Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:V)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Votes

Votes formalize and document the consensus-building process and the decisions that the community makes. This page displays the full contents of recent, current and planned votes. Edit Wiktionary:Votes/Active to add new votes and remove old ones. Finished votes are added to Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline, an organized archive of previous votes and their results, sorted by the vote end date.

Policy and help pages, respectively: Wiktionary:Voting policy (including who is eligible to vote) and Help:Creating a vote.

See also Wiktionary:Votes/ for an automatically generated, less organized list of votes.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2017-02/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-02/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-02/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2017-02/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-02/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2017-02/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

Look for votes and voting templates, including templates for creation of new votes:

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline)
Ends Title Status/Votes
Feb 19 Policy on place names passed
Feb 27 Dominic for de-admin Symbol support vote.svg8 Symbol oppose vote.svg2 Symbol abstain vote.svg2
Mar 1 "References" and "External sources" Symbol support vote.svg8 Symbol oppose vote.svg3 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Mar 7 Boldface in image captions 17 (16 people)
Mar 14 Glyph origin Symbol support vote.svg8 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg2
Mar 15 Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 Symbol support vote.svg8 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
(=6) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=79)

Policy on place names

Voting on: creating a new policy on place names and making consequential changes to criteria for inclusion.

Text for the new policy on place names
Place names

The following place names meet the criteria for inclusion:

  • The names of continents.
  • The names of seas and oceans.
  • The names of countries.
  • The names of areas or regions containing multiple countries (e.g. Middle East, Eurozone).
  • The names of primary administrative divisions (states, provinces, counties etc).
  • The names of conurbations, cities, towns, villages and hamlets.
  • Districts of towns and cities (e.g. Fulham).
  • The names of inhabited islands and archipelagos.
  • The names of other significant natural geographic features (such as large deserts and major rivers).

The Community has not yet reached a consensus as to whether or not the names of places and geographic features other than those listed above should be included in Wiktionary. There is currently no definition of "significant natural geographic features", but by way of an example, the twenty largest lakes in the world by surface area would each qualify. It is hoped that the Community will develop criteria over time to provide greater clarity and address matters not currently covered (for example the names of streets, buildings, tunnels). This policy is not intended to remove or reduce the requirement to find citations to support entries.

Proposed changes to criteria for inclusion

Current text:

Names of specific entities

This section regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, names of geographic features, names of celestial objects, names of mythological creatures, names and titles of various works, etc.[1][2][3][4] Examples include the Internet, the Magna Carta, the Mona Lisa, the Qur'an, the Red Cross, the Titanic, and World War II.

Proposed text:

Place names

The names of countries, towns and cities meet the criteria for inclusion. Significant natural geographic features such as oceans and large deserts may also be included. Further guidance is contained in the Place Names Policy.

Names of specific entities
This section regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, names of celestial objects, names of mythological creatures, names and titles of various works, etc.[5][6] Examples include the Internet, the Magna Carta, the Mona Lisa, the Qur'an, the Red Cross, the Titanic, and World War II.
References
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2
  3. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Remove "Place names" section of WT:CFI
  4. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals
  5. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities
  6. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: John Cross (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. bd2412 T 01:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. John Cross (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC) (I would ask people who think this policy is imperfect to vote for it now and propose amendments later.) [further comments: I like Dan Polansky's suggested edits below but I obviously cannot change text part way through a vote. I hope we can amend later. John Cross (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)]
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support as long as "all words in all languages" takes priority. So Cheam but not necessarily East Cheam. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support (edit: but also support Dan Polansky's additional emendations below) — Kleio (t · c) 09:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    Partial support. I support addition of the text labeled "Text for the new policy on place names", but into CFI; I oppose creation of a new separate policy page. I also oppose the proposed change to "Names of specific entities" section: place names are names of specific entities while the proposed change implies they are a separate group. On a minor note, I find the use of "Community" capitalized and in singular objectionable; it should be "editors" in plural, instead. On a further minor note, it would be better to say "The following place names meet the criteria for inclusion as long as they are attested", which would make the following sentence redundant: "This policy is not intended to remove or reduce the requirement to find citations to support entries.". Another minor note, "meet the criteria for inclusion" should better read "should be included": the sentence itself is criterion for inclusion. Therefore, I support the substance of the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support but I feel kind of the opposite of Dan. CFI is already huge and detailed, so offloading some of it to separate pages may be good. —CodeCat 12:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    CFI is not huge by any stretch; it is rather short with around 3500 words. My idea is that the reader should find all the inclusion criteria on one page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support By and large. It's not impossible that there will be some obscure administrative subdivision of the Elamite kingdom which doesn't really merit inclusion (I guess) but it's very common for a contemporary dictionary in English to have Alabama and provide an etymology, etc. Since we're not print, we can easily accommodate further place names such as Springfield or Eurasia. These are all part of language. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support, and support implementing Dan's amendments. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support with Dan's amendments. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Morgengave (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  11. I Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle. Uninhabited islands are tricky, as some may be inhabited (e.g. by research teams) occasionally. Even places in legends such as Lyonesse merit inclusion, but probably not the fictitious Waikikamukau in New Zealand. DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support This, that and the other (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I strongly disagree with the idea of excluding any place name. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Even the names of individual buildings, offices, hotels, people's cottages called Rosebud, tiny public parks? Equinox 23:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, even those. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    If I'm not mistaken, this policy would actually increase the number of includable place names, so it would make more sense to support this vote as a step towards the policy of inclusion that you would prefer. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    Andrew Sheedy is correct - part of the current critera for inclusion could be read as meaning that all place names belong on Wikipedia and none on Wiktionary. The proposed policy would add substantial protection for a large number of place names and document that there is not yet a consensus (one way or the other) for other types of place names. I would invite opponents to consider changing their votes in light of this clarification but they are obviously under no obligation to do so. John Cross (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    That is not so clear. Currently, place names are governed by WT:NSE, which does not per se exclude any place names, although it does not protect them either. Nonetheless, WT:NSE, when combined with the overwhelming long-standing practice, does protect place names. A broad inclusion of placenames was decided at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2. Admittedly, Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia should ideally be trimmed or completely removed; unfortunately, previous attempts at removing it failed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see I'm the odd one out here, but my preference would be to include only the most important place names, with criteria similar to what we require for brand names, and let readers go to wikipedia to learn about other places. JulieKahan (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    @User:JulieKahan: Wikipedia usually does not provide inflection, does it? This is important especially for non-English languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    I would like to add that the etymologies of placenames can be very elucidating and can enrich our existing etymological data on Wiktionary; oftentimes placenames will preserve archaic elements that have been lost in the normal vocabulary. Blocking the inclusion of the majority of placenames would be to the detriment of Wiktionary's value as an etymological/onomastic resource. — Kleio (t · c) 11:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with ÞunoresWrǣþþe, but only if they are attested as per normal conventions. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After rereading and rethinking the matter, I am switching to oppose. The vote proposal is predicated on the assumption that place names are somehow threatened under the current CFI. That is not so. The place name classes listed in the vote proposal are certainly not threatened. But many place names not singled out in the proposal are declared by the vote to lack consensus. For instance, as for lakes, only twenty largest lakes in the world seem to be secure. In its tone, the vote seems to be more exclusionist of place names than Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2 even though I have to admit that the vote does not really exclude anything; it only declares absence of consensus. The most important consideration in my decision to oppose is that we do not really need this listing in CFI; the mainspace showing examples of included placenames shows the common practice and provides the required regulation without rules. Furthermore, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2 is in the list of references in CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    Perhaps the text should be slightly amended to note that there is consensus to keep street names, etc. that are not readily deducible as such, per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2, but the consensus of that vote was that a definition on its own was insufficient for a place name to merit inclusion. This vote removes the requirement that other elements be present, allowing for a greater number of toponyms than could be included previously. These things aside, there is in fact an absence of consensus on other things, hence their exclusion from the vote, so the vote is not inaccurate (as far as I am aware, anyway). It is implicit in the vote that things like street names and minor geographical features can be included if there is consensus to include them, so the vote is not limiting inclusion to the things it lists. Finally, you say that place names are not threatened under CFI. CFI states "Among those that do meet that requirement [i.e. are attestable], many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which." The "many should be excluded" implies that most do not merit inclusion, without giving any sort of idea of what falls in that "many" category. The "no agreement" clause is also not true if this vote passes, since it will mean there is finally some agreement on the subject. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    I believe there is consensus on many more place names than those singled out. Furthermore, "many should be excluded" refers e.g. to full names of individual people, many (not all) names of literary works, many (not all) names of battleships, etc. There already is certain agreement, as evidenced by the mainspace: common practice or common law, not statute singling out items. Note that the vote I referenced was annulled precisely because the requirement that other elements than definitions were to be present in place names was deemed too stringent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Dan Polansky that this vote is kind of useless. All these placenames can already be included. In fact the new wording is a little ambiguous and could be misunderstood to be saying that placenames are exempt from attestation requirements (if that's what is actually meant, then I especially strongly oppose). --WikiTiki89 20:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    The proposed policy does say: "This policy is not intended to remove or reduce the requirement to find citations to support entries." Does that allay any of your concerns re attestations? John Cross (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    It does. It would have been better if the policy were written more clearly to begin with. But still, I oppose for my first reason. --WikiTiki89 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. All words in all languages. As long as it's attestable, non-SOP and the entry carries some linguistic information (pronunciation, gender, inflection, ...), it belongs here. No point in pondering whether a tiny pond on a village green somewhere in the sticks is "significant" enough. --Droigheann (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    What about the Scilly Isles, a large roundabout complex near Esher? DonnanZ (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    You mean this? Sure. --Droigheann (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeZ. [ קהת ] b"A. — 04:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision

Passed: 14-7-0 (66.66%-33.33%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I created Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Place names. I believe this vote did not choose any specific name for the policy so I used this name unilaterally (it can be changed if it's not good). Wiktionary:Place names is taken. I also edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dominic for de-admin

Voting on: Removing User:Dominic as admin. No edits since 2013.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Quadcont (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Absolutely no prior discussion has been undertaken.

Note: Contrary to what WF wrote above, there was one vote before to remove Dominic's admin bit: Wiktionary:Votes/2015-08/Dominic for de-sysop. The vote was never posted and thus did not really undergo serious consideration. That time, WF notified Dominic on his talk-page and he never responded. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Good find, MK! --Quadcont (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support per the general reasoning (security of accounts, no dangerous concentration of power, newbies knowing whom to contact, sysops should be up to date, etc). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support What Metaknowledge said. No prejudice and consider fast-tracking him back if he ever returns (but I doubt he'll have time). Equinox 18:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support one of those admins that were not elected by a community vote.--Dixtosa (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support If I buggered off for a year I wouldn't be surprised if my status had been altered when I returned. — Saltmarsh. 08:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    Permanently blocked user. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support He's been contacted by e-mail and hasn't responded, so I assume he doesn't care. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Special:Log/Dominic shows the last admin action is from 15 June 2013. Less than 5 years have elapsed since then. My rule of thumb is that 5 years have to elapse from the last admin action. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Less than five years inactivity, and enough potential that he may return. Additionally the user is active occasionally on other projects and can be contacted, which lessens the risk of the account being hijacked (which is the one and only case where I support removal of administrator rights). --Neskaya sprecan? 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    Can he be contacted, though? He has not responded to my email or messages left on his talk-page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Not important to me, although it can be a good idea to keep sysops fresh so newer users know who they should actually be going to for guidance, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Octahedron80 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Decision


"References" and "External sources"

Voting on: Implementing this project concerning a number of entry sections, as described below, in its entirety.

Full list of steps:

  1. Renaming the "External links" section to "External sources" in all entries.
    • Rationale: The word "links" may not always be applicable. Some external sources may point to offline/paper works, such as "Foclóir Gaeḋilge agus Béarla, Irish Texts Society, 1927, by Patrick S. Dinneen" (see {{R:ga:Dinneen}}).
  2. Explicitly defining what is the purpose of the "External sources" section, and what is the purpose of the "References" section. (details in subsequent items below)
    • Rationale: Currently, these two sections are used in entries in a way that is interchangeable to some extent. If we define their purpose explicitly, the entries are going to be more consistent, and we will be able to know exactly what to expect when clicking on a link in any of these two sections.
  3. Allowing the use of the "References" section only for the purpose of referencing specific statements in the entry. (examples: we might have references for usage notes, etymologies, etc. but this does NOT replace the need to attest definitions through citations)
    • Rationale: This is to avoid the use of the "References" section to list links to other dictionaries and encyclopedias that are mere suggestions of places to look and may not add any new information that can't be found on the Wiktionary entry itself.
  4. For "References" section, always requiring the use of tags <ref></ref> and <references/>. The footnotes are presented as a numbered list.
    • Rationale: This is in line with the notion that references must serve as proof to statements in the entry; the footnotes mark the affected statements. A number of entries currently have references either as bulleted lists or as numbered lists, which is inconsistent; this proposal limits them to numbered lists only, which is the format used by reference tags anyway.
  5. Allowing the usage of "External sources" only in cases where other dictionaries and encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) are listed as suggestions of places to look, without serving as proof for specific statements in the entry.
    • Rationale: Either a link serves as proof for statements in the entry or it doesn't. If the "References" section covers the first possibility as defined above, then the "External sources" covers the second possibility.
  6. Editing WT:EL#List of headings: the section "External links" appears three times. They should be replaced by "External sources".
  7. Updating WT:EL#References and WT:EL#External links (which must be renamed to WT:EL#External sources), and adding a new section in the policy: WT:EL#See also.
    • Rationale: In WT:EL the aforementioned sections must be edited to reflect the new rules if this vote passes. The new policy section "WT:EL#See also" is to explain that the "See also" section in entries is for Wiktionary pages only; otherwise, people might use "See also" to link to pages outside Wiktionary.

Below are the specific policy edits as mentioned in the item #7 above.

Remove this from WT:EL:

External links

Any line of text whose only purpose is linking to an external website (for example, a link to an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, or 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica), should be placed within an "External links" section, and never within a "See also" section.

References
Main article: Wiktionary:References

The References section contains external sources where the information available on our entries can be verified. This improves the reliability and usefulness of Wiktionary. References are especially encouraged for unusual or disputable claims in etymologies — such as the etymology of windhover — or usage notes.

References are listed using bullet points (the character *). References may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication. Reference templates (beginning with “R:”) are used for some of the most common sources. See the example below for two references used in the entry water:

Code:

* {{R:Century 1911}}
* {{R:Webster 1913}}

Result:

Add this to WT:EL, which includes replacing what has been removed:

See also

The See also section is used to link to entries and/or other pages on Wiktionary, including appendices and categories. Don't use this section to link to external sites such as Wikipedia or other encyclopedias and dictionaries.

External sources

The External sources are simple recommendations of further places to look.

  • This section may be used to link to external dictionaries and encyclopedias, (for example, Wikipedia, or 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) which may be available online or in print.
  • This section is not meant to prove the validity of what is being stated on the Wiktionary entries. (the References section serves that purpose)

Examples:

References
Main article: Wiktionary:References

The References section contains reference works where users can verify the information available on our entries. This improves the reliability and usefulness of Wiktionary. References are especially encouraged for unusual or disputable claims in etymologies — such as the etymology of windhover — or usage notes.

  • This section requires using footnotes marking the specific statements in the text that is proved by the listed references. use <ref></ref> and <references/>. (see mw:Help:Cite for help) This generates a numbered list.
  • References may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication.
  • Reference templates are used for some of the most common sources.

Note:

  • If this vote passes, many templates such as {{R:Century 1911}} and {{R:Webster 1913}} (which begin with "R:" for "References") may start being used only in the "External sources" section, or simultaneously in both the the "External sources" and the "References" sections. This vote does not necessarily require changing the name of all the templates. The idea of renaming templates may be discussed eventually and implemented if people want.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSMUconlaw (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't like using "External sources" because (a) it implies that it is just another list of sources for information found in the entry (all of which should really be under "References"), and (b) it seems obvious that our sources would be external. A better name might be "Further reading" or "Further information." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    I like "Further information", too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    No objection to that either. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    If this vote passes (or even if it fails), it might be nice to have a separate discussion/vote to check if there's consensus for "Further information" instead of "External sources". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I think "See Also" is not a good name for the section (not self-describing, hence the confusion), but maybe this could be addressed in different vote. Jberkel (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support with the exception of point 4 and the first bullet point in the proposed "References" section, per Tropylium. I prefer a simple bulleted list of references to the use of ref tags. This, that and the other (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe are you saying that ref tag should be removed from all entries? I'd oppose that notion, ref tags are important in my opinion: they point specifically to what the references are referencing. On that note, I added the point 4 because in the november discussion in the BP some people wanted to standardize the References sections with numbers only, which I think is a good idea too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 08:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support John Cross (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose point four. I have no issue with the "External sources" renaming operation (count this as an abstain for that if you wish), but, as I have pointed out on the talk page, enforcing only in-line references is excessive in the case of e.g. reconstructed entries, all content of which is in fact sourced from somewhere. (It seems unnecessary to me to bundle these issues into a single vote, but as you will.) --Tropylium (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    (For that matter, I even agree with the intent of the point — for us to stop mixing bulleted and footnote references — but I don't think this means that bulleted references should be banned entirely. --Tropylium (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC))
    @Tropylium: Are you opposing only the point four while abstaining the other points, or are you opposing the whole vote on the basis of point four? I believe your answer should affect the vote count.
    Still, it seems to be the case that references for the whole page (or the whole language section) are the exception rather than the rule... Should we have a separate section like "General references" without specific footnotes? Personally, I guess I prefer just using "References" and adding multiple footnotes in Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kala, because some references may not cover all the displayed information, and someone might add new stuff that is not covered by any of the references listed, but I'm okay with discussing whether that's really the best idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    The former. This is not a "voting on the following X points" vote though, so it seems I'm forced to vote just in bulk.
    …Perhaps limiting this vote to mainspace entries would be the easiest workaround. Referencing reconstructions seems like a completely different topic from referencing entries, really. EL does not even explicitly cover non-mainspace entries after all, and the issue is more that WT:PROTO doesn't have a whole lot of conventions hashed out & instead defers to EL for formatting on issues like this. Perhaps I should start a discussion on improvements to that, instead. --Tropylium (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Tropylium: Based on your last message, would you like to change your vote to "Support for main namespace only, oppose for reconstruction pages"?
    If you don't want to do that, it's OK too. But please note that some votes in the past have had their outcomes affected by positions like "support everything except X". (and I support allowing that, by the way) So, based on this conversation, I'm going to count your vote as "opposing only the point four while abstaining the other points" unless you don't feel comfortable with that position and want to change it in any way before the vote ends.
    At some point in the future, I'd like to propose writing on WT:EL: "These rules apply to reconstructed pages, unless WT:PROTO says otherwise." I believe this is the same logic as "These rules apply to all languages, unless language consideration pages like WT:AJA say otherwise." But, today, I believe there's no rule (or unwritten consensus) actually stating or denying that reconstruction pages must follow WT:EL. Therefore even if this vote passes in its entirety, I believe it's probably OK to keep using "References" on reconstruction pages with bullet points like nothing happened, until further discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    It's possible that I could switch to support for mainspace, or a general abstain, but really I'd be interested in seeing what other users working with etymologies have to say about this. --Tropylium (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The "See also" note is a good one, but my feeling is that both "External links" and "External sources" headings should be scrapped, and all references placed under "References". This would be much simpler. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree with you. For example, sometimes we put links to Wikipedia, encyclopedias and dictionaries in the "External links" section (which will become "External sources" if this vote passes). These are not references, at least not in the sense that they prove what is being said in the entry. Months ago, I created Goldbach's conjecture with a "References" section serving as proof for a statement said in the entry. In my opinion, it's important to have a section for actual references and another section for simple suggestions to look for further information. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a good initiative. However, I do not find "External sources" in any reference works online: any examples? By contrast, the current "External links" is used by Wikipedia and also Britannica online (e.g. here[1]), and fits the bill for most purposes; the case where we need to refer the reader to offline work in a "further reading" manner does not seem all that common, from what I have seen, and does not make all that much sense for an online reader. I like the current use of "External links" in German and Czech pages, where it is used to link to Duden and Czech dictionaries online, respectively. An alternative could be to use headings "References" and "Inline references", and interpret "References" as "we refer you to X" rather than "some location of the page references X". A further alternative would be to only use the heading References, and introduce the inline references with "Inline references:" just above the references tag. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Boldface in image captions

Voting on: Whether to make the headwords in image captions bold. Example entry without bold: this revision; example entry with bold: this revision.

  • Option 1: Make the headword bold
    Follow-up action: Feel free to edit in volumes to make the headwords in image captions bold.
  • Option 2: Avoid making the headword bold
    Follow-up action: Feel free to edit in volumes to remove boldface from the headwords in image captions.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support option 1: Make the headword bold

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support heckin mav'rick — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 10:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Support option 2: Avoid making the headword bold

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support: I think it's unnecessarily intrusive. It's already evident elsewhere on the page what the headword is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Not really necessary. Some captions might not even include the headword. Equinox 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, some captions don't use the headword. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm all for consistency! I don't really care whether all or no headwords are bold in captions, but I'm supporting the winning option to help ensure that one of them passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Striking for now. Boldface can be useful for diagrams that have a lot of text in the key, such as at sternpost, so I'll have to think about this. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: The caption in sternpost is unhelpful; it should only identify that sternpost is number 4 without providing labels for other numbered items. Furthermore, an image that needs a caption for the reader to see which part is meant is not the best possible one; a better image can be made in which the part can be highlighted e.g. using red outline, by using white background for non-highlighted parts or via other means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's a good point, though I do sometimes find it helpful when looking up multiple related terms to find them all on a diagram and see how they all relate to each other. I am reinstating my vote, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. As an aside, look how this particular caption is further made unnecessarily busy by stating the names of colors in words, driving the attention of the reader away from the words illustrated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    The caption for the sternpost image looks perfectly OK with the highlighted headword. DonnanZ (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    A different example of the use of boldface can be found here. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per SMUconlaw and per my rationale on the talk page of this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both options. The status quo, with each editor deciding for himself how to format the captions he writes, and no one wasting time on mass edits switching from one format to the other, is preferable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Aɴɢʀ: I understand this to mean that avoidable lack of unity AKA consistency in formatting is preferable, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Consistency has its place, which is why we have templates, but in this case I feel that any attempt at consistency would be unnecessarily disruptive and would not bring any benefit except consistency for consistency's sake. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    How would removal of boldface from captions in volumes be "disruptive"? What would it "disrupt"? I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It would disrupt my work to have my watchlist filled with edits doing nothing constructive, but merely adding or removing boldface from captions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    The watchlist tool makes it possible to hide bot edits. And since many entries are affected by a variety of bot edits anyway, he who does not want to see trivial edits on their watchlist has to use that feature. Removals of boldface would add just a small fraction to the overall bot edit volume. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Angr. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'll also add that the argument for boldface is for the same reason we use boldface in usage examples. It's not to make the caption stand out, it's to make the word stand out within the caption. --WikiTiki89 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It is because the caption is not a usage example and the caption should be short that the word does not need to stand out there. The caption is relatively unimportant and should be unconspicuous; it is the image that is important, and is there to illustrate one of the uses of the word, which is always the page headword. The boldface and the caption should not drive the reader attention away from the image. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    The image would not be added unless it is relevant to the headword, so highlighting the headword if it appears in the caption is IMO a good idea. And the caption can be a usage example if it's written in a foreign language. I am rather puzzled by your attitude here. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    @DonnanZ: Every piece of information on the page is relevant to the headword, not just images; that is the selection criterion for which information should be on the page. It does not follow that each occurrence of the headword should be highlighted in boldface. Indeed, we usually do not boldface occurrences of headwords in usage notes, which I like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: changing vote from abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: changing vote from abstain. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Angr. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This should be treated on a case-by-case, not a one-size-fits-all basis. Generally I prefer captions without boldface, but I don't think that the status quo prevents anybody from removing boldface when they consider it an improvement, while this vote would (whether intentionally or not) let a bot convert even those where boldface is appropriate (eg at FL entries as mentioned by DonnanZ). --Droigheann (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Droigheann@: I do feel prevented from removing boldface when I feel it is an improvement. Since, in my view, removing boldface is an improvement in general, but I do have evidence in the mainspace that some editors think that boldface is good in general, and therefore, I would consider even manual removals of boldface to be unwise and not in keeping with the principle of consensus-based decision making. As for the other concern, I have not seen any entries where I would think boldface appropriate, foreign-language ones or otherwise. For sternpost, above I have pointed out what I think are deficiencies of the caption whose correction would make boldface unnecessary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    In betongrør, nothing would be lost in removing boldface, yielding "Betongrør in plural form - concrete pipes" or "Betongrør in plural form - concrete pipes, using italics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    Well I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on both of these. I accept your viewpoints, but mine are the exact opposite: AFAIC, both plain and italicised Betongrør look worse than boldfaced, and this vote, if successful, would imply editors' agreement that boldface should be removed from any caption unless a particular one is discussed in Tea room or somewhere (I wouldn't even really know where) first. --Droigheann (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Droigheann: Should then all non-English headwords in captions be in bold, per your preference? If not, what makes betongrør special? If yes, is it really true of you that "Generally, I prefer captions without boldface"? I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    There's no reason for a bold caption e.g. at rohlík, where it's the only word, what makes betongrør different is that it's an FL word used within running English text. Given that there's no point in having pictures at FL entries which only contain direct translations to English, the majority of pictures should be at English entries, so I don't understand what you don't understand.
    Incidentally I find the caption at rohlík with its capital initial but no full stop badly formatted. But that's how it was created. Should I be afraid to change it, not being the caption's author? --Droigheann (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    I like images in non-English entries and so do apparently multiple other editors; I like what I did at klíč. The caption at rohlík is fine; captions should start in capital letter, IMHO, and do not end in period unless they are sentences. Indeed, going about changing captions like the one at rohlík without a previous discussion or consensus would be unwise since then editors would be working at cross-purposes, one group switching in one way, another group switching in another way. That is why it is ideal when a general formatting practice supported by consensus can be found so that people can feel free to be switching to that practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Editors should decide, but maybe we should have some rough guidelines/recommendations. Currently WT:EL does not mention images at all, which looks like an oversight. – Jberkel (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jberkel: Which editors? Those who add images, upon adding the image? Or any editor? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    Whoever adds an image and writes that caption. It might make sense for longer captions, when the headword needs to stand out. Then again, longer captions should probably be avoided anyway (defeating the purpose of an image). Jberkel (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarsh. 08:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain (vote changed) - I am generally in favour of making the headword bold in captions, but I think that in short captions it may look silly. I think it should be left to the editor to decide, but as I can't vote for either of the given options I am abstaining. DonnanZ (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz If I understand the vote correctly, a vote in the "Oppose" section would support leaving it up to the editor on a case-by-case basis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This needs to be verified. It's not the impression I get when I look at the follow-up action. DonnanZ (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? Follow-up actions are listed for options 1 and 2, but not for the "oppose" option, so I assume that if neither option succeeds (i.e., if the oppose votes win), then the status quo (which is that many captions have bolding and many don't) will continue. What other outcome could there be if the oppose votes win? Pinging vote creator @Dan Polansky for confirmation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If opposes win, there is no decision, and status quo ante remains, whatever the status quo ante is. As far as I can see, the status quo ante does not forbid editors from using boldface or avoiding boldface when adding a new image with a caption. What is more open to doubt is adding bold or removing bold while doing no other thing to an existing image caption. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@DonnanZ: I wonder: what do you mean by up to the editor? Do you mean that any editor should feel free to add bold or remove bold as they see fit, regardless of whether they are the one who added the image or the caption? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I really meant the editor who is adding the image and caption. I wasn't thinking about subsequent edits, but that is open to discussion. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain It's a pretty pointless vote. --Quadcont (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    I want to start removing boldface but only if this is supported by consensus. So I need something like this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Removing boldface shouldn't be the purpose of the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain (vote changed) This is a non-issue and this is a pointless vote. Leaving it up to the individual editors, and to the separate-language editor communities, seems best to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: As I commented under Donnanz's vote above, I think you might want to vote oppose. That is the status quo option, which would leave it up to individual editors as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg AbstainSaltmarsh. 18:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Glyph origin

Voting on:

Formally allowing the "Glyph origin" section in entries.

Section placement:

  1. The "Glyph origin" section is to be a level 3 section.
  2. The "Glyph origin" section is to be placed among the sections that exist before the POS section. More specifically: after the level 3 "Alternative forms" and/or "Description" section when they exist, and before the level 3 "Etymology" and/or "Pronunciation" sections when they exist.

Policy edit:

Some entries that already have the "Glyph origin" section, as of February 2, 2017: (Translingual and Chinese), ⿱成龍 (Chinese), (Chinese).

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Supportsuzukaze (tc) 00:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Existing widespread usage that works and is agreed upon by relevant editors (here, Chinese editors) should be codified. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wyang (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Μετάknowledge. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Better Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain 'cause I don't edit in these languages. But proposal does not sound bad as far as I can tell. Equinox 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I'm leaning towards oppose, because I think the visual representation of a word is just as much a matter for etymology as the meaning and path of its inheritance/borrowing. However, I don't edit in the relevant languages, so I don't think it would be appropriate/fair for me to do anything other than abstain. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

Voting on: Removing the following two sentences from WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia section: "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words."

The section before the change, with the planned removal in red:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.

The section after the change:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.


Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohn Cross (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The main removed sentence is of the form "Many places, [...], are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." It is not significant for places that they qualify for inclusion as these names since they qualify for inclusion as place names; the sentence may lead to the impression in the reader that place names are not welcome unless they are also given names or family names. The 2nd removed sentence is basically a repetition of the 1st sentence in the paragraph. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dan Polansky. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the shorter sentence can be deleted, but the fact that place names are unaffected is left unsaid. Shouldn't it be mentioned that they are allowable, providing the entry is not encyclopaedic? Any encyclopaedic entry could be trimmed anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a request to add a sentence. Does the edit proposed by the vote make things worse for place names? Note that place names are in fact regulated by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As another vote on place names has now popped up, I am withdrawing my opposition for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


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: