Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:VOTE)
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 2

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 2#Rationale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. As noted on the talk page, the last time we had a vote like this, the "well-known work" criterium was used to include many words from extinct and poorly attested languages, and I opposed its removal. Now, words from extinct and poorly attested have their own special allowances, and the only entries which rely on the "well-known work" criterium are one-off nonces whose very nature means we are usually unable to offer verifiable definitions for them. I agree with DCDuring's comment on the talk page that we should not have main-namespace entries for such things. We can create an appendix of nonces found in well-known works, and use {{only in}} to direct anyone who actually looks up Joyce's thunder word (etc) to it, the way we already use {{only in}} to direct people to appendices of phobias and of dictionary-only words. (And just like the use of {{only in}} to direct users to those appendices is not regulated by CFI, I agree with the view expressed on the talk page that this use does not need to be spelt out in CFI. If anything, spelling out certain uses of {{only in}} would be instruction creep and would imply that other uses were not allowed, when in fact {{only in}} seems to be designed to be flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Approval of this proposal will result in the loss of recognition for nonce words found in well-known works. I could agree to having nonce words listed in Appendix: namespace and linking to them from mainspace via {{only in}}, but the current proposal makes no provision for that. (I would rather have abstained, since voting is the worst possible form of decision-making and we should really avoid it as much as possible, but around here abstaining from a vote means having your opinion ignored.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    Approval of this proposal will result in nonce words being listed in an appendix linked-to by {{only in}}; read my comment above. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    This vote is solely on "Removing the item 'use in a well-known work, or' from WT:CFI, specifically WT:ATTEST, placing ', or' at the end of the item 'clearly widespread use'." Your comments above reflect what you would like to happen if this proposal is approved, but that's not what the proposal itself says. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    Alright, I've drafted a new vote that spells it out for you, even though I think that constitutes an undesirable level of instruction creep and borders on bureaucratic masturbation (to use Dick Laurent's colourful phrase). Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    I think this vote itself already constitutes an undesirable level of instruction creep and bureaucratic masturbation. I hate votes and wish we wouldn't use them in our decision-making. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    In the past, Dan and sometimes others have opposed deciding things (most recently e.g. the repurposing of {{m}}) by discussion alone, and requested votes. Even I, who prefer to decide most things via discussion, think changes to our enumerated CFI are so major that they should be done by vote, like this. So we're at something of an impasse: it's hard (if not impossible) to make decisions when different sets of users can't even agree on which methods/venues of decision-making are acceptable. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    Re: "since voting is the worst possible form of decision-making". Prove it. Or even better, acknowledge it to be a blatant nonsense; "not the best possible form of decision making"--maybe, "the worst possible form of decision-making"--ridiculous nonsense, even a criminal one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    This vote and virtually every other vote we've had at Wiktionary proves it. What's blatant nonsense is calling for a "vote" on every little thing we want to do, as is calling ideas you disagree with "criminal". Pretty sure disagreeing with Dan Polansky isn't against the law in my country. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Mentioning votes, even bad votes, does not constitute a proof that "voting is the worst possible form of decision-making". Your idea of what a proof is seems seriously lacking. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. In the discussion of this subject, User:DCDuring commented: "There are lots of terms whose meaning I'd like to know, but which actually have no meaning in a linguistic sense". If such words are not found in Wiktionary, the reader may just as likely conclude that we are missing the word, rather than excluding the word. If we have an entry that explains the absence of meaning, then we are at least answering that question. Please note that I'm not wholly averse to a redirect from that entry to an appendix, but the proposal does not, by its terms, require the implementation of such an appendix, and I just don't know that it makes any more sense to do it that way. bd2412 T 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I support appendicising nonce words, but, as Ruakh said in the previous vote, this solution throws out the baby with the bathwater. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3 explicitly appendicises nonce words. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    My problem with this vote is not the lack of specification of what happens to nonce words if it passes, it’s the actual removal of the “usage in a well-known work” clause. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    Then what do you mean by "I support appendicising nonce words"? Do you want nonce words to be present in the main namespace and in an appendix? (That would be a perfectly reasonable position ... it's just not one that I had considered that anyone might have, until now.) If you want nonce words to be present only in an appendix (not in the main namespace), then it would seem you should support this proposal: extinct and poorly documented languages are now have their own CFI — what words would be excluded if the "well-known work" provision were removed, other than nonce words? - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    No, I don’t support keeping the nonce words in the MNS if they are moved. There are two other babies I see in the bathwater:
    • regional terms: the author of a well-known work may be only person to use a term limited to his dialect;
    • ease of citing: even if a term has a lot of uses, citing from a well-known work takes one-third of the time.
    Ungoliant (falai) 03:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    If we want to appendicise nonces, we have to know which words are nonces and which aren't, right? And the way to know if something is a nonce or not is to find out if multiple uses of it exist. Well, if they do, the term is not a nonce — and if it were listed at RFV, it'd be passed under the "three uses" clause. (I'm counting words that have only been used twice as "nonces".) If multiple uses don't exist, then the term is a nonce, and either gets kept (if we keep the "well-known work" clause) or appendicised (if we get rid of the "well-known work" clause). Your thought about how it would be easier to cite a well-known work than to cite three works is an interesting thought, but can you point to any RFV discussion in which it actually happened that participants agreed that a word was used in 3+ works but that they could only be bothered to cite one of them — can you point to any word that was passed under the "well-known work" clause even though it could have passed under the "three uses" clause? Keeping the "well-known work" clause for such an uncommon and easily overcomeable situation as that seems less like keeping the bathwater because the baby hasn't quite finished its bath, and more like abandoning the baby in the bathtub because drying babies off is slightly difficult.
    The presumption that any term that occurs only once in a language's total corpus is limited to the context in which it occurs seems like a solid presumption for a descriptivist dictionary to make. How would you refute that presumption? In other words, how would you demonstrate that any nonce was not region/dialect-specific? You couldn't point to speakers of other dialects using the terms, because if you could, the term wouldn't be a nonce. - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    Talk:phenomenon, Talk:fall, Talk:throw. Not a resource used very often but I don’t see why we should get rid of it. Research may clarify the term’s condition; you can find resources saying that bababa...thurnuk is Joyce’s coinage, for example. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    Do you not want to get rid of nonce's? DCDuring TALK 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    No, I want them to be appendicised. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    @User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Since we now know that you consider bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk to be the baby to be protected rather than the bathwater to be thrown away, what is the bathwater of the discussed CFI item? Put differently, what do you consider to be the negative consequences of the discussed CFI item, if any? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    What? No. I’ll cut the metaphor and state with (hopefully) more clarity what I think should happen: nonce words should be moved to the Appendix namespace. These appendices should be linked to from the main namespace using {{only in}}. Getting rid of the well-known work clause would allow us to remove the nonce words from the main namespace, but it would also get rid of that clause’s useful aspects, so I oppose getting rid of it. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Are there any negative consequences of having the discussed item in CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, the presence of nonces in the main namespace. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Do you have an idea how to fix the negative consequence, other than removing the item while expressly stating that nonces are allowed in an appendix? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    Keeping the item and expressly stating that nonces aren’t allowed in the main namespace. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    What definition of nonce would you use and how would you distinguish single-attested nonces from single-attested non-nonces using evidence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    The one at nonce word. See above. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    So you would use this definition of "nonce": "A word invented for the occasion." Now how do you distinguish single-attested nonces from single-attested non-nonces using evidence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    See above. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    Where above? Like at Talk:phenomenon, Talk:fall, and Talk:throw? What sentences on these pages provide an answer to my question? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    “Research may clarify the term’s condition; you can find resources saying that bababa...thurnuk is Joyce’s coinage, for example.” — Ungoliant (falai) 13:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Unified Norwegian

  • Voting on: Treating Norwegian as a single language instead of treating Bokmål and Nynorsk as separate languages. As a consequence, deprecating and eventually eliminating the language codes "nb" and "nn". However, they can be retained in the names of some templates and modules if it is deemed useful. Which standard (if any) a particular form belongs to can be indicated through a variety of means, not determined by this vote, including context and qualifier tags, or a notice on the headword line.
  • Background: At present, all three of "Norwegian" (code no), "Norwegian Bokmål" (nb) and "Norwegian Nynorsk" (nn) are treated as languages on en.Wikt; each has several thousand entries. There are two Norwegian Wiktionaries and Wikipedias, with the codes no and nn (nb.wiki redirects to no.wiki while nb.wikt is not in use); no.Wikt puts its Norwegian entries under one header and uses tags on the headword line and in inflection tables to label forms as Bokmål/Riksmål/Nynorsk/non-standard, as in no:bar and no:alkohol.
  • Rationale: For the vote creator's rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I strongly believe that technically it's possible and there are various ways to achieve it without any loss of information or great efforts. Considering that our main Norwegian editors oppose this change, I think this vote should not be binding but we should, at least allow Norwegian entries and translations to work without being assigned to one or the other variety (e.g. currently, you can't add a translation using "no" as the language code). Editors' opinion, those who actually know Norwegian and work with it, should definitely be taken into account. I support but not any cost. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    If it's not binding, then why even have a vote? We need an agreement, the current situation is not workable. —CodeCat 04:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    It's problematic but I don't think it's absolutely not workable, like it's possible to have up to eight versions of Serbo-Croatian (+Ekavian, Ijekavian) or catering just for one variety of Chinese or Arabic at a time, as we have been doing. What are we going to do if Donnanz and Njardarlogar refuse to work with ==Norwegian==, who seem to be quite emotional about it? Who will work with Norwegian? As for the word "binding", it's just my opinion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposed. bd2412 T 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg I support unification, by the way, if that wasn't clear. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you want to be counted in a vote, even if you are the vote creator, you have to place "support". Kindergarten? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    That was uncalled for. —CodeCat 13:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    It is entirely possible that an editor could be neutral on an issue, but could helpfully craft a proposal to summarizing discussion points on somethign that other editors think needs to be done. Therefore, it makes sense (and hurts nothing) for the vote creator to indicate their support for a proposal. bd2412 T 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dan Polansky (talk). This appears doable and worthwhile; I see no insurmountable obstacles. Google translate and Bing translate only have "Norwegian". There appears to be a large lemma overlap. The difference of afrikanar vs. afrikaner seems like color vs. colour. balalaika#Norwegian gives an example of a noun inflection table covering both varieties. absolvere#Norwegian gives an example of two verb inflection tables covering the varieties, although I think one would suffice, with a column per variety, given there are only 7 to 8 forms per variety listed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Donnanz (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose trusting my Norwegian colleagues here, though my own impression has also been that unification is infeasible in this case. -- Liliana 14:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Even Thorbergsen (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though they constitute one language, Bokmål and Nynorsk are two different written standards of the same language. The cleanest way to deal with this is to treat them as two different languages, since the standards are different for each language. However, I'm indifferent as to whether this should be done with a third-level heading with subheadings (==Norwegian==, ===Bokmål=== and ===Nynorsk===) or with second-level headings (==Norwegian Bokmål== and ==Norwegian Nynorsk==). But they should definitely be separated. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though they constitute the same language, there is too much work and too great chance to make the difference unclear treating bokmål and nynorsk as the same language. As seperate languages, the main problem is rewriting almost the same information twice; as the same language, you have to make it clear for every bit of information what goes for which whenever there is a difference, and there is a great chance that there might be different ways of doing this causing misunderstandings and possibly mistakes. Mewasul (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: I'm not a speaker or reader of Norwegian of any variety. The Talk page makes this sound to me like a description of two distinct dialects, particularly as relating to inflection, and this stands in opposition to the description on [[w:Norwegian language]] that uses the phrase two official forms of written Norwegian, which sounds to me like a set of rules describing spelling conventions, word choice, and other stylistic issues that are more minor than full-on dialectal differences.
    That said, I have no lines in this play, as it were. Purely on technical grounds, I can see good arguments for going either way, and workable solutions to the various issues raised by taking either path. I therefore bow out of further discussion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Should be decided only by knowledgeable users. --Vahag (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain My hunch is that the language codes should be unified, but my understanding is too superficial to seriously weigh in. —Pengo (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Probably a good idea, but I don't know enough about Norwegian to be 100% sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I am happy either way. --Teodor (dc) 14:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don't know enough about Norwegian to make a decision here. JamesjiaoTC 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Decision


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)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This, that and the other (talk) 06:22, 6 April 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)

Decision


Unified Chinese

  • Voting on: Treating the various Chinese varieties (Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Min Nan, Min Dong, etc.) under a single header, "==Chinese==". Re-introducing the language code "zh". (See Wyang/歷史 for an example of how Unified Chinese entries may look.) Changing the way translations are formatted to:
* Chinese: {{t+|zh|北京}}
*: Mandarin: {{t+|cmn|北京|tr=Běijīng}}
*: Cantonese: {{t|yue|北京|tr=bak1 ging1}}
*: Min Nan: {{t+|nan|北京|tr=Pak-kiaⁿ}}
  • Rationale:
  1. There has been an overrepresentation of Mandarin at Wiktionary (20467 Mandarin nouns, 317 Cantonese nouns, 10 Wu nouns), but 99% of the Mandarin content here is actually cross-topolectal, not restricted to Mandarin. The reason for the marginalisation of other varieties is that it is practically troublesome and unnecessary to have to duplicate everything (templates, simp-trad tables, etymologies, definitions) except the pronunciation for all 17 ISO-coded Chinese topolects. The proposed format will produce a more succinct format and allow editors to add more regional Chinese content (i.e. coverage of Chinese topolects) by providing pronunciation to a written word shared across Chinese topolects, which accounts for about 99% of the Chinese-language corpus.
  2. The remaining 1% of words, which are never used in Standard Chinese (Mandarin), can still be handled by common templates and modules (the pronunciation and other information will only be given for that word in a given dialect). See User:Atitarev/佢哋 for a Cantonese-only example entry (an example of a word which is not used in formal writing even in Cantonese speaking areas).
  3. Difference in senses/usage will be achieved by using context tags, usage notes, etc. E.g. the word User:Wyang/告白, which has different senses in different topolects:
# [[announcement]], [[public]] [[announcement]]
# [[expression]] of one's thoughts; especially, [[declaration]] of love, [[confession]] of one's feelings towards someone
# {{cx|Cantonese|regional Mandarin|Min Nan}} [[advertisement]], [[ad]]
  1. This vote only concerns words written in Han/Chinese characters (Hanzi). Words written in non-Han scripts devised specifically for particular topolects may keep their topolect headings. This applies to Cyrillic Dungan, Xiao'erjing Mandarin (in Arabic script) and POJ romanisation of Min Nan. The formats of templates in the examples above are not the subject of the vote; they can be discussed separately if needed.. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Background: The topolects were separated mainly because differences in their pronunciation of the same words/characters are very large. This change will allow us to add multiple pronunciations in the same entry.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wyang (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support JamesjiaoTC 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Although I do not support the idea of continuing the practise of specifying the HSK level of a compound. We could probably deal with this in a later vote.
    HSK is just a category. I prefer to keep them in categories too (they need a clean-up). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support A step long overdue. -- Liliana 22:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- but only weakly, because I personally don't have a lot to do with Chinese entries outside of pointing to them in etymologies, and thus I feel that my vote should have less weight. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I'm not seeing any problems with the proposed implementation. Bumm13 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I support this proposal in theory (after all, "Mandarin" dictionaries don't really exist in the Chinese world), but I hope the technical side of this can be worked on, as though I am a prolific Mandarin editor, I would be unable to help with that as I have no relevant knowledge or skills. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Tooironic: Thank you for the support. Prolific Mandarin editors will need to help to use the new way of using various Chinese topolects under one L2 header "Chinese". It's a big change. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - strongly harms reusability of data; is probably not how readers use en.WT in practice. - Amgine/ t·e 02:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    @Amgine: Could you please elaborate and give one or two examples where it harms reusability of data? In my opinion is quite contrary. Note that current Cantonese, Wu and other topolect speaking editors favour the change (as in the latest discussion topic linked above). On your second point, changing the existing practice is usually what the vote is for. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The following sinitic wikipedias exist:
      • zh
      • zh-yue
      • zh-min-nan
      • gan
      • wuu
      • zh-classical
      • hak
      • cdo
      A current effort to create localized captchas for these languages faces challenges due to script issues. However, were these languages collapsed under a single heading the multi-script result would likely make the data too expensive to work with. We are facing this exact issue with en.Wiktionary's decision to collapse all SerboCroatian languages under the family L2. Bluntly, decisions like these, made for the convenience of editors but not for technical requirements, make the data less desirable or useful because of the increased costs and manipulation required.
    • Changing the current practice of editors should not change the practice of readers. What we understand of en.Wiktionary readers is most are not native English speakers; many are looking for a specific word in a specific non-english language for the purpose of translation or learning. Our readers are not linguists, or logophiles: they are students. It is likely they do not care for or know how to interpret the highly-technical information we currently present. If I understand this proposal, the complexity will likely stay the same, or slightly increase. However, the ability to find a word in a known language will be more difficult, even impossible in some cases if the implementation is similar to SerboCroatian. - Amgine/ t·e 04:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think you have misunderstood the proposal. The 'Mandarin' is already multi-script (simplified and traditional) pre-merger as it currently stands. Merging them applies to Chinese character-scripted words only, as stated in the rationale. There will not be any increase in script complexity or diversity, and consequently the proposal does not incur a greater difficulty in data processing. Similarly, the proposal does not result in a greater difficulty in data retrieval, as all information (forms, pronunciation, definitions, etc.) is stored in the respective section, more visually accessible (succinct) and complete than if information is fragmented as is now. Wyang (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Amgine:. Thanks for clarifying your position. I disagree with you completely, though. It seems to me that the complexity you describe is of type: "I can't find a Cantonese or Croatian word in this dictionary, since I refuse to accept to look for them under "Chinese" or "Serbo-Croatian" header, I refuse to accept these names", to put it sarcastically :). Your perspective is rather political, IMHO, not really related to real user requirements. I assure you that Cantonese, Wu and Min Nan users will be happy to find entries like 歷史, it has everything needed for a good entry. Since you mention Serbo-Croatian unification, all opposition to the unified approach was mainly nationalistic, not linguistic, there is no point in duplicating all info in Serbo-Croatian entries from 3 to 8 times. I agree that the complexity of our entries are not for everyone. We may not help to address your concern if my suspicions are correct. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to settle your concerns, as far as I am aware (and I am an amateur genealogist) I have no ethnic connections to anyone in the regions where Serbo-Croation languages are natively spoken, nor fiscal, academic, or political connections either. C'mon, I'm a Merican; I probably can't find any such state on a map. However, I *do* have a programming problem creating separate dictionaries for sr, hr, sh, and bs captchas from en.WT dumps. If you have a simple solution to such a problem, I would very much appreciate knowing what it is. (Incidentally, a simple transclusion of a subpage would obviate any maintenance issues. I'd make a snarky, sarcastic, and probably wildly ignorant comment here to illustrate my point but I prefer to remain civil even when my peers are engaging in verbal attacks.) - Amgine/ t·e 06:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, if I sounded as if I were attacking you, no, I thought your reasons for objections were different. In any case, where did I attack you. Perhaps you could consider gains for topolect learners/ achieved by the proposed change. I can't help you with your immediate query but many problems can be solved, when asked nicely:). We have quite a bunch of technically skilled people and achieving what you're trying to achieve may be possible. I'll wait for others to address the technical side. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
But, you see, it is now a problem to be fixed which was not a problem previously. Now we need to add back the language identification which was removed. It may be more convenient for the editors, but there are (and were) technical solutions which would have the same effect for the editors while not creating the problem for the future. - Amgine/ t·e 07:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you actually seen the count of current non-Mandarin entries at Wiktionary? The number is nowhere near a dictionary level. No serious analysis or study of a Chinese topolect can be done with the current level of non-Mandarin presence. My point is, you claim you're losing a lot of valuable information. You may want to save the bits and pieces we currently have but it's not much right now but there will be more.
Like with Serbo-Croatian, any written Chinese term is also applicable to any Chinese topolect written in Chinese characters in one form or another (script and dialect differences are taken care of with Serbo-Croatian, which was unified YEARS AGO), even if some terms may be considered literary, formal, rare or regional, in short, a list of Chinese words is a list of e.g. Wu words as well. That's why I thought you were going to talk about the small number of topolect-specific terms or differences in senses. A future technical solution I referred to is for something yet to be created, such as Cantonese, Min Nan, Wu pronunciations and labels (regional, formal or specific to a topolect, which is rare) - listing dialects that have some contents, and creating structure for any other. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As previously, we will have to agree to disagree. You wish to remove data from the set, which will create problems with the data reuse in the future. I have just demonstrated that the previous action has an ongoing negative impact. Yes, that data may be rebuildable from the existing templated metadata, but you have no idea how and you just wave your hands and hope someone, somehow, can do so. I have looked at the templates and I do not agree; I believe only those words which existed previous to unification could, by searching back through revisions (and therefore possibly including errors which were later corrected), be properly assigned. Until you can show me that this maneuver is technically required, I will assume it is not, and merely a personal preference which harms the existing data completeness. - Amgine/ t·e 13:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain What does an abstain vote do? I wish there are YouTube videos that teach the Min Bei, Min Zhong, and Gan dialects of Chinese. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    An abstain vote does nothing. It's the same as not voting, but shows that you read and considered the vote. --WikiTiki89 22:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Lo Ximiendo: The current vote doesn't mean to destroy or ban any Chinese dialect. Quite on the contrary, it would be easier to add any Chinese topolect entry, which also uses Chinese characters - it doesn't matter if a term is only used in a dialect, not Mandarin. Please re-read the above and let us know if you have any questions/concerns. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 23 April 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)

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)

Abstain

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: