance of the search-argument would be the exclusion of inflected forms: the search function could find them as long as they are present in the lemma entry, although this would not work when the lemma entry uses an auto-inflection template. Generally, the search-argument would lead to exclusion of Chinese and Japanese romanizations as well, which we have decided to include; the distinction between difficult scripts and easy scripts for the purpose of deciding which romanizations to include would no longer apply, since the search function would find the target entry regardless of whether the script is easy or difficult. The claim that "romanizations are not words" made by some of the supporters is IHMO obviously incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I didn't realize the vote was starting now. I would have combined the two proposals at issue. We are liable to end up with inconsistent results this way. In any case, there is no good reason to have a blanket exclusion of any class of attested words. Wyang makes an interesting point about having a search by transliteration function, but since we have no such function, it's a moot point. Even a vote to have such a function won't make it magically appear, absent developer intervention, and even that will not help for transliterated terms that coincide with terms that are actual words in other Latin-script languages. bd2412 T 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412: The results will not really be inconsistent. My plan right now is not to touch Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations, since I think the vote should have never been created. The present vote (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Excluding romanizations by default) should be perfectly sufficient on its own, hopefully (but let us see) producing enough evidence that there is no consensual support for what it is proposing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations is so far showing that there's no consensus that attested romanizations are to be allowed. And although we may agree that in the absence of consensus to change the status quo, the status quo remains, we disagree on what the status quo is, which means this whole affair is looking unfortunately similar to a caucus race. I hope the situation of one or the other vote changes and one of them passes; otherwise, it may just end up that a month from now, you or BD creates some romanization entries according to your interpretation of things, and Anatoli or Ungoliant or Wyang or Renard or I tags them {{wrongscript}}/{{rfm}}/{{rfd}} according to existing practice and our interpretation of things, and then RFD threads ensue. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I think the evidence as for status quo before the votes is overwhelming; you have posted close to no evidence supporting your claims as to it. The consensus (or its lack) will be easily extracted by looking at the posts at both votes. Once the consensus or its lack will be clear, your actions not supported by consensus and contradicting existing written policies (WT:CFI) will be likely undone by admins who will then know what the consensus or its lack are. It is not a matter of "interpretation". I do know from experience that when Wiktionary policies are not going to be enough, you will invent them on the spot, or imply that Wikipedia policies apply to Wiktionary, as you did at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013#Remove_the_above_section. I certainly do not trust you to report existence of policies and your administration of these policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This will only make it more difficult for readers to look up words in languages that do not use Latin script. For example, someone trying to look up a Japanese term who cannot read any of the Japanese scripts, or who does not have a keyboard capable of typing in the Japanese scripts. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems to unfairly limit the scope of entries that could be created. If it can be attested and people might look for it, we should have it. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarshαπάντηση 04:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't accept "usually not written in Latin script" as too high a standard for when we should start recording actual usage, and it's clear that even when a language is written virtually exclusively in the Latin script, like Gothic, some people will choose to interpret that as romanization.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Prosfilaes: To clarify, do you oppose excluding attested romanizations for Russian, meaning entries in Latin script having Russian L2-heading? Or do you actually support such an exclusion of Russian romanizations? Furthermore, Gothic is already regulated by another vote, and this vote says IMHO quite clearly that it only states the default, and expressly references Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 for Gothic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand the question exactly. Given a string of letters with an established meaning, a word I would say if that didn't seem so controversial in this discussion, I think we should have an entry for it, or at least an entry trivially findable for our users for it (i.e. dropping Latin macrons and Esperanto diacritic normalization and all that). Gothic is just an example; as "Don't Proliferate; Transliterate!" says (sections 1 and 5, unless you're really interested in historic Greek) the Latin script is used for many languages, some dead before Rome was founded, by the people who actually use them in the real world, and encoding their scripts in Unicode is (mostly was) a hobbyist game instead of something interesting to scholars. I don't think the list of languages for which that is true is particularly bounded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Romanizations are already excluded by default, as anyone who's seen one created learns — the entry is tagged {{wrongscript}} and/or moved to the native script form by someone knowledgeable, unless a vote has allowed the language in question to have romanizations. (In particular, if a user were to create entries of the sort proposed in the BP — for ad-hoc romanizations, "cited" with "citations" like these — I think even some of the people who favor including romanizations would laugh the user out of RFD.) An effort to change this practice and allow romanizations is underway here: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations.
    If that vote does not pass, is it a good idea to codify the exclusion of romanizations in the way this vote proposes, or would the wording of this vote have some unintended side effects? It's hard to say. I don't think the concern raised on the talk page (that this vote would ban judo) holds any water. (Judo is a loanword, handled under ==English== ===Noun=== headers. Perhaps the users were thinking of jūdō, the actual romanization entry, where one can see the ==Japanese== ===Romanization=== headers, and note that they were approved by vote?) Other concerns may be more valid, however.
    - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    This link shows where template:wrongscript is used. Evidence that the template is being used to delete entries without the proper RFV venue is absent. "as anyone who's seen one created learns ..." is not evidence, since it is not something I can inspect; it is merely something I can try to do, thereby leading to a conflict with the editors who support the proposal of the vote. So again, the claim that "romanizations are already excluded by default" lacks supporting evidence, anything that I can look at right now without engaging in edit war with editors supporting this vote. By contrast, I have posted evidence that romanizations were being entered without being immediately deleted and that without a vote granting them an exception at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Excluding_romanizations_by_default#Status_quo--I have posted links to items that you can inspect such as amagu; many more such items can be found by inspecting Category:Japanese romaji. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Seems unnecessary as since romanizations aren't words they don't meet WT:CFI anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    1. Arguing "since a is true then b" makes a vote irrelevant is a bit obnoxious when the truth or falsehood of a is a key issue under argument. I continue to find the assertion that collections of letters that convey meaning from one person to a general audience aren't words because they're in the Latin script (which matters in certain cases but not others) to be bizarre. I think that's been argued out enough; let it stand that what you claim as "since" is in fact a matter of disagreement that was part of what these two polls were hoping to settle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision

Fails 5–6 (45%). Thus, the status quo is maintained with no change in policy effected; see the text above for discussion about what the status quo is. See also Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Allowing attested romanizations.​—msh210 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


User:kc_kennylau for admin

  • Nomination: I hereby nominate kc_kennylau (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Keφr 11:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think every regular here knows Kenny well enough. A skilled, energetic editor, maintainer of several modules, among them Module:la-pronunc and Module:de-conj, which he (almost) single-handedly created. A bot operator, fixing template usage mostly, a contributor in the Chinese lects area. And a quite funny guy at that. Knows how to deal with others; he managed not to be blocked once, which is not always easy here. Not that he never made mistakes, but he has shown a capacity to learn from them, and be cautious. All that convinces me that he earned this little bit of authority and will use the administrative tools responsibly.
  • Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Acceptance: I hereby accept this nomination. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Languages: yue, cmn-4, en-4, fr-3, es-2, ja-2, de-1
    • Timezone: UTC+8
    kc_kennylau (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support DCDuring TALK 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportUngoliant (falai) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wyang (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 04:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support bd2412 T 13:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know what he's exactly doing but he's doing it right. -- Liliana 11:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support I support Kenneth. --Vahag (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision

Done. —Stephen (Talk) 04:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Allowing Cyrillic to be italicized

  • Voting on: Whether to allow modern Cyrillic-script text (corresponding to script code "Cyrl") to appear in italics in the same situations that Latin-script text does. This proposal does not affect the old Cyrillic script (corresponding to script code "Cyrs"), used by languages such as Old Church Slavonic.

Currently, all scripts except Latin and Armenian have italicness inhibited, so that they never appear italic even with templates that would italicize text, such as {{m}}. For the majority of scripts, this is desirable, as they are not written natively in italics, and would therefore look odd and unnatural. However, for Cyrillic the situation is different; it is written in italics natively, much like Latin script. It is proposed to remove the inhibition of italic styling on Cyrillic text.

Rationales:

  • Wiktionary writes languages in their usual scripts to follow native use conventions. For Cyrillic, the use of italics is also a native use convention, so it makes sense to follow these conventions so that text appears more natural.
  • Italic Cyrillic may confuse non-native readers who are not familiar with it, but for non-native readers we already offer transliterations. If the unusual appearance of italic Cyrillic is a problem, it can be argued that the appearance of Cyrillic itself (or any other script) is equally a problem to those who cannot read it.
  • Using the native script is useful to language learners, as it helps them get used to seeing the language written as it would normally be. As the normal written form of Cyrillic-script languages includes italics, allowing Cyrillic text to be italicised on Wiktionary also helps language learners, by exposing them to the typographical variety that can be expected in native text.
  • If italics look bad in particular fonts, then the fonts are what should be addressed, rather than the italic styling. Wiktionary currently exercises little control over fonts; some users may see text in very different fonts, and there is no guarantee that things will look right regardless of script.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 14:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, my rationale being mostly "Cyrillic has italic type too, learn it if you do not know it yet and get used to it". Keφr 14:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    I do not think a rationale proper can have the form of an imperative. The tone of the rationale is one of an arrogant bureaucrat who can tell users to adapt (at their cost) or sod off without taking their genuine interests and problems into his account, such as lack of proper font support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Even though it is not entirely necessary to maintain use-mention distinction, it still helps maintain use-mention distinction. I do not see any strong enough reason against italicization, such as those applying to the Hebrew, Arabic, or Greek scripts. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I think italics should be allowed in quotations of text that use italics. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    It doesn't help anybody because nobody will confuse ordinary Cyrillic for Latin. Reasons against are illegibility and lack of fonts, and there are zero reasons for. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    For words like а (a), the only thing that sets it apart from the Latin text is the transliteration in parentheses, and the fact that for some reason our Cyrillic font is slightly larger than the Latin one, but this might (and should) change. The hypothetical illegibility is not a strong enough reason for me, and the lack of fonts is simply a myth. --WikiTiki89 22:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Cyrillic words always have language name prepended and transliteration specified - to suggest that e.g. "Russian а (a)" would be misinterpreted by naive readers as two consecutive Latin-script letters is to insult intelligence of the reader. Even if they thought for a fraction of the second that "а" is a Latin-script word, the language name and the italicized transcription - a scheme widely used on the Wiktionary would dispel that notion faster that it can penetrate into higher level of consciousness. In other words, even if it is mistaken by plain visual automatism, it's ignored once the entire sentence is understood.
    For fonts - pray tell how to properly italicize Serbo-Croatian б г д п, т. Serbo-Croatian combining accent marks on non-italicized Cyrillic are already placed wrong (not above the letters where they should be), when italicized words look completely illegible. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Be careful with the word "always". Consider the hypothetical usage note: This word is often replaced with а (a). As for fonts, point taken. However, I do not think this is a reason to block the italicization of all the other languages that are fully supported. Perhaps Serbo-Croatian and whichever other languages have the same problems (Macedonian?) should have a temporary exception until proper fonts are available. (Side note: I often find in SC Cyrillic texts that б is italicized the same way as in Russian, however this does not apply to the other letters.) --WikiTiki89 14:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hypothetical usage note applicable to 0.000001% of all words in Cyrillic. It should be turned off by default for all languages except for those that are specifically voted. These kind of votes that introduce substantial changes into many unrelated languages are illegitimate. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportUngoliant (falai) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ƿidsiþ 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support really, I don't see a reason to not do it. If you can't read italicized Cyrillic, why are you even bothering with it? -- Liliana 11:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The purpose of italicization is to mantain use-mention distinction, which there is no need for when Cyrillic words are embedded in English text. Armenian should be deitalicized as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to automatic italicization, for the reason just explained, and because it may make it less legible to some people. But manual italicization should be allowed nonetheless, because there are exceptions, e.g. 1. when the word seems to be written in the Latin script when not italicized, 2. when there are italicized words in a quotation, italicization should be kept. Lmaltier (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dijan (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seemed an obvious "support" when I came along, but reading the discussion, I'm inclined to say "no" for the moment, in the absence of stronger modern evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    What is "stronger modern evidence"? --WikiTiki89 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    99% of recently published works don't italicize Cyrillic when mentioned in English. It's an early 20th-century convention still practiced only by old, nostalgic folks. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose.
    Serbian Cyrillic Italic
    Avoid italics especially where Cyrillic appears in lists of cognates in terms written in Latin. I expect there to be many people with only basic knowledge of Cyrillic who can fairly easily read non-italic Cyrillic (e.g. in lists of cognates in entries of their native language) but who cannot easily read italic Cyrillic. As for the provided rationale:
    Re: "If the unusual appearance of italic Cyrillic is a problem, it can be argued that the appearance of Cyrillic itself (or any other script) is equally a problem to those who cannot read it.": It seems to be saying that if Cyrillic is already hard, making it even harder is therefore okay. (If a car is already expensive, making it even more expensive is therefore okay? If a piece of user interface is hard to use, making it even harder to use is therefore okay?) That is rather unconvincing.
    Re: "If italics look bad in particular fonts, then the fonts are what should be addressed [...]": The proposer has no way of ensuring that the font problem actually gets solved; this is just a cheap dismissal of a real problem. It's like a programmer who chooses a library and when it does not work, ships the program anyway, and when the users complain, the programmer claims innocence and blames the library. It's simply irresponsible.
    --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain As long as Early Cyrillic is not italicized, I don't care one way or the other whether Modern Cyrillic is italicized or not. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I’m fine with either way. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision


Recently ended votes

Votes that have recently ended, to be ultimately moved to /Timeline:

Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, such that the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or such that the vote appears to require substantial revision. If you have not created a passing vote yet, it is recommended that you use this section and actively solicit feedback by linking to your proposal in discussion; your vote may have a better chance of passing if it is first reviewed.

Votes may linger here indefinitely. If changes in policy make a proposal irrelevant, the voting page will be requested for deletion. On the other hand, you do not have to be the creator to initiate one of the votes below. Place any votes with a live start date in the section above at least a few days before that start date arrives.

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: