Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices

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

Disallowing certain appendices[edit]

  • Voting on: Page splitting for appendices that are currently specified in [[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion]] as follows:
    Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space.
    Specific new proposals are below, under the individual options' respective headings.
  • (Note: This vote, "Disallowing certain appendices", is misnamed, but shall remain with that name to avoid the confusion that may arise from moving it.)
  • Each voter may vote for any (one, two, or all) of the three options. (Signing under "Abstain" is the same as not voting at all.) Whichever option gets the greatest number of votes wins, with the caveat that that option must have a supermajority (something like 70% of non-abstaining voters, though as usual this is left to the closer's discretion).
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

One page per universe, split as needed[edit]

An appendix for such terms (terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe) shall be one page per universe (or more if needed to split long lists into parts of lists), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms; no term on such a page shall have a mainspace-entry-like structure.

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Supportlexicógrafa | háblame — 01:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Because having a seperate entry-like page for each word is basically the same as including it in the main namespace as a word
    How is this a problem? --Yair rand (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree with Lexicografía. Having a separate page for a fictional word, and including said fictional word in the main namespace, are different things. --Daniel. 02:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    Isn't the reason they are in an appendix, because they're not (for whatever reason) worthy of a real dictionary entry? (P.S. Whatever happens to this vote will also be implemented at Appendix:Snowclones, which has a one-page-per-term format right now) — lexicógrafa | háblame — 11:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant, for instance, is a dictionary entry, and worthy of the most user-friendly and most widely accepted entry layout that has been developed over years. Do you have any reason (aside from "for whatever reason"), to say otherwise?
    I don't think that Appendix:Snowclones (and Appendix:Unsupported titles, Appendix:Proto-Germanic *sunuz, Appendix:APL and Appendix:Klingon, for that matter) is necessarily going to imitate a practice decided here. While consistency is generally good, this comparison merits further discussion. --Daniel. 22:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the complexity of our treatment of these terms should match their linguistic value. Their non-independence from their fictional universe suggests a low linguistic value. --Bequw τ 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    (I'm starting to think that some people are forgetting that Wiktionary isn't paper...) --Yair rand (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    In my opinion, for instance, Category:Fictional derivations suggests a considerable linguistic value of fictional words, by listing words that derive from fiction but are used in nonfictional contexts. --Daniel. 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support A fictional term that doesn't meet the CFI does not deserve a separate page. --Makaokalani 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps my definition of "doesn't meet the CFI" is a little more precise than yours; fictional words do meet the CFI, if they got enough citations, then they should be included into appendices. Anyway, can you please elaborate why shouldn't they imitate the format of entries? As of yet, I personally haven't seen a feasible and visually scannable system of placing etymologies, citations, pronunciations, usage notes and so on into lists. As I see them, there are: Appendix:Na'vi as one example of messy list; Appendix:Farscape as one example of clean list, with little information and avoiding the misleading alphabetical order in favor of organizing words by their usage; and, there is Appendix:Pokémon/Ditto as one example of page with considerable information besides one spelling and one definition. --Daniel. 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Agree with Makaokalani. Furthermore, I will support any more drastic vote that will curtail bullshit about "a 26-episode-long anime" polluting this otherwise-useful project. Equinox 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Makaokalani. I'm kind of curious what to do about works that have only a single unattested one such term (attested but not fully attested in independent universes). DAVilla 04:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    A work that has "a single unattested term" would not be defined on Wiktionary. The discussed appendices contain only fictional attested terms. If a work has only one attested term, that term would probably the title of the work, like defining "Romeo and Juliet" (or "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Alice in Wonderland" as synonyms of each other). I have already brought the matter of defining titles up within one or more conversations, but I believe it may require to be discussed further. As standard practice, I have only kept some abbreviations like HP1 (the first book of Harry Potter); I have also kept Chobits and Star Trek, because they display multiple definitions; and the latter was defined on Wiktionary before I have started to work on fictional universes. --Daniel. 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I wasn't clear. I've edited the comment in my vote.
    I believe titles of certain works to be part of the lexicon and worth including (if we could write the criteria narrowly), but I have found mixed support. There has been little objection to works with other definitions, like Moby-Dick, Cinderella and Snow White, but we have yet to see Beauty and the Beast, Hansel and Gretel, or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The Rise and Fall was voted for deletion because it can apparently refer to more than one work. Before that I don't think I've seen a term deleted for having more than one definition!
    Why was Star Trek relegated to an Appendix!? The term is used exceedingly frequently outside of that universe. DAVilla 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    How can you use "Star Trek" as you described? I read your sentence as a linguistic paradox. --Daniel. 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, interesting point. For now though can we please consider the name of the work a special case, where it should really read "otherwise independent of reference to that universe"? I would also be more than understanding if it were instead given treatment as a specific entity. DAVilla 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    WT:FICTION does not apply to names of works anyway, because they (usually) are not of fictional origin. --Daniel. 08:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support – appendices of fictional terms are fine (for now, lacking a better home), but one page per term is completely unnecessary. Yes, ’tionary is not paper, but collecting fictional terms is significantly different from a general dictionary, and has little significant overlap. If there is interest, a “Fictionary”/“Wikifictionary” for words from fiction is fine, but it absolutely should be a separate project – there are no meaningful synergies with Wiktionary. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    I find your apparent definition of a "general dictionary" interesting, despite I disagreeing with you here. Wiktionary is not like most other dictionaries that I know; it extends to various languages, writing systems and subjects (not counting unique electronic functions like recorded pronunciations and a plethora of lists of words by their lexical and topical characteristics). Since we have the contents expected from legal dictionaries, medical dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries and multiple other varieties, it seems natural to define words from fiction as well; especially since our criteria for inclusion of fiction is effectively identical from the rest of CFI: basically, fetch three independent citations that acknowledge that a word is fictional, then it may be included here. --Daniel. 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support SemperBlotto 08:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support.​—msh210 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support DCDuring TALK 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ƿidsiþ 10:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

One page per term[edit]

An appendix for such terms (terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe) shall have a separate page for each entry (either one page per language for each entry, or one page all together with sections for different languages), with the page looking essentially like a normal entry of the main namespace.

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel. 00:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Despite being labelled as an "extreme" (in the title of the third choice "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution"), this proposal is worded in a way that fundamentally does not exclude the first choice ("One page per universe, split as needed"), so it is my vote. Both lists of words with definitions, and individual pages, are essential. We have Appendix:Farscape, Appendix:Elfen Lied, Appendix:Harry Potter, Appendix:Harry Potter spells and other user-friendly lists of words with definitions, in addition to Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant, Appendix:Harry Potter/Muggle and other pages to contain additional information. --Daniel. 00:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    You get it wrong. One page per universe is incompatible with fifty pages per universe, one page for each term. This proposal does exclude the first choice. This proposal (second option) does exclude that there should be one page per universe, as what it proposes is that the number of pages per universe should be greater than one.
    Put differently, the first option does forbid Appendix:Harry Potter/Muggle. --Dan Polansky 09:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    No. I have not focused the contrast between the specific quantities of pages per universe as described in the two proposals. I've rather mentioned their formats. The first option excludes individual pages, and the second option does not exclude lists of words with definitions. According to any possible result of the vote "Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices", if we may have simultaneously Appendix:Harry Potter/Killing Curse, Appendix:Harry Potter/Muggle-born and Appendix:Harry Potter/Killing Curse, then we also may link them together through an Appendix:Harry Potter. --Daniel. 10:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    The second option states a policy that allows subpages per term; the first option disallows subpages per term. The statement "subpages per term are allowed" (option 2) is incompatible with the statement "subpages per term are disallowed" (option 1). But you wrote "this proposal is worded in a way that fundamentally does not exclude the first choice": that is false; allowing subpages excludes disallowing subpages. If you intended to say something else that is true, you would have to say the other thing. --Dan Polansky 11:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if I have not been clear enough from my first message. However, the adverb fundamentally gave me the benefit of limiting the concept of the second option covering the first option. Then, I have further explained my thoughts with additional statements, such as "Both lists of words with definitions, and individual pages, are essential." and "The first option excludes individual pages, and the second option does not exclude lists of words with definitions.". --Daniel. 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    The qualifier "fundamentally" does not allow you to read things as you see fit, although it has a bit of a weakening power. The second option (allowing certain things) does not include the first option (disallowing certain things). The meaning of the first option is what it forbids. The only thing that is correct around what you have said is that all that is allowed by the first option is also allowed by the second option; the first option is strictly more probihitive than the second option. --Dan Polansky 12:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    Once more I disagree with you. The meaning of the first option is not strictly "what it forbids". Its meaning is what is written as a whole text of 430 characters, including the implied permission to keep lists of fictional words.
    If, alternatively, this vote were so simple as to only "forbid" or "allow" something, it could as well be worded as a simple statement like Allow <blah blah blah>., followed by options to support it or oppose it. Instead, there is the current system with two wordy options, followed by another one for effectively opposing them, and a last, superfluous one to oppose everything, including the previous opposition. --Daniel. 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel. 00:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Here, I am basically repeating my vote above. --Daniel. 00:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support (other solution: no special CFI for these words. Keep it simple! In other terms: remove this sentence.) Lmaltier 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Appendices about groups of words carrying linguistic meaning not permissible in the main namespace should require prior approval. -- Prince Kassad 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms]] approved them.​—msh210 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    I was more thinking of something like Wiktionary:Requests for appendices, where you would add the appendix you want to create, and others would vote whether to accept or not. -- Prince Kassad 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, far too early to vote on this. --Yair rand (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Yair... 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Equinox 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Don't care, as this vote isn't about what it was going to be about. Equinox 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Changed my mind! See above. Equinox 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    How so?​—msh210 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I think it is much too early to vote on this. This issue needs more discussion. (I'd rather vote "oppose all", but that doesn't seem to be an option.) --Yair rand (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    To me, the option "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution" seems very similar to a hypothetical "Oppose all". --Daniel. 03:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    What Daniel said.​—msh210 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    I have added an "oppose all" option. While the third option is similar to it, it is not identical; it uses particular wording such as "two extremes", and speaks of "some other solution". The option "oppose all" does not commit the voter to any wording but rather refuses all proposed wordings. A mere abstain does not capture the voter's preference to let all proposed policies fail. --Dan Polansky 07:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    As there are no other proposals on the table, I think "some other option" means simply "I oppose the above two".​—msh210 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    Quite possibly. Nonetheless, I think it is a sound formal requirement that each vote should have an option explicitly entitled as "Oppose" or "Oppose all", as an unambiguous way to oppose the proposals made in the vote. What you may think self-evident about the meaning of the third option does not need to be self-evident to a voter who did not participate on the design of the vote, and have not read your mind. Maybe Yair rand just did not read the vote carefully enough; I don't know. But he should not have had to read carefully enough: there should have been an option clearly marked as "oppose". --Dan Polansky 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    I agree. (Besides, there's a fundamental difference between voting against proposed options and voting for an unproposed option. Someone might vote against proposed options simply because they think there needs to be more discussion and/or experimentation before a decision is made. I suppose "some other solution" could be taken to include "solutions" such as "more discussion", but that's not the obvious reading.) —RuakhTALK 20:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Winner: One page per universe, split as needed

Votes: 13-1-2-3 (68.4%-5.2%-10.5%-15.7%)

The first option got close enough to 70%, so I'm letting it pass. Since this proposal is of deprecating a practice without suggesting another to replace it, I'm very curious on how to convert the hundreds of appendices into a new format of "one page per universe". I'll be watching. --Daniel. 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us do the calculation correctly. The winning proposal passes, as it has gained 72% majority (=13 / 13 + 5). The winning proposal was supported by 13 people. The number of non-abstaining people who did not support the winning proposal is 5: Daniel, Lmaltier, Prince Kassad, Yair rand, Xylophone Players. --Dan Polansky 07:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
My calculation is correct; yours is an alternative that can be argued to be also correct. I counted votes, not people, and it did not affect the final decision. --Daniel. 07:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You cannot count your vote two times only because you have cast your votes to two options. Your calculation is not an alternative; it is incorrect. It is quite a difference between the comfortable 72% and the barely passing 68%. Read the voting method: "...with the caveat that that option must have a supermajority (something like 70% of non-abstaining voters, though as usual this is left to the closer's discretion)." (italics mine) The supermajority is of voters, not of votes. --Dan Polansky 07:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The criterion is "whichever option gets the greatest number of votes wins", not "whichever option gets the lowest number of nonvoters wins". Both 68% and 72% are comfortable to me. And the "closer's discretion" is mine. --Daniel. 08:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
But the caveat speaks of "voters", not "votes". It is the caveat that relates to the threshold of 2/3 or 70%. On another note, couting votes rather than voters does not make sense for a multi-option vote that uses approval voting, as then such a vote would be very liable to a failure (non-passing), and people would be given great opposing power just by casting votes to several options other than the one they want to see rejected. But again, the caveat speaks explicitly of "voters". You cannot selectively quote irrelevant passage and ignore the relevant passage that I have quoted for you. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not quote any irrelevant passage nor did I ignore your words. I suppose the common practice is creating a second vote of simply supporting or opposing the most voted proposal of a multi-option vote, to counter the "great opposing power just by casting votes to several options", which is unnecessary here because the winner was clearly chosen. --Daniel. 08:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been some controversy on using approval voting in the past, and your last suggestion is exactly what we used to do. If you can imagine creating such a vote, then you will understand why the method that Dan Polansky outlined is the one that has come to be accepted. In such a vote for just "One page per universe, split as needed", assuming we have exactly the same decisions as we had here (those who did not abstain vote for the option only if they had voted for it here and otherwise presumably vote against), then the result would be 13 to 5. In other words, we can predict the result of a second simple support or oppose measure without actually running that vote, and the result of this vote is what we presume the result of that second measure to be.
Of course, there is a proviso in that the voting method has to allow enough flexibility to express one's true preference, and approval voting does allow that since each option can be supported or opposed. It's kind of like running all of these votes simultaneously without having to say explicitly that you oppose any of the options that you do not support. DAVilla 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As Daniel. says, it doesn't affect the outcome of this vote; but for the record, Dan Polansky is correct. For example, if there are four options, and every voter approves of each option, then the tally is 100%–100%–100%–100%–0%, not 25%–25%–25%–25%–0%. —RuakhTALK 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
A system with the possibility of resulting in the phenomenon of "if there are four options, and every voter approves of each option, then the tally is 100%–100%–100%–100%–0%, not 25%–25%–25%–25%–0%." may be correct according to a possible consensus, comparison with past votes, etc. However, it does not necessarily present a more "fair" or obvious choice: specifically, Dan mentioned how "people would be given great opposing power just by casting votes to several options other than the one they want to see rejected", which is an issue of both systems. There are more precise ways of achieving a decision from multiple options, such as the Schulze method (which is unnecessarily complex) or nondemocratic discussion. I mentioned previously how this page could naturally simply present a choice of supporting or opposing (or abstaining) the proposal of prohibiting mainspace-entry-like structure for certain appendices. --Daniel. 16:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It's "correct" not only in terms of possible consensus and comparison with past votes, but also because that's the way the vote is set up. It's an approval vote, modified to have a status quo bias, and the vote text explicitly speaks of "non-abstaining voters". Your "more precise ways" are a red herring: we could have used either of those methods, but obviously this vote was not structured in those ways. Period. (And I'd contest the claim that both of those methods are "more precise" than approval voting.) —RuakhTALK 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I already mentioned that this vote is not structured is any of my "more precise ways"; you don't have to repeat my statement. It is not necessarily "approval voting" either, because it is not written anywhere in the introduction (differently from Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral), so you probably inferred its method by comparison with past votes, if anything. Anyway, your link points to an article from Wikipedia that describes approval votings while apparently agreeing with my method, by stating "Approval voting is a single-winner voting system used for elections. Each voter may vote for (approve of) as many of the candidates as they wish. The winner is the candidate receiving the most votes. Each voter may vote for any combination of candidates and may give each candidate at most one vote." --Daniel. 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, the introduction of that article does not agree with my method, neither yours, because it does not include specific rules for the caveat. --Daniel. 21:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The instructions for this vote do say it uses approval voting, though not in so many words. Fwiw, Dan P. is correct.​—msh210 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)