Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
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

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)
    @This, that and the other: I propose that you change your support to support the vote as is, and we can remove the sentence "The misspellings may well merit entries" via other vote. If you do not support the vote as is, you should better oppose, so we can actually close this vote in a meaningful manner. I find it worthwhile to actually support so we have something voted-on in the CFI that does the job of demonstrating consensus for those reading CFI so they do not need to search discussions and votes, but opposing is naturally your right and makes it easier to close this vote in one or another direction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I've struck that portion of my text, as I support the text being added, even though I still believe it is being inserted in the wrong place. I would definitely welcome a follow-up vote. This, that and the other (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: Thanks. I made Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-08/CFI Misspelling Cleanup. Please provide feedback there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support (weak). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:59, 24 August 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


Debotting MewBot

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot#Rationale. It is going to be pity, since the bot does multiple good things, but the cost in terms of bad undiscussed edits and of blatant repeated violation of WT:BOT is too high. As a next step, the opposers should initiate a change of WT:BOT policy, since they obviously do not support it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support per reasons stated -- Liliana 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support A matter of principles. On Wikipedia he would've been blocked and desyoped a long time ago for this behavior (and also for fabricating sources and inserting original research in etymologies). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WikiTiki89 19:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: Any rationale? Is systematic violation of WT:BOT okay? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, it's not ok. But overall, MewBot does many more good things than bad, and the bad ones are usually only marginally bad. --WikiTiki89 20:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DTLHS (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is about CodeCat, not about her bot. Grounding her bot wouldn't stop her from the massive changes to Wiktionary infrastructure that have raised the most opposition, but it would stop her from a number of helpful small and low-visibility tasks that she uses her bot for from time to time. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Chuck Entz: Shall we abolish WT:BOT policy, since we do not intend to enforce it even for a bot with repeated violations and repeated opposition by multiple editors? The less severe measure than debotting would be a temporary block of the bot, but only one admin did it[1]; when he did, he received ugly vituperation[2].
    Furthermore, if CodeCat had neither the bot nor AWB, how would they be able to effect those massive changes? And what massive changes do you have in mind?
    Finally, what measure do you propose, if any? Shall a desysop vote be created? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Well, we do sometimes ignore our policy, as in the case of your bot. As for the alleged "ugly vituperation", I see an interpersonal dispute that was expressed in pretty much the same way, regardless of the subject, with no evidence that anyone else would have received the same treatment. It also pales in comparison with much of your own long history of harassment and verbal ugliness. She also doesn't pursue vendettas against others like you do. As for what CodeCat can do without MewBot: not as much, but she can still change the behavior of widely-used templates and modules to rearrange, add, and/or eliminate parameters, change categorization, etc., but she would be limited to cleaning up the resulting messes by hand. It would have an effect, but far from a decisive one. As for your final point, I wouldn't propose anything, though opposing specific decisions you disagree with, whether in the appropriate forums or with votes seems your most legitimate option. As for desysoping: I don't think there's the support for it, in spite of some undeniable abuses: as in Vahag's case, people tend to look at the overall body of someone's actions and give a pass if the whole is positive enough, on balance. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Re: "vendettas against others like you do": What would that be? My attempt to prevent further undiscussed bot runs after everything else failed? Is this what you call an honest assessent of my actions? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    If it were an isolated action, no, but you do seem to be vehemently objecting to just about anything CodeCat brings up lately. I've also seen you stake out a particular user's talk page and point out every error they make, and pursue actions in the BP to get people to weigh in on some of them. Again, it's not that every action is wrong or even unjustified in isolation, but the pattern of your actions adds up to a vendetta as far as I'm concerned. That's not to say that none of the targets were blameless- I'm just talking about the manner of your interactions, not the merits. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    "point out every error they make": that is just inaccurate. Yes, I do try to limit damage by repeatedly pointing errors to users who do not seem to have a clue, but certainly not every single mistake. I have seen anons repeatedly complain about your excessive blocking, so I am not sure where you really stand on this; I do not say that you do excessive blocking, just that there is per se nothing courteous about blocking people without discussion. Repeated pointing of mistakes gives them a better chance. The speculation about "vendetta" has no basis in fact, and is actually borderline incivil. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Re: "we do sometimes ignore our policy, as in the case of your bot.": Let's set the record straight. You probably mean User:DPMaid, a menial-edit user that does not use the bot interface and whose last run (User_talk:DPMaid#Restoring pedialite) was an AWB run. There is no vote process for enabling AWB, as far as I know, unlike for bots. Furthermore, even if this were a bot, the run that you would mention would still be based on the dicussion that shows consensus with a single opposer, CodeCat: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/August#Not renaming template_pedialite. Finally, the user was used to undo undiscussed run by a real bot. There really is not any policy that User:DPMaid broke; upon a closer inspection, your allegation is absurd. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. CodeCat's career is similar to that of Hitler before 1939. They make sweeping changes without consensus-building, have driven away Wiktionary's main Jew, but they also deliver results. I choose to continue appeasing Führer CodeCat as long as they improve Wiktionary on balance and do not invade Poland (you can dismember Polansky's Czechoslovakia, no one cares). --Vahag (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    What is wrong with you? Do you really think you're being funny? —RuakhTALK 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    It's not my fault. Comparing men to pre-1939 Hitler is in my people's genes. --Vahag (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    It made me laugh, so it's okay. -- Liliana 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Respond or not? Damn rude, joke or not. Bad for an editor, worse for an admin. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarshαπάντηση 13:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PalkiaX50talk to meh 01:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain per Chuck Entz. —RuakhTALK 17:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. But I would like to see CodeCat seek consensus before making such changes, and not to assume that silence means consent. Equinox 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that just about everyone (except CodeCat, perhaps) is in wholehearted agreement with that- even those who might dismaiss that as not enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The doers usually get the blame. If you don't do anything, you don't make mistakes. Very active editors get more blames than those who do nothing or little. I don't think it's always easy to decide if an edit or a bot run is good until you get some results. CodeCat acts in good faith and most of her edits improve Wiktionary. For example, she added additional parameters to Russian noun headers - animacy/inanimacy. Although the original reaction was negative, after the subsequent editing, it turned out a good change. The change that was rejected by most editors - forced genitive sg and nominative plural parameters was removed by her. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat acts in good faith - lol. Are you by any chance in the Kiev parliament?
CodeCat has never acted in good faith since he joined. He just acted a bit to get sysops so he can wreak havoc on Wiktionary as a whole. That's eerily similar to Wonderfool's behavior. -- Liliana 06:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have never witnessed CodeCat doing anything intentionally harmful to Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 12:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Decision


Migrating from Template:term to Template:m

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No user will ever guess what {{m}} means, while the meaning of {{term}} is rather obvious. We need to think about non-regulars and casual contributors too. -- Liliana 18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Templates context and label

  • Polling on: Clarifying which template to use to tag definition lines as "countable", "transitive", "colloquial", "geography" and the like. Currently available templates are {{context}}, {{cx}}, {{label}}, {{lb}}. The choice is about template name, not about syntax of its parameters. Two choices are presented: one between (context, cx) and (label, lb), and another one between long form (context, label) and short form (cx, lb).

    The syntaxes might look like this, assuming the language as the first parameter of the template:

    • {{context|es|colloquial}}
    • {{cx|es|colloquial}}
    • {{label|es|colloquial}}
    • {{lb|es|colloquial}}
  • Poll starts: 00:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Poll ends: 23:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer label over context

I prefer context over label

I prefer short template name over long template name

I prefer long template name over short template name

Oppose the poll

Abstain


Migrating from Template:context to Template:cx

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


CFI Misspelling Cleanup

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support removal 1

Oppose removal 1

Support removal 2

Oppose removal 2

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: