Wiktionary:Votes

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

Wiktionary > Votes

The page Wiktionary:Votes consolidates policy votes and procedural votes that take place on Wiktionary. It formalizes and documents the consensus building and voting policy. For an archive of previous votes, see Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline and Wiktionary:Votes/. This header is at Wiktionary:Votes/header.

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
Ends Title Status/Votes
Jul 19 label → lb passed
Jul 22 User:Smuconlaw for admin passed
Jul 28 CFI: List of terms Symbol support vote.svg4 Symbol oppose vote.svg6 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Aug 1 Tohru for deadmin Symbol support vote.svg5 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
Aug 13 Editing "Flexibility" Symbol support vote.svg4 Symbol oppose vote.svg1 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Aug 20 Adding PIE root box Symbol support vote.svg1 Symbol oppose vote.svg10 Symbol abstain vote.svg2
Aug 23 Pronunciation 2 Symbol support vote.svg6 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Aug 30 borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor starts: Aug 1
Sep 21 Using template l to link to English entries Symbol support vote.svg4 Symbol oppose vote.svg11 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Sep 28 Using template l to link to entries starts: Jul 31
Oct 1 Placing English definitions in def template or similar starts: Aug 3

label → lb

Voting on:

  • Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to replace {{label}} by {{lb}}.

Rationale:

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but this shouldn't have been a vote. Part of the reason that people were annoyed by your votes, Daniel, was not just the frequency of them, but also how unnecessary some of them were to have as votes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I dislike the introduction of {{context}}, {{label}} and {{lb}}, but now we have it, and the markup should be as short as possible so that the label itself is visually more distinct and so that the markup takes as little space before the definitions as possible. Thus, in {{lb|en|medicine}}, the word "medicine" is more conspicuous, which I like. Therefore, this is not only about typing in wikitext but also about wikitext reading. Furthermore, this matches some recent trends such as going from {{term}} to {{m}} and going from {{usex}} to {{ux}}, both achieved via passing votes. The short {{lb}}/{{cx}} was preferred by a majority at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Templates context and label, but let us get surprised in this vote.

    On the need of a vote: You absolutely need a vote if you want to do this switching via a bot, trivial as it might be. It is very uncertain whether this will pass. Thank you, Daniel, for the vote. Since you created this vote without also creating 9 other votes at the same time, this does not look like an overflood of votes to me. In Wiktionary:Votes/Active, I see two votes created by you. Fine with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you. Since the proposal is about editing all entries, I agree that a vote is simply required. We need to demonstrate consensus as suggested by WT:BOT.
    Concerning what @Metaknowledge said above, sometimes it seems normal for some people to say about a vote: "we can do this without a vote", while others say: "we need a vote to do this". If there's any doubt or disagreement about whether a certain proposal that affects all entries needs to be voted or not, maybe the "default" course of action should be creating the vote and let the result speak for itself.
    That said, I am trying to exercise restraint in creating votes and not overflood Wiktionary:Votes/Active with votes created by me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dan Polansky —suzukaze (tc) 09:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dan P Benwing2 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mulder1982 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support - I use {{lb}} already for new entries. DonnanZ (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Duh. Nibiko (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Waste of time, and probably also far easier more new users to figure out what the purpose of {{label}} is than {{lb}}. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: It's use or waste of the bot operator's time, which they should feel to dispose of as they see fit; we should not act as managers of other people's resources. There is some use of editor attention in this vote, but not too much. The argument with ease of figuring out did not find favor in Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m and in Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux; we have migrated away from term to m. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough, though I still think there are better things bot users could be doing. I don't feel strongly about it, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose {{label}} is (almost) self-explanatory. (The need for the template is not transparent.) {{lb}} is not self-explanatory. Also: Luxembourgish. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per DCDuring. On the French Wiktionary all templates names of two or three characters are prohibited because of the ISO languages codes preemption. Unless they're in capital: {{LB}}. Personally I use {{lb}} but I would be opposed to watch a bot obfuscating the syntax which had been written manually to be easy for the newbies (that's also a voted consensus on fr.wikt). I hope that if the vote passes, the template won't be renamed from {{label}} to {{lb}}. JackPotte (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    @JackPotte: In case you didn't know, there is no preemption, because we don't have those templates any more. I doubt the association with Luxembourgish's ISO 639 code causes any problems for anybody here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yes I knew this for here, and I also know that most of us begin with Wikipedia which has them (eg: w:Template:Lb icon). JackPotte (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose WTH? IANAF of TLAs & such. DAVilla 00:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Feels like useless busywork to be honest. Unless we are actually deprecating/obsoleting the label form, then why remove it? There are more important things to do. Equinox 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    I guess use of {{label}} directly in wikitext will be deprecated, like {{usex}} now is; usex lost in Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux. Or in any case, anyone will be free to run a bot to switch any newly appearing occurrences of {{label}} to {{lb}}.
    Very important it is not, sure. OTOH, it does make the markup nicer via a transparent process, and most of the cost of doing so is borne by the bot operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain A matter of no importance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Vahag (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Mountebank1 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain No idea why we are voting on this. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision


User:Smuconlaw for admin

  • Nomination: I hereby nominate Smuconlaw (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Involved in WOTD, friendly and decent. Turnedlessef (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination seconded: —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Acceptance:
    • Languages: en.
    • Timezone: UTC+8
    SMUconlaw (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping adminship; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. A clarification: My position is that my condition only applies if passing of the vote depends on support of editors who used this condition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support +++ DCDuring TALK 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support. --WikiTiki89 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support for admin and {{support}} the great work SMUconlaw does here. - TheDaveRoss 20:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJberkel (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. oppose The user page identifies the user account as one for a project, not for a person. I assume that the user account is operated by a single person, the assistant professor, and that no one else has access to the account. I don't think this kind of identification is good enough for an admin flag. That said, I don't remember any qualms about the editing from the account. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    The account has always been used for editing solely by me. I created it to run a student project (which ended a while ago), but students were always required to create their own accounts. At the time the account was created, I didn't know there was a rule about naming an account in a way that makes it look as if it doesn't refer to an individual, even though it is. In fact, Special:CreateAccount provides no information or links on rules relating to account naming. I also had a look at Help:Contents to see if there was any information on this, and didn't see any. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think that, given the account history, the account name itself is acceptable, although renaming it would be preferable, IMHO. But I think you should change the user page to no longer state that it stands for a project. As for rules, I do not know of any rule or policy. Rather, I base the above on what I think is good and proper. I am using my judgment to figure out what is good and what is not good, as is my habit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    I agree it would be a good idea to change your user page, especially now that the student project is over anyway. I see no reason to change your user name, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    OK, I've updated it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Since when do we allow non-admins to nominate people for adminship, let alone non-whitelisted users? I think this vote should be redone with a proper nomination. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have any rules against it. I've been nominating people for adminship for years now (under various usernames, of course), and by and large they've been successful - in fact, I've probably nommed more successful sysops than any other user. But it's a good point that you make. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Well we certainly have a rule against permablocked users starting votes. --WikiTiki89 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Would it make you feel better if I nominated him instead? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better for an admin to do it, especially now that the issue has been raised. @Vahagn Petrosyan, Equinox, Angr: Would one of you co-sign on the nomination at the top of this vote? --WikiTiki89 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, though I think a non-admin in good standing would have been as good as an admin for this purpose. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Aye, there doesn't seem to be any rules against it. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
But in this case, we needed extra authority to overrule WF, whose authority is far in the negative. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Wonderfool has a track record of decent admin nominations. From what I remember, people usually do not complain when Wonderfool makes an admin nomination. I don't see why even a banned user should not be able to start a vote, although they would not be able to vote in it. The only problem with it that I can see would be vote overflood; other than that, each voter should vote based on the merit of the proposed change rather than the proposing person. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the rule should be that only Wonderfool should start admin votes. I'll try to think up a decent reason why over the course of the week. --Turnedlessef (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should just give you bureaucrat rights so we wouldn't have to waste our time voting. -Xbony2 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I couldn't come up with a good reason for me to become the votemaster. Turnedlessef (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Illegal abstention by permablocked user. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Lamest strikeout ever. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, even lamer than this one. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision


CFI: List of terms

Voting on: Editing WT:CFI#Terms to add more types of allowable terms. (diff)

Current text:

Terms

A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

Proposed text:

Terms

A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

Disclaimer:

  • The proposed list is probably still incomplete. This vote is meant as an improvement to the current text, not as the "final" version of it.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Some improvements could be made, as Dan wrote below. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk), as per:
    1) The introductory word "also" means that the list should not contain "Words in the usual sense ..."; it should only contain the things that are not obviously words. Either the first list item or the word "also" has to go.
    2) Some list items contain "some", probably to cater for the fact that not all terms are attested and idiomatic. However, the section only defines what we mean by "term", not what we mean by "includable term". Elsewhere, CFI states that a term--whatever a term is--is includable only if it is attested and idiomatic. The addition of "some" should go.
    3) By compound, we usually mean a closed compound AKA solid compound such as coalmine; there is nothing worthy of explaning about solid compounds and "compound" should probably not be mentioned at all; this is a legacy issue.
    4) It is not obvious to me that .com should be included; I do not see anything that I would recognize as uses of .com.
    5) Adding "morphemes" as the first word decreases clarity for the lay reader since I assume that the lay reader is better acquainted with the word "prefix" than "morpheme"; previous rendering was better. More of a matter of taste, and on its own not serious enough for opposition.
    A) A note, not an oppose point: The list as is gives the impression to the reader that there is a variety of things included under the headword of "term". I do not see it necessary for the list to be nearing completion, approaching the manner of regulation in which each possible case is expressly covered. The first sentence of the section almost does the job on its own, although examples are a good thing. I do not really oppose making the list more complete, but do not see it as an unequivocal improvement either. The more the list approaches completion, the easier it is for someone to use absence from the list as an argument. This is intended to be addressed by a disclaimer, but that is only in the vote and not in the proposed text; the disclaimer will not be in the CFI.
    --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky, including his point A, which also seems a good reason to oppose. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; the list adds several things which I don't think it's at all obvious should be included (and certainly not specified as includable), apparently in an effort to be more exhaustive, which is itself not obviously necessary. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per -sche. --WikiTiki89 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because there are multiple issues with it. Needs discussion. Equinox 23:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The loss of simplicity is too much. Nibiko (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan really, just not well written enough. Ƿidsiþ 11:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Tohru for deadmin

  • Voting on: Removing Tohru as an admin. No edits since 2012.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Special:Log/Tohru suggests Tohru does not need the tools. The next-to-last logged action is from 26 October 2010, which is about 5.5 years ago. The single last logged action is from 2012.

    Furthermore, the magic keyword {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 100 admins, and therefore, there is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support without prejudice to re-establishing the user as an admin if he/she becomes active again. Equinox 08:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I have no opinion, but I just wanted to point out that I read deadmin as dead-min rather than as de-admin. I found it pretty funny. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    This also works well with co- + in-: coin here, coin-mate, coin tense, etc. Equinox 08:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    Q: What do they call it when the reindeer cavalry arrives to save the day? A: reinforcements! --Tropylium (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    I reread the title of this vote just now and had the same reäction as Wyang. I was curious whether someone had already commented on the matter, and y'all did not disappoint. —JohnC5 15:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision


Editing "Flexibility"

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Flexibility. (diff)

Current text:

Flexibility
While the information below may represent some kind of “standard” form, it is not a set of rigid rules. You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them. Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that. Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct. Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas.

Proposed text:

Flexibility

The information below is not a set of rigid rules. You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct.

Removed sentences:

  • "may represent some kind of “standard” form"
  • "They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them."
  • "If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that."
  • "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas."

Rationale:

  • In Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility", it was proposed removing the Flexibility section entirely, but the vote ended as "no consensus" (6-4-1), with some voters supporting the existence of a flexibility section.
  • Shortening the text. Removing explanations and leaving only the actual regulations about the flexibility of WT:EL.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Enosh (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I miss this: "Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that." It makes it express that he who deviates has to be able to explain the benefits or rationale of their deviation. This might seem implied in "Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct", but is not really there; the sentence only speaks of existence of a good reason, not of the deviator's ability to articulate that reason. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I support removing the following statement: "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think that's implied and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Adding PIE root box

  • Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to add PIE root box to a large number of entries in various languages including English, to float at the top right-hand corner of the page, like it does in this revision of spát.
  • Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support I both like the layout and the categorization system it implements. —JohnC5 01:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the box distracting. It seems to duplicate information that IMHO should only be available as a simple "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-". In the linked entry revision above, there are both the simple "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-" and the PIE box. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. I don't think they're useful outside of the etymology, and they're irrelevant to most users. To display PIE roots so prominently, over any other ancestral words, doesn't make sense to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. --Vahag (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Andrew Sheedy. --Droigheann (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I hate eating pie, except for chocolate pie. PIE doesn't look much better. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. Nibiko (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: visual clutter that doesn't seem to provide any benefits over the regular use of {{der|##|ine-pro|*root}}. --Tropylium (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    What about the categories? —CodeCat 22:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    That seems like a separate argument from having an actual box as a visual page element. They might be useful for some things; though I predict many would get unusably swamped if we e.g. dumped not just base words but also all Greco-Latinate scientific compound or prefixed terms in them. (A discussion about the categorization aspect should probably also cover why do we do this with PIE and PSem., but not with any other proto-language.) --Tropylium (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the use of automatic and semi-automatic edits to add boxes; oppose the use of boxes at all for this, but support enabling {{der}} and {{inh}} to populate the categories. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Andrew Sheedy. —suzukaze (tc) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Andrew Sheedy. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I just want to comment that if this vote does not pass, the status quo should remain and the root boxes should not be removed unless a vote is created to do so and passes (i.e. one in which voting support would indicate being in favor of removing the boxes). --WikiTiki89 17:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    If this vote does not pass and we want to kill {{PIE root}}, can we just nominate it for RFDO or should we create a vote? In my opinion, I'm leaning towards RFDO, but this is a high-use template so if people want a vote, I wouldn't mind. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I personally think that RFDO should be used for deleting the templates themselves (and replacing them with something else in a way that does not affect mainspace) rather than for opposing what the templates do in mainspace. However, that has been done in the past. The WT:BP would be a better place to do something like that less formally than a vote. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    By my lights, the status quo is that we did not do the PIE boxes, not that they were introduced by a small number of editors without a discussion and thereby became entrenched. Otherwise, I would have to be even less patient and have created a vote as soon as I saw this. I think what you and I might disagree about is the time period that has to elapse until a practice becomes status quo. Since, if these boxes were introduced by a single editor on a single day, I don't believe you would claim these boxes to be the status quo the other day, would you? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    For the record, {{PIE root}} was created in July 2015. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    Let me admit that I noticed the PIE root much sooner than when I created this vote. Something broke my patience but I am not sure what it was. I decided to try my luck with the vote despite feeling rather powerless; I was expecting a significant number of supporters. The intermediate result so far caught me by surprise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    Our practice is to allow new templates by default. {{PIE root}} does not violate any of our previous policies. This vote was created specifically regarding automatic and semi-automatic additions of the template, since those would need a vote. The {{PIE root}} boxes are already part of the status quo. The status quo is the situation as it is right now, not the situation as it was or will be a year ago or any other time. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    If I create a new undiscussed template and place it to 1000 entries in one batch of editing, and a vote created for it results in 40% supporting the template, are you saying that editors should not be removing the template and that it becomes entrenched in those 1000 entries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    This vote was not created for it, this vote was created for automating it. If there are people opposed to the template, there should be a discussion about removing it, and there never was one. --WikiTiki89 17:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    Ponder my question; let me invite you to try to answer it. It is not about this particular vote and automation; it is about under which conditions things become entrenched. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    I don't really understand what you mean by "under which conditions things become entrenched". But all I'm trying to say is that the right thing to do is to discuss the issue, and you seem to be avoiding that. --WikiTiki89 18:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    By "entrenched" I mean that it cannot be removed until there is evidence of supermajority for the removal. Normally, edits are not entrenched. If I disagree with an edit for whatever reason, I can undo it and the status before the edit prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    I believe this a valid point: I'll make a comparison between {{PIE root}} and {{def}}. The def template was created 2 days ago and it was added to less than 30 entries, by Dan Polansky's count. In this BP discussion Dan Polansky said: "For the record, I herewith submit my objection to using {{def}}, and consider the state before the creation of {{def}} to be the status quo ante."
    As far as I can see, {{PIE root}} was proposed in this discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/April#Categories for terms in a language derived from a particular PIE root (April–May 2015). Apparently, nobody objected to using {{PIE root}} for a year, until this vote was created. {{def}} is clearly not "entrenched" as of today, because it was recently created and quickly met with opposition. Does the lack of discussion for a year make {{PIE root}} entrenched to some degree? If the answer is yes, it places some burden on the shoulders of the opposers, which is the idea that if someone creates a garbage template, you better oppose it quickly or it will be too late. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    If someone creates a garbage template, no matter how long you wait you will always find a supermajority to oppose it. If someone creates a useful template that roughly half the editors support and half oppose, then this "entrenching" becomes an issue. --WikiTiki89 19:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I wouldn't miss the PIE root box if it disappeared, maybe it should be in plain text form instead. I did have to deal with one (by moving it) where it interfered with the page layout, clashing with the presentation of an image. DonnanZ (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision


Pronunciation 2

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Pronunciation.

Current text:

Pronunciation
Main article: Wiktionary:Pronunciation

A typical pronunciation section may look like the following example based on the word portmanteau:

* {{a|RP}} {{IPA|/pɔːtˈmæn.təʊ/|lang=en}}
* {{a|US}} {{enPR|pôrtmă'ntō}}, {{IPA|/pɔɹtˈmæntoʊ/|lang=en}}; {{enPR|pô'rtmăntōʹ}}, {{IPA|/ˌpɔɹtmænˈtoʊ/|lang=en}}
* {{audio|en-us-portmanteau-1.ogg|Audio 1 (US)|lang=en}}
* {{audio|en-us-portmanteau-2.ogg|Audio 2 (US)|lang=en}}

The region or accent [(UK), (US), (Australia), et al.] is first if there is regional variation, followed by the pronunciation system (such as enPR[1] or IPA), a colon, then the pronunciation. (See Wiktionary:Pronunciation key for an outline of these two systems.) The phonetic transcriptions are normally placed between diagonal strokes. Use an established system of pronunciation transcription, such as IPA.

Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, and perhaps a sound sample to accompany it. However, pronunciations vary widely between dialects, and non-linguists often have trouble writing down pronunciations properly.

For audio pronunciations, upload the Ogg file to Commons and link here using Template:audio.

Homophones (subsection)

List any homophones of the word in alphabetical order, wikifying each one. For example, the Pronunciation section of the English word right contains the line

* {{homophones|rite|wright|write|lang=en}}

which results in

which are the English words that sound identical to right.

If a word is a homophone in a particular dialect, it may be added provided the dialect is referred to (for example, rider is a homophone of writer[2] in accents with flapping, and beater is a homophone of beta in non-rhotic accents). Examples (for beater and right, respectively):

The following must not be added to the homophones section:

  • Words that are “nearly” homophones or rhymes (for example, for right, the words white or light);
  • Words that are homophones if they are mispronounced in some way (e.g. for miss, the word myth when pronounced with a lisp);
  • Words from other languages (which are unlikely to be true homophones anyway).

(Note that the term used here is homophone; the term homonym used by some is ambiguous as it can mean either “homophone” or “homograph”.)

Rhymes (subsection)

Add a link to the page in the “Rhymes” namespace that lists the rhymes for the word. So, for example, on the entry for hat, add the line

* {{rhymes|æt|lang=en}}

to the code. This displays as

To see the usage instructions for {{rhymes}}, see Template:rhymes/documentation.[2]

Do not list the rhymes themselves in the main namespace.[3]

References
  1. ^ previously called AHD, but renamed per 2007-02/Renaming AHD and 2007-02/Renaming AHD (run-off)
  2. 2.0 2.1 Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-08/Minor policy page changes
  3. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2012-01/Modify WT:ELE rhymes section

Proposed text:

Pronunciation
Main article: Wiktionary:Pronunciation

Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file. Note that pronunciations may vary widely between dialects.[1]

  • The region or accent ({{a|GA}}, {{a|RP}}, {{a|Australia}}, et al.) is first if there is regional variation, followed by the name of the transcription system, then a colon, then the transcription. It is preferable to use an established transcription system, such as enPR[2][3] or IPA (see Wiktionary:Pronunciation key for an outline of these two systems). Phonemic transcriptions are normally placed between diagonal strokes (/ /), and phonetic transcriptions between square brackets ([ ]).
  • For audio pronunciations, upload the Ogg file to Commons and link to it using {{audio}} or a similar template.
  • Rhymes are listed in the "Rhymes" namespace. Do not list rhymes in the entry; instead, add a link to the respective rhymes page using {{rhymes}}. See the template for usage instructions.
  • Use the template {{hyphenation}} to list hyphenation patterns.
  • Homophones are words in the same language that have the same sound. (Avoid using the ambiguous term homonym, as it can mean either homophone or homograph.) Do not add: 1) words that are “nearly” homophones or rhymes (for example, for right, do not add white or light); 2) words that are homophones if they are mispronounced in some way (e.g. for miss, do not add myth); 3) words from other languages (which are unlikely to be true homophones anyway). Homophones are listed in alphabetical order using the {{homophones}} template. If a word is a homophone in a particular dialect, it may be added provided the dialect is indicated (for example, latter is a homophone of ladder in accents with flapping, and farther is a homophone of father in some non-rhotic accents).

A typical pronunciation section may look like the following (simplified) example based on the word symbol:

* {{IPA|/ˈsɪmbəl/|lang=en}}
* {{audio|en-us-symbol.ogg|Audio (US)|lang=en}}
* {{rhymes|ɪmbəl|lang=en}}
* {{hyphenation|sym|bol|lang=en}}
* {{homophones|cymbal|lang=en}}

Example with multiple accents (see entry portmanteau):

* {{a|RP}} {{IPA|/pɔːtˈmæn.təʊ/|lang=en}}
* {{a|US}} {{enPR|pôrtmă'ntō}}, {{IPA|/pɔɹtˈmæntoʊ/|lang=en}}; {{enPR|pô'rtmăntōʹ}}, {{IPA|/ˌpɔɹtmænˈtoʊ/|lang=en}}

Examples with homophones in multiple dialects (see entries ladder and father, respectively):

* {{homophones|latter|lang=en}} {{q|in accents with [[flapping]]}}
* {{homophones|farther|lang=en}} {{q|in [[non-rhotic]] accents}}
References
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-07/Pronunciation 2
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2007-02/Renaming AHD
  3. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2007-02/Renaming AHD (run-off)

Changes and rationale:

  • Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation failed in March 2016. In the vote, some people objected using carrot as the example word. In this poll, symbol is currently winning as the new example word, with 4 supports and 1 oppose.
  • More compact version of the same policy. No rules were intended to be changed, they are just described in a way that takes up less space.
  • The current text uses 4 entries as examples of multiple types of pronunciation information: portmanteau, beta, right, and hat. The proposed text uses symbol as the "main" example with all the types of pronunciation information previously mentioned, inclding rhymes; portmanteau is kept as an example of multiple pronunciations; beta and right are changed to ladder and father as better examples of dialectal homophones; hat is removed because the "main" example symbol already has rhymes.
  • The proposed example shows the IPA transcription, audio, rhymes, hyphenation and homophones in the same order currently found in the entry symbol.
  • Removed "non-linguists often have trouble writing down pronunciations properly". It's a comment rather than a rule.
  • Removed the footnote "previously called AHD, but renamed". It's a comment about a historical name that changed approximately 10 years ago, not a rule. The fact that AHD was renamed to enPR was recently added to Appendix:English pronunciation.
  • Using a bulleted list to organize the ideas. The order of ideas changes in a few places.
  • The subsections (Homophones and Rhymes) were removed. The same information was kept, albeit in the bulleted list.
  • WT:EL currently does not explain hyphenation. The proposed text mentions hyphenation, as well as includes hyphenation in the entry example.
  • Another step in the direction of having WT:EL completely voted.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I disagree with Dan; I think the opening sentence is a good way to motivate what follows, and to give us a simply-stated goal to work towards. This, that and the other (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 17:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support, although the "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file" needs to be finessed. There are some languages that shouldn't have a pronunciation section (e.g. sign languages, which have a Production section instead, and many ancient languages whose pronunciation is unknown). Languages with no native speakers shouldn't have audio files. But for modern spoken languages, yes, the pronunciation section is an essential part of the entry, and an entry would be incomplete without one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

oppose: since "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file" sounds to much like a requirement to my taste. While the word "ideally" weakens it, it is still too much. The old version did not make any such statement; I don't see why the new should. If the word "ideally" is replaced with "eventually", I think this objection would no longer hold, but I would have to reread the text. On a broader note, I do not want to see similar phrases in all the sections, like "ideally, every entry should have an etymology section" and such. Of all the sections, I consider pronunciations to be one of the less substantive and lexicographically significant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky The old version did have such a statement in its third paragraph. This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
In fact the entire phrase "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section" has remained unchanged from the old version. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You're right that the entire phrase "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section" remained unchanged, up until that point. But, for the record, there was a really minor change afterwards, in the text that Dan mentioned:
Original sentence: "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, and perhaps a sound sample to accompany it."
Changed sentence: "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file."
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
By the old version, I meant the version as it currently is in CFI, not the one in the previous vote. I should have been more clear in my phrasing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky, you said: "'Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file' [] The old version did not make any such statement; I don't see why the new should."
After, you said: "By the old version, I meant the version as it currently is in CFI".
But, in WT:EL#Pronunciation (not WT:CFI), there is: "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, and perhaps a sound sample to accompany it." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You are right. That's a major oops, isn't it? Since this is a legacy issue, I think it is not good enough reason for me to oppose. Striking the oppose until I find another reason to oppose it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor

Voting on: Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to perform these tasks:

  1. Replacing {{borrowing}}, {{borrowed}}, {{loan}}, {{loanword}} by {{bor}}.
  2. Converting the format {{bor|es|whatever|lang=fr}} to {{bor|fr|es|whatever}}. (that is, removing "lang=" from the template in all entries)

Examples:

{{borrowing|it|pizza|lang=en}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}
{{borrowing|en|it|pizza}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}
{{borrowed|en|it|pizza}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}
{{loanword|en|it|pizza}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}

Notes and rationale:

  • Currently, {{borrowed}}, {{loan}}, {{loanword}} and {{bor}} are redirects to {{borrowing}}. It follows that this proposal does not change the displayed text and categories. It just changes the code to {{bor}}. Compare:
  • {{der}}, {{inh}}, {{cog}} use the format "{{foo|xx|yy|word}}" instead of "{{foo|yy|lang=xx|word}}". Therefore, this proposal makes {{bor}} use the same syntax as the other templates in all entries.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Using template l to link to English entries

  • Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that:
    1) All definitions of English entries use {{l}} to link to English terms instead of the plain [[]] wiki link.
    2) All translations on the definition lines of non-English entries use {{l}} to link to English terms.
  • Example wikitext before the propose change, for a definition line of cat:
# A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].

And after the proposed change:

# A {{l|en|meowing}} domestic {{l|en|animal}}.

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support all the way and will not change. L is super useful. We should use that to link to all languages IMO, not just English. Philmonte101 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support MackyBlue11 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible to vote. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support no more ambiguous links please… Jberkel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support unless something better like the {{def}} template proposed on the talk page can be implemented. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I created {{def}} now. —CodeCat 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Note that this vote has nothing to do with {{def}}. --WikiTiki89 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Can also be used for non-English links within non-English entries, such as derived terms. I do it all the time now. DonnanZ (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    No. This vote is only about definition lines, which only contain English links. There is another vote for see-also-type sections. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I support that anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    I oppose edits like "# A {{l|en|meowing}} domestic {{l|en|animal}}." because it gets more annoying to read the code. I support edits like simply "# {{l|en|cat}}", which don't have that problem. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because I'm sick of this "automatic and semi-automatic edits" qualifier that's inserted into every vote without any plan to actually do so. DTLHS (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    @DTLHS: Do you have anything of substance to say to the actual proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. In Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/October#Boring cleanup work for money, User:Wikitiki89 said, "If we want to link a word that we happen to use in running English text, then I think plain links are the best choice in order for the wikitext to remain easy to read. But if we were to talk about a word or present an example of text, then we should use a template even if it is in English." I agree. In the example above, I think the "before" wikitext is better than the "after" wikitext. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. I hate reading the {{l}} template, and hate typing it out even more. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I should point out that there's nothing in the vote that says human editors should use l, just that wikilinks should be changed over by bot to l. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    I guess the second part of my statement is irrelevent, but I do realize what we're voting on. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as it seems like too much bother and mess for too little reward. I'm intrigued by {{def}}, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mr. Granger. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I would prefer using {{def}} instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, mistook the meaning of the vote. —CodeCat 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Carrero and Mr. Granger. —suzukaze (tc) 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I haven't seen any intelligible statement of benefits to others and I cannot imagine any for me. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Using template l to link to entries

  • Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all links in Synonyms, Antonyms, Related terms, Derived terms and similar sections are linked using {{l}} template rather than plain wikilinks.

    Thus, instead of

    [[escuela]]

    there will be

    {{l|es|escuela}}

  • Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to entries#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Placing English definitions in def template or similar

  • Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all definitions of English entries are within {{def}} or similarly named template.
  • Example wikitext before the propose change, for a definition line of cat:
# A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].

And after the proposed change:

# {{def|A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].}}

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Recently ended votes

Votes that have recently ended, to be ultimately moved to /Timeline:

Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, such that the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or such that the vote appears to require substantial revision. If you have not created a passing vote yet, it is recommended that you use this section and actively solicit feedback by linking to your proposal in discussion; your vote may have a better chance of passing if it is first reviewed.

Votes may linger here indefinitely. If changes in policy make a proposal irrelevant, the voting page will be requested for deletion. On the other hand, you do not have to be the creator to initiate one of the votes below. Place any votes with a live start date in the section above at least a few days before that start date arrives.

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: