Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:VOTES)
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/2017-03/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-03/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2017-03/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-03/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2017-03/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline)
Ends Title Status/Votes
Mar 14 Glyph origin passed
Mar 15 Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 passed
Apr 4 Richardb for de-admin Symbol support vote.svg10 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Apr 5 User:HannesPBot for bot status Symbol support vote.svg0 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Apr 13 "External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading" 15 (9 people)
Apr 21 Request categories 2 Symbol support vote.svg2 Symbol oppose vote.svg1 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Apr 23 Reference templates and OCLC Symbol support vote.svg1 Symbol oppose vote.svg2 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
Apr 24 CFI and place names cleanup Symbol support vote.svg3 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Apr 29 Atelaes for desysop starts: Mar 31
May 4 Deprecating 4=, 5= and gloss= parameters in favor of t= starts: Apr 5
May 24 Desysopping for inactivity starts: Apr 1
(=11) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=55)

Glyph origin

Voting on:

Formally allowing the "Glyph origin" section in entries.

Section placement:

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

Policy edit:

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

Schedule:

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

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Supportsuzukaze (tc) 00:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Existing widespread usage that works and is agreed upon by relevant editors (here, Chinese editors) should be codified. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wyang (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Μετάknowledge. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportEru·tuon 20:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support: this is a helpful section, and I agree that it can be different from word etymologies. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    This vote ended a week ago. Sometimes, people cast "late votes" to show further consensus (or lack thereof) after the vote ended. That's OK, but they don't count for the final decision, naturally. I'm removing your vote from the numerical list now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Better Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain 'cause I don't edit in these languages. But proposal does not sound bad as far as I can tell. Equinox 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I'm leaning towards oppose, because I think the visual representation of a word is just as much a matter for etymology as the meaning and path of its inheritance/borrowing. However, I don't edit in the relevant languages, so I don't think it would be appropriate/fair for me to do anything other than abstain. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Decision

Passed: 9-0-3 (100%-0%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Edited Wiktionary:Entry layout accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

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

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

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

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

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

The section after the change:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

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

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


Schedule:

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

Discussion:

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Abstain

Decision

Passed: 8-0-0 (100%-0%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Richardb for de-admin

Voting on: Removing User:Richardb's adminship. No activity since 2013.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Quadcont (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    If anyone has some problem with a permabanned user having created a vote (and they shouldn't), I officially supplant Quadcont as this vote's sponsor. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Correction on the activity level of said user- late 2012, not 2013. For another thing, the edit before that was made in mid 2010, and the one before that in late 2009. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support per my comments at WT:Votes/2017-01/Dominic for de-admin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I was going to send him an email, but I realised that he doesn't even have that function enabled! No Wiktionary admin should be impossible to contact, so that is an extra and especially damning reason to remove the admin bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support: Last admin action is from 1 December 2009, more than 5 years go, per Special:Log/Richardb. The magic keyword {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 98 admins, and therefore, there is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero You're voting twice now, you have already voted as # 3. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, fixed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support, though to be fair, it hasn't actually been 35 years since he was active. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I have emailed with RichardB in the past, but the email that he used then (2005/6) is no longer active. - TheDaveRoss 14:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support (Should the vote be cancelled since the creator is a now-permablocked Wonderfool? I've seen his support/oppose vote choices cancelled for that reason, anyway.) Equinox 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think that should invalidate the vote once it's started, as long as the vote contributes something helpful (or harmless, at least). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


User:HannesPBot for bot status

Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:HannesPBot for the following purposes:

Persian verb forms can usually be regularly derived from the past and present stem of a verb, but almost no such forms exist in en.wiktionary. The aim of this bot is to automatically create entries for the following Persian (non-compound) verb forms:
  • Present indicative
  • Imperfect indicative
  • Past indicative
  • Present subjunctive
In the current version, a script must be run manually for each verb. The script generates a text file containing all the forms in question, which is fed to the pagefromfile script in Pywikibot.
Example entry created by the bot: می‌گفت

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 10:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: ✎ HannesP · talk 10:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading"

Context:

  • This is a follow-up to Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/"References" and "External sources".
  • The aforementioned vote passed, except the point 4, which was about requiring the use of tags <ref></ref> and <references/>.
  • This proposal passed: now the "References" section is to be used only for links that back up something in the entry (except for senses and definitions, when they are attested through quotations) and the "External sources" section is to contain simple recommendations of further places to look, including other dictionaries and encyclopedias. WT:EL was edited to reflect this.
  • Some people in the aforementioned vote discussed about the idea of using "Further information" or "Further reading" instead of "External sources", or just keeping "External links" as before, hence this follow-up vote.

Voting on:

  • Choose the name for the "External sources" (previously known as "External links") section in all entries.
    A. "External sources"
    B. "External links"
    C. "Further information"
    D. "Further reading"

Procedural notes:

  • Feel free to vote in multiple options.
  • The purpose of this vote is using a single name for that section. If the final result is inconclusive, we might decide the name by discussing and/or voting again later.
  • The status quo is using "External sources", because it was approved in the previous vote.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:


A: "External sources"

Support
Oppose
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This one looked fine earlier and I supported it in the previous vote, but now that we have four options, I do think that "Further reading" is better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Abstain

B: "External links"

Support
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine for external links, that is, for resources that are online. And these are the most important ones; for many a reader, it does not matter all that much whether the sought information about the specific word is in Wiktionary or whether it is one click away from it. For offline sources, the heading title is slightly misleading, but then the question is whether we could use Further reading for offline sources alone, following the lead of Wikipedia. External links is a well established heading both in Wiktionary and on the web; it is used by Wikipedia as well as by Britannica, e.g. in tiger article[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Personally, I'd still prefer using "Further reading" for all further-reading purposes.
    I believe the heading title "External links" is not only slightly misleading for offline sources; it appears to be just false.
    I oppose splitting that section into "Further reading" for offline sources and "External links" for online sources, because I believe the purpose of both sections is the same.
    Sure, it's an additional hassle to readers if the physical book has to be bought. Still, you posted here a link to britannica.com which appears to have a paywall, which is a hassle for me. I don't intend to "activate a 7 day trial" for Encyclopedia Britannica at this point, so I didn't get the full article and didn't see the "External links" you mentioned (that said, I believe you that the website uses "External links" even if I didn't get to see the empirical proof at this point). My point is: an "External links" section does not necessarily equate to easy, immediate, free access to the intended information.
    An external dictionary may have both an offline and online versions and thus would fit both sections anyway. If we did that split, we would have one more rule to remember, and one more section to edit, organize and read in all entries. Whatever we choose, we still have to remember "See also" for internal links on top of that.
    If other people eventually decide that they want to split "Further reading" into "Further reading"/"External links", I can only assume they want to do all the splitting work, which is going to be hard. (Then again, the distinction between "section A if no links" and "section B if yes links" might be bottable. But if it's a distinction so simple as to be bottable, then I'm back to the point where both sections do the same thing anyway.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: If sources other than URLs (such as references to books) are to be included in this section, then I think the word links is inappropriate. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Smuconlaw. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAndrew Sheedy (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Abstain

C: "Further information"

Support
  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain

D: "Further reading"

Support
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    Per @Dan Polansky in "Further reading", in the talk page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support: I don't mind "External sources", "Further information" or "Further reading", but since there seems to be more support for "Further reading" at the moment I am happy to help achieve consensus. Also, "Further reading" would be in line with the usage at the English Wikipedia. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support – This option sounds the most natural to me, as the name of a section that combines what used to be References and External links. I'm unsure that it will make sense in all cases: some External links are just database sites that do not include much readable text. For instance, many of the translingual reference templates create links to taxonomic databases, like {{R:EOL}} (Encyclopedia of Life; see transclusions). But the header makes sense for entries in other languages, where the section will mainly consist of links to dictionary entries. — Eru·tuon 00:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'll repeat something, just to be extra clear if needed: we'll still continue to use the "References" section separately. Specifically, the "References" section proves what is being said in the entries. For example, you may want to use the "References" section to prove statements given in etymologies and usage notes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support - TheDaveRoss 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain

Decision


Request categories 2

Context:

Voting on:

  • Renaming the request categories in all languages, according to the table below.
Proposed name Proposed umbrella category Current name
Category:Requests for etymologies in English entries Category:Requests for etymologies by language Category:English entries needing etymology
Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in English entries Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies by language Category:English entries with incomplete etymology
Category:Requests for attention in etymologies in Latin entries Category:Requests for attention in etymologies by language Category:Latin etymologies needing attention
--
Category:Requests for pronunciation in English entries Category:Requests for pronunciation by language Category:English entries needing pronunciation
Category:Requests for audio pronunciation in English entries Category:Requests for audio pronunciation by language Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation
--
Category:Requests for example sentences in English Category:Requests for example sentences by language Category:English requests for example sentences
Category:Requests for quotations in English Category:Requests for quotations by language Category:English entries needing quotation
Category:Requests for dates of English quotations Category:Requests for quotation dates by language Category:Requests for date (no language-specific category)
--
Category:Requests for translations into Sanskrit Category:Requests for translations by language Category:Translation requests (Sanskrit)
Category:Requests for review of Sanskrit translations Category:Requests for review of translations by language Category:Translations to be checked (Sanskrit)
--
Category:Requests for English terms Category:Requests for terms by language Category:English term requests
Category:Requests for native script of Sanskrit Category:Requests for native script by language Category:Sanskrit terms needing native script
Category:Requests for transliterations of Sanskrit Category:Requests for transliterations by language Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration
--
Category:Requests for definitions in English entries Category:Requests for definitions by language Category:English entries needing definition
Category:Requests for inflections in English entries Category:Requests for inflections by language Category:English entries needing inflection
--
Category:Requests for attention in English entries Category:Requests for attention by language Category:English terms needing attention
--
Category:Requests for images in English entries Category:Requests for images by language Category:English entries needing images
Category:Requests for references for English terms Category:Requests for references by language Category:English entries needing reference

Rationale:

  1. Using consistent names for all categories, with proper grammar/syntax.
  2. Using the word "requests" instead of "needing". These categories track where something was requested, not where something is needed.

Procedural note:

  • Maybe WT:RFM can be used when we want to propose only a few category moves, but some people may think that a vote is needed to change the whole naming system of a large group of categories. (hence this vote)

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

(discussions from before the previous vote ended)

(discussions from after the previous vote ended)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but make the current names permanent redirects for those who prefer them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reason I (and others) opposed it last time. -Xbony2 (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Reference templates and OCLC

Voting on: Placing OCLC identifier on any reference or external link template for which OCLC is available, to be directly seen in the mainspace, and never admitting its removal once a correct OCLC was placed in a template. An example of OCLC is "OCLC 494050821".

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 17:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Such numerical identifiers add very little value but they make skimming harder and make the pages look more busy; this is especially so when both ISBN and OCLC are added. Numerical identifiers can be added to an appendix that can be one click away from the reference template. Wiktionary pages are already very busy with various information items, so much so that some users report they cannot find the definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Decision


CFI and place names cleanup

Voting on: Making the following changes in CFI relating to a recent addition of place name regulation to CFI:

  • 1) In section WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, replace "names of individual people," with "names of individual people, names of geographic features,", thereby undoing the removal of "names of geographic features,".
  • 2) In section WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, add the following bullet item to the list:
    'Place names are subject to the “Place names” section of this page.'
  • 3) In section WT:CFI#Place names, remove the following: "The names of countries, towns and cities meet the criteria for inclusion. Significant natural geographic features such as oceans and large deserts may also be included. Further guidance is contained below."

The above proposals shown:

The section WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, with the planned additions underlined:

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

... In particular:

  • No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney.
  • Names of specific companies are subject to the “Company names” section of this page.
  • Names of fictional people and places are subject to the “Fictional universes” section of this page.
  • Place names are subject to the “Place names” section of this page.

Such definitions as are included should be succinct rather than encyclopedic.

The section WT:CFI#Place names, with the planned removal struck:

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

The following place names should be included as long as they are attested:

  • The names of continents.
  • The names of seas and oceans.
  • The names of countries.
  • ...

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Atelaes for desysop

Voting on: removing sysop powers from User:Atelaes. No edits since 2014.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: G23r0f0i (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Deprecating 4=, 5= and gloss= parameters in favor of t=

Voting on: Deprecating the positional parameters |4= in templates {{m}}, {{l}}, and {{cog}} and |5= in {{der}}, {{inh}}, and {{bor}}, and the named parameters |gloss= in all the aforementioned templates and |glossN= in {{affix}} and its related templates, in favor of the named parameters |t= or |tN=. For flexibility, there will be two separate questions in this vote:

  • Question 1: Deprecate the positional parameters |4=/|5=
  • Question 2: Deprecate the named parameters |gloss=/|glossN=

Rationale:

  • To increase consistency between templates.
  • To increase flexibility in parameter ordering, while maintaining readability and brevity.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: WikiTiki89 18:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Question 1: Deprecate positional parameters

Support
Oppose
Abstain

Question 2: Deprecate "gloss" parameters

Support
Oppose
Abstain

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

Oppose for 5 years of inactivity

Support for 2 years of inactivity

Oppose for 2 years of inactivity

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: