Wiktionary:Votes/2007-02/Renaming AHD (run-off)

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Renaming AHD (run-off)[edit]

  • Voting on: A new initialism for our AHD pronunciation system. In the first vote, enPR and WPR were the favored options. If the current proposal to replace AHD is approved, then this run-off vote will determine the replacement name. Please vote for only one option.

Option 1[edit]

Change name to WPR, for Wiktionary Phonemic Representation.
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Saltmarsh 06:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Tohru 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 2[edit]

Change name to enPR, for English Phonemic Representation.
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Atelaes 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support H. (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC) In the light of w:WP:ASR, which I would find a good guideline here, too.
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Although w:WP:ASR is not as important for Wiktionary as it is for Wikipedia.
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Cynewulf 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) The intent here is to be English-specific, not all-Wiktionary.

Abstain[edit]

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain DAVilla 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) I don't think we should be inventing acronyms that aren't understood outside of this small community. I'm all for change, but not to something indecipherable.
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain —Stephen 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I would think the Wiktionary phonemic" or phonetic representation would be IPA or SAMPA/X-SAMPA. I think a much better name, if we are not to keep AHD, would be "Other". In any case, I cannot bring myself to vote for either of these two choices.

Decision[edit]

  • Option2 : enPR will replace AHD as the name abbreviation for our schoolbook dictionary styled pronunciation system. Vote was 5 for Option 2, 2 for option 1, and 2 abstain. --EncycloPetey 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    5 to 4 is not a clear consensus. DAVilla 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Firstly, it's 5 to 2: abstentions don't count as votes against. Secondly, there was a clear consensus to rename AHD (see Wiktionary:Votes/2007-02/Replace AHD); we can't decide to ignore that consensus just because you don't think there's a clear consensus on what to rename it to. Given equal alternatives (i.e., alternatives of which none is the existing policy) in a case where one alternative must be chosen (because there's a clear consensus to choose a replacement term) it makes sense to go with the majority. —RuakhTALK 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In previous votes (particularly "run-offs", yes, abstains were definitely counted as votes not in support. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    B.S. There was an un-announced "sneak" vote, of insufficient duration. I know I saw other votes during this time-frame - why wasn't this one listed on WT:VOTE? So that only supports could vote for it? Each of these phases could only have been a month-long vote, so they each are invalid. --Connel MacKenzie 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    WTF? If you're going to say my comment is bullshit, you have to back that up with something. What I said was a response to DAVilla's comment, and you've said nothing to suggest that my comment was off the mark; so please get off my back. (BTW, though you apparently feel no need to read the comment you're replying to and say something relevant about it, I do, so I'll say: you're correct that the phases were less than a month long. The original vote was listed on WT:VOTE on 3 February, with the statement that it would end 17 February, and the run-off votes were listed on WT:VOTE on 19 February, with the statement that they would end 28 February. I'd understand an argument that that's too short a voting period, but they weren't so short that no one saw them; if they were too short, why did no one speak up while they were open?) —RuakhTALK 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies; I meant the vote was bullshit. --Connel MacKenzie 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      Apology accepted. I should have guessed that's what you meant, but since your comment was rather harsh and was indented like a reply to mine, I took it a bit too personally; I'm sorry if I overreacted. —RuakhTALK 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Connel, how can you call this a "sneak" vote, when you yourslf VOTED in the original round. Did you read the notice indicating the date the vote would end? Did you read the notice that there might be a run-off vote in the event of no clear winner? Have you looked at the results of that original vote? Both this vote and the original one were posted on WT:VOTE. --EncycloPetey 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, I don't see the original vote from here. That does not explain why a shorter, instead of longer, duration was given. The lack of initial consensus did not, and does not imply that a run-off vote should be held - the premise given was obviously too controversial for most contributors here. All of which make the "results" here even more questionable. --Connel MacKenzie 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You know what? Who cares. Every phonetic and phonemic symbolic representation en.wiktionary.org has is useless to 99.9% of our readers, so I may as well support the British contingent's motion to remove them entirely. But of course, to be NPOV, we'd have to eliminate IPA and SAMPA while we're at it. Thankfully, then all that will be left in the pronunciation section, are audio files from commons. I guess this is some kind of blessing in disguise. --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)