Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

Current and new votes

Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel 01:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Languages with different sort ordering from default will greatly benefit. Already used in Module:zh-cat, which sorts by radicals, rather than characters themselves. Japanese would be greatly simplified (there would be no need to pass hiragana spelling for each category, if implemented (requires work but the logic is already used in other Japanese modules). Besides, it's simpler - multiple categories can be added as parameters in one template. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    How many languages are there of such kind?--Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know how many apart from Chinese and Japanese (Korean hangeul entries used to have them but it's no longer necessary) but you can try checking how often |sort= is used in the {{context}}/{{cx}} or what is used by {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Korean and Vietnamese entries in hanja and Hán tự also use some logic to sort by the modern scripts. Sorting order for many languages could be improved with a module. E.g., I'm annoyed to see Russian letter Ё appearing before any other letter in categories when it should be between letters Е and Ж. It also effects other Cyrillic letters in other languages. You have much more control over categories and their behaviour when you have a program than when you just use square brackets - [[Category:Blah]].--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Anatoli T.: Is the sorting order for Russian for "ё" okay at Category:Russian lemmas, from letter Е? If so, is this because the category is created by templates and modules that contain dedicated code to support this? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Yes, it seems OK there but if you look at the very first page of the category, words starting with the archaic Cyrillic letter "і" still come first (probably this hasn't been addressed yet). In Category:Russian_adjectives words starting with the Cyrillic letter "ё" (BTW, the first two of them are vulgar, which is annoying) come before other letters. There are other examples I've come across before in other languages as well. Yes, I think some modules/templates help the sorting order but I don't know the details.
    A categories module would make sure that languages are sorted as they should be - alphabetically, as the order may differ for Roman-based languages as well, e.g. Czech letter ch should come after h, shouldn't it? But Czech lemmas are sorted by letter c, AFAIK. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Anatoli T.: Czech sorting in Czech categories is kind of broken (non-conventional), as you say. Should not the sorting order be first fixed in a category generated by templates (Category:Russian_adjectives) before the sorting order is used as a selling point? What I would actually prefer is that each category is assigned the sorting order on the Mediawiki software level, regardless of the means by which the items are added to the category (direct markup, template, etc.). Are you sure there is no extension or software in Mediawiki that supports that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not selling it, just voting with my reasons. Yes, PoS categories need to be fixed as well. I don't know what Mediawiki can offer but I remember we had issues with Arabic diacritics display order before Benwing has created a module to address this - after many complaints about how MediaWiki does it. Editors will have more control over things, not just sorting order, when the code is here, at Wiktionary. I don't see why not either. Apart from HotCat, I don't see other reasons to oppose and HotCat can be taught to work with the module, I'm sure. I've seen the benefits of Module:zh-cat -> {{zh-cat}} and the sorting order was changed quickly for Chinese entries when a decision was made. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    My reason for opposing would be, don't complicate or templatize anything unless there is a tangible (not hypothetical) benefit in doing so; but I guess I am myself guilty of excessive complicating or templatizing. The template name {{catlangcode}} is pretty bad too, but that could be changed to {{cat}} or {{topiccat}}; the template is only intended for topical categories, from what I understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'd say opposition to templates is a weak reason. Templates are supposed to help, not to complicate. The idea is already implemented with Chinese topical categories with tangible benefits, so it's not entirely hypothetical. Compare old [[Category:zh-tw:Beginning Mandarin|止12歷史]] (an editor needed to know the character radicals and stroke counts to add to categories) with the new {{zh-cat|Beginning}}. I have given examples of what could be done with Japanese entries, which also have a complicated sorting order. Agreed about the length of the template name but the vote says ... "{{catlangcode|nl|Mammals}}" or similar. I prefer {{cat}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Templates increase the learning curve for newcomers; that is why they should only be introduced when the tangible benefit exceeds this downside. You are right: the vote does not require that the template name is specifically {{catlangcode}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    {{cat|en|People}} is not more complicated than [[Category:en:People]], besides, curly brackets and pipes are a second nature at Wiktionary, newcomers learn this fast. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    FYI, Daniel Carrero pointed out there is {{topics}}, at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-03/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace#catlangcode. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support if and only if the template be called {{C}} instead of {{catlangcode}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    The dating template currently coded at {{C}} should be deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    {{C}} is now a redirect to {{catlangcode}} (the dating template has been moved to {{C.}}). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 23:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless and until CodeCat gives a rationale for the change. This, that and the other (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Now neutral, per Anatoli's justification. I'd like a better name than "catlangcode" though. What a waste of valuable letters and precious keystrokes! This, that and the other (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree about the name "catlangcode". --Daniel 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 01:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose HotCat will be affected --Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    This could be addressed, I'm sure and made better. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in general but support for languages that need it. Not all languages have a different sort order from default and it would mess up HotCat for the ones that don't. —Internoob 19:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    @CodeCat Will the templatising of categories really mess with HotCat? Do you wish to address this or tell us your thoughts because this seems to be a concern. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. CatScan doesn't work for templatized categories. (Sort order can also be handled by pipes.)​—msh210 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This may be useful for generating category names in templates, but in the main namespace it is unnecessary. --WikiTiki89 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

  • I went to ruwiki being sure they have done something about it, and I was right. See this to see how Russian wikiprojects addressed this problem. So, now they sort like this

АБВГДЕ
Ё
ЖЗИЙКЛМНОПРСТУФХЦЧШЩЬЫЪЭЮЯабвгде
ё
жзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщьыъэюя

We can request the same for all languages.--Dixtosa (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dixtosa Any improvement is welcome, of course. I'm not sure how the above affects topical and other categories but we'll have much more control if we have language-specific sorting logic. I mentioned {{DEFAULTSORT}}. This is needed for certain abugida-based languages. See the end of this discussion. It's quite important that Thai, Lao, etc. are sorted by proper initial consonants, not by "preposed" vowels. E.g. แข็ง ‎(kăeng, hard, strong, solid) (note that it's spelled as "ăe + k + ng", certain vowels are written in front of syllables, they are preposed). It should be sorted by "ข็แง" (i.e. teh way it's read out: "k + ăe + ng") in entries {{DEFAULTSORT|ข็แง}}, the way people look up Thai words in dictionaries, in this case by consonant ‎(k), not by the vowel ‎(ae), even though it's physically written before the consonant. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision


Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit

  • Voting on: That whenever citations can be provided showing that a romanization of a Sanskrit word is well-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]), we allow an entry for that romanization consisting of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry.
  • Rationale: This differs from the previous vote, which would have allowed romanizations of all attested Sanskrit words, irrespective of whether the romanizations themselves were attested. This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word. This will allow definitions to be created for words (or things that a reader would reasonably expect to be words) that an English-speaking reader might reasonably be expected to encounter while reading English-language materials containing strings of romanized Sanskrit text, while preventing the creation of definitions for unattested romanizations.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. bd2412 T 20:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support (conditionally) Bowing to pressure and evidence provided that Sanskrit romanisation is used. My condition: only IAST romanisation and only as soft redirects to Devanagari entries, all entry info (definitions, pronunciations, synonyms, example sentences, etc.) should be in the Devanagari entries, just like Mandarin pinyin and Japanese rōmaji entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I am fine with everything you have said. bd2412 T 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • OK. I want to stress that it should be standard IAST, e.g. "ṃ", not "ṁ" for anusvāra and one transliteration per entry with possible hard redirects. Details to be worked out, including the use of hyphens (for etymological word splits) and stress marks (only for pronunciation in Devanagari entries, which should not be in IAST entries). I don't see dedicated editors to create and check IAST entries, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I consider words with different accents to be different words. I wonder how likely we are to find three independent citations in running strings of transliterated Sanskrit text using the wrong diacritics. That said, I have no objection at all to an IAST limitation. bd2412 T 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe we should use ISO 15919 as either the standard or an alternative. It covers more basis (letters that IAST ignores) and is also used by google translate. Also, since both IAST and ISO 15919 are 1 to 1 transliterations (digaṃbara/digaṁbara will always be दिगंबर) we could even just do hard-redirects. This makes sense if the purpose is simply to get the user to the Devanagari-script page. DerekWinters (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Other than for the "modicum" part, this is our current CFI (WT:CFI#Attestation) as I understand it. I see no added value for the user of the dictionary in disallowing attestation of transliterations beyond the current CFI.

    I am slightly confused by the following: "This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word." I do not support that attesting quotations must be in the entry before the entry is created; attestation of transliterated text should work the same way as attestation of native-script text.

    On yet another note, this vote proposes to explicitly allow modicum entries; I do not see the vote anywhere disallowing non-modicum entries. I surmise it to be the current CFI to allow even fuller entries than modicum ones, for attested transliterations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support having Rōmaji-style entries for all attested transliterations of Sanskrit. (@Atitarev How about tagging non-IAST transliterations {{lb|sa|nonstandard}}?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    If we decide to start allowing entries for romanizations, then it will make sense to tag the nonstandard ones, yes — but probably with a dedicated tag like {{lb|sa|nonstandard romanization}} (which could display "nonstandard") or better yet a dedicated template like {{nonstandard romanization of}}, so that the entries can be categorized differently from terms that are nonstandard in the 'usual' way. Templates would presumably also be needed for e.g. Hunterian transliterations and other non-IAST standards. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: That seems sensible. I'd support such a practice. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support As these transliterated forms are attested, it's not so much a question of whether they should be included, but how, and that shouldn't come into consideration for this vote. None of the objections so far have said anything except to defer to previous votes. Previous objections were that there might be development of "reverse transliteration modules" to aid search -- this is irrelevant for this vote, as it ignores the change in this poll, namely that is only for attested forms. It also assumes future technology, when in reality Wiktionary code development is particularly slow (e.g. you still can't even search by language). Another previous objection was that there would be an explosion of entries with transliterations for Sanskrit in multiple scripts: "Sanskrit is written in a hell of a lot of scripts". Again this is rendered irrelevant by the requirement for attestation. Another objection was against bot-generated transliterations. Again, not relevant. So, the objectors who are simply deferring to previous votes really need to expand their arguments. I've only gone through Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization_of_Sanskrit, but none of the objections made there appear to be relevant for this vote, so please point to specific arguments if you object. Pengo (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Are you sure you've read the talkpages? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seriously? I've gone to the effort of going through one page of voting and found nothing relevant there. If you want to point out specific arguments, you're going to have to meet me half way. Pengo (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as this is the English Wiktionary, and we assume that most of our contributors can't read other scripts and only have access to Latin input tools, it makes sense for usability's sake to be pretty liberal with romanizations. The RFV of maha/mahā found plenty of unglossed quotations of Sanskrit written in the Latin alphabet, so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that a user will come across Sanksrit words and want to know what they mean. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Software_alternative?. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support It may also be prudent to add Thai-cizations, Tamilicizations, Balicizations, etc. Especially for the Thai-script Sanskrit entries, pronunciation should be added to reflect the special usage of Thai Sanskrit. "In Thailand, Sanskrit is read out using the Thai values for all the consonants (so ค is read as kha and not [ga]), which makes Thai spoken Sanskrit incomprehensible to sanskritists not trained in Thailand" (from w:Thai_alphabet#Sanskrit_and_Pali). DerekWinters (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    Also Tibetan, Javanese, Grantha (used only for Sanskrit), Sarada, and Siddham (still somewhat used in Japan). DerekWinters (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. And I would similarly support the inclusion of romanizations of Greek, Russian etc if used similarly. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support, based on the arguments made at Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit#Rationale. Inclusion should be based on attestation in Latin-script Sanskrit-only text (whether or not it matches any standard, such as IAST), and not in the running text of any other language. As of now, I only support this for Sanskrit; any other language we want to do this for has to be considered separately. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    Just want to add that I would prefer it if citations were limited to before the 1960s. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 13:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would not support this for any random language but I think it's useful with Sanskrit given that there is a standard transcription scheme in general use (IAST) and that Devanagari is not a script that we can reasonably expect our users to either be familiar with or figure out (I'd say that for all foreign scripts except maybe Greek and Cyrillic). As for entering IAST text, on the Mac for example it's not hard to enter all sorts of diacritics using the "US Extended" keyboard; you can also go to the Character Viewer and type in e.g. "a" and you will get "related characters" including variants of "a" with lots of different diacritics on them. Someone else also mentioned the helpfulness of the auto-completion in the search bar, e.g. if I type in "mahru" (which is not an attested word) the search bar shows an entry for the Comanche word "mahrʉ" without me needing to figure out how to enter the character "ʉ". I think this should be limited to IAST text but I think the requirement for attestation will ensure that we're unlikely to get very many weird non-IAST transcriptions. (BTW on a different note, I think Egyptian Arabic and other Arabic dialects should be rendered in Latin transcription because the Arabic alphabet is not sufficient for representing the phonologies of these languages. All sources I have on Arabic dialects use transcription exclusively. Unfortunately this is a potential can of worms because there isn't a single accepted transcription scheme ... in any case, an issue for another day.) Benwing (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support If indeed the Latin entry is nothing more than a soft redirect to the Devanagari entry, I suppose I can't really come up with a decent reason as to how this differs from pinyin and romaji entries, per Angr's point. Aperiarcam (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the previous vote. Wyang (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Wyang. --Vahag (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Vahag. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dijan (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUngoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are several scripts used for writing Sanskrit, but the Latin script is not one of them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Bogorm: People may have all sort of reasons; yours is demonstrably factually wrong: Sanskript is written in Latin, among other scripts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: You appear to confuse Sanskrit with Pāli. Among Indo-Aryan languages Pāli texts have been published in Latin script, not Sanskrit ones. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Bogorm: Actually, I have that information from someone else, so maybe it is wrong, and if it is, I apologize. W:Devanagari_transliteration tells me that "Contemporary Western editions of Sanskrit texts appear mostly in IAST"; don't know whether that unreferenced claim is true - can you comment? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    I found it. User:Angr said "There are whole books of Sanskrit written in Latin script, so I see no reason to exclude Sanskrit in Latin from the dictionary.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: I should have written published by a reputable publisher (not by Samizdat or yoga amateurs). Reputable here may be defined thus: a publishing house that has published writings of eminent Indologists (such as Geiger, Liebert, H. Smith and so forth). In Pāli this is the PTS, but as regards Sanskrit, hardly any corresponding publication society is discernible. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Bogorm: Referring back to the quoted Wikipedia sentence: do you mean that "Contemporary Western editions" mentioned are published by publishers that are not reputable? Do you have any such particular publisher that is not reputable in mind? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    Why does it matter whether words are found in books published by a reputable publisher? We are not a dictionary restricted to including words found in such works. bd2412 T 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. In my opinion, shared by some others in previous discussions, it is inaccurate to consider the results of one language rendering something from another language into a script the rendering language's speakers can read (or in older times, a more basic practical concern: rendering it into a script the rendering language's printers/typesetters have the capacity to print/typeset) to be "words". I've seen transliterations of the entire text of the Soviet national anthem into Latin letters (different Latin letters depending on the language of the person doing the transliterating), transcriptions of Chinese strings into Latin and into Cyrillic, transcriptions of English and Russian strings into Chinese and Japanese characters, etc. "Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh" isn't written in the script Russian is written in; it's not Russian, it's a rendering of Russian; ditto "Zhongguo dalu" and the Sanskrit strings this vote is about. Such strings aren't English, either. Our format requires us to include only words which belong to languages, and to assign all words we include to langiages. Hence, I not only don't think we should include "nerushimy", etc, I don't think we can include them (accurately). I oppose trying to include them.
    I had refrained from participating in this vote, however, because I thought: if the majority is against me, and I don't have to edit such conceptually messy entries, why not let the majority get their way? But as has been pointed out in the BP, the only way a majority has been assembled here is by keeping this vote open for months on end, far past the length of time votes are usually kept open.
    Another issue is the nature of what this vote proposes. Allowing systematic romanization of a language (a la Gothic) is one thing. Allowing ad-hoc transliteration systems, but only for a single language, is inconsistent; what makes e.g. a French book's Latin-script Sanskrit different from a French book's Latin-script Chinese or a Chinese or Japanese book's Chinese- bzw. Japanese-character English, that we should be allowing only one of them?
    On a practical note, what effect would including Latin-script Sanskrit (and Devanagari-script Chinese, Chinese-character Russian, etc) have on our efforts to apply to languages fonts that best cover the characters they use? Suddenly, we'd have to anticipate that {{head}}s and other strings from most major languages might be present in most major scripts with varying, and if we allow ad-hoc transliterations then potentially unpredictable, arrays of diacritics.
    - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @-sche Would it help to limit the discussion to transliterations that are well-attested? Thus far, as a dictionary, we have tried to include words that a person might run across in print and want to define. bd2412 T 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this will be the end of Wiktionary if it passes. We need to maintain a level of seriosity and not be a rehash of unreliable Geocities websites from the past. -- Liliana 18:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Liliana-60 Since your objection seems to rest on the reliability of websites, would your view be different if citations were limited to books in print? bd2412 T 18:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Liliana I don't understand that objection at all. The vote does not propose to relax our attestation criteria. Our WT:ATTEST does not allow quotations to be from "unreliable Geocities websites". The vote uses the same language as WT:ATTEST, namely "used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media ...", italics mine. What is the point? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    There are way too many websites that use Latin script because they're way too lazy to actually use the proper script. Especially for ancient languages like Egyptian, this makes it next to impossible to find out the actual attested form. I see no need to copy others' mistakes in that regard. -- Liliana 19:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Liliana And what makes these websites permanently recorded media? Do we accept these kind of websites for, say, English? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    How can it make it next to impossible to find the "actual" form? You just go out to the monument and read what it says. If that's hard, then I think calling the people who do that "lazy" is completely unjust. Because that's what the people who go out and look at the monuments publish in, transliteration. Again real scholars use transliteration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see why the threshold for inclusion of Latin-alphabet Sanskrit should be higher than it is for Devanagari Sanskrit. Sanskrit is not a WDL, so one single mention should be sufficient. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think Sanskrit counts as extinct for CFI purposes, so it would need "one use in a contemporaneous source". Since Latin-script Sanskrit can't possibly fulfill that criterion (guess why), they're trying to make Latin-script Sanskrit count as a living language, rather than an extinct language, so they can go by the normal, less restrictive (due to not being restricted to contemporaneous sources) three-citations rule instead. I think that's a violation of our CFI. -- Liliana 08:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    If the requirement for Sanskrit is "one use in a contemporaneous source" then we can't host any Sanskrit here at all in any script, since Sanskrit was not written down until centuries after it became extinct. Nevertheless, CFI does permit one mention for extinct languages under the same conditions as for living LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    When was that added? I remember the "contemporaneous" restriction was made to prevent people from coining modern words for extinct languages, like having entries on nuclear energy in Egyptian language. But if you can just cite these words as LDL instead, that restriction becomes completely ineffective. -- Liliana 08:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I suppose the condition that "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" is there to exclude that sort of thing. If the community of editors of Ancient Egyptian maintains a list that excludes anything coining words for nuclear energy, then such coinings will not be included. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Unless these coinages take hold and are published in three independent sources. We still don't want to call them Ancient Egyptian. --WikiTiki89 12:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the proposal is well-formed, judging from the range of possible interpretations of "well-attested" that have been offered. Flexibility of interpretation is not bad in principle, but it seems to leave too much in doubt for those opposing the proposal. I hadn't realized how problematic the proposal formulation was. Given the elasticity of our interpretations of terms such as "well-attested", one might well expect that all possible definitions will be applied with connecting "or"s. Perhaps the third try will be the charm. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    @DCDuring: You forgot to strike your support vote. As for your objection, "well-attested" indeed should have been "attested", IMHO, but that is very minor given that the vote is explicit about what it means: "used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years"; this I quote from the wording of the vote. I see no room for interpretation, or certainly no more room than is currently in WT:ATTEST which uses the same language. I think you should reconsider or clarify. From your support vote, I take it that you support including Latin-written Sanskrit in some form; please clarify if this is not the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    You are right. I don't know what I am talking about on the substance.
    I suppose I am trying to make sure that the result is the one that would have occurred had the vote ended at the first vote-termination date (5 March 2015) as I view the process as irregular and, if not in violation of any specific policy or procedure here, at least in violation of my sense of fairness and due process. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    @DCDuring That's fair enough. Abstaining because of disagreement with perceived process irregularities make perfect sense. Nonetheless, let me point you to diff and the principle that I stated there: "If a vote is getting the result of no consensus, and if at least one vote was cast to it during the last month, the vote can be extended in good conscience. A result is "no consensus" if it is 50% in support or higher but lower than a pass." When I extended this vote multiple times (it is my repeated extensions that you appear to be objecting to), I was following this principle. I think this principle is reasonably fair, and even if it shows selection bias a bit, the benefits offset the bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I hope I understand this proposal correctly. I think it would be fine to create a redirect to the Devanagari entry (at least where the Latin spelling would not coincide with words from other languages), but it strikes me as silly to use the somewhat narrow and recent attestation of Romanized Sanskrit to argue that it has a comparable claim to being a native script as Devanagari does. Regardless of the controversy regarding Sanskrit's lack of a native script, scholars from both East and West have been using Devanagari as the de facto standard script for Sanskrit for centuries. Sure, this is influenced by Hindi's prominence in India today, but I don't think this is different from any other editorial standard we use in a dictionary. Just as we use lowercase letters, accent markings, etc. in modern printings of classical Latin and Greek texts, and dictionaries of said languages, we should not be hesitant to apply this standard on Sanskrit, to the exclusion of the Latin alphabet, notwithstanding the anachronism. Aperiarcam (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Why to the exclusion of the Latin alphabet? Why not have both? Why should we allow romanizations for Gothic, Chinese, and Japanese, and prohibit them for Sanskrit? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think you're not quite correct when you say Western scholars use Devanagari as the de-facto standard script for Sanskrit. Most recent Western works I've seen on Sanskrit use IAST Latin transcription, often exclusively and without Devanagari. It seems it's mostly older works, e.g. William Dwight Whitney's grammar, that used Devanagari primarily. Benwing (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I like this idea from the perspective of users who are trying to find a romanized Sanskrit word found in either a religious text or dictionary but who are not familiar with or are incapable of typing in Devanagiri. On the other hand, even the IAST cannot be easily typed into a search bar, which defeats the purpose of that argument. JohnC5 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    You type maha, and at the top, on the "See also:" row, you'll find mahā. So ease of typing should not be an issue for a person who can type Latin letters used in English. (Works for Czech as well; if a person can only type kocka, they can click kočka at the top of the entry.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    That only works though if the page without diacritics already exists and has a See also, neither of which is always the case. Regardless I can understand both arguments quite well and cannot make up my mind. JohnC5 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Even assuming the diacritic-free pages will not eventually exist, learning to enter these diacritics is much easier than to enter a script with which one is entirely unfamiliar. And the search for the non-existing diacritic-free page would presumably turn up the page with diacritics near the top of the search results. Or even, when I enter "tuzka" into the search box and press "Go", Wiktionary takes me to "tužka"; similary for "muska" and "muška". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I still feel too strongly in both directions to choose. Thanks for the clarification, though. JohnC5 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain —Stephen (Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Decision

  • Passes, 12 - 6 - 1. —Stephen (Talk) 13:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't deem a 12–6 vote passed, myself, though I know others do; but I really don't think we should in this case, in light of the procedural irregularity.​—msh210 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @msh210: I thought that the required supermajority is ⅔… That's exactly the proportion of 12:6. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
        • (@) There's been quite a bit of past discussion, and no consensus or even widespread agreement AFAIK, about what the required supermajority is.​—msh210 (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Discussions are not exercises in bean counting. In the above discussion, five out of six editors expressing opposition to the proposal provided no substantive argument on the matter. The sixth offered an argument based on a premise that was noted to be factually incorrect based on citations that have been provided with respect to this discussion in the past. bd2412 T 13:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Wyang is clearly saying that the reason he (and possibly others) gave in the previous vote still applies. Vahag and Ivan explicitly agree with Wyang; Dijan and Ungoliant agree with him implicitly. I wouldn't call that not providing a substantive argument, since there are many substantive arguments discussed in the previous vote and other discussions linked to above. There is no rule that says the argument must be provided in the vote itself. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Wyang's previous vote called for developing reverse transliteration modules as an alternative. Such modules have not been developed. Any editor with the programming ability is welcome to develop such a thing and offer it as a functional alternative, at which point the need for romanizations can be revisited. bd2412 T 15:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                • You can disagree with him, but you can't say that his vote is baseless. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • I can certainly say that it is based on a weak premise, in light of our determinations for other transliterations. I can also certainly say that votes 4 and 5 are explicitly baseless (I don't see an implication where there is no evidence for one), and that vote 6 is based on a factual error that is undercut by actual citations that have been provided for the one word that is primarily at issue here. bd2412 T 16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • "The sixth offered an argument based on a premise that was noted to be factually incorrect based on citations" Based on which citations in particular? Could you provide a link? This is an example for a Pali composition (Dhammasaṅgaṇi) published in the Latin script by a reputable publisher (PTS). If you can provide an example for a Sanskrit publication in the Latin script analogous to that, I pledge to reconsider my position. However, the claim that my justification had arguably been noted to be factually incorrect is a groundless, unfounded assumption. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
                      • Based on the citations collected at Citations:mahā, including a section of transliterated Sanskrit passages. I don't know why you keep referring to "a reputable publisher", as if Wiktionary has some rule discounting words or usages found in other texts. Our only rule is that the text must be durably archived. We even use usenet group archives for citations. If you think that there is a requirement that words be cited to a work by any particular kind of publisher, then you are factually wrong on an entirely different level. bd2412 T 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
                        • The first edition is overtly proselytic and proselytism relies on maximal simplification and minimal thoroughness and profundity with regard to perquisition and authenticity. The second one is an edition of a living person again with the aim of maximal distribution with minimal effort. The third which you essayed to incorporate into the page less than an hour ago, has been fortunately removed (not by me) because there the word was part of a proper name. Thus, all of them are nowhere near as reputable with regard to the publisher (as is PTS) and/or classical with regard to content (as is Dhammasaṅgaṇi). Therefore I am afraid that there is either a misconception of analogous example or (as I am still convinced) absence of analogous examples that corroborates the above argument from the Oppose section. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
                        • P. S. I would like to propose moving that conversation concerning reputable publications of classical works (classical, since an ancient language is concerned here) either to the Oppose section or to the discussion of the vote, lest the decision section diverge from its main purpose which is the closure of the vote; if BD2412 does not object. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
                          • If your intent is to impose a standard of "reputable publications", then the place this discussion needs to go is Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion, because the citations I provided clearly meet the current strictures of that policy. bd2412 T 22:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
      • As for "procedural irregularity" mentioned above, the only irregularity that I see is that the vote was closed on the same day on which the last vote was cast. I reject the claim that the extensions themselves are procedural irregularity. More discussion is now at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/July#Persistent_extensions_of_votes; it could as well have been on this page of the vote, and I find it inappropriate that the vote was locked to prevent discussions about its outcome and manner of closure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • By my lights, 2/3 should be pass, for a vote like this that does not change the constitution. But I disagree with how the vote was closed by Stephen. On the day Stephen cast his vote, he should have extended the vote, IMHO. If multiple people agree, we can extend the vote one month. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I extended this vote by one month from today, to 19 August 2015. I support the extension and so do DCDuring and msh210 if I understand their comments in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/July#Persistent_extensions_of_votes correctly. Please let me know here if you agree with this extension.--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      • This extension confirms the blundering nature of the underlying process to achieve this proposal and similarly marginal proposals. Obviously the original vote was premature. The second vote, as it has turned out, was also premature. The use of voting in lieu of BP discussion and polls makes the corruption of the voting process possible, even inevitable. But, instead of any lesson being learned, we have another vote (on the voting process itself) being promoted without sufficiently broad discussion in advance. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Contrary to the above ranting against voting, this vote was not premature. There was plenty of time for discussion, and some actual discussion, before the vote. We are having great results with voting in the English Wiktionary, with cleaner and better policies, achieved through a timely and transparent process. The reader might not object to be reminded of such votes as Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities, which terminated endless discussions about the attributive-use rule which almost no one supported, a rule that threatened to be used by a minority in the RFV process to remove a significant portion of our coverage of proper names including placenames. A recent vote improving our policies by eliminating poorly attested, and IMHO unreal, content is Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3. I will remind the reader that our votes are ripe with rather open discussion: discussing directly on the vote page is not forbidden and is common. We have a very open and transparent voting culture that many Wiktionaries can only envy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disallowing extending of votes

Support

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    If we require that the vote duration specified at the time of the start of the vote is binding and cannot be changed during the run of the vote, then we either have to create relatively short votes that get too little chance for gaining cast votes or we have to create long votes such as for 3 months, which gives more chance for people to come to the vote but also creates an avoidable delay for those votes that get a clear result fairly early. And then, even 3 months can prove too short a period. I think the following is a good principle for repeatedly extended votes:
    If a vote is getting the result of no consensus, and if at least one vote was cast to it during the last month or extension period, the vote can be extended in good conscience. A result is "no consensus" if it is 50% in support or higher but lower than a pass.
    The above principle involves a certain amount of something that resembles (but is IMHO not identical to) W:selection bias: without its application, more votes would be closed as "no consensus" which in practice is similar to "fail". On the other hand, the votes that pass as a result of extension are those that gained more cast votes as a result of the extension and are thus more representative of the positions of all editors. Furthermore, the longer the vote lingers on the WT:VOTE page, the less plausible it is for a regular editor to claim that they did not see the vote or that they did not find the time to consider its proposal, do the research and thinking, and oppose if applicable.
    As for previous practice, votes with a single extension include Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2. Votes with multiple extensions include Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2, but most of the multiple extensions were brought about fairly recently by me, including those in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3, Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m, Wiktionary:Votes/2014-09/Renaming rhyme pages, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit, and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Nesting inflected form definition lines

  • Voting on: Volume changing the formatting of inflected form entries from the currently common one exemplified by
  1. nominative plural of aqua
  2. genitive singular of aqua
  3. dative singular of aqua
  4. vocative plural of aqua

to new one exemplified by

  1. inflections of aqua:
    1. genitive singular
    2. dative singular
    3. nominative plural
    4. vocative plural

The use of boldface, italics, hyperlinks, and capitalization are not covered by this proposal, and should be therefore unaffected by the result of this vote.

As part of this proposal, creating the new formatting by means of a single template invocation instead of multiple ones as before, possibly like the following one:

# {{inflection of|aqua||gen|s|;|dat|s|;|nom|p|;|voc|p|lang=la}}

rather than the previous

# {{inflection of|aqua||nom|p|lang=la}}
# {{inflection of|aqua||gen|s|lang=la}}
# {{inflection of|aqua||dat|s|lang=la}}
# {{inflection of|aqua||voc|p|lang=la}}

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Normalization of entries 2

  • Voting on:
    • Promoting the revision 33679332 of Wiktionary:Normalization of entries (WT:NORM) to a policy, the same as WT:CFI and WT:ELE. Its purpose is described as follows, quoted from the page:
      "This is a list of aspects that govern how the wiki code behind an entry should be formatted. They are invisible to the readers, e.g., following these rules makes no difference to how a user sees the page, but they do make the pages conform more to a standard format reflecting what we think of as best for the wiki code. Issues such as where to put blank lines and how many, whether to put spaces inside the == ==, or after asterisks in lists."
    • Adding to the page the same policy box from CFI and ELE, whose policy status reads specifically as follows.
      "This is a Wiktionary policy, guideline or common practices page.
      It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE."
  • About the policy:
    • The list of items currently in the policy was developed from this extensive 2006 thread, which shaped the wiki code of our entries as we know to this date with the major role of User:AutoFormat (2007–2010) and I proposed to be officialized through this discussion from May 2015 with 13 polls. Controversial, outdated or undiscussed items were removed from the list and moved to here. This policy was voted before here but failed with 7 - 4 - 2 (63,6% support); the policy has since been revised based on the previous vote. The version of the policy being voted now is different from the version proposed then.


  • Vote started: 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


User:Benwing for admin

  • Nomination: I hereby nominate Benwing (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He has made great contributions in the Arabic language contents, modules and templates, set up a whole infrastructure, which enabled complex Arabic verb conjugations, noun, adjective, etc. declensions, accurate Arabic transliteration of terms with diacritics. Good linguistic and technical skills. Helpful and responsive, has the the right attitude to become an efficient admin. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: 13:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Acceptance: Accepted
    • Languages: en, pt-3, es-3, fr-3, de-2, it-2, la-2, ar-2, ang-1, fro-1
    • Timezone: UTC-5
    Benwing (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I think that we need a separate rights group for editors who need to edit technical pages but not necessarily have blocking rights or patrolling responsibilities. --WikiTiki89 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, I have no reservations about Benwing specifically (who I'm sure will make a great admin), only about our admin-to-regular-editor ratio. --WikiTiki89 13:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Wikipedia has such a rights group: w:Wikipedia:Template editor, which actually works by establishing a second type of page protection, protecting templates with that protection rather than with normal protection, and then allowing template editors the right to edit pages protected with that protection. I would think it would be easy for the devs to turn that feature on here, if we asked. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    I would support the inclusion of that.--Dixtosa (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support With no reservations and as a nominator. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely. --Vahag (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I've been really impressed with his/her work on Ancient Greek and Arabic. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Z 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support bd2412 T 21:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportUngoliant (falai) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support I admire his technical skills. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 17:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Support on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: As I argued when you imposed this condition on the counting of your vote in the vote to confer administratorship upon JohnC5, it is not acceptable for a single, nonnominating voter to impose such a condition ex post facto. If you want future conferrings of administratorship to carry this condition, I suggest you make those nominations, including such a condition in the original texts of those votes. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    If you suggest that my being not the nominator prevents me from opposing what are in effect unaccountable adminships for life, I think you are quite mistaken. I am aware of your previous arguments, and I found them unconvincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Unfortunately, I must agree with META in this matter. You can't walk into a voting booth, vote for an official, and then claim that your vote only counts if the official does what you want; that is simply not how elections work. You must institute this separately via a policy vote as what you are requesting is a policy change. I could be fine with with the conditions your proposal (with very specific definitions of the terms and procedures involved), but I am sure some other users would not approve of it at all. Until a policy change is instituted, your vote must be read as an oppose out of pure parliamentary practice.
    I'd also point out that this problem is part of a larger spate of ex post facto condition injections that have been showing up in other Wiktionary votes. I'm considering proposing a vote banning the addition of new conditions to an already running vote unless a separate sub-vote is appended to the original accepting the change. Again, I do not mean to offend you (and I hope I have not), but we cannot allow users to inject their conditions without public agreement. —JohnC5 12:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    There is not any policy for adminships and their removal, only a common practice. I think it charitable of me to post a conditional support rather than posting an oppose. You have not offended me; you have merely stated an agreement with ISMETA, which is your right. This is not a court of law. I do not intend to investigate the meaning of terms like ex post facto any deep, but let me note that I am not making anything retroactive but rather only on a go-forward basis for this particular nomination. I note that the "musts" that you present are largely unsupported by an argument, but rather seem to draw an analogy to a certain legal practice. In votes for an official, my vote cannot be accompanied by a meaningful comment, which is not the case here. I do not believe my vote must be read as oppose, but as long as I am the sole voice under my banner, it can be so read, and this discussion is moot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Later: I think I can make you happy and still achieve what I am looking for. Therefore, I switched to oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The more the merrier. (Regarding the policy discussion that has leaked into this vote: ideally, every experienced editor in good standing would have admin privs. Regrettably that is not currently the case, but the fact that the pond already doesn't have enough water is no reason to drain it.) -- Visviva (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I could only support under the condition that, if there is a future vote seeking to confirm adminship of this editor and that vote achieves no consensus, the editor loses the admin rights. Since that condition is not specified on this vote, I cannot support it. This is nothing personal, only a matter of general principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    I appreciate this and apologize to you for making a stink about it and to Benwing for removing a supporting vote. I do hope that you will set up a separate policy vote as you are correct that the system of adminship is broken and needs stricter guidelines. —JohnC5 12:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Do you really think the carps will agree to having their pond emptied, as we say in Czech? (If the metaphor is too hard to understand, I'll try to find the native English expression instead.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    (That is a good expression. I'm having a hard time coming up with a good equivalent.) You are correct that there are several admins whose power is mostly unchecked and who would oppose such action. I know that I am acting in good faith and believe strongly that ISMETA is too when we oppose this method of change. I have seen the arguments raging across this project and tend to avoid them because they are too inimical for me, but you are very much correct that some new system is needed, whether it be arbitration, term limits, reëlection, or something else. —JohnC5 13:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Term limits would include unnecessary bureaucracy since they would require express reelection (people casting votes) of someone whose ability to continue has never been questioned in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    saw off the branch one is sitting on, [3]
    BTW, I will support you if you make a vote.--Dixtosa (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    You can support my proposal right here, right now, by posting an oppose similar to mine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. I abstain. I see no reason to distrust Benwing specifically; though we have not interacted too often, so this is not really saying much. I think that too often this project hands out admin rights like the Nobel Committee the Peace Prize. Like Wikitiki, I would welcome the addition of a group that can edit protected pages. —Keφr 14:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Decision


Clarify exclusion of companies

  • Voting on: Clarification of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Company names to say more precisely what we mean by companies not being allowed.
    Company names
    Regardless of attested use, commercial businesses such as American Airlines are not included as definitions.
    Exceptions to this rule are made for:
    • Fictional companies, which must still meet the requirements under “Fictional universes”.
    • Certain nicknames including abbreviations used outside of the industry without reference to the full name, such as Mickey D's or HP (for Hewlett-Packard).
    A term may also be allowed if it has a meaning apart from the business. This could include its sense as the signature product of the company if attested under other criteria, for example the Atari brand name.
  • Vote started: 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Recently ended votes

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

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: