Wiktionary:Votes

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

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

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


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-05/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2017-05/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-05/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2017-05/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

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

Current and new votes

Removing inactive editors from user-proficiency categories

Voting on

Empowering a bot to be run, tasked with adding an |inactive=yes parameter to the {{Babel}} transclusion of every user who has not edited this project within the preceding two years (past 730–731 days) of a given bot run. This parameter shall function by moving a given user to a user-proficiency category that differs from the main category by an appended (inactive) (for example, moving that user from Category:User en-N to Category:User en-N (inactive)). That same bot shall, by the removal of that |inactive=yes parameter, move any user who becomes active again from those inactive users’ categories back to the active users’ categories.

Rationale

The bottom-level categories within Category:User coders, Category:User languages, and Category:User scripts are populated in no small part by the user pages of very many users who are now inactive or who have never been active. The first sentence of Wiktionary:Babel reads: “User language templates aid multilingual communication by making it easier to contact someone who speaks a certain language.” Since it would be pointless to contact someone who, it might be assumed, would never read a message of contact, having those inactive users in those user-proficiency categories undermines those categories’ purpose.

Schedule
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created:  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    It seems 2 years (as proposed) is the general consensus in the BP discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support for 2 years. — Kleio (t · c) 18:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Seems exceedingly unimportant, but if someone wants to spend their time running this bot, it's fine by me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support SemperBlotto (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support, though I would say even one year of inactivity is enough time for marking users as inactive. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Μετάknowledge. --Droigheann (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I feel like babels aren't really the best way to organize things anyway, but I can't really find a reason to oppose this. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportEru·tuon 02:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I agree with Wikitiki that it would be better for the vote not to spell out the mechanism, but I doubt any of us would be so picky as to e.g. revert a human user doing the same thing that the vote calls for a bot to do. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the wording of this vote. The policy should not need to mention how the users would be removed from the category, meaning the mention of bots and bot runs and of specific template parameters is extraneous. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: Fair point. If this vote fails, I'll trim down the proposal for next time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don't think it worth the time to develop nor the system resources to run. --Victar (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Victar: What system resources do you mean? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    I think he's referring to the bots. --WikiTiki89 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    Exactly. --Victar (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    As is pointed out sometimes in votes about bot tasks, the bot developer should decide what is worth their time.
    I don't have actual numbers, but the system requirements for this task sound negligible. For comparison, adding "inactive=yes" in a few dozens of user pages should take far less processor power than updating interwikis and translation tables regularly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I would think that the resources required would be pretty tiny. The only non-negligible resource used is the bot-runner's time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Looks okay; I don't seem to care either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Desysopping for inactivity

Voting on: Allowing automatic desysopping based on the period of no use of admin tools. The proposed policy for X years of no use of admin tools:

If the number of admins is greater than 20, and a user who has admin rights has not used admin tools for at least X years as per Special:Log, the admin right can be removed from the user without further ado.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support for 5 years of inactivity

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    I would also support automatically removing the bureaucrat rights from people who haven't been using their bureaucrat tools in the last 5 years. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe we could use a second vote for b'crat and checkuser; people might support shorter periods for the removal of more powerful user rights. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 06:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Five years is definitely long enough, two years is too short. And do we ever know whether certain users have passed away or not? DonnanZ (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Well, we found out when Eclecticology passed away, but I'm sure many users die without any other Wikimedians knowing. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support (it can always be reinstated) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support The votes are being flooded with these useless votes for "_____ for desysop."....... All of which gained mostly support votes. This is a waste of time and energy, definite support for 5 years, but 2 is too short. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support This improves security of neglected admin account. Also 5 years more okay than 2 years. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support My thinking is on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg SupportEru·tuon 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for 5 years of inactivity

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Xbony2: Just so you know, your vote is a little odd... did you really mean to vote that you want to desysop those admins that are inactive for a little while, but not those that are inactive for even longer? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe Xbony2 is OK with a 2-year rule, but is not OK with a 5-year rule; meaning, if the 2-year rule fails, maybe Xbony2 prefers not having any rule at all. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    I guess I'd rather have 5 years if 2 years failed, but I don't find 5 years sufficient enough in my own view. Maybe it's better than nothing, but not that much. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain for 5 years of inactivity

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)' Technically I am not yet eligible to vote according to the criteria, but I would have voted against both, since I see no need for it at all. I also wanted to point out that the vote is written very poorly, since a user has to vote twice if they are against both, and this seems to not be allowed by the rules. This probably caused people who might have voted against the 5 years also to only vote against the 2 year proposal, thereby biasing the result.
Re suppressed voting, a quick look at who voted for each proposition shows this to be false. It is common practice here to have votes with multiple alternative propositions, it is not considered to be improper to vote once for each proposition. - [The]DaveRoss 13:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Support for 2 years of inactivity

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support - TheDaveRoss 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support and also remove from the autopatrollers' group. --Dixtosa (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support (it can always be reinstated) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ditto to what Dixtosa said. --Victar (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for 2 years of inactivity

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeJohnC5 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarsh. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too short a period. DonnanZ (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 16:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PseudoSkull (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is too short. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, although I'd support automatic desysopping for three years of inactivity. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. When an admin was away for 2 years, they should be exposed to the temptation of doing the admin work again without any further bureaucratic hassle of voting. Like Equinox, I think that somone fit for an admin flag should be able and willing to check key policy changes upon their return. Furthermore, key policies are remarkably stable over years; WT:BLOCK was last substantively updated in 2010. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeEru·tuon 08:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain for 2 years of inactivity

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Vahag (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I had initially opposed, but I removed my oppose vote upon realising that I really couldn't justify to myself why two years was too short, considering how quickly policies and templates can change around here, and the responsibilities of an admin to be up-to-date on them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    ...though at least someone deemed responsible for "admin-ship" should be able/willing to learn what has changed. Equinox 16:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain, per Metaknowledge. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. --WikiTiki89 17:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain see above under abstain from 5 years for my notice Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision

Passes with 5 years. Someone should now write a rule somewhere. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Remove "The essentials"

Voting on:

Removing this text from WT:EL:

The essentials
  1. Language lets you know the language of the word in question. It is always in a level two heading (See Wiktionary:How to edit a page for some basic terminology we use). In most cases the language header contains a language in its traditional meaning. Priority is given to ==Translingual==; this heading includes terms that remain the same in all languages. The symbols for the chemical elements and the abbreviations for international units of measurement are but two examples of translingual terms. English comes next because this is the English Wiktionary. After that come the other languages in alphabetical order.
  2. Part of speech may be a misnomer, but it seemed to make sense when it was first chosen. Most part-of-speech headings represent the lexical function of the term, such as Noun, Verb, Adjective, or Interjection. Others, such as Symbol, Suffix, Initialism, Phrase, or Proverb, classify the various terms in Wiktionary. Each entry has one or more part of speech sections, where the definitions themselves are found. The sections are most frequently level three, but may have a lower level for terms that have multiple etymologies or pronunciations.[1]
  3. References are becoming more important as we strive to improve the reliability of Wiktionary. While we may be lax in demanding references for words that are easily found in most paper dictionaries, references for more obscure words are essential. References may be added in a separate header of adequately chosen level or added directly to specific senses.
References

Rationale:

  • That section to be deleted reads like a complete guide about "Language", "Part of speech" and "References", but it is too short and sometimes misleading, as said below. WT:EL already has three separate, more comprehensive and up-to-date sections for these items: WT:EL#Language, WT:EL#Part of speech and WT:EL#References, which were completely created/revised by vote through the last year and a half: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Language, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Part of speech and Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/"References" and "External sources". (Only "Ideophone" was recently added in the POS list without a vote.)
  • This statement is false, because for definitions, we use the attestation process, not references: "While we may be lax in demanding references for words that are easily found in most paper dictionaries, references for more obscure words are essential."
  • This statement is false, because we don't add references directly in the senses (apart from sometimes adding footnote links in the senses): "References may be added in a separate header of adequately chosen level or added directly to specific senses."

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    • A minor comment, for the record: in July 2016, (see diff) I fixed a glaring error in that section without a vote. It said that the language section "is almost always in a level two heading"; I removed the word "almost". This edit was suggested by Wonderfool in User talk:Daniel Carrero/2016#Grammar in WT:EL. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Additional rationale point not mentioned before: It's not clear why the supposed list of "Essentials" is comprised of specifically "Language", "Part of speech" and "References". If I were making a list of essential things for an entry, I'd mention the definitions themselves in it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Poorly written to begin with, and now merely cruft. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dan Polansky (talk) Per the rationale on this vote page above: The part is incorrect and unnecessary.

    Outside of scope of this vote but on a related note, the section WT:EL#A very simple example contains the following, which should IMHO be removed in another vote:

    ===References===
    * ''The Oxford Paperback Dictionary''
    The items 6 and 7 from the numbered list immediately above should be removed as well.
    --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision

Passed. Edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Well documented languages and constructed languages

Voting on: In Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, listing constructed languages explicitly. Thus, making the following edit, which only takes place in the last item of the numbered list:

Well Documented Languages

The languages well documented on the Internet as provided on the Criteria for inclusion page are:

...

  1. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean;
  2. Standard Indonesian, Malay, Tagalog, Thai and Vietnamese; and
  3. approved constructed languages.Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, Volapük, and any other constructed language indicated as approved at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Constructed languages

This page may be modified through general consensus. ...

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I guess it wouldn't hurt. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. My rationale is on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support PseudoSkull (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support 2WR1 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support – Makes sense to include the list, since it's not very long and saves users a click. — Eru·tuon 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


User:Paul G for de-bureaucratisation

Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Paul G to be removed as local English Wiktionary Bureaucrat. Not been around since 2015.

Schedule:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I agree with Dave below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    I have created Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support 2WR1 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Victar (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: We should create a policy akin to the sysop policy for 'crats and checkusers. - [The]DaveRoss 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Starting votes

Voting on: Adding these rules in Wiktionary:Voting policy:

Starting the vote
  1. At least 7 days should elapse between the vote creation and the actual start, except for votes for granting user rights or a bot flag, which can start immediately after the user accepts.
  2. The start of a vote can be postponed as much as discussion requires.

Rationale:

  • These are unwritten rules that seem to be already in effect. But, it's better to have written rules than unwritten ones, so we can learn by actually reading the policies rather than observing previous behavior and finding patterns. This should hopefully be helpful to new editors.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Does this technically need to be voted on? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    WT:VP is "think tank", so maybe we could have just added the rules without a vote, but they would be "unvoted" rules and thus second-class rules.
    Having this vote is a good idea, I believe. If the vote passes, this demonstrates that we have consensus for these rules. Plus, this vote makes the rules "official" and serves to check that the wording is good. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    I doubt it's really necessary, but I guess it does not hurt. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support 2WR1 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - While I generally agree that votes shouldn't start immediately in most cases, there are some votes which don't need to wait. Perhaps if this were limited to policy votes or something? - [The]DaveRoss 17:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    While I think the wording is fine as is, maybe it would be improved if we added "usually" at the beginning? The final result would be: "Usually, at least 7 days should elapse between the vote creation and the actual start, (...)" That's just an idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why do we need to codify this? --WikiTiki89 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    There's a rationale in the vote description. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    That was a rhetorical question. To translate to a declarative sentence: I don't think we need to codify this. --WikiTiki89 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain.. But there should probably be something about new users, or at least old ones with new accounts, not being allowed to start a vote. Or to cast a vote, or to even abstain, or to even mention something on a vote page. --unsigned comment by Wonderfool
Striking abstain vote by permablocked user. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Installing Wikidata and Wikibase

Voting on: Requesting Wikidata access for Wiktionary. This is specifically not about how data from Wikidata should be used, merely about requesting that the extensions be installed here so that we can start exploring various ways in which it might be put to use.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: [The]DaveRoss 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support - [The]DaveRoss 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support entirely. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    I believe Wikidata is going to be installed no matter the outcome of this vote, but the community chooses whether to use it or not, and where. According to d:Wikidata:Wiktionary#Our plan, the "Phase alpha" (Automatic interwiki links on Wiktionary) was already implemented. There are still phases beta, gamma and delta to go. There's already plenty of support in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/February#Proposal: Implementing Wikidata access, but I suppose this vote can't hurt. That said, I'm not really sure why we're voting already since the vote still has the yellow "premature" box. (edit: Dan Polansky removed the box) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support – though, like @Dan Polansky, I don't like the idea of moving translations to Wikidata, and am skeptical about moving language data there, an idea proposed on one of the discussion pages. — Eru·tuon 19:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't see why not Purplebackpack89 13:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I sense a considerable potential for harm. The interwiki thing does not need Wikidata, obviously. In the worst case, the use of Wikidata could lead to transfer of Wiktionary lexicographical information into a foreign database with inflexible data models ("Starre Strukturen"), to be shared by multiple Wiktionaries. That foreign database, Wikidata, does not have a particularly pleasant interface and edit histories. Disagrements will have to be resolved in that foreign project; changes in rendered data in Wiktionary web pages will no longer be traceable to changes in Wiktionary data but rather in part to changes in data located in a foreign database. If that approach works so well, why did OmegaWiki not take off much better? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    While I respect your concerns (I share most of them) this is specifically not about how we will use it, merely giving us the flexibility to understand how we might make use of data which is already there, etc. Even if access to Wikidata was implemented, we are under no obligation to use it, or to adopt any of the policies or changes which other projects propose. - [The]DaveRoss 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    I believe any large project of moving data to Wikidata would require a vote. For example, I think it would be great to use Wikidata to get information (senses and categories) for all our place names. Other projects may be discussed separately. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    For one thing, I do not want Wiktionary wikitext littered with numerical identifiers like in diff; that is:
    {{trans-top|nautical instrument|Q427293}}.
    Ditto for definition lines.
    Once Wikidata is installed, Wikimaniacs who have not yet been prevented from making large-scale non-consensual changes will have the technical means to roll out en masse things I disagree with. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    You linked to an edit in the translation table: {{trans-top|nautical instrument|Q427293}}. Apparently the template does not use the 2nd parameter for anything so it's useless (it was rightly reverted).
    I think I see some potential for use of numerical identifiers everywhere. 1) it could replace senseids if people want, 2) I would be happy to replace whole place name definitions with something like {{place|Q1234567}} (or {{place|Q1234567|lorem ipsum}} where "lorem ipsum" is a comment only visible in wikitext). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    It reminds me of my job where I can never remember what is what since it is hidden behind a numerical ID. It is certified ugliness. -Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We shouldn't install it if we don't know how we're going to use it. --WikiTiki89 17:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Modern Latin as a WDL

This vote aims to address a long-running confusion about attestation of words used in modern Latin.

Voting on:

Adding the following item to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, in a new line on the list:

9. New and Contemporary Latin (1500–present).

The "and" and punctuation in #7 and 8 will be modified as necessary. Note that this vote is not about whether modern Latin is in fact well documented, but on whether we want to treat it like a constructed language, and have tighter restrictions on what words we accept.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (new vote wording courtesy of Dan Polansky)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support to preserve existing practice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support (and I'm fine with the modification proposed below). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportGranger (talk · contribs) 16:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dan Polansky (talk) I generally dislike the less-documented-language lowering of requirements in WT:CFI#Number of citations, but accept that, for languages for which uses online are very hard to find, it can make sense to lower the requirements and allow single mentions, such as mentions in dictionaries. Is modern Latin (1500-present) a language or its phase for which we need to accept single mentions to achieve a decent coverage? I don't know, but at least birotula is a modern Latin term having 3 quotations in use in mainspace, quotations from years 1901, 1953, and 1998. It would be good to have more such examples. One hint that we may forbid mentions is that modern Latin is not one of those poorly documented languages with no writing tradition. Given the uncertainty, I err on the side of disallowing mentions and requiring 3-attestation to achieve independence of quotations. As for the terminological quibble over whether modern Latin is really well documented on the Internet, I think the implied reading is "documented well enough to require 3 attesting quotations in use and forbid mentions". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support – I'm persuaded by @Dan Polansky's rationale that (to paraphrase) more recent Latin is "well-documented enough to require 3 quotations rather than just 1". — Eru·tuon 19:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 00:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ambiguous as to whether the year range applies to Contemporary Latin only, or to both types of Latin. This, that and the other (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    There is only ambiguity if you choose to interpret it in the more irrational way, of course. @Xbony2, would you be okay with me changing it to "New and Contemporary Latin" to make TTATO happy? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    If you and him consider it necessary, sure. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    I see no serious ambiguity: if the range were to apply only to Contemporary Latin, why would the author of the text choose to omit a range for New Latin? Furthermore, in case of doubt, the range is to be interpreted in conjunction with external sources, and taking note that assigning "1500-" to "contemporary" is implausible.
    This, that and the other, can you please tell us whether you support the proposal itself, that is, requiring that Latin terms attested only after year 1500 should require 3 attesting quotations in use, as for any WDL? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    I generally support the principle. I guess if you know what "New Latin" and "Contemporary Latin" refer to, it's obvious (as Metaknowledge points out) that the date range refers to both. But I'd like some more clarification. How about "Latin, for words only attested after the year 1500"? This, that and the other (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: There was no serious ambiguity to begin with, and now that I have made my proposed modification, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. I hope that it sufficient. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: Do you see any significant risk that, if the vote passes as is, there will be disagreements among admins and users about how to interpret the wording? Therefore, is this a cosmetic issue that can be corrected via a subsequent vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Modern/New/Contemporary Latin, whatever you want to call it, is not a constructed language nor is it well documented on the Internet. It should qualify as an LDL, though we do need to define "a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Angr said. There are better ways to filter out junk than by adopting a falsity as a policy. --WikiTiki89 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: What's false? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    That New/Contemporary Latin is either a constructed language or well-documented on the internet. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    "Note that this vote is not about whether modern Latin is in fact well documented". It looks like you're choosing to read too much into this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Not really. I'm merely saying that if New Latin is not well documented, then we shouldn't treat it as well-documented (and if it's not a constructed language, then we shouldn't treat it as a constructed language). --WikiTiki89 20:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Constructed languages are included even if they're not well documented, because we choose to treat them with the same stringency. Even you haven't chosen to interpret that in the illogical manner that you're interpreting this vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    You're right that's illogical, but that's not what's being voted on here. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see any way in which Wiki and I are being illogical. The second clause of the sentence you quoted is, "but on whether we want to treat it like a constructed language, and have tighter restrictions on what words we accept", and Wiki and I are saying it isn't a constructed language and therefore shouldn't be treated like one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    English is also not a constructed language, but we treat it like one: it is also subject to three cites. You seem to want to keep modern Latin terms with a single attestation; that's a reason to oppose. Wikitiki has given no indication of that, but instead is quibbling over terminology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    We treat English as a well-documented language, because it is one. We don't treat it as constructed. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose by Angr and WikiTiki, and also CodeCat at Talk:birotula.
    @Metaknowledge: It would change and not preserve existing practice, especially for New Latin from 1500 till ca. 1900.   WikiTiki is correct with the "falsity". New Latin is not a constructed language and at least Contemporary Latin is not well documented on the internet. New Latin could be treated like a WDL anyway but then at least the wording should be correct like "The following languages are subject to the same criteria as WDLs: 1. New Latin" instead of "The languages well documented on the Internet [...] are: [...] 9. New Latin".
    @Angr: Actually such a list exists at WT:About Latin#Attestation, and hence in my opinion mentionings from the Middle Ages to the Modern Period do not attest anything for Latin. But maybe see the talk page for the interpretation of WT:CFI's "should".
    @Wikitiki89: I made some suggestions on the talk page like making Latin an in-between language and, for example, adding a rule regarding usenet citations, but the suggestions are uncommented and for me it seems like they were ignored. -Slœtel (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contemporary/New Latin is still Latin and follows the same rules for the most part of inflection and so on, I don't think the date of coinage should effect whether or not the word is allowed to be part of classical or new. If a term is specifically New Latin, then this should just be marked in the labels for each definition. 2WR1 (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    @2WR1: The date of quotation points to general abundance of quotatations. The LDL regulation is an ersatz used to make up for the severe scarcity of quotations for some languages; it is not the ideal of lexicographical evidence. In a time period in which quotations are expected to be not so scarce, we would like to treat Latin like e.g. English or Finnish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky Ya, that's sort of what I was saying, right? The amount of quotations shouldn't effect the sorting of the word into different language categories. 2WR1 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    @2WR1: That's not sorting into categories for the purpose of labeling on the definition lines; it is sorting into categories for the purpose of the number of quotations required for inclusion of a putative word. That is, where quotations are abundant, we require 3 of them since 1 is poor evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    Like, for English, we require 3, but for Old English, we require 1 and mention is ok. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    @2WR1: I don't understand your comment. The vote is not about "whether or not the word is allowed to be part of classical or new". It's about the number of quotations required to allow a post-1500 Latin word into the dictionary. — Eru·tuon 19:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. As noted by Angr, the primary waterline issue on "invented" New Latin terms seems to be not the required number of attestations, but the fact that we lack sources considered suitable for New Latin -era entries based on single mentions. This sounds like it should be a question to be primarily hashed out among our Latin editors, not by global policy. (On global policy, I suspect a new category between WDL and LDL might be necessary at some point.) --Tropylium (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg AbstainSaltmarsh. 03:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Simplifying CFI about constructed languages

Voting on: Simplifying WT:CFI#Constructed languages as follows:

Old text:

Constructed languages

Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose. In general, such languages, particularly languages associated with works of fiction, do not meet the basic requirement that one might run across them and want to know the meaning of their words, since they are only used in a narrow context in which further material on the language is readily available. There are specific exceptions to this general rule, listed below, based on consensus of the Wiktionary community; Esperanto, for example, is a living language with a sizeable community of fluent speakers, and even some native speakers.

Some individual terms from constructed languages have been adopted into other languages. These should be treated as terms in the adoptive language, and the origin noted in the etymology, regardless of whether the constructed language as a whole meets the criteria for inclusion.

Languages that are not natural languages must have consensus to be included.[1]

  • At present, several other languages have ISO 639-3 codes and are classified as constructed languages. Three are prohibited (see below); the remainder have not yet been approved for inclusion in the English Wiktionary.
  • There is consensus that languages whose origin and use are restricted to one or more related literary works and its fans do not merit inclusion as entries or translations in the main namespace. They may merit lexicons in the Appendix namespace. These languages include Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish (the first three do have ISO 639-3 codes).[2]

Even when rejected for treatment as a language for purposes of this Wiktionary, a single article about the name of that language may be acceptable.

New text:

Constructed languages

Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose.

All constructed languages are excluded except for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, and Volapük.

Some individual terms from constructed languages have been adopted into other languages. These should be treated as terms in the adoptive language, and the origin noted in the etymology, regardless of whether the constructed language as a whole is included.

Languages originating from literary works should not be included as entries or translations in the main namespace, consistent with the above. However, the following ones should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace: Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish.[3]

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Makes sense. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support For a rationale, see the vote talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Some of what has been cut could be useful in clarifying what constitutes a constructed language and how we handle them, but I'm ambivalent as to whether it stays or not. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity

Automatically removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights after a certain period of not using either those tools or admin tools.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support removing rights after 5 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support - [The]DaveRoss 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose removing rights after 5 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it should be based on inactivity in general and not only inactivity in the relevant tools. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on removing rights after 5 years without use of the relevant tools

Support removing rights after 2 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I think these user rights have so much power that it really requires something more than we ask of someone who is an admin alone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Metaknowledge. --Victar (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Metaknowledge. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support - [The]DaveRoss 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose removing rights after 2 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Too little time, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it should be based on inactivity in general and not only inactivity in the relevant tools. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compared to adminship, I don't see much relevance of the increased power. Do we have any cases of stolen accounts or something? I think it is about granting fairly long sabbatical without the bureaucracy of reelection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on removing rights after 2 years without use of the relevant tools

Decision


Modern Latin as a WDL 2

Voting on: Adding the following list item to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages:

9. Latin, for words having quotations only after the year 1500

The "and" and punctuation in items 7 and 8 are to be modified as necessary.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Voting on: Adding handing of numbers and numerals to WT:CFI.

Proposal 1:

Expanding WT:CFI#Idiomaticity with the following, placing it after the paragraph starting with "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words...":

An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. In sequences of digits such as 125, the digits are considered to be separate components for the purpose of idiomaticity, and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic.

Proposal 2:

Adding the following text to WT:CFI, to a new heading "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals":

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals

Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support proposal 1

Oppose proposal 1

Abstain on proposal 1

Support proposal 2

Oppose proposal 2

Abstain on proposal 2

Decision


Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace

Voting on: Templatizing the markup for topical categories in the mainspace with one of two particular templates, {{topics}} or {{C}}. Thus, giving a full go ahead to all automatic and semiautomatic edits that replace the likes of "[[Category:nl:Mammals]]" with "{{topics|nl|Mammals}}" or "{{C|nl|Mammals}}". Note that the templates support multiple parameters, such as {{C|nl|Mammals|Zoology}}. Note that, currently, {{C}} is a redirect to {{topics}}. This proposal is about using templates for this purpose in general, and also about the particular template names to appear in wikitext in the mainspace.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support for topics

Oppose for topics

Abstain for topics

Support for C

Oppose for C

Abstain for C

Decision


Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: