Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:V)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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/2019-04/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-04/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-04/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2019-04/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2019-04/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2019-04/User: for bot status}}


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

Moving Novial entries to the Appendix

Voting on: Moving all Novial entries from mainspace to Appendix space, e.g. chokolate#Novial to Appendix:Novial/chokolate. All Novial translations in mainspace would also be removed, but Novial could still be linked to in other contexts. Novial would also be moved from the “excluded except” list to the “should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace” list at WT:CFI#Constructed languages.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC), driven by a late change in the voting stance of Per utramque cavernam and the borderline result. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)



  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Finding enough citations for the language does not seem possible. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support As I said at the Beer Parlor, it's hard to find citable authors other than Otto Jespersen, and given the language being most successful 1928-1943, any works are not freely available on Google Books or Hathitrust. I don't oppose appendixfying, but I really think it better to just point to Otto Jespersen's works on the subject and let it go at that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMahāgaja · talk 07:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, for the same reasoning as Lojban. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per above. --{{victar|talk}} 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Based on what Prosfilaes says, it may be necessary (or at least desirable) to dramatically downsize the number of words we include, in the manner of e.g. Dothraki. I am sympathetic to doing that or removing the lect altogether as Rua suggests. - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. It seems the alternatives are to remove Novial entirely (which might be worth considering) or to let it die a slow, painful death as terms fail RFV a few at a time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. For the same reason as Lojban. — Algentem (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes please. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 21:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strongly, for the same reasons as I gave in the Lojban debacle. To wit: it removes (or is perceived as removing, if פֿינצטערניש's and Prosfilaes' comments in this vote are any indication) the inclusion criteria without introducing new ones, making RFV/RFD processes impossible. These are particularly important for conlangs, because people are much more inclined to invent and promote words in their favourite conlangs than in natural languages, which is not something we should be party to if we want to be taken seriously as a descriptive work. If editors of Novial want it to be subject to a laxer set of criteria than LDL, they can propose one and we can have a meaningful discussion about it. If they were to do so, I would be more inclined to support that proposal (no promises, though) if it stipulated an {{LDL}}-esque disclaimer, as Dan Polansky suggests. While moving the entries to Appendix would make it less likely for someone to stumble on them, if they were to do so, they would not be met with any indication that the information is less reliable than mainspace material, which I presume is why anyone wants this language out of mainspace.__Gamren (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Gamren, I think that your votes (those you've created and cast) have been counterproductive in this debate, but I think that your core ideas are genuinely good. I'd like to draft a vote with you to establish attestation criteria for the appendix. I'm travelling for the next few days, but leave me a message on my talk page and we can try to work on a robust vote that can get passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge I'd certainly be happy to help, if I can, but the vote draft I made before were not well-received, maybe because I don't edit the relevant languages myself and therefore don't have a sense of what material is available. I could make a generalized, abstract (i.e. not referring to specific works) version of this with more options, but I don't see that that would go differently. Perhaps you would make a draft yourself? Otherwise I don't really know how to proceed.__Gamren (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    I should also say that I don't think I'll agree, personally, to anything laxer than WDL. The rationale for LDL, to me, is the idea that there's a "hidden corpus" of non-durable text. For conlangs, the majority of the text is available.__Gamren (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't oppose removing the language completely, but for now I think this is a step in the right direction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose moving them to the Appendix namespace. Support removing it entirely. The Appendix namespace is not a dumping ground for things we don't want in the main namespace, and it definitely should not contain dictionary entries. —Rua (mew) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If Novial is moved to the Appendix for it being a ConLang, then shouldn't other ConLangs be moved too? Such as Esperanto, Interlingua, Volapük, etc. This begs the question: what qualifies a ConLang for inclusion on Wiktionary? While Wikimedia is not for things made up in one day (theoretically, anyone can make up their own language if they'd like), some ConLangs such as the above are very common and widespread. Esperanto has even been added to Google Translate! Are there any other reasons that Novial should be moved, besides the fact that it's a ConLang? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Johnny Shiz: It appears that you haven't read the discussions linked above. Novial is, unlike Esperanto, not at all widespread and almost exclusively written by a single person. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Unlike with Esperanto, Ido, and Interlingua, there is not a large literary corpus that could make Novial meet the criteria for inclusion. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OK, I understand your arguments. But all in all, I can't support this. For one thing, the language exists, and if it's not a big thing today, it has been one in the past. The argument that "Wikipedia [or Wiktionary] is not for things made up in one day" is patently absurd when applied to Novial. But more importantly: Wikimedia acknowledges its existence. Make no mistake: I have my doubts about the Novial Wikipedia as well. But as long as it exists, users should be able to look up words through Wiktionary. Moving all entries of a language to the Appendix namespace is a time, man power, and server space consuming operation with no obvious advantage. So in case of doubt: leave it alone. Steinbach (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    Struck as ineligible to vote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    For reference: Wiktionary:Voting_policy.__Gamren (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Mx. Granger, Gamren It seems to me that Steinbach now has enough edits in qualifying namespaces, so should his/her vote be unstruck? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo "Their account must have at least 50 edits (...) by the start time of the vote." (my emphasis)__Gamren (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In absence of a mechanism to remove unattested or unreferenced entries. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Clarifying that my opposition isn't express support for deletion; though I feel quite indifferent about deletion vs. moving to the appendix in this case. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Late Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: actually, I'd prefer to see it deleted entirely (per Rua). In any case, oppose per LBD and Gamren. Per utramque cavernam 12:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Okay, if all the objections are for deletion, that the Appendix is inappropriate, I'll support that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Seems to me that at least right now, 8 votes are support, 3 are oppose but supporting deletion, 3 are oppose but not supporting deletion. — surjection?〉 09:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    I count Johnny Shiz against deletion/moving, Lingo Bingo Dingo explicitly indifferent, and Gamren doesn't seem to be expressing anything explicitly on the subject, though I would say the last two support deleting it step-by-step via RFV if nothing else. Yes, "all the objections" was a little broad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    In principle individual RFV would be preferable, but I don't want to subject anyone to that task if everyone agrees the language isn't going to survive. I do support deletion.__Gamren (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support, and might move this to the support section before the end of the vote, but I'd like to remind everyone of this discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/June § On the placement of constructed languages, and on the attestation of appendix-only languages. Per utramque cavernam 11:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Switched to oppose. Per utramque cavernam 12:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. For reference: Wiktionary:Votes/2018-02/Moving Lojban entries to the Appendix. I am not very clear about the benefit of moving something to an appendix space; what it does is that it introduces incovenience, while the content will still be in Wiktionary database, accessible to readers. I am not sure what the appendix namespace does that a badge of shame in the mainspace stating the relaxed attestation criteria would not do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky The difference between Appendix and a "badge of shame", as you call it, is that the latter would require actually specifying the attestation criteria, which has not (yet) been done.__Gamren (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    The verification inclusion criteria and the storage location are orthogonal: whatever criteria are chosen, they can be applied in the mainspace as well as in an appendix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    In principle, yes. In practice, this vote has implications on the inclusion criteria. But fine, you don't need to justify your vote.__Gamren (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    I think including something in an appendix is an acknowledgement that it has some importance even if it doesn't meet the strict Criteria for Inclusion. In Novial's case, it was created by a prominent linguist who was actively involved in other IAL movements. So it's less about shame and more about giving the language an honor not bestowed on the majority of such languages. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    And by "prominent linguist" I'm not referring to the typical self-puffing of IAL creators; this is the guy who coined the term "Great Vowel Shift" and first studied it. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


9-6-1: Seems like no consensus. Deletion vote, next?__Gamren (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the next step is a CFI for conlangs; making clear rules usually gets more support than deleting content. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with @Metaknowledge. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Do you mean a CFI for appendix conlangs? Conlangs in the mainspace are already covered by CFI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
But that wouldn't apply to Novial, since we've just established that there is no consensus for it to be moved to appendix. So, a vote to delete Novial and a vote to establish CFI for the appendix conlangs would be unrelated, and can happen concurrently.__Gamren (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
That's untrue, and if you just read what LBD said, for example, it's clear that at least some people would be fine with moving Novial to the appendix if there were a CFI governing such entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Would you be interested to clarify why keeping Novial in the mainspace but applying LDL criteria to it (including a single mention from an applicable source) would be a bad idea? For readers, an example of LDL entry with a badge of shame is Malagasy ondana. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
LDL criteria are a reflection of our recognition that languages like Malagasy are spoken much more than they are written, and we must therefore give more weight to the written material that does exist. Novial was never spoken more than it was written: it was simply never used much at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with a deletion vote. Discussion of a CFI for appendix conlangs is open, but I'm less than open to what seems to be a one-man effort like Novial, no matter how famous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Treat Scots as English

Voting on: handling Scots words as ==English== (with {{label}}s and {{qualifier}}s where appropriate).

Rationale: Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2019-02/Treat Scots as English § Rationale.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)




  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – though Scots and English can exist on a continuum, and though there are difficult edge cases, it doesn't make it more useful to those interested in Scots to fold it into English. Scots has a very large literary corpus and remains hugely prevalent on social media, and we can best reflect this usage by considering it (like linguists) a separate language. Ƿidsiþ 15:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per talk page. In addition to what I've already written, it seems like the major arguments for this are that it would make it easier to write entries about English words, and this isn't fair to Scots. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As someone who has worked on Scots (I'm told this matters), I do not think that we should take a language and stick it under English because that would be more convenient for us, especially when that would mean dropping support for that language's conjugations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others' arguments, and also because I'm not happy about the idea that words used by, say, Robert Burns, now obsolete even in Scotland and never used in England, would belong under the header English. --Droigheann (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    Being used in England should never be a criterion in determining whether a word belongs under English though. Many dialectal and regional words, like byheart (India) and faucet (America) are not used in England but are nonetheless part of the English language. Leasnam (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    Granted, but I think that, at least in the context of this vote, there is a significant difference between Indian and American English, which branched off from what we treat here as "English" (albeit with other influences including Scots), and Scots, which developed simultaneously from Old and Middle English, both of which we treat as languages in their own right. Droigheann (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but support treating English as a dialect of Scots. More to the point, dialect continuums containing multiple "languages" aren't exactly rare across the world, so why is this one particular case more troublesome? Can we not just see how it's handled in other cases? I suggest drawing a proper linguistic as opposed to geographical border between the two, meaning one that has clearly defined isoglosses that are documented in linguistic sources. We need to be able to answer the question "is Northumbrian English because it's in England, or because it lies south of an isogloss?". —Rua (mew) 12:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know whether an isogloss has ever been drawn, but when you get words like Scots bairn and English bairn which come from Old English and are Geordie as well as Northumbrian, it must be difficult to draw one. DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    One possible isogloss could be the outcome of the Great Vowel Shift. That would group dialects of northern England with Scots. —Rua (mew) 14:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) "How it's handled in other cases" seems to vary a lot depending on the languages in question. We treat Norwegian Bokmal and Norwegian Nynorsk as separate languages, but lump all of Chinese together as one language. I guess overall we're more "splitters" than "lumpers" (with Chinese being a big exception)—we also split up a lot of languages of the Iberian peninsula even when they're mutually intelligible, and we sure seem to have a lot of different headers for varieties of German. I suspect there are many cases that are just as troublesome as Scots, it's just that not all of them have had votes yet (Chinese and Norwegian have had votes). —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    I haven't a clue about Chinese, but both Bokmål and Nynorsk are official languages, and Riksmål isn't. I think many Scots dialect words that are included are best described as semi- or quasi-official (or completely unofficial, such as poond for pound, which is based on pronunciation). I would like to know whether there is an authoritative Scots dictionary available. DonnanZ (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Dictionary of the Scots Language is one, but it also includes Scottish English and doesn't distinguish between Scots and Scottish English.--Hazarasp (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, I may order this book. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    What's different (more troublesome?) about Scots and English is that this is the English Wiktionary and people have raised questions about whether we should be "translating" Scots into English, have Scots in translation tables, translation requests, etc. DTLHS (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose weakly. Equinox 13:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strongly. Yes, Scots can be considered an English dialect. All the same, Scottish Gaelic could be considered an Irish dialect and Dutch could be considered a German dialect. I think all languages that have a separate ISO 639-3 code should be treated as separate languages, unless SIL were obviously mistaken or, perhaps, in cases where we already group several varieties together into one language. There are no hard criteria whether some variety is a dialect or a separate language. Allowing Scots to be treated as English would set a huge precedent. Steinbach (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Widsith and Droigheann. I think having Scots as a separate language offers a better experience to users. Despite the continuum with Northern English, having Shetlandic or Doric Scots forms under English (Doric fa for who, fit for what) seems a little bizarre to me. Modern Scots is also continuous with early modern Scots, which was a language standard of its own. A merger of Scots and English would also remove the distinction between everyday Scots and Scottish Standard English. So arguments about continua can also cut the other way. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strongly, as the only benefit of moving Scots under English would be that it would be easier to work with, while sacrificing the language's distinctiveness, which seems to me to be against the entire nature of Wiktionary. I agree with DTLHS and פֿינצטערניש that this vote should have never been held to begin with, and that Scots speakers who see this vote would likely abhor it. GabeMoore (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Widsith. Julia 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with GabeMoore and the users he mentioned. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Struck, as not yet eligible to vote in this vote per the voting policy. — surjection?〉 08:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although a case can be made to treat English and Scots as (named) dialects of a single language, a more or less equally strong case can be made to treat them as different languages ('A language is a dialect with an army and navy' and all that). I don't see a definite up side for collapsing them. The downsides are political (naming both 'English' minimizes Scots and Scots speakers) and organizational (potentially more difficult for users to find Scots lexemes). Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Good points. Leasnam (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for now. I am inclined to support this proposal, and may change my vote. I did find some ridiculous Scots words when doing etyl cleanups, pornography failed RFV (diff). Some place names are close to English, e.g Cummernaud and Sanchar (Sanquhar) which come from Scots Gaelic, as does the surname Farquhar, which is only included as English. DonnanZ (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    It's worth checking to see how many Scots words appear in English dictionaries; I have added Oxford references to auld and braw. Scots forms of place names never appear on Ordnance Survey maps, but Scottish Gaelic can in some cases, e.g. An Gearasdan / Fort William. In fact many places in remote areas, such as hills and mountains, only have Gaelic names. DonnanZ (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Without actual Scots contributors (or speakers), I don't think this vote is a good idea. If there were people actively adding Scots content they would be the ones to judge how it is to be treated. DTLHS (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Though I voted no because the vote already is happening, I would add that having a vote on this is a great way to repel Scots contributors. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain, for the time being. I am inclined to oppose; however, if it's easier to represent Scots to the world side by side with English then I would not be up in arms to that--at the very least Scots terminology would be receiving the recognition it deserves. Again, this vote in no way attempts to settle any debate about the status of Scots, whether dialect or language, it is merely relative to the treatment of Scots by Wiktionary for the purpose of efficient delivery. We've been allowing Scots to headline as its own language for several years now, and not many Scots speakers seem thus far to have taken any real interest in carrying it to a higher level. Leasnam (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as apparently I'm not allowed to vote...though there was never a vote per se disallowing me. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Struck as a permablocked editor. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    That's a bit mean. I'm not even sure why he is permablocked. DonnanZ (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar. Going on a vandalism spree multiple times and continuously setting up new accounts to evade blocks seems like plenty of reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, we have to be absolutely sure that it's one and the same person. All that happened well before I became a user in 2013. DonnanZ (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    I really don't think we have to check if "Wonderfool early February 2019" and "Wonderfool" are the same user; in fact, I think identifying themselves as a blocked user is sufficient grounds for blocking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Admittedly, choosing any WF-related user name is rather daft. DonnanZ (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    He does have a very clear pattern of editing, and random checks along the way have always confirmed. I think he enjoys the status quo, but I would personally be fine with just unblocking one of the old accounts and not making him an admin again. - TheDaveRoss 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    I wouldn't disagree with that, it could be the way forward. I have seen some good contributions that have been made between blocks. DonnanZ (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


0-11-4, Fails. — surjection?〉 07:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit

Voting on: When citations can be provided showing that a romanization of a Sanskrit word is attested in a string of transliterated Sanskrit text (used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years; see, e.g. [1], [2]), a Sanskrit entry for that romanization consisting of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry should be included, as a minimum. This proposal makes no statement about whether more than modicum should be included; it ensures that, as a minimum, modicum can be included.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)



  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. As someone who has looked up romanized Sanskrit words in English text (not being used as English words) and not found them on Wiktionary, I think this would be helpful. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Wut? If I search for śabdakośa, शब्दकोश is the first entry to come up. --{{victar|talk}} 10:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    A similar search for mahā does not fare so well: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit#Test case: mahā. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    You consider a result positively matching the first entry in Sanskrit not faring well? --{{victar|talk}} 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    It seems you are confusing Sanskrit with Devanagari. How is the reader of a Latin-script text such as this[3] going to know that the script which they do not know and found in search results is to be associated with Sanskrit? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm referring to the Sanskrit entry of महा. I see no problem in searching for Sanskrit words using Latin transcriptions. --{{victar|talk}} 08:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    How is the reader of a Latin-script text [...] going to know that the script which they do not know and found in search results is to be associated with Sanskrit? I mean the script used in महा entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support for IAST romanisations (those usually encountered), but not for other or ad hoc schemes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Metaknowledge: Can you please clarify whether this conditional or restricted vote that you cast is in accord with your understanding of proper voting procedure, as you understand it? (I am not objecting at all; I am merely trying to confirm what I see.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I think this kind of vote is acceptable, although I acknowledge that some disagree. I would probably be more strategic and leave out conditions if this were a well-written vote that had a good chance of passing, but unfortunately it is neither of those things. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you. I am looking forward to see your vote about Sanskrit, one which you think has a good chance of passing. In fact, the proposal of the present vote nearly passed multiple years ago, so I don't think the chances are that bad. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    I wish I had seen some discussion of this vote beforehand so I could help. (Perhaps you posted in the BP and I missed it?) Unfortunately, there tends to be some vote fatigue, so we'll have to wait a while before bringing the same question to a vote once again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    I think we do not need to wait before we bring an amendment of a running vote to Beer parlour discussion. To the contrary, the subject of the vote is activated in people's minds anyway so there is some economy of cognition in doing so. In any case, I think the restricted vote you cast is a very productive and unbureaucratic way of doing things, and I appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Support per the rationale on the talk page. In sum, let us create the best experience for our readers that we know how, and let us make no artificial restrictions on the WT:CFI's general principle that "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", with the use of the core evidence-based (as opposed to analysis-based) principle of CFI, which is the attestation requirement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Words should be entries that can be looked up here, no matter what the script.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support I would prefer allowing IAST romanizations of all Sanskrit words, regardless of attestation (i.e. treating Sanskrit like Gothic, Chinese, and Japanese), but if this weakened proposal is the only one that can get consensus, I'll support it. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Andrew Sheedy and others. --Droigheann (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support - if a reader is likely to come across something like this in print (which is what attestation is a test of), then we should provide a definition for it. bd2412 T 01:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Andrew Sheedy and Mahagaja. This may be useful e.g. when there is an entry in a different language with the same spelling as the romanisation. I would also support IAST romanisations without an attestation requirement and am open to backing a more stringent attestation requirement for non-IAST romanisations. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Allowing all and only IAST romanizations would make far more sense, but this is better than nothing. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    Struck as the user is ineligible to vote as per Wiktionary:Voting policy. — surjection?〉 18:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've been editing the Sanskrit entries rather conscientiously for a while, primarily as here. I've only registered this account recently at the explicit request of various editors on the discord. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Doesn't matter. You don't meet the minimum requirements yet to vote. --{{victar|talk}} 04:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of being coupled to attestation. As I said: “I would understand it if one created just mechanically, that is by bot, all romanized forms, but attesting romanizations I do not understand, this siphons off the limited attention of editors.” It will be a cringe experience if editors start to attest romanizations instead of the words themselves. I would perhaps ignore this vote if it were just about mechanical additions like with Pinyin or with Serbo-Croatian where one script entails the other and there being two scripts does not double the attestation requirements, but this vote’s differentiation has no rationale I can follow. Fay Freak (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    The attestation requirement is linked to the rationale: if the form is actually used, then it is included. In that sense, the proposal is merely a confirmation of what is already entailed in WT:CFI as currently written. If this vote passes (a big if), we could create another vote that lifts the attestation requirement for IAST. The main thing is to have a clear statement that editors are allowed to create the best experience for our readers that we know how, as long as they consider that to be the wise use of their resources. To prevent editors from helping our readers so that the editors would have their resources conserved is an undue patternalism, a violation of Mill's principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Fay Freak: Can you please indicate what is your position toward automatic IAST Sanskrit? Above, it seems you would be okay with it; is that accurate? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes. Okay I would be with it. I would not be particularly for it, since as I said on the verso page the cost-benefit assessment does not lean well into the positive sector. If I support it can only be appeasement – weak support perhaps. But apparently most editors prefer to gently push into getting off the Latin script and using the actual scripts, which is sane. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly oppose: See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Victar: Which of the reasons for opposing in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit#Oppose do you agree with? Can you please identify at least of them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Lol, no*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    @JohnC5: Would you care to provide a rationale for your oppose vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When Romanisations are allowed as entries, they are eventuall treated as regular native scripts, native word, a replacement for difficult script, which is wrong. For example , , いぬ, イヌ are all acceptable Japanese words/spellings but [[inu]], written in Roman letters is not a Japanese word, it's only a romanisation. Similarly, महा is a Sanskrit word but [[mahā]] is not. My position hasn't changed since the last vote on Sanskrit romanisations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    "When Romanisations are allowed as entries, they are eventually treated as regular native scripts": I don't think that's true. Gothic aflagjandans is clearly marked as a "Romanization of 𐌰𐍆𐌻𐌰𐌲𐌾𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌰𐌽𐍃", not as a "Latin spelling of 𐌰𐍆𐌻𐌰𐌲𐌾𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌰𐌽𐍃" (so there's no way to mistake it for a native-script entry), and it's going to stay that way.
    Also, I think it's more wrong to treat mahā as an English word than as a Romanized Sanskrit word. Per utramque cavernam 12:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    Let me first thank you for a reasoned oppose. Now, as for "महा is a Sanskrit word but [[mahā]] is not": In fact, a Sanskrit word is an auditory phenomenon that can be put down on paper, screen or other medium either as महा or mahā, whichever is considered to be more convenient. The proposal of the vote has a link to a source that chooses mahā as the means of representation of the word. Strictly speaking, neither महा or mahā are Sanskrit words but rather means of recording or showing a Sanskrit word in a medium. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we often say things like 'cat is an English word', and in that sense, both महा or mahā are Sanskrit words, alternative forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    But is IAST really less ‘native’ than e. g. Devanāgarī? Sanskrit has been written down in an insane number of writing systems, all of which its core predates by centuries. Sanskrit texts have been traditionally transmitted orally anyway. Sure, Devanāgarī is a kind of academic standard; but so is IAST. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose non-IAST Romanisation entries. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain otherwise (see below). Per utramque cavernam 12:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Vahag (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because it's a completely inconsistent and useless policy. I see no one asking the same for Old Church Slavonic or Avestan (or Ugaritic as Fay Freak mentioned on the talk page), which use scripts that are just as or even more likely to be replaced by transliterations in modern texts. When Dan Polansky starts making arguments such as "a Sanskrit word is an auditory phenomenon that can be put down on paper, screen or other medium either as महा or mahā, whichever is considered to be more convenient" and "How is the reader of a Latin-script text such as this[3] going to know that the script which they do not know and found in search results is to be associated with Sanskrit?" I think I can safely say he has no clue what he is talking about in the context of Sanskrit and that this vote is a waste of time especially for people who would rather be working on making actual Sanskrit entries. It seems like the purpose of this vote is to improve the user experience for people who mainly use the Latin script, but that rationale can be applied to so many other language that a vote for Sanskrit only doesn't really make sense. Victar already made the point that searching for the IAST usually brings up the Devanagari entry among the tope few results which means finding Sanskrit entries through only Latin script is not cumbersome at all. Also why is this vote going to last 3 months? This whole thing just reeks pointless bureaucracy to me. My position is unchanged from the last discussion. TLDR: Lol, no in the words of JohnC5. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Emoji u1f44f.svg --{{victar|talk}} 18:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    You don't see anybody asking for other languages because you're not paying attention and your example languages aren't as major as Sanskrit. We have romanizations for Japanese and Gothic, so adding it would be more consistent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    As for "I think I can safely say he has no clue what he is talking about in the context of ...": Instead of addressing the arguments quoted (playing the ball), you play the man. My arguments are left without response. This vote contains multiple references to texts using Latin Sanskrit. The supporters have provided both arguments and evidence; the opposers have provided hand waving. The 3 months are there because the previous vote lasted 6 months to get enough voters in the first place. The vote is obviously not pointless bureaucracy; it is an attempt to see whether consensus has changed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per various arguments above. —Suzukaze-c 02:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly oppose DerekWinters (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support, as I would prefer this to having a bunch of English entries for words that aren't English (mahā, osthya, etc.). However:
    • I agree with Fay Freak that it would make more sense to have romanisation entries for everything, not just attested romanisations.
    • The fact that all the contributors to Sanskrit content have disagreed with this must count for something. Per utramque cavernam 10:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC) 
    I can't help but find it unfortunate that an inactive user who has little to no connection to the issue at hand, like Prosfilaes, can have equal voting power to people that work in the area every day. --{{victar|talk}} 03:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    Great way to encourage people to work on Wiktionary. If you want to build your own little Sanskrit dictionary, go elsewhere; Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary where there should be a consistent style and what's done in one language affects what's done in another language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    I certainly encourage you to contribute to the languages you vote on. --{{victar|talk}} 02:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Let me add that I've just remembered a collection @Mahagaja has mentioned in a previous discussion: the Clay Sanskrit Library. These are bilingual English-Sanskrit editions of Sanskrit classics, and the original text is entirely written in IAST (an example here). To me, this is a rather strong argument for why we should even have alternative spelling entries (I wouldn't push for that though; I'd be fine with Romanisation entries). Per utramque cavernam 12:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    I don't object to automatic IAST Sanskrit, but let me point out that the text you brought forward (for which I thank you) pertains to attestation. You say, look, here is a complete text. And the idea is, when it is attested in use, we include it. Let me again emphasize in use, as contrasts to mention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree. What I meant is that it seems a mistake to me to ignore entire books published in IAST. Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    abstain per above. —Suzukaze-c 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Vote changed to oppose. Per utramque cavernam 14:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Not too familiar with Sanskrit and issues surrounding it, so I'm reluctant to vote. But I agree with a lot of points raised by the proponents of this vote, as well as the opposition to the attestation requirement raised by both proponents and opponents of the vote. It seems to me that IAST-based romanization entries w/o attestation requirement would be ideal (mirroring the romanizations of Gothic, Japanese etc. which have perfectly fine romanization systems as has been brought up already in the discussion above), so long as they can be generated automatically based on an unambiguous reading of the native script (usually impossible with abjads, but then Devanagari is a syllabic script so I think we should be fine). I'm not sure why these votes so often hang on the attestation requirement: romanizations are essentially soft redirects, they're basically there to compensate for an imperfect search engine. The attestation requirement should imo only be for the entry in the native script(s), not the romanization that links to it which should only exist if the native script entry exists anyway. (If there should exist somewhere a romanization entry without a native-script entry, such an entry could be categorized automatically, as with Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry, and the reverse should also be possible.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    I think the larger important question is whether we can be sure to include Latin-script Sanskrit at all. If we can get attested Latin-script Sanskrit to pass (a big if indeed), my hope would be that it shouldn't be too hard to pass an automatic IAST Sanskrit via a follow-up vote. My guess is that most opposers of Latin-script Sanskrit oppose both proposals. As for native script, is Devanagari really native script of Sanskrit? W:Sanskrit tells us that "Sanskrit texts dated to the 1st millennium CE were written in the Brahmi script, the Nāgarī script, the historic South Indian scripts and their derivative scripts.", and has it sourced. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. If there is no universal policy stating that any script is allowed for any language as long as it is attested, then I would prefer to leave questions of Sanskrit up to Indian people. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    The thing is, this is the English Wiktionary, serving above all native English speakers and speakers who have English as the second language. These people are necessarily acquainted with Latin script, but not necessarily with other scripts. The dictionary does not serve exclusively readers from India. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    And as a native English speaker who isn't from India and uses Wiktionary, I want the quality of Wiktionary to be as high as possible, which is why I think it's a good practice to refrain from making it worse through voting out of ignorance. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    I do not see how the proposal reduces the quality of Wiktionary or makes it worse; to the contrary, on the talk page I argued that the proposal makes Wiktionary better by improving its usability, which I showed in greater detail for a particular use case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain per some of the above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    Vote changed to support. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


8-10-3, Fails. — surjection?〉 19:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Defining a supermajority for passing votes

Voting on: Adopting the following policy:

A vote passes if the ratio of supports to the sum of supports and opposes reaches 2/3 or more. A vote where that ratio does not reach 50% should be closed as "failed"; a vote that has at least 50% but less than 2/3 should be closed as "no consensus". Abstentions, votes by ineligible users, and votes cast after closure do not count toward these ratios. This concerns votes proper and does not apply to straw polls, RFD and RFV discussions, and anything not on a vote page.

Administrative notes: This vote has no effect on any vote that starts before it is closed, or the results of any vote closed in the past. Any future vote can override these rules by specific community consensus concerning that vote.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)



  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 02:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSGconlaw (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Stelio (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support - TheDaveRoss 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportPanda10 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Droigheann (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Having been a "victim", I appreciate having this matter clarified. DonnanZ (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    But surely, having a matter clarified is alone not a desideratum good enough that it overrides all other considerations. A matter needs to be codified well enough in terms of policy impact, not merely codified. Ease of administration and application is far from being the only desideratum of rules. Put differently, lack of clarity and certainty is not the most intolerable state of affairs or else there would have never been the Anglo-Saxon common law that stands in contrast to continental way of doing things. --Dan Polansky (talk)
    I would have appreciated a 45%-55% threshold in the EU referendum, so it would have ended with no consensus. At the moment we have to put up with all the Brexit hoo-ha. DonnanZ (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Would you have wanted the threshold for Brexit to be as high as 66% rather than, say, 60%? And should that be the threshold for joining the EU in the first place, and therefore, should Sweden and Finland never have joined the EU? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    No, I think 55% either way would be decisive enough for a referendum, more decisive than the 51%-49% actual result in 2016, I don't know what happened in Finland and Sweden. I am happy to support the hitherto de facto 66% we use here. DonnanZ (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    As for "de facto" in the English Wiktionary, we have some votes that were closed as passed with less than 2/3 of support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    (In the name of accuracy, sources tell me that "The UK has voted to leave the EU by 52% to 48%", and that matches my memory; I don't know where the above 51%-49% figure comes from.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    That is due to rounding the figures up, it was actually 51.9%, less than 52%. DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, you've made a rounding error. All right. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just a little. The point I am trying to make is that on Wiktionary we don't need the controversy caused by narrow winning margins such as this; the British government has got itself in an unholy mess trying to enforce Brexit. DonnanZ (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Frankly, I think Brexit has almost nothing to do with the proposal voted on. As for the proposal, I do not see anyone making an argument in support of the statement that 60% is not enough given large participation. 60% is the constitution-changing supermajority in multiple European countries; UK has no constitution-changing supermajority at all, from what I understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    I quoted the referendum, not Brexit, as an example. And if I'm not mistaken, the UK doesn't have a constitution to amend. DonnanZ (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Brexit referendum has almost nothing to do with the proposal voted on. And yes, as far as UK has no expressly designated constitution to amend, changes to UK law that in some other countries would require a supermajority in the UK only require a plain majority. By contrast, the voted proposal is to require 2/3 (66.6...%) supermajority even for proposals that are rather a matter of taste. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Clearly a 2/3rd threshold is going to cause more "no consensus" results than one of 60%, but I don't think having a few more votes fail to pass is that much of a problem. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    If it is not that much of a problem, but still a problem, the proposal of the vote could be amended to the effect of Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes#Alternative proposal, and still achieve the main objective. I think there is in fact a problem: too big a bias toward status quo ante leads people to try to avoid voting altogether to get their way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well, it's a sliding scale, isn't it? You'd also want the minimum majority for determining a consensus to be large enough to be meaningful. I don't think the small difference between 60% and 2/3 is a very pressing matter now. If it turns out to be too cumbersome it can still be changed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    As for whether it can be changed: what if there is a 64% supermajority that supports using 60% as the threshold? Then, if you hardwire 2/3 for all votes, that 64% supermajority will no longer stand a chance. As for what is pressing matter right now: codifying 2/3 as hardwired is not a pressing matter; so far, we managed reasonably well without having this codified, we have a precedent vote that modifies EL and was closed as approved at 2/3 without anyone complaining, and therefore, the common law method can continue to work. Where is the rush to have something probably suboptimal codified? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    Such scenarios can be devised for any definition for a supermajority that is meaningfully different from an absolute majority. Perhaps thresholds of 60%, 58% or 50.5% could also never be altered by vote later, who knows? But none of these nor the current proposed threshold are obviously too high, so it makes little sense to fret about it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    My point is that "If it turns out to be too cumbersome it can still be changed" does not seem to be entirely true. And the difference between 66.6% and 60% is rather significant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    As for whether 60% can also not be altered subsequently: possibly not, but the logic of numbers dictates that 60% hardwired threshold is much easier to alter than 66.6% hardwired threshold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 21:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg SupportVorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    If this vote passes, I assume we will add the voted text in Wiktionary:Voting policy, most likely in the section "Closing the vote" that already exists. But it's not clear if this will be added to the policy as well: "Any future vote can override these rules by specific community consensus concerning that vote." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Community consensus can change any rule; I don't think that needs stating for specific rules. Equinox 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: I don't even know for sure what that "administrative note" means. Does it mean that a future vote can pass with less than 2/3 support if voters in that vote agree that it is enough for that vote? Or does it mean that the present vote is overridable with future votes? If it means the latter, it does not need stating. If it means the former, how is it a mere "administrative note" rather than part of the policy proposed in this vote? For reference, I mean this note: "Any future vote can override these rules by specific community consensus concerning that vote." --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support - seems reasonable SemperBlotto (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg SupportEru·tuon 19:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think a decision on quorum also needs to be made after this proposal. Gazamp (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I nearly support the proposal, and I think 2/3 is not too bad a default, although perhaps a bit too high. However, having it inflexibly hardwired for every single vote and voter behavior situation is both dangerous and generally suboptimal. The only remedy I see is that the supporters do not intend to treat it as inflexible should an analogue of a security incident arise.

    It is dangerous since voting in general is vulnerable: the voter eligibility requirements can be worked around: an army of attackers can start editing by making trivial yet non-harmful edits, reach the required edit count, and then start impacting votes. As for the argument that the English Wiktionary is not as big as Wikipedia and is not exposed to these kinds of problems: 1) it is exposed in principle, especially since this vote has no date of expiry and creates exposure in the indefinite future, and 2) it seems unwise for a wiki to adopt a meta-policy (which this is) that does not scale to other existing wikis.

    It is suboptimal since for many types of votes, 2/3 is too high a threshold and 60% should be enough. For votes that are analogues of constitution-changing votes, 2/3 may be too low a threshold.

    On another note, having the threshold hardwired and inflexible finally codifies the principle that whether a vote counts does not depend on the kind of comment the voter left in the vote at all, which I find problematic. Admittedly, we do usually no more than count votes, and it is not too bad, but I am not sure this is ideal. It would be preferable if the English Wiktionary votes were a little bit more like Wikipedia's requests for comments in that votes cast would reveal at least to some extent what the voters were thinking when voting. This very vote is depressing in that regard: there are 8 support votes and none of them has a iota in the way of comment or deliberation. Since concerns were raised on the talk page, the votes should ideally have addressed these concerns as part of their cast vote; did they even read the talk page? I don't know.

    On a minor note, I have no confidence I understand the sentence "Any future vote can override these rules by specific community consensus concerning that vote", and I do not know whether voters are voting on that sentence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

    A late note on quorum: the English Wiktionary has not quorum specified, and therefore, technically, 4:2 would be a pass as per the voted on proposal. I would be uneasy with 4:2 being a pass, but usually not with 8:4. This is another deficiency of the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Not a deficiency of this proposal, but rather a deficiency in our voting rules in general. It's a tangential topic to this particular vote and deserves a discussion and vote of its own. -Stelio (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    It is not a deficiency in our voting rules in so far as, for the most part, do not have voting rules. We can discuss the closure of particular votes based on ad hoc reasoning. This vote is reducing that ad hoc-iness. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Any future vote can override these rules by specific community consensus concerning that vote." I don't know what this means. DTLHS (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (changed vote) per most of the above, though I don't agree that any good-faith vote should be ignored based on the vote closers' subjective interpretation of the quality of their comment. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    @פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish): Could I ask you to be more specific? Like, do you consider 2/3 to be about right in general? Too high? Too low? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)



Disallowing conditional voting

Voting on:

Disallowing conditional votes. If someone happens to add a condition for their vote, and that condition was not in the original premise of the vote, then that condition should be ignored, and their vote will be counted in reference to the template they used ({{support}} or {{oppose}}). In other words, any comment made by the voter will not affect the outcome of the vote. Any workarounds to this policy, such as not using any template, or using both of them will invalidate their vote.

However, if the premise of the vote explicitly allows conditional voting in it, these rules can be ignored for that vote only. Also, if a voter happened to convince all other supporters of the vote to agree to their condition, such condition may be added to the original statement of the vote, and it wouldn't be considered conditional voting.


Here are some examples to clarify:


Symbol support vote.svg Support: As long as condition X is met. -- GenericUser (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2020
This should be interpreted as support, regardless of whether condition X is met.


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Unless condition X is met. -- GenericUser (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2020
This should be interpreted as oppose, regardless of whether condition X is met.


Symbol support vote.svg Support: As long condition X is met. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: if condition X isn't met. -- GenericUser (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2020
This vote is invalid, because double voting is not allowed.


Support: As long condition X is met. Oppose: if condition X isn't met. -- GenericUser (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2020
This vote is invalid, because the user did not use any voting templates.


Symbol support vote.svg Support: As long condition X is met. Oppose: if condition X isn't met. -- GenericUser (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2020
This should be interpreted as support, because the user only used the support voting template.

Rationale: Generally, conditional voting only causes trouble when counting votes, regarding how it should be interpreted. If a user wished the vote was different, then he should have edited the vote before it began. You can only express support or oppose to the vote as it is stated. Personal conditions will not be granted.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)



  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportTom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm not completely on board with this vote, because I don't think that conditional votes are a bad thing. In many ways, they can help build consensus, which is really what votes are for. Despite that, some kind of action has become necessary in response to a certain editor employing conditional votes in a manner that abuses the parliamentary process. If we have to choose between voters attempting to insert their own conditions that lack overall community support so they can force the community to uphold them, and a blanket ban on conditions, I will have to opt for the ban. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    The above reference to "abuses the parliamentary process" is obviously talking about me and my conditional votes in admin votes. Let me point out that no one can "insert their own conditions that lack overall community support so they can force the community to uphold them"; that is something that a lone conditional vote such as mine is not able to do. And the "If we have to choose" part above is the fallacy of false dichotomy: there are other options than the proposal voted on, including banning conditional votes in admin votes only. The reasoning above is actually an example showing that nuance, differentiation and seeking alternatives is required and should be encouraged. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Strangely enough, "in principle" is a weakening qualifier while the proposal voted on suggests that no such thing (a weakening qualifier, a reservation) should play any role. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Fully support. If we want to later introduce specific types of conditional votes, like conditional adminships, we can vote on those then, but as is, we need to clamp down on the rampant misuse due to the lack of clear guidelines. --{{victar|talk}} 21:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    "Fully support" seems peculiar in a vote that proposes that no distinction between various supports should be made. Are the supports indicated as "support" rather than "fully support" to be read as implied partial supports? I don't think so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for downsides of conditional voting, there really is no unsurmountable trouble closing votes. A conditional support vote is an oppose on the unmodified proposal, and it is a support on a modified proposal. That much should be clear. Admittedly, some people are not clear about this; I don't know why. The phrase "parliamentary procedure" makes me wonder as well; a Wiktionary vote is an attempt to measure consensus, and it should not be applied as a wholly cold mechanism, in my view.

    As for the upside, conditional votes bring votes closer to the spirit of a request for comment known from Wikipedia, and to a discussion about alternative proposals.

    If the proposal voted on is intended to prevent me in particular from making conditional votes in admin votes to indicate a lack of proper controls on power, a better proposal would be to disallow conditional voting in admin votes only. Better yet, let us implement proper controls on power by making it much easier to desysop power holders.

    Conditional voting has some tradition in the English Wiktionary. Some votes that have it:

    --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    It's also a great example of practicing the principle of always trying to seek consensus where possible, which is an important principle of Wikimedia projects in general. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    Confusing Equinox with WF was an obvious mistake. DonnanZ (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ƿidsiþ 06:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I believe that some limits on conditional voting would be nice, especially regarding conditions which operate in perpetuity to restrict user behaviour, I think that banning conditional voting is too extreme and wouldn't change much, given that, in the event that they're blocked from supporting a proposition conditionally, many voters may choose to simply oppose a decision rather than be forced into supporting it without their desired conditions; the same applies vice versa. Another consideration is that conditional votes really aren't hugely frequent; on occasion they may tip the scale; but given the point I made in the preceding sentence, the tipping is often illusory. In short, conditional votes are like a bad hairstyle or a PT Cruiser with flames on its side; I don't like them, but I don't want to ban them. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 10:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    They wouldn't be blocked, conditions would just be ignored. It's important to know that when voting, we're all voting for the same thing, and that we are not all voting for our own individual versions of a vote. That's the aim of this, to avoid those misunderstandings. –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 01:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Hazarasp, if you agree that there should be limits, I think you should vote yes on this. Drafting a comprehensive system would be virtually impossible to pass, so I think the best way to set limitations would be to start with a clean slate, do away with all conditional votes, and then vote in each exception rule. --{{victar|talk}} 02:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As I said on the talk page though, I would be OK with requiring other support voters to approve a condition. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    @פֿינצטערניש I added that in the vote. That way one makes sure conditions aren't granted in expense of voters that do not agree with it, but if consensus is shown, it can be passed into the vote. –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 01:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    If someone writes "Support as long as X" and X isn't met, then the voter is not actually supporting the proposal.
    We can't consider it a full "Support". We are actually changing the person's vote. Shouldn't this be considered unethical?
    I disagree with the idea that voting templates are so important. These templates look nice and all, but if someone says "Symbol support vote.svg Support: As long condition X is met. Oppose: if condition X isn't met." that clearly can't be considered a full support.
    I wouldn't like to see future votes passing just because they technically achieved 2/3 majority via someone forgetting a template or by outright ignoring voter's wishes said via conditional votes.
    Here's an example of conditional voting from 2017 that I consider interesting: in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed, two separate and contradictory proposals were voted. A few people apparently preferred proposal 1 and considered proposal 2 second best, so they basically voted "support 1; support 2 only if 1 fails, otherwise oppose 2".
    Maybe we should just close this vote right now, without needing to wait for the scheduled end date. I think the idea of changing other people's votes crosses some line. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    A very interesting deliberation; thank you. The vote proposal is really bad "as is". At best, conditional votes would have to be considered invalid and thus removed from counting; a vote that clearly contains a condition to the voted proposal and even express opposition should the condition not be met can under no circumstances be counted as unconditional support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose conditions are just part of the whole debate and vote. It may make it more difficult for closers to assess the result, but it allows more nuance in opinions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain A vote on this topic is sorely needed, but I fear this is not the way to go about it. While conditional voting is sometimes useful, it should be specifically banned in election votes (yes Dan, I'm talking about you). We cannot add policy in the same vote as electing someone to a position. I am fine with using policy voted to amending the powers of a particular position, but to place individual constraints on one user being elected to a predefined position whose powers are already determined is not acceptable. This is not how election works in any system of governance and should not be altered here. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    Your camp would be more convincing if you avoided making problematic statements in your argumentation; to wit, "We cannot add policy in the same vote as electing someone to a position": sure, and my conditional votes do not add any policy, that is, any rule applied to all admins or a broad set of situations. The statement above about "is not acceptable" is not supported by any proof or argumentation. I don't see why it would be bad to place easy desysopping on particular person's adminship; after all, it is not bad to prevent that particular person from being an admin altogether. Furthermore, people are discussing various roles, e.g. a deleter, that would apportion part of adminship without anyone claiming that this is fundamentally unacceptable; and yet, a deleter is much less of an admin than an easy-to-desysop admin. The difficulty of desysopping is a loophole in the way the consensus principle is applied; instead of requiring consensus for continuous holding of power, some people want to require consensus for a change of state, that is, losing power. That, in my view, is not in the spirit of wiki governance by consensus, and I, unlike most, am doing something about that issue. The response that I get is indignation; I remember only one editor saying, yes, I see what you mean, we should do something. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I agree with John, this is a needed clarification to the voting policy, but I prefer a simpler rule to the one proposed. The rule I would prefer is that conditional voting is not allowed; if a voter puts a support mark in the support section, they are supporting the vote regardless of any other conditions they may indicate, same with oppose or abstain. Allowing conditional voting in some votes doesn't appeal to me. If a voter does not agree to the premise of the vote unconditionally they should oppose or abstain. If conditional voting is needed there should have been further discussion or a better constructed proposition for voting on. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    @TheDaveRoss: It sure sounds like you support this proposal, so I'm a bit confused by your vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I support the idea, just not the policy as written. If the policy was simply "conditional votes are not allowed" I would support. Adding in a bunch of stuff about template usage, and allowing for conditional votes sometimes makes me less inclined to support. - TheDaveRoss 02:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Leasnam (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


User:Jyril for unadminization

Nomination: I hereby nominate Jyril (talkcontribs) to be un-Adminned. No edits in 5 years.

Comment: This should not be a vote, we have already established the criteria for de-sysoping. It is up to the bureaucrats to make the change. - TheDaveRoss 23:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This vote should be delete. --{{victar|talk}} 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


  • Vote starts: 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: I learned some phrases (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support if the desysopping will not take place before May 15, so that Jyril have about a month to respond, otherwise oppose. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. The warning issued seems suspicious to me: "Hey, to shake things up I'm gonna try to have you de-adminned." According to the Jyril's Global contributions, they seem to have at least visited in 2017, which means that it's worth issuing a proper warning before doing this. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose having this vote: There should be no more votes on inactivity-driven desysopping since there is a policy. Let a bureaucrat implement the policy Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity without a per-admin vote. I hope enough opposes could lead to a snowball closure of this vote. For the unacquainted, User:I learned some phrases could be Wonderfool, a multiuser editor who was repeatedly blocked yet repeatedly tolerated who liked to create these kinds of desysopping votes, and no longer had the pleasure since the policy was established. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)



  • Desysopped without the need for a vote - can be resysopped if he returns. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Excluding typos

Voting on: In WT:CFI, making the following change, where crossed out words should be removed and underscored words should be added:


Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings:[1] Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included.[2] Typos and scannos (which do not result from ignorance on the part of the author, but are “accidental” misspellings due to a slip of the finger or an OCR bug, for example) should be excluded. There is no simple hard and fast rule, particularly in English, for determining whether a particular spelling is “correct”. Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard, as can statistics concerning the prevalence of various forms.

Most simple typos misspellings are much rarer than the most frequent spellings. Some words, however, are frequently misspelled. For example, occurred is often spelled with only one c or only one r, but only occurred is considered correct.

It is important to remember that most languages, including English, do not have an academy to establish rules of usage, and thus may be prone to uncertain spellings. This problem is less frequent, though not unknown, in languages such as Spanish where spelling may have legal support in some countries.

Regional or historical variations are not misspellings. For example, there are well-known differences between British and American spelling. A spelling considered incorrect in one region may not occur at all in another, and may even dominate in yet another.

Combining characters (like this) should exist as main-namespace redirects to their non-combining forms (like this) if the latter exist.[3]


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: ChignonПучок 18:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Stricken words? DonnanZ (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Donnanz: Please correct as you see fit. "struck"? "struck through"? "crossed out"? ChignonПучок 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I assume you mean words that have been struck through, stricken isn't used for that. DonnanZ (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, fixed. Thanks. ChignonПучок 20:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The English Wiktionary votes usually do not have a "Discussion:" section directly on the vote page; the discussion about wording usually takes on the vote talk page. I had an urge to remove the above, but decided to keep it for record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Later: Actually, votes do have a discussion section, containing links to discussions, usually at least the link to the vote talk page, in this case Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos. Discussion does not take place in that section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support  --Lambiam 07:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lambiam: Can I ask for a rationale for including common non-typo misspellings while at the same time excluding common typos? Or can I ask for a location where I can find that rationale? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    For a rationale for including common non-typo misspellings, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings#Rationale. Like the author of a misspelling, readers may actually believe this is the correct spelling (like procede for proceed, reinforced by precede and procedure) and think it is an omission if not included. For typos, on the other hand, often caused by fat fingers, the reader will generally recognize this as a typo. For example, a GBS for accdentally gets 96 results, accdientally gets 84 results, accicentally 168, and so on and so forth. If we include all attestable common typos, they will overwhelm the body of correctly spelled terms. If the inability of readers to find entries for typos is really an issue, we should offer suggestions like Google does: Did you mean: "accidentally"?  --Lambiam 11:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lambiam: But we only include common attested misspellings, not all attested misspellings; in WT:CFI#Spellings, we explicitly say this: "Rare misspellings should be excluded". accidentally, accdientally at Google Ngram Viewer shows that *accdientally is so rare that the frequency ratio cannot be determined, and that would lead to exclusion by my lights, as a rare misspelling. The same is true of *accicentally: not found in Google Ngram Viewer => no frequency ratio determined => excluded. By contrast, accross looks like this: across, (accross*5000) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I think accross is not simply a typo. This misspelling arises under the influence of correct spellings like accredit, accroach and accrue. The consistent use, like here and here, is a give-away that the respective authors believe this to be the correct spelling.  --Lambiam 13:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that accross is not a simple typo but rather a misspelling that one would probably produce in writing as well. My point with accross was to show how frequency ratio determination works, and how it serves to eliminate most rare typos such as those you mentioned. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The first definition line at teh#English is a prime example of something that is common enough, but that nobody would ever look up, because it's an obvious typo. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: teh is a very rare misspelling by the frequency ratio standard: the,(teh * 1000000) at Google Ngram Viewer. Therefore, it can be excluded without change to policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Your metric is logically flawed. Your example the accounts for roughly 5% of all words in written English, so even if it is misspelled one time in a million it occurs frequently. Experimental -- which represents about 0.0004% of words in written English -- could be misspelled one time in a hundred and occur more rarely. The question should not be how often the word is misspelled, but how often the misspelling occurs. - TheDaveRoss 12:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Getting rid of unintentional errors should be a no-brainer, especially with respect to scannos. Whether these have any lexical content is in my view dubious at best and removing them would improve dictionary quality and user experience. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: I would say scannos are excluded anyway as long as we have access to the original. By looking at the original scanned image, we conclude that the scanno was in fact not attested there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Look through the categories and you can see some really ridiculous fat-finger errors that the typist couldn't possibly have intended. Equinox 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support for the reasons given above. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support, including non-words reduces the value of this project immensely. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    @TheDaveRoss: I don't understand the above; would you be inclined to clarify? Like, reduce the value a little I could understand, from a certain standpoint different from mine, but immensely? Even those who want to build a spell checker from Wiktionary can remove what we have marked as misspellings in a fully automated fashion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky:, have you tried to sort the actual words from non-words in Wiktionary? I have, it is obnoxiously hard, despite the fact that I am very familiar with the project. Due to the limitations of the wiki structure I think that the most value to be derived from Wiktionary is by those who build wrappers or use the data in other ways, so adding to the difficulty of doing so is more of a problem than having poor formatting. The problem that the inclusion of typos and misspelling is attempting to solve has also already been solved, and better, by search engines, we should implement a software solution rather than adding a bunch of garbage data. For every correct spelling there are an infinite number of incorrect spellings, we cannot actually do a good job of implementing the method we are attempting, so why not instead implement something with fewer issues and an actual chance of success? If people look up misspellings in a dictionary and find them listed they are going to lose faith in the veracity of the dictionary. There is nothing worthy about including these terms. - TheDaveRoss 00:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    @TheDaveRoss: 1) I have not. What makes it "obnoxiously hard"? This vote concerns entries that have senses marked with {{misspelling}}. What makes it hard to identify these senses automatically? I don't follow. It seems pretty straightforward; I did some dump processing myself. For the .tsv that used to be published, which has one sense per line, it is super easy: grep -v "{{misspelling" enwikt-defs-20120821-en.tsv. 2) As for "If people look up misspellings in a dictionary and find them listed they are going to lose faith in the veracity of the dictionary": I don't see why people's finding misspellings marked as "misspellings" would reduce their belief that the Wiktionary tends to be accurate or "lose faith in the veracity". When I find a source reporting a fact accurately, that does not reduce my trust in accuracy. 3) As for "For every correct spelling there are an infinite number of incorrect spellings": Obviously both untrue and irrelevant: rather, for every widely used spelling, there is a very limited (often zero) number of misspellings that are both attested and common, where common means more than attested in 3 instances of use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support. It does occur to me that a user encountering a typo or scanno who has no familiarity with the intended word may attempt to search for it in the erroneous form. On balance, though, I agree with the arguments put forward in favour of this proposal. Aabull2016 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support the principle that accidental typos/scannos should be excluded. Support inclusion of common misspellings that people use believing to be correct. Mihia (talk)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support as vote creator. ChignonПучок 08:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose   we should include any term that a user might look up. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos#Opposition: I think the policy of excluding relatively rare misspellings and including common misspellings works reasonably well as is, and does not need to be changed by introduction of a distinction between a misspelling and a typo. It is reasonably easy to administer using Google Ngram Viewer and frequency ratios. The distinction of a misspelling from a typo is much more speculative than a quantitative frequency criterion; it is much harder to decide whether something is a typo or other kind of misspelling. The rationale for including common misspellings applies to common typos: someone is all too likely to look them up and the best user experience is provided by soft-redirecting the reader to the usual spelling rather than letting them try to figure that spelling out for themselves. The soft redirect still indicates the form to be a misspelling; for example, concieve says "Misspelling of conceive". I do not think the misspelling entries, which include typo entries, make us look unprofessional; we are honestly reporting what word forms are there to be observed, in the intellectually honest descriptivist spirit reminiscent of the spirit of empirical science. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no value in this change.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. I agree that including typos makes Wiktionary look messy at times, but I find it more important that users can find the word they are looking for. Therefore Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose provided that a) the typo occurs regularly and b) the correct form cannot be found unambiguously by using the 'search' function. Steinbach (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    [redacted oppose vote] for 2 reasons:
    1. English spelling is often unintuitive and I'm directed to the right page more than I care to admit. We have the chance to be more user-friendly than other dictionaries in this regard.
    2. A lot of the objections I see to "reduced quality" of the project (from pages that most users never see...) could be addressed if we just developed criteria for what constitutes a common misspelling. I agree that some of our misspellings are a total stretch, so let's just be more selective in which misspellings we allow. Dan Polansky outlines what this might look like at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. Ultimateria (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Ultimateria: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you misunderstand what's being proposed here. Admittedly, I should have been delineating things more clearly, and I certainly should have brought up some examples.
    I'm not suggesting that we delete all misspelling entries. What I'm proposing is drawing a clear distinction (and consequently clearly different treatments) between 1) misspellings and 2) typos/scannos:
    • 1) frequently attested misspellings will remain admissible;
    • 2) typos and scannos won't be admissible, regardless of their frequency.
    Currently, the sole criterion we're using (and very inconsistently so, I might add) is frequency; this means something like dargon could be added as a "misspelling" of dragon if it were attested often enough (this is probably not the case, but theoretically it could be; unfortunately, I currently don't have any example of an obvious typo that is actually frequent enough to be admissible).
    I see that as mindless/mechanical/robotic approach, that makes us introduce cruft in the dictionary, and will ultimately make us look silly. That's what I'm objecting to with this vote.
    Admittedly, certain cases won't be so clear cut ("is this a typo or a misspelling?"), but we can discuss those.
    Now, about proper misspellings: the frequency criteria might have to be revisited (User:DTLHS had some interesting ideas which I think should be looked into), but I think this is a different question. ChignonПучок 18:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Another way of distinguishing a typo from a misspelling would be the following: in the case of a misspelling, some (sometimes many) people think it's the correct spelling; in the case of a typo/scanno, everybody knows it's wrong. It's totally useless having an entry for something people know full well is wrong (because they're not going to look it up, no matter how many times it occurs); I argue it's even harmful from a credibility standpoint. ChignonПучок 18:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC) 
    @Chignon: Since we already exclude rare typos by excluding rare misspelling, you have to show that the additional cognitive and deliberative expense that the proposal introduces is worth it. I have not seen that explanation, nor have I seen anything remotely looking like cost-benefit analysis. How are the readers going to benefit from your proposal and how are the editors going to benefit? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    As for "harmful from a credibility standpoint", I don't understand this oft-repeated argument: we do mark misspelling as misspellings, so what's all that credibility business? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: But we don't mark typos as typos (there is no template {{typo of}}). We mark them as misspellings ({{misspelling of}}). But typos are not misspellings; or if they are misspellings - as I often see you argue -, they're a fundamentally different type of misspellings than... you know, "regular" misspellings. And people expect us to be able to distinguish between the two; ergo, if we want to remain credible, we should not dump them into the same bag. What do you propose to do then? ChignonПучок 19:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    My oft-repeated position is that typos are misspellings, but not every misspelling is a typo (strict hyponymy between typo and misspelling). In any case, I would be ok marking typos specifically as typos, but I do not see why it should make any difference to the user. If I am a user, and I see something is a misspelling (typo or otherwise), I avoid it and that's the point of the marking. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Anyway, the definitions of typo and misspelling in various dictionaries seem to support the hyponymy hypothesis. What are your sources to support your non-hyponymy hypothesis? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see the relation as hyponymic, unless you define "misspelling" very loosely, and create another subgroup next to the "typos" subgroup.
    You're seeing things in purely pragmatic terms ("if misspelling, then avoid"), but I don't.
    If someone ended up on an entry regluar or relguar (that those are not frequent enough is beside the point) and were told it is a "misspelling" of regular, possible reactions (in my view) would be: "no that's not a misspelling, that's a typo" "duh, of course it's a misspelling, who needs to be told that?". If that person ended up on an entry such as coexistance, that would be different: "oh, I did not know that" or "ah yes, I'm always forgetting that one!". ChignonПучок 19:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    What are your sources? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    [4], [5], [6], [7]. Hardly reference works, but you can see this is a common distinction. In any case, I don't think the "hyponymy" question matters. Do you agree there's a difference between an accidental/mechanical mistake (which wouldn't even occur in handwriting, by the way) and an intentional (but mistaken) spelling? ChignonПучок 19:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    typographical error: "The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors [...]".
    Spelling errors are introduced by either cognitive or typographical mistakes.
    Spelling Error Trends and Patterns in Sindhi: "The basic type of classification of errors is between typing errors (commonly known as ‘typos’) and spelling errors. Typing errors occurs when the typist or the author knows the actual and correct spelling of the word but mistakenly or by slip of finger presses an invalid key [...]. Whereas the term spelling errors refers to the errors that occur due to the ignorance of the author or typist regardless of the fact that the actual spelling of the intended word is known or not. Usually the terms spelling errors and typing errors are considered to be same and referred to simply as a spelling errors, this sometimes also creates confusion among the users"
    The terminology doesn't matter; what matters is that many people make a meaningful distinction between two types of mistakes, and I want us to do the same. ChignonПучок 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    (after edit conflict) Indeed, these are not reliable sources but thank you at least for these: they show what some other people think. From looking at google books:typo misspelling, I am inclined to believe some people do use the terms typo and misspelling as exclusive categories. As for the distinction, I do see a difference between a typo and a non-typo misspelling, and from what I understand from definitions available, both kinds are subsumed under the headword of misspelling, and therefore, our marking is accurate and does not detract from our credibility. But if it would make people happy to introduce {{typo of}} template or the like, in addition to {{misspelling of}}, I have no objections. However, most typos are so rare that they fail the current criteria anyway.--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    As for "Spelling errors are introduced by either cognitive or typographical mistakes", that is not only consistent but also suggestive of the hyponymy hypothesis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    By the way, you have not voted yet, and you can vote even as the vote creator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Done. ChignonПучок 08:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    Re: my vote. @Chignon You're absolutely right, I was so focused on the discussion that I incorrectly assumed what the vote was about and barely read the proposal. I have retracted it for now. Ultimateria (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)



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:

  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings
  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings
  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Redirecting combining characters