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.

Voting policy
  • For a Wiktionary user to be eligible for voting, the following requirements must be satisfied:
    1. Their account's first edit to English Wiktionary (made locally rather than transwikied from another project) must predate the start time of the vote by at least 1 week.
    2. Their account must have at least 50 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote.
    3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.
  • Tentative guidelines for the creation of new votes:
    1. Votes should not be called for on this page. They should be the result of prior discussion located elsewhere (the Beer Parlor).
    2. Votes should last about a month, usually, or two weeks for bots.
    3. No topic should have a new vote more than once a day (24 hr period).
    4. Votes should use {{premature}} while working out the particular wording.
  • The failure of a vote does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future.
Voting procedure
  1. Once a discussion has reached a point where a vote is in order, a new voting page should be created here, linked to and from the original discussion, including {{premature}}.
  2. Once the vote is ready to start, the voting page should be included here and then the start and end dates filled.
  3. Debate is welcome on these pages.
  4. Each vote will remain in the “completed votes” section for a while after the completion of the vote, at which time it will be archived and listed in the “archived votes” section.
Starting a new vote on this page
  1. Replace “Title of vote” with what you’d like to start a vote on, or add the relevant user in one of the boxes below.
  2. Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C (select all, copy) of the text in that input box (it is the new link).
  3. Edit in a new tab this page and add the one line of magic text below the editbox. Again, replace “Title of vote” with your exact vote topic name. Remember to add {{ and }} around your pasted text.
  4. For nominations that should be listed in multiple places (in essence, WT:A, WT:B or WT:C) open that page in another new tab and repeat the pasting of the transclusion line.
  5. Click the button below the relevant box, fill out the form displayed and save it.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2012-02/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-02/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2012-02/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2012-02/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2012-02/User: for bot status}}
Other

Admins, please periodically check for orphan votes at Wiktionary:Votes/

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

Current and new votes

Planned and running votes
Renaming requests for verification
Linking "Straw Poll: each section of our CFI" from the CFI
CFI and company names

Renaming requests for verification

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky 07:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel 10:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support —CodeCat 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support  Ease of understanding is great, only if it doesn't also ease misunderstanding. —Michael Z. 2012-01-30 22:02 z
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support I think I may have been the first person to suggest this. Just sayin'. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Metaknowledge 02:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This petty change serves only to make Wiktionary's processes more obscure to ordinary users. DCDuring TALK 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    To quote User:Mzajac above "Ease of understanding is great, only if it doesn't also ease misunderstanding." What's your reply to that? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    I give all slogans the respect they deserve. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    How does that reply to Mzajac's statement? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I still prefer Wiktionary:Please read the prologue of this page to see what it's all about. -- Liliana • 04:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    What about a serious justification of your opposing vote? --Dan Polansky 07:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The page isn't for requesting "attestation" (what would that even mean? "Can anyone attest to this?"); but it's not really for requesting "verification", either, except in the convoluted sense that it's for requesting verification that a term meets our so-called "attestation" criteria. I think "Requests for attestation" is a small improvement over "Requests for verification", but not enough of one for me to support. (Actually, it might even be a step backward — I think we should move away from misusing the words "attested" and "attestation" in WT:CFI as well — but again, not enough of one for me to oppose.) —RuakhTALK 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    Re: "Can anyone attest to this?": Some dictionaries seem to have a requisite sense for "attest", like sense 4 in Collins:attestation and sense 3 in Merriam-Webster:attest. In these senses, evidence or proof attests something (transitively without preposition to) rather than a person attesting to something. This matches the use of the word "attest" by which quotations attest the existence of a term. Just an academic remark. --Dan Polansky 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe 'Requests for citations'? —CodeCat 00:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    @CodeCat: That's a good idea, but we have a Category:Requests for quotation for the case when we're explicitly not challenging a sense, and I think "citations" vs. "quotation" is too narrow a distinction to hang this on. Actually, come to think of it, maybe the problem is less with "verification" than with "requests". This isn't a page for requesting that people cite an entry, it's a page for requesting that an entry be deleted for lack of cites (with a grace period to allow that lack to be remedied). A better name might be Wiktionary:Disputes of attestation or Wiktionary:Challenges of citeability or Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Attestation or something. Or maybe Wiktionary:Is this term really used?. ;-)   —RuakhTALK 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    Is there actually a difference between RFV and RFD? In RFV we assume that citations may be found, and ask for them. In RFD, we assume they won't be found or that the entry doesn't meet CFI in some other way. In both cases, we're verifying the entry against our CFI, so I'm not sure there really needs to be such a clear distinction. RFV and RFD certainly seem to be a subset of a more general kind of check. —CodeCat 13:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Thanks, but I don't think that's what we mean by "attestation", either. —RuakhTALK 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    What we literally mean is Wiktionary:Requests for three quotations. We say that a term is “first attested (adj., =“supported, certified, proved”) in a 1902 book.” Isn't it correct to describe that as an attestation (=“evidence, proof”) of the term? The request is to provide three such proofs, so I think Wiktionary:Requests for attestation is correct. In any case, we specifically define “attestation,” not “verification,” for our purposes at Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation.
    Wiktionary:Requests for citation, Wiktionary:Requests for citations, Wiktionary:Requests for citing, Wiktionary:Requests for cites, Wiktionary:Requests to cite, would be acceptable too. —Michael Z. 2012-02-01 23:26 z
    None of these alternative names seems inherently more accurate than Wiktionary:Requests for attestation, because the whole attestation system is more complex than just finding citations. One example of uncomfortably long but absurdly accurate (but not 100% accurate) name would be Wiktionary:Requests for citations from permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. --Daniel 02:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Equinox ◑ 22:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Doesn't seem like a big deal, but I wouldn't object either. Equinox ◑ 22:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Decision

Linking "Straw Poll: each section of our CFI" from the CFI


  • Vote starts: 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ambox warning yellow.svg

This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision

CFI and company names

  • Voting on: Modifying Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion to remove the specific prohibition on company names, and the subsequent reference thereto:
    Company names
    Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested.
    • Names of specific companies are subject to the “Company names” section of this page.
    leaving company-names subject to the more general rules for names of specific entities:
    A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. ¶ […] ¶ Such definitions as are included should be succinct rather than encyclopedic.
    and therefore, presumably, subject to case-by-case discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
  • Rationale: The section can be easily read as excluding almost all company names, regardless of their being single-word ones ("Microsoft", "Verizon", "Exxon", "Intel", "Nokia", "Boeing", "Sony"), and regardless of their being able to carry lexicographical properties worth documenting, such as etymology, pronunciation and inflection. Moreover, company names that are initialisms ("IBM", "BMW", "KFC") are kept per common Wiktionary practice, which is in contradiction with the discussed section. Furthermore, I see no reason why company names should be regulated differently from names of other specific entities, such as names of literary works. Finally, the section has made it into CFI without a vote, and, as far as I can tell, has never enjoyed anything like a plain-majoritarian support, let alone consensual support. Thus, the section should better be removed from CFI, after which it can be attemted to be readded via a regular voting process.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ambox warning yellow.svg

This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.

Support

Oppose

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:

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes&oldid=16262602"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
In other languages