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

User:Connel MacKenzie for de-sysop and de-checkuser

  • There was a vote in 2012 to de-sysop and de-checkuser User:Connel MacKenzie, which barely favored retention. Since then, he has been a ghost here, with a dozen edits over the past three years, mostly on his own talk page, and zero administrative actions since 2009. In the meantime, the project has moved on, with various changes and refinements to our rules and our templates. If Connel were to return and contribute at the level of participation exhibited in 2009 and before, I have no doubt he could quickly regain the knowledge needed to merit having the bits, but it is pointless to continue having him listed as an admin, and even more so as a checkuser, a position for which time is often of the essence in combating vandalism and sockpuppetry. Since there was some confusion in the previous process stemming from the dual de-tooling nomination, I have split the vote into its component parts here. bd2412 T 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: I have emailed Connel and left a note on his talk page regarding this proposal. All participants in the previous discussion have been notified. bd2412 T 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Since going offline, it is indeed rare that I get back here. As before, I am a bit suspicious of the motivation for de-sysoping. However, I do agree that the checkuser tool is dangerous, particularly since my access these days tends to be in places like public libraries. --Connel MacKenzie (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
        • The motivation for de-sysoping is entirely that it is indeed rare that you get back here. Rules and procedures that a sysop should be familiar with have changed over the years, and nothing in your participation suggests that you have kept up with those, or indeed that you have any use for the sysop tools at this point. As I have said, I am sure that you would be able to carry out those functions if you were return to fairly regular editing, and were therefore to be in a position to need those tools. bd2412 T 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, that would certainly discourage me from returning. How many have been unwillingly de-sysopped so far? --Connel MacKenzie (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
            • So far as I know it hasn't been done before. There may be others more deserving based on inactivity, but your also having the Checkuser bit is a consideration. I would hope that you are not discouraged from returning, and that you are motivated to do so by the value of the project, irrespective of any decisions made in this discussion. bd2412 T 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I e-mailed Connell. Here is the reply which he said I could repost:
My absence is primarily due to being offline - also why I'm uncomfortable making main NS edits without getting a feel for what's been going on in my absence. I am offended at being singled out (particularly by people who are not the least bit impartial.) I would certainly appreciate you reposting for me.
- DCDuring TALK 00:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: 16:48, 7 April 2015
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. bd2412 T 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support if he has no real objections SemperBlotto (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support JonRichfield (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)'
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support only for security reasons: I wouldn't let a close trusted friend keep an account on my server if they hadn't used it for years. Equinox 00:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many other Wikimedia projects have "administrator inactivity policies", whereby administrators are desysopped after a defined inactivity period (for example, 2 years without any edits or log actions, or 1 year with fewer than 5 administrative actions). In every case I have seen, a sysop simply has to invalidate the criteria (e.g. make an edit, or make 5 administrative actions) to keep their rights. On no other project have I ever seen administrators desysopped against their will for no other reason than their low level of activity. If Connel wishes to remain an administrator at this wiki, that should be his choice, for as long as he continues to respond to attempts to contact him. This, that and the other (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    When I wrote this, I hadn't realised that the five support votes above were placed before Connel posted his response. So I apologise if my language was a bit scathing. I wonder if those support voters wish to reconsider their position in light of the new information. This, that and the other (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Despite his comments, I have yet to see Connel actually say that he does wish to remain an administrator, or that he has any intention of using the admin tools. If he were to indicate as much, and were to take at least some admin actions (like clearing out a handful of old RfD or RfV discussions) I would be likely to withdraw my support for desysopping. bd2412 T 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    I interpreted his use of the phrase "unwillingly de-sysopped" to mean that he was not willing to be de-sysopped. But yes, it would be helpful if he would clearly state his wishes. This, that and the other (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am switching to oppose. Connel did not lose our trust, and can therefore remain an admin. I don't see any good reason for desysopping. There are multiple sysops who actually should be desysopped but will not, and it is because for what they did, not because for what they did not do. The trust is based on fundamental skills and character; from these, the ability to quickly reacquaint oneself with changed policies and practices follows. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no particular reason to de-sysop Connel. If he comes back and contributes, then he's a help. If he isn't up on the changes in how we do things since he was last a regular, he seems to approach any possible return with some humility in that regard. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Abstain with respect to removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I sense there is a general advantage to having sysops linger as sysops despite not being actually active. If Connel posts support above, fine, but he has already posted to this page without posting his support to this section. I even considered opposing, but, OTOH, Connel has not expressed disagreement with desysoping either (despite posting to this page), so let this be an abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Support removing checkuser rights

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. bd2412 T 16:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Strongly supportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I previously drafted a vote to de-checkuser both inactive checkusers (Connel and Rod), because checkusers should be active members of the community (so they are known to the community and so that they can respond in a timely manner to situations such as spambot floods, which we have faced several of since at least a year and a half ago) and because inactive users should not retain access to a tool which allows them or anyone who gains access to their account as much access other users' personal information as the checkuser tool. Connel made 5 edits in 2014, 4 edits in 2013, 4 edits in 2012, and 1 edit in 2011, and hasn't used the checkuser tool in six years.
    I postponed that vote so that the community could decide what threshold to apply to it; sadly, that discussion was inconclusive. One position advanced during the discussion was that because the checkuser bit is only to be held by users the community trusts, it follows that it should be removed unless a majority of users support the user in question continuing to have it; i.e. a vote of 51% in favour of de-checkusering should result in de-checkusering. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support SemperBlotto (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support JonRichfield (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)'
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support He's contributed a lot in years past, but this isn't an honorary title- it's a position of trust for those who are willing to help. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support What Chuck Entz said.​—msh210 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Especially until I am regularly back online. --Connel MacKenzie (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Since Connel supported himself above, I have no qualms here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support - I've been check-usered a few times. Not for a long time, however. --Recónditos (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support - per Connel himself. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing checkuser rights

Abstain with respect to removing checkuser rights


  • Support removing sysop rights: Passes 67% (6-3-0).
  • Support removing checkuser rights: Passes 100% (13-0-0).
  • Checkuser rights requires a steward. I believe @Jusjih: is currently a steward. —Stephen (Talk) 09:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I am reporting this to [1] as I am probably not disinterested enough while somewhat active here.--Jusjih (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Renaming rhyme pages

Support proposal 1

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it wasn't a fait accompli I would still have supported it. This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Having a slash (/) after the language name is a natural extension of our appendix names like "Appendix:Frankish/kawa". Keφr 07:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, works better because of the subpage system and templates like {{subpages}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lmaltier (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Kephir. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 09:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Having colon (:) after the language name is a natural extension of our category names like "Category:en:Physics". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    But we only do that with language codes, while the Rhymes pages currently use language names. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Abstain from proposal 1

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain It really makes no difference to me. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Me either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Support proposal 2

  1. Support, though quite weakly, on the grounds that it makes some string processing simpler. The hyphen carries zero entropy; or in plain English, everyone already knows that we are dealing with suffixes, indicating that explicitly is unnecessary. If we ever find ourselves making pages in rhymes namespace which are not rhymes lists, I might change my mind. Keφr 07:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    You mean that Lua code does not need to drop the leading "-"? That is very straightforward for Lua code to do. Is that the reason why we should not prioritize human ease of recognition of what is presented on the user interface? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    For Lua code this is easy, for plain templates less so. Keφr 14:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    Plain templates can call Lua to drop the hyphen (or minus), right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. When you look for rhymes, you know what you mean. And it sometimes happens that the rhyme is the complete word pronunciation (e.g. it), which makes the - meaningless. Lmaltier (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think of e.g. "-eɪm" as the regular expression ".*eɪm", where .* also matches an empty string (or think if "*eɪm" if you are used to file name patterns). --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    This is not the usual meaning of - for suffixes. Therefore, this might be slightly misleading. But the important point is that it's not needed, it would not help anybody. Lmaltier (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    You are right that the whole word matching the ending is something of an oddity, one which does not happen with morphological suffixes AFAIK. But again, it does not feel like a real problem to me. To your other point: hyphen does help me to immediately recognize what is going on, and I am missing it when I don't see it. So it is not accurate to say it would not help anybody, when it in fact helps at least me. In fact, hyphen is still used in the mainspace: check e.g. name where it says "Rhymes: -eɪm". (It says so now; I cannot rule out a non-consensual change to follow.) The person who originally designed the rhyme pages with hyphen must have felt and perceived the same way as I do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Makes it clear that we're talking about suffixes. This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What he^ said. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rhyme pages are organized by what is an auditory analogue of a suffix. Since suffixes are usually denoted with a leading dash (e.g. -ness), using dash in rhyme page names seems natural. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What they↑ said.​—msh210 (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Abstain from proposal 2

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain We aren't talking about suffixes. The /eɪm/ of name isn't a suffix. It's a syllable rhyme. But I still don't really care whether that's indicated by a leading hyphen or not. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    We are talking about auditory analogue of a suffix, not a morphological suffix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    But a hyphen is written, not oral. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, hyphen is written, so is IPA. So what? Both the hyphen and IPA are written to indicate what is auditory. The hyphen before the IPA suggests that the IPA is not a complete IPA (of a complete word) but rather IPA missing something at the left. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    To write "The /eɪm/ of name" is misleading; one should write "the /eɪm/ of /neɪm/". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    OK, rather than "suffixes", say "endings". I'm no lexicographer. This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I agree 100% with Angr. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


  • Proposal 1 passes (6-2-2 = 75%), proposal 2 fails (2-5-2 = 29%, noting also that one of the support votes was "quite weak"). In my interpretation, this means that Rhymes pages should be named along the lines of Rhymes:English/-eɪm. This, that and the other (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'll start moving rhyme pages to this naming scheme. Maybe someone with a bot can help. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Making simplified Chinese soft-redirect to traditional Chinese


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Altthough simplified is the standard in PRC and Singapore, I vote for centralization of Chinese entries. It can be one or the other, not both. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wyang (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Centralisation of data will greatly facilitate the work of editors and the parsing of chinese entries for reuse of wiktionary data.
    For the problem of readers only interested in simplified being invaded by traditionnal in examples, traditionnal will be dispalyed anyway in entries which are both simplified and traditionnal. Keeping Simplified and traditionnal separated don't solve this problem and will create inconsistency in the display of chinese entries.Meihouwang (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    There is a lot of opposition on this vote. Maybe we should instead do a vote on centralising data in traditional page and displaying definitions in simplified page with a template. This way we will get most of the opposing people on our side. I read some people said that it is not technicaly possible but I have already parsed wiktionary data to use in a chinese dictionnary that I am programming. I was able to store definitions in my database sorted by Simplified/Traditionnal/Pinyin using {{zh-hanzi-box}} to know in which Simp/Trad pair the definitions should be stored. Character with several Simp/Trad pair have several {{zh-hanzi-box}} (At least in the entries I edited). I think displaying definitions from traditionnal page on simplified page should be less complicated than this. But I have no experience with Wiktionary scripting so I might be wrong. Meihouwang (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Avoids duplication of content, which is a scourge of this dictionary (especially for non-English languages). Ideally what we would do is automagically replicate the contents of the traditional entry at the simplified page, with all traditional forms converted to simplified. But that is not technically feasible right now. This, that and the other (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Reducing duplication is good, and makes Wiktionary easier to manage. I call upon the opposers to be more constructive, and propose an alternative idea that would reduce the workload of managing Chinese entries in another way. Voting oppose to solutions doesn't make the problem go away. —CodeCat 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    An alternative idea that would reduce the workload has been put forward and its is to make traditional Chinese make soft-redirect to simplified. Why are people to fast to dismiss that? It has been claimed that the other way is easier to maintain for contributors but how much more work is it really to make it the other way? Simplified is used far more than traditional so if we can make the simplified form the lemma that must be the right thing to do. Kinamand (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree that a soft direct makes it look like an implicit claim that one of the two is more correct. Everyone knows that the traditional form came first. It is true that there is no one-to-one correspondence between simplified and traditional, but it is reasonably close. Simplified = Traditional (hòu, "after") and (hòu, "queen"). The Chinese and Japanese characters (and their categorization) are extremely complex, and it actually requires more knowledge to make use of the Wiktionary offerings of these languages. Splitting into and will be a relative minor hurdle for users. If we do not use redirects, simplified becomes doubly complex, since it has to define both meanings (and sometimes different pronunciations), as well as different etymologies. —Stephen (Talk) 03:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Good example, Stephen! I have just made a split of two etymologies for and . Maintaining in sync complicated entries like is quite complicated. Editors have been focussing on one or the other form. The unified approach allows to treat both forms equally, without making one form or the other better, literally. That's the approach taken by the majority of electronic or book dictionaries. It's impossible to centralise the contents while having duplicate entries. Entries get out of sync momentarily. Eventually, it may be possible to include the contents of the traditional entry in the simplified one. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Stephen mentioned and because of their non-trivial simplified/traditional conversions. They needed attention, so I fixed them. For relative complexity I meant , which now has a list of derivations in both trad. and simpl. forms, previously only in simplified form in only. The traditional entry didn't have derivations. Now it has. Note that the entry has usage examples and derived forms IN BOTH TRADITIONAL AND SIMPLIFIED. This is how the Chinese entries are meant to look with the new structure. No discrimination, the only disadvantage is having to click through from to traditional to simplified. There is no problem with sound or many other English or Chinese entries with multiple etymologies. However, there are problems with various revisions of color and colour. One thing that commonly quickly makes them out of sync is translation tables or lack thereof. Template {{trans-see}} is used for that to avoid duplication of contents. Yes, one can copy/paste from one another but how long will it be before they get out of sync? {{zh-see}} is meant to link to the Chinese entry, which contains info in both character sets (unlike Serbo-Croatian, for example, which only display the other form in the header). We didn't create the rationale for this vote but the change is not meant to make one character set better than the other, no. It's all about centralising the contents. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    As the reader can see in this revision of 恶, section Mandarin, there were derived terms in simplied script before Atitarev removed them (diff); his solution is to have a mixed table of compounds as in 惡#Chinese, where the list now mixes both simplified and traditional. The first four items look like this:
    The reader who wants to only deal with simplified script will no longer have the option, and the same is true of the traditional script; both scripts will be presented at the same time in example sentences and derived term lists.
    The reason I do not undo those non-consensual changes by Atitarev and others is above all that I do not want to get into a revert war, and that I prefer the civilized methods of government exemplified by this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. Traditional characteristics contain more meaningful information for the words or terms of the culture. This is what our dictionary really needs.--Wildcursive (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Vote struck as invalid per policy. Keφr 21:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Whether it's a preference of one script over another is simply one's value judgment at work. To me, if it help improve editing, that's all that matters. JamesjiaoTC 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Weak support This is not a hard redirect and can reduce a lot of duplicate entries which can not be synchronized. However:
    1. Only redirect words which is not used by Japanese;
    2. Do not redirect character. They contains non-translingual data.
    This problem will ultimately be resolved by Wiktionary support of Wikidata (phab:T986).--GZWDer (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Oppose. Bad idea! 04:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous accounts can comment but they can't vote. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Making simplified Chinese entries mere soft redirects (featuring no definitions) would create a significant inconvenience for those readers who are interested in simplified Chinese writing and not in traditional Chinese writing. Simplified Chinese is currently the prevalent form in the mainland China as per W:Simplified Chinese characters. Having definitions in both simplified and traditional Chinese entries, as has been English Wiktionary practice for many years, creates duplication of definitions, which I admit to be a disadvantage for maintenance; it is a cost of making the dictionary easy to use for the readers. Those editors who want to focus e.g. only on traditional Chinese entries should be allowed to do so, without being chastised for not creating simplified Chinese entries at the same time. As an example of similar practice, we now have definitions in both Latin and Cyrillic Serbo-Croatian entries, which is a duplication (mačka, мачка). As a further inconvenience of soft-redirects as envisioned at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/December#New_changes_to_Chinese_entries in paragraph "The problem is not about having or not wanting to create ...", usage examples would newly feature both simplified and traditional Chinese (probably along with Pinyin), becoming even more busy with information that the reader is not interested in: the reader with the interest in simplified Chinese does not necessarily want to see traditional Chinese. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    Don't forget Malay entry versions in both Jawi and Rumi. (I'm not voting, though; but if I were forced to do so, I could abstain, right?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    On the other hand, all those simplified Chinese edits are clogging up the Short pages. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    (Oppose vote retracted due to not having enough contributions here for it to be valid. I use Wiktionary very often, but apparently I don’t contribute enough…) A redirect, whether soft or hard, from simplified to traditional or vice versa, looks like an implicit claim that one of the two is more correct than the other. This happens regardless of whether making that claim is intentional or not. Since it is not the case that either of the two types of character is more correct than the other, it seems clear to me that redirecting from one to the other is a bad idea. In addition, as stated above, a soft redirect like this (as opposed to a hard redirect) causes significant inconvenience to anyone who commonly looks up words in simplified Chinese. The analogy to Latin vs. Cyrillic Serbo‐Croatian entries is an excellent point too. With regard to the point about maintaining separate entries being too much work, I have an alternative suggestion which, if properly thought through and implemented, could have the same effect of reducing the workload without the major disadvantages of a redirect: For the information that would otherwise be duplicated (which in some cases is an entire entry, in other cases only part of an entry), move that information to a template that is transcluded onto the pages that would otherwise duplicate that information. That way the relevant information is visible everywhere it should be, and only needs maintaining from one location. MTC (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    I am afraid your vote is invalid per policy: not enough edits in content namespaces. Keφr 18:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, that’s a shame. In that case, I have re‐indented it so that the comment is still there while the votes are counted correctly. MTC (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as far as I know there is no one-to-one correspondence between simplified and traditional Chinese, i. e. one simplified term may map to multiple traditional terms. This makes the proposal infeasible because readers won't be able to guess the correct form if they're unfamiliar with traditional Chinese, as residents of the PRC and Singapore tend to be. -- Liliana 12:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since simplified is use far more often than traditional I believe that people using Wiktionary will find it odd and backward with redirects to traditional Chinese. The argument is that it is easier for people writing templates to use the traditional form as lemma but how much extra work is it really to do it with simplified as lemma? Kinamand (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, though not strongly. Each should have its own entry explaining the characteristics unique to it. bd2412 T 16:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (strongly) When a page is correct and helpful to readers, its contents should never be removed, even to avoid replication. This should be a strong principle of the project. One of the reasons is that most readers want to find what they look for immediately (statistics show that each additional click needed makes the probability of a donation to the Foundation 30% less). Another reason is neutrality: as both writing styles are used, they must be addressed the same way. A third reason is that it would tend to discourage editors preferring simplified characters, and fewer editors is something bad for the project. Soft redirects might be used as a first step, but it must be allowed to convert these soft redirects to full pages. @CodeCat: an alternative idea that would reduce the workload of managing Chinese entries: allow editors to contribute to the pages they wish. This way, there will be more editors, making it easier to make the project more complete. Anyway, strictly speaking, there is no workload, everybody contributes as much as they wish, not more, and we are not in a hurry. Lmaltier (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I see Splitting 后 into 後 and 后 will be a relative minor hurdle for users.. But priority must be given to users, not to editors. Slowly but surely, this dictionary could become the perfect dictionary for users. Lmaltier (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    We could compare this issue to two other ones: 1. the typographic issue of s/long s, ct grouped as a single character in ols books, or capitalized words (where/Where), where we create a single entry, and this is quite normal. 2. the existence of several scripts for the same language (e.g. Serbian), where we create one entry by script, and this is quite normal. I feel that the simplied Chinese is felt as a different ideographic script, just like Cyrillic is a different alphabetic script, and this is confirmed by the absence of a general one-to-one correspondence with the traditional Chinese script. This should be sufficient for creating both complete entries. I'm afraid that some editors want to promote one of the scripts. Lmaltier (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although simplified Chinese is widely used, I don't think traditional Chinese should be redirected to it unconditionally, and the opposite direction of redirection is a little confusing. "Who-redirect-to-who" problem is always a controversial issue, and I think that it can be determined by who create the entry first. If it is created with the title in traditional Chinese, the later simplified Chinese version should redirect to the former entry (if the meaning of the word is same), and vice versa.--Snowkylin (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, your vote is invalid per the first two points of our voting policy. See at the top of WT:VOTE. --Vahag (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, I just find that minutes ago, my fault. Edit count is not universal, what a pity :-( --Snowkylin (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    You can't vote in China, you can't vote in Wiktionary. Poor disenfranchised fellow :-( --Vahag (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    The opinion that citizen in China can't vote is quite incorrect, just like the opinion that users in English Wiktionary can vote. I do not know much about English Wiktionary, and maybe you do not know much about China either, seems that it's a tie game. :-)--Snowkylin (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    I hear you, man. I too was born in a communist country. Western liberal media misrepresents our vibrant democracies. --Vahag (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, the same as above. --LNDDYL (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    I'm afraid your vote doesn't count per voting policy #2 (you need at least 50 edits by the start time of the vote). --Vahag (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Keφr 10:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Kephir: Could you explain your reasons, please? As a programmer, how would make (a rather trivial - single etymology, no variant pronunciations) entry 笔#Chinese to have the same information as 筆#Chinese without duplicating the contents? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    I would duplicate the contents. I simply find this preferable to the alternative. Despite all reassurances to the contrary, this obviously will create a preference for one orthography over the other. In itself, it might not necessarily be a problem. But given that (as I am told) there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two, this will necessitate creating some kind of disambiguation cluttering up entries, which are cluttered enough already. Chinese entries are already very confusing to read with all their nonstandard L3s and content splits between Translingual, Chinese and topolect L2, and I believe this proposal will only add more to the confusion for little benefit. And never call me a programmer. Keφr 12:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if "programmer" was an offence to you. It wasn't meant to be. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Amphineko (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    Your vote is invalid per the first two points of our voting policy. See at the top of WT:VOTE. --Vahag (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Byfserag (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    You are not eligible to vote anyway. You might as well not bothered. Keφr 12:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Your vote has been struck out as invalid as you have not yet made a single contribution to this wiki. JamesjiaoTC 22:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain until there is solution for some problems of this action. Firstly, characters who are both simplified and traditional need to have another format. Secondly, characters who are neither simplified nor traditional, but a varients of another character instead, would have to be considered also. Thirdly, some Japanese kanji actually use the simplified form of a character, making the derived terms section troubling. Fourthly, one simplified character may correspond to two traiditional character, and a short definitional would be required for them to be distinguishable. Including definition would make the entry almost same as before. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Passes: 11:6:02 (support:oppose:abstain). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support The sentence suggests we only include place names if they happen to be given names or surnames, which is untrue. The best evidence of broad support for broad inclusion of place names that I know of is Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. "Many places [...] are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." Er, what? (Alternatively, "[...] some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names" makes sense, but what are placenames doing at the start of the line?) I guess this was an inept reference to the fact that Winston Churchill is often called simply 'Churchill', Hillary Clinton is often called simply 'Hillary', etc, but I have no idea why placenames got shoehorned into the mix. The line could be revised as suggested on the talk page, but then it would still be vacuous. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportInternoob 19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. Moved to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I support the removal of this sentence, but without it, the paragraph reads: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia." Obviously that is silly; therefore I oppose removing the sentence and not making any other changes. I would support an alternative vote that replaced the paragraph with something like: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. The names of some places or people may qualify for inclusion in Wiktionary as words (see below), but any information about the places and people concerned, beyond a simple definition, belongs in Wikipedia." This, that and the other (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    @User:This, that and the other: Yes, the result reads poorly because of the repetition, but this can be cleaned up via a follow-up vote. If this vote fails, another vote will be necessary either way. I focused this vote on the single sentence so that the arguments become centered around the single sentence and its accuracy. The undesirable repetition is already there; the proposed removal only makes it more conspicuous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the sentence seems to me to be factually correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    Factually correct, yes, but misleading; that is why I said the sentence "suggests". The sentence is in any case irrelevant; why say that many places' single word names are included as given names or surnames (e.g. London) and not say that many more place names are included as neither (e.g. Oceania, Liverpool, New York, Nile, Titicaca, Mont Blanc, Himalayas). Thus, why single out a small part of all place names that we include, and stay silent about the rest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain It's not obvious what the author of this sentence was trying to say; its intended meaning, and the reason why it was included in the policy, seem to have got lost in the mists of time. Having said that, I think it would be more useful to replace this sentence with a comment on the includability (or otherwise) of the place and person names in question. This, that and the other (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for your vote. FYI, the sentence was added by Uncle G (talkcontribs) on 22 May 2005 in diff, so he would know what he intended by the sentence and what discussion, if any, preceded his edit to CFI. Furthermore, includability of places and people is driven by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which is a section of CFI fully created via votes: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Remove "Place names" section of WT:CFI, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names_of_individuals. As you can see from the linked votes, there was a specific regulation for place names until the editors decided that that was unnecessary or unwanted; this revision of CFI is one where you can see a section for place names before it was removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Fails 3–2–0 (60%).​—msh210 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Msh210: My last extension of the vote was to 30 April. I would like to extend the vote one more month since there could actually be consensus for the vote, given the results so far. Do you object to that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    I apologize, Dan Polansky: somehow I missed that last extension when I called the failure. However, now that it's done, I think it should remain done. This vote was open for some eleven weeks and it doesn't look like anyone's complaining of having missed the opportunity to vote in the final 43 hours. It's eminently fair in my opinion to call this a failure. But let's see if anyone disagrees who didn't vote here in support.​—msh210 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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. [2], [3]), 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)


  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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)


  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)


  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)


Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace


  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)


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)



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: