Wiktionary:Votes

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

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

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


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2019-01/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-01/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-01/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2019-01/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2019-01/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2019-01/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
EndsTitleStatus/Votes
Jan 2Allow semantic relations under definition linespassed
Feb 21Banning Altaicstarts: Jan 23
Mar 3Lemming principle into CFISymbol support vote.svg9 Symbol oppose vote.svg8 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Mar 3Phrasebook CFISymbol support vote.svg5 Symbol oppose vote.svg2 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
Apr 6Allowing attested romanizations of SanskritSymbol support vote.svg3 Symbol oppose vote.svg3 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
(=5)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=63)

Allow semantic relations under definition lines

Voting on: Allow semantic relations to be placed directly under definition lines, in addition to L4/5 sections (====Synonyms==== etc.).

The aim of this vote is to formalize an already common editing practice and to make Wiktionary easier to use for readers, especially on entries with many senses. See transclusions of synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms and hyponyms for examples.


Replace the section "Synonyms" in WT:EL with:

This is a list of words that have similar meanings as the word being defined. They are often very inexact.

Where several definitions of the headword[1] exist, synonyms can be given in a separate list for each meaning:

  1. Summarise the definition for which synonyms are being given with {{sense}}
  2. List the synonyms for this definition, in alphabetical order and separated by commas, wikifying each synonym using {{l}}[2]
  3. Use one line for each definition, beginning each line with a bullet.

The synonyms section for apogee might look like this:

* {{sense|point in an orbit}} {{l|en|apocenter}}, {{l|en|apoapsis}}, {{l|en|apsis}}
* {{sense|highest point}} {{l|en|acme}}, {{l|en|culmination}}, {{l|en|zenith}}

To avoid identical lengthy lists of synonyms in many entries a single reference can be made in each to a common Thesaurus page:

* {{sense|highest point}} See also [[Thesaurus:apex]]

An alternative to listing synonyms in a separate section is their placement immediately under the corresponding definition lines with {{synonyms}}:

# The point, in an orbit about the Earth, that is furthest from the Earth.
#: {{synonyms|en|apocenter|apoapsis|apsis}}
# The highest point.
#: {{synonyms|en|acme|culmination|zenith}}

The choice between the two formats is subject to editorial discretion.

Implementation:

All semantic relations placed under definitions are collapsed by default, similar to quotations, except for synonyms and antonyms, which are always displayed but might be partially collapsed if the list is very long.

For regular users a preference will be added to collapse all semantic relations by default. For consistency, every semantic relation which can be meaningfully grouped under a definition will have a correspondingly named template: {{synonyms}}, {{antonyms}}, {{hypernyms}}, {{hyponyms}}, {{meronyms}}, {{holonyms}}, {{troponyms}}, {{coordinate terms}}.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Jberkel 01:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJberkel 17:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent, commonsense rule. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, and would support the "stronger" policy of this being the exclusive format. - TheDaveRoss 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support, and would support this being the exclusive format. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per utramque cavernam 18:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Fay Freak (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRua (mew) 21:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSuzukaze-c 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support--Cinemantique (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Stelio (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMnemosientje (t · c) 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg SupportVorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support and may support the stronger policy after significant discussion. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I didn't like this at first, but now I find that synonyms help with the definition. --Vahag (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support I like these too. They save space and keep the stuff attached to the relevant sense, instead of potentially drifting out of sync by being in a different location. Equinox 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 07:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Placing semantic relations in between definitions makes the entries so much harder to use as for perusing of definitions, as seen e.g. in cat#English and also in blanquette#French. It is especially so for longer and more complex entries. This could be addressed by making the semantic relation content collapsible, but then why has this not been done yet? We don't have a chance to experience this solution of collapsible semantic relations in between definitions. Furthermore, making semantic relations collapsible is a further step toward having lexicographical information hidden by default, which is far from perfect. For translations, having them collapsible is justified for there being potentially so many items in the translation lists. Moreover, the collapsible boxes are not collapsed per default on mobile devices. I do admit that it solves the problem of assigning a synonym list to the sense to which it belongs, but we do have a solution of using {{sense}}, and it is quite okay. Let me also emphasize that this concerns not only synonyms and antonyms but also hyponyms, hypernyms, meronyms and holonyms, leading to as many as 6 lists per definition, making the definitions even more harder to skim than would be the case otherwise in the uncollapsed state. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That’s quite pessimistic. At the point where we have 6 lists you can compile a Thesaurus entry. I trust editors to have senses of proportion – it’s lamentable if this freedom is not esteemed, but the chances being stifled is even more. I voted in favour because I am an anarchist and have high regard for free competition and chances for each format to improve technical details to greater satisfaction of the market. Fay Freak (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no free competition, and will not be. The switchers started switching entries to the new format some time ago, in edits that made no substantive contribution. They will continue the switching. I will have no say in keeping entries I have created in the old format; they have switched some of them and will switch more. This is kind of okay in that they are switching to what is an overwhelming majority preference. But it is not a free competition. There is no analogue of market going on as for the choice of the format. There would be a market if there were no switching: the content creators would choose the format. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
You know entries you created don't belong to you, right? — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for now: in principle I am not opposed to the proposal, but have a few concerns:
    • I have no problems with synonyms and antonyms being placed under definition lines, but if we add other semantic relations such as {{hypernyms}}, {{hyponyms}}, and so on, it seems to me that the block of text will look very unwieldy.
    • Should a thesaurus link also be placed under a definition line as shown below?
      • {{synonyms|en|ABC|XYZ}}, ''see also'' [[Thesaurus:ABC]]
      • ''See'' [[Thesaurus:ABC]]
    • I'm doubtful that placing semantic relations under definition lines should be made the sole option. For example, what if a particular word is a synonym of all the senses of the entry? Would it not be easier to put the synonym under its own section rather than insert a synonym line after each definition?
    SGconlaw (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    As it says in the vote, all but syn/ant will be collapsed by default, so it won't look unwieldy. The Thesaurus links should probably stay in Synonyms sections. As it says in the vote, it will not be the sole option. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. So if there are, say, synonyms and a thesaurus link, do we put the synonyms under the definition and have a separate "Synonyms" section containing the thesaurus link, or do both the synonyms and thesaurus link remain in the "Synonyms" section? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    I think it's fine to have the synonyms section linking to the thesaurus and to have senses with {{synonyms}}, etc. Maybe not for the same definitions though.
    Regarding your last point, the problem with putting supposedly all-encompassing synonyms in a synonym section is that I have rarely found that the synonym applied to all the senses. Usually, it applied to all the definitions early in the entry's history, and as soon as a less common figurative or technical sense was added, it no longer worked, and made me unsure which definitions it did apply to. This is especially annoying for FL entries, where I don't know the language as well and therefore can't tell if the synonym actually applies to all definitions or not. It's much clearer if the -nyms are kept separate for each sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Sgconlaw Note that I thought it is intentionally avoided to specify possible formattings for Thesaurus links. When it is said “a single reference can be made in each to a common Thesaurus page” this precisely only says that synonyms in a Thesaurus section can be referred to (which is only declarative, because this vote would not be meant to touch the existence of Thesaurus entries and thus of linking them), not about the way this is done. I haven’t had peculiar ideas about formatting Thesaurus links to be honest, therefore I had not suggested any amendments for them before the vote started, and as it stands their placement is also subject to editorial discretion and to later developments (people have to try a bit how to link the Thesaurus and it is not excluded that a special template or more get created for linking Thesaurus entries under definition lines – all intentionally not regulated because the Wiktionary Thesaurus in total is underdeveloped and underused and Wiktionary is simply yet merely occasionally at the point of being a Thesaurus). Fay Freak (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Am I correct that Thesaurus pages are sense-based, like {{syn}} is? —Rua (mew) 21:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    What else could they be? As you see can see by already existing countless examples they are. We don’t duplicate content if a sense exists in various words, if that’s what you mean. Thesaurus:gay which redirects to Thesaurus:homosexual refers to Thesaurus:happy in a See-also section. Wiki-structure might be a bit problematic for Thesauri. Fay Freak (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, thesaurus entries are sense-based. For instance, Thesaurus:sound has heading saying "Sense: a sensation perceived by the ear"; I made effort to make sure there is at most one sense per thesaurus entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I feel uncomfortable with this structure. It just feels clunky, looks bad, and adds lots of clutter between definitions. I understand the desire to group synonyms and antonyms with their corresponding definitions but maybe there's a nicer-looking way of doing this. I would definitely be opposed to deprecating the old way of doing synonyms/antonyms/etc. Benwing2 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision

Passes 19–1–3 (95% support). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Banning Altaic

Voting on: Banning Altaic.

  • Proposed action: Remove Altaic language grouping and remove Proto-Altaic as a valid language.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Crom daba (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Lemming principle into CFI

Voting on: Adding the following as the next-to-last paragraph of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and therefore, as the paragraph before the one starting with "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic ...":

An attested term that appears to be a sum of its parts yet is included in at least two professionally published general monolingual dictionaries should be included. Such dictionaries include but are not restricted to Merriam-Webster, OED, AHD, Cambridge, Collins, Macmillan, Longman, German Duden and Spanish DRAE; dictionaries that do not count include WordNet.

Rationale: See vote talk page. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Let's face it, many of the dictionaries used as references are predecessors of Wiktionary in printed form. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a reasonable shortcut for including terms that are useful to readers, as other dictionaries seem more eager to include fixed phrases. Some SOP terms that can be kept via the Lemming principle are drinking water, local area network and white supremacist (though some could be kept by means of other rationales, others cannot). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support in general for attested terms. Acceptable dictionaries for specific languages to be agreed on separately. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, provided that some indicator of the SOP-ness of a term can be added, should a term be challenged in RFD. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support per rationale on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    An example nomination: WT:RFDE#president-elect: I check president-elect at OneLook Dictionary Search, and off I go building the dictionary; case closed. I can also ponder independently on usefulness of "president-elect" and I see one, but I can be spared the trouble. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mofvanes (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support We still require attestation, which is good and ensures we are documenting language as it is used. If independent groups of professional lexicographers think a term is worth explicitly defining, I'm fine with following that lead. The proposed rule allows us to rapidly close some RFD discussions, freeing up editors' time to invest in other things on the site. The application of both attestation and multiple dictionaries protects us from the risk of fictitious entry copyright traps. -Stelio (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMnemosientje (t · c) 14:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Other general dictionaries are bad. The less one has to use them the better. Fay Freak (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    Re: "Other general dictionaries are bad": Untrue generalization, with zero substantiation. A substantiation would consist e.g. in giving example entries that are bad, in other dictionaries, and these would be bad sum of parts entries since attestation is not given up by the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Most of the English entries I've created are supported by two or more lemmings, but I still want people to feel free to RFD them if they have good reason to think we shouldn't have them. Similarly, I don't want to be shut down with a peremptory Keep per WT:LEMMING when I nominate entries for deletion. In other words, let reasoned discussions keep happening. By the way, more doesn't necessarily equal better. Per utramque cavernam 01:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    Let me add that I concur with -sche. Per utramque cavernam 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    "More doesn't necessarily equal better". I have added a reference to the more the merrier. DonnanZ (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Different dictionaries can have different "words" in them. That's a good thing. We should aim to describe language and not other dictionaries. I particularly object to sentiments like "for the sake of competition, we should include everything multiple professional dictionaries include". Finally I think that the list of acceptable sources is slightly nonsensical and I imagine that it will lead to many disagreements in the future about "acceptable" dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    1) The aim indeed is to describe language, not dictionaries, and to indicate that an attested term, using attestation methods of en wikt, means such and such; that is not a description of other dictionaries. 2) The "for the sake of competition" rationale is not part of the main rationale presented on the vote page. It cannot possibly be that a proposal is opposed only because of opposition to one of multiple independent rationales supporters have: a theorem is proven when one correct proof is found regardless of how many incorrect proofs were submitted. 3) The list of sources is there to give an idea of a broader term "professionally published", and that it is so is reinforced by "include but are not restricted to" phrasing; I don't see how it is "nonsensical", and disagreements about the scope of "professionally published" can be there either way, and the examples merely reduce the possible disagreement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 20:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I think lemmings can guide us in our determinations of whether or not something is NISOP or otherwise inclusion-worthy, but I don't want a rule that indiscriminately includes anything other [pairs of] ["acceptable"] dictionaries have. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This rule could allow a lot of entries that really don't need to be included. In my opinion, an entry "needs" to be included if someone might come to Wiktionary looking for its definition, and although some of the entries the lemming principle allows will meet this requirement, all of them definitely won't. We shouldn't have to include a term that no one will ever look up just because another dictionary does, and this still applies even if several other dictionaries decide to unnecessarily include that same term. Implementing this policy would make editors of professional dictionaries indirectly responsible for judgments about what belongs in Wiktionary instead of allowing Wiktionary editors to directly make those judgments. Making a policy like this feels dangerous to me because it takes some power of judgment away from us as editors. It might make RFDs quicker, but quicker doesn't necessarily mean better if it robs us of a piece of our independence. —Globins (yo) 08:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    I find it likely that professionally published dictionaries include additional terms because people keep on looking them up; Wiktionary editors keep on proposing for deletion useful entries that people keep on looking up, from my experience. The notion that lemming-included entries will include those that "no one will ever look up" seems rather unlikely, and in any case, unsubstantiated: not a single example has been provided. And even if the lemming criterion would lead to inclusion of some terms that are not looked up, that is compensated by additional inclusion of terms that people do keep on looking up, and would not find in Wiktionary otherwise. Put differently, adding meat and protein is good even if it means adding a little amount of fat and carbs as well (the analogy is not so good since we do need fat and carbs, as well as dietary fiber). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that it's better to have unnecessary entries than to not have necessary entries, but my point is that we shouldn't trust other dictionaries to make decisions for us about which entries are the necessary ones; we should be the ones making those decisions independent of what other dictionaries are doing. —Globins (yo) 09:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    That's a matter of cost benefit analysis. This proposal is a partial outsourcing proposal (attestation is not given up), and also a proposal to include more, never to include less because of lemmings. It is not an utter and complete delegation of inclusion criteria to other dictionaries. An alternative is to keep on developing all criteria in house. As a wiki lexicographer, I am doing my best to stubbornly try to think clearly and look at and search for evidence, but I do not have the time to devote to figuring out criteria and their repercussions, and I would much prefer to have more of my energy spared for expanding the dictionary rather than having to discuss and show evidence in RFD when useful entries are being threatened with deletion, sometime by students who have not seen a paying customer in their lives, and have no sense of economy of effort and delivery of results. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 06:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Question

If the vote fails, what will happen of Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD § Lemming test? Per utramque cavernam 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this should change the results of past RFDs. If the word passed, then I don't see a reason for it to be deleted, especially considering that the lemming principle has never been an official policy. —Globins (yo) 02:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globins: I'm talking specifically about the "Lemming test" section on the page I linked to, not so much about the entries that have been kept thereby. Should it be kept there, or should it be removed entirely? Per utramque cavernam 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It can stay until there's a discussion (and consensus) that's about deleting it. Most of the other tests on that page aren't backed by CFI either; the point of the page is "to rationalize how and why some terms are idiomatic when others are not". Several of the people opposing making this a rigid policy explicitly think it's fine as an advisory guideline, and the page does say "tests can be used as guides during RFD, but they are not hard/fast rules". - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Per utramque cavernam 22:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision


Phrasebook CFI

Voting on: Changing the phasebook criteria in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as follows:

New:

Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. An attested English term that appears to be a sum of its parts should be included as a phrasebook entry if it is present in at least three independent professionally published phrasebooks; if an attested English phrasebook entry does not meet that, it can only be included if consensus grants an exception. For attested non-English terms, the phrasebook inclusion criteria are unspecified, but being a translation of an includable English phrasebook term is a hint. An example phrasebook entry is what is your name.

Old:

Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.

Rationale: See vote talk page. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support in general as a phrasebook contributor. For non-English phrases, we should also aim at including stock phrases used in specific languages and cultures. For example, Arabic السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ(as-salāmu ʿalaykum) (used by Muslims), Japanese 苦労様 (くろうさま)でした (go-kurō-sama deshita) (a stock phrase usually used by a senior towards subordinates), Sinhalese ආයුබෝවන් (āyubōvan) (a form of greeting) should be included, even if their translation (especially literal) into English is not necessarily includable as a phrasebook entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMnemosientje (t · c) 14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wiktionary isn't a paper phrasebook. I don't think phrases should be limited to what's in paper phrasebooks and agreed to bureaucratically. Having said that, I can't offhand think of a much better set of criteria to replace the "consensus." — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I think the old text is incomprehensible though, so the proposed text would be an improvement in that respect at least. Per utramque cavernam 18:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for now. I would suggest distinguishing phrasebook entries from ordinary dictionary entries using "Phrasebook:". This will help in distinguishing such entries from ordinary entries that are simply non-idiomatic sum-of-parts terms. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Phrasebook entries are usually distinguished using a conspicuous box, e.g. in I'm hungry. Moving them to a separate namespace would make it harder for the dictionary user to look them up; it would complicate things with no or little benefit in return that I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Provided phrasebook entries are properly marked, I have no objection to them. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision


Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit

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

Schedule:

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

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. As someone who has looked up romanized Sanskrit words in English text (not being used as English words) and not found them on Wiktionary, I think this would be helpful. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support for IAST romanisations (those usually encountered), but not for other or ad hoc schemes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Metaknowledge: Can you please clarify whether this conditional or restricted vote that you cast is in accord with your understanding of proper voting procedure, as you understand it? (I am not objecting at all; I am merely trying to confirm what I see.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I think this kind of vote is acceptable, although I acknowledge that some disagree. I would probably be more strategic and leave out conditions if this were a well-written vote that had a good chance of passing, but unfortunately it is neither of those things. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you. I am looking forward to see your vote about Sanskrit, one which you think has a good chance of passing. In fact, the proposal of the present vote nearly passed multiple years ago, so I don't think the chances are that bad. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    I wish I had seen some discussion of this vote beforehand so I could help. (Perhaps you posted in the BP and I missed it?) Unfortunately, there tends to be some vote fatigue, so we'll have to wait a while before bringing the same question to a vote once again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    I think we do not need to wait before we bring an amendment of a running vote to Beer parlour discussion. To the contrary, the subject of the vote is activated in people's minds anyway so there is some economy of cognition in doing so. In any case, I think the restricted vote you cast is a very productive and unbureaucratic way of doing things, and I appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Support per the rationale on the talk page. In sum, let us create the best experience for our readers that we know how, and let us make no artificial restrictions on the WT:CFI's general principle that "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", with the use of the core evidence-based (as opposed to analysis-based) principle of CFI, which is the attestation requirement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of being coupled to attestation. As I said: “I would understand it if one created just mechanically, that is by bot, all romanized forms, but attesting romanizations I do not understand, this siphons off the limited attention of editors.” It will be a cringe experience if editors start to attest romanizations instead of the words themselves. I would perhaps ignore this vote if it were just about mechanical additions like with Pinyin or with Serbo-Croatian where one script entails the other and there being two scripts does not double the attestation requirements, but this vote’s differentiation has no rationale I can follow. Fay Freak (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    The attestation requirement is linked to the rationale: if the form is actually used, then it is included. In that sense, the proposal is merely a confirmation of what is already entailed in WT:CFI as currently written. If this vote passes (a big if), we could create another vote that lifts the attestation requirement for IAST. The main thing is to have a clear statement that editors are allowed to create the best experience for our readers that we know how, as long as they consider that to be the wise use of their resources. To prevent editors from helping our readers so that the editors would have their resources conserved is an undue patternalism, a violation of Mill's principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly oppose: See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Victar: Which of the reasons for opposing in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit#Oppose do you agree with? Can you please identify at least of them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Lol, no*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-08/Minor policy page changes
  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to entries