Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Wiktionary > Votes

Shortcuts:
WT:VOTE
WT:VOTES
WT:V

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

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

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

Before clicking the “Start a new vote!” button below, change “Title of vote” in the field just above the button to a short descriptive title. Once you have created your vote, add it to the list at Wiktionary:Votes/Active.



Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2025-03/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2025-03/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2025-03/User: for checkuser}}


Other

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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
EndsTitleStatus/Votes
Mar 15User:Mellohi! for adminpassed
Mar 17Deletion of "Tennis player test"failed
Apr 12Retiring the English verb conjugation table7 8 2
(=3)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=74)

User:Mellohi! for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Mellohi! (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

Acceptance:

  • Languages: en-N, fr-2
  • Timezone: UTC-5
— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator: long-time and active editor with large number of quality edits. Svārtava (tɕ) 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support most likely not a dumb idea, especially for deletion rights, as guy designed when suggested administratorship. The editor also explains standards to other users, like a good example. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as a net positive to the project: Mellohi! is highly active and makes not only great, productive and well-researched edits but they also participate regularly and courteously in discussions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I respect Mellohi! and their contributions. I expect them to show good judgement. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Though I hope this doesn't mean Victar is getting indeffed within a day. Thadh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Always in favor of more admins, unless someone digs up some real dirt. Shouldn't be the case here. Polomo47 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --Davi6596 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Binarystep (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Vininn126 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A prolific and long-term contributor who has added countless reconstructions and etymologies. We haven't really crossed paths much but I'm aware of this user and they would make good use of admin tools. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Logπ = 0.4971 Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 19:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. From my interactions with Mellohi, their judgment is good and I think they would make a good admin. I agree with User:AG202 though that the rationale for adminship should be presented explicitly in the nomination. Benwing2 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Megathonic (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support my fellow friend of Old Irish and Proto-Celtic, even if we don't always agree. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support — BABR・talk 19:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support ―⁠K(ə)tom (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support —Fish bowl (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Alfarizi M (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support ―⁠MolingLuachra (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Per the abstain votes. I have 7,000+ edits and have never seen him, which makes me question whether he has enough experience. Purplebackpack89 03:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to abstain than oppose in that case? Ultimateria (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. ɶLerman (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Vindictive and petty, prone to emotional edits and ad hominem attack; this user lacks the decorum becoming an admin. Hard no. --{{victar|talk}} 05:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. Abstain. I don't know the user well enough. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain never seen this guy! Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain. Our paths have never crossed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain. I do wish that we got in the habit of putting why this user was nominated and why they want to become an admin within the vote itself. I see on Mellohi!'s talk page User talk:Mellohi! § Adminship that they want to become admin to help with the RFD backlog + get AWB access to replace wikilinks after a pagemove, which are good rationales. However, all the recent nominations, including my own, remind me of when Wonderfool would nominate any old active user (including myself!). It makes me continue to question if adminship is simply supposed to be an expected destination for unproblematic active users. AG202 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a rationale is not actually a bad idea for future nominations. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AG202: If I may, I think there are plenty of reasons for Mellohi to be admin - his recent work with reconstructed languages both gives him the need to move pages and create language codes. Our reconstructions and etymology sections are also a frequent target of both incompetent users and vandals, something which Mellohi has shown in the past to be able to handle quite reasonably and calmly.
    As for you, your recent interactions with new users led me to believe that you would be an ideal admin in that respect, having the possibility to guide and, in the worst case scenario, deal with users that have trouble adapting to our untraditional workplace. You also work with minority languages, so your expertise on RFs is very valued.
    However, I don't think that voters should explain the rationale - had you accepted a vote, I hope I would include one in the vote description, but I do think that candidates should choose for themselves whether they think they would be a good admin, that's the main thing. In your case, that was apparently not something you were looking for. In Mellohi's, it apparently is. At that point, where both the proposer has seen something in the candidate, and the candidate has seen something in themselves, I think it's just a matter of whether or not we trust that the candidate will use these tools and use them for good. Thadh (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thadh: Apologies for the late response, but thank you, I appreciate it, and that clears things up a lot for me. AG202 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Woop! Name check! Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abstain. Haven't interacted with him enough to make an informed decision either way. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 01:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Abstain. I don't know the user well enough to decide whether he has enough experience. Chihunglu83 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Abstain, neither do I. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Deletion of "Tennis player test"

Voting on: deleting the section Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD#Tennis player test. This is a guideline allowing multi-word terms designating professions, such as tennis player itself, to be included even when they may appear to be sum-of-parts.

Please vote "support" to support deletion of this section or "oppose" to retain the section.

Rationale for deletion

In earlier discussion (linked below) it was suggested that the "tennis player" test is now superseded by WT:THUB. In fact, the archetype tennis player is itself not a "full" entry but only a translation hub. Also, it was pointed out that a large and indeed open-ended number of descriptive and apparently sum-of-parts profession names exist, all of which would seemingly qualify for inclusion under the "tennis player" rule.

Schedule:

Discussion(s):

Support

  1. Support This, that and the other (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to AG202's examples, I would support deletion of Spanish actor de voz (at least) as SOP. Some others would likely survive (border guard as THUB, nail technician probably as THUB and possibly also on the polysemy of "nail", teaching assistant has a specific meaning in US universities which we somehow don't have, French guide touristique on the polysemy of guide as person vs book). We should consider each of these entries on its own merits, not include them all on this somewhat arbitrary basis. This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other: No, per our current CFI rules, French guide touristique would fail since guide has always had the base meaning of English "guide (person)". It is SOP. Same thing goes for English nail technician. We also don't have any translations for it now. Again, I would support a more narrow reading of WT:TENNIS, but right now we're opening a can of worms to put common professions up for RFD. AG202 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much doubt that large numbers of entries will immediately be put up at RFD if this test is deleted. If, over time, any are nominated that we do want to keep despite being ostensibly SoP, it will encourage us to understand why we want to keep them (presumably above a plethora of others that "everyone" would agree are SoP clutter), and formulate a policy to properly do so (which we may in the process discover applies to many other phrases besides profession names). Mihia (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Svārtava (tɕ) 04:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support—the policy is somewhat arbitrary and allows for far too many clearly SOP entries; entries for “X player” (with X replaced with a sport) can be done for nearly every sport in existence. “X instructor”, “X specialist“, “X tester” (software, product, game), “X breeder” (cat, dog, panda) and “X analyst” (data, financial, business) are all further examples of this. I think AG202's concerns below are settled by the fact that most of the more popular professions will survive through THUB. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LunaEatsTuna: As it stands, things like English mechanical engineer would not pass THUB. But more importantly, you completely missed the second main point that THUB does not apply to non-English entries. AG202 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AG202: On diving into the history of WT:TENNIS, it was originally not considered distinct from the "fried egg" test which was then written as: Terms that imply certain social knowledge that could not be derived from any of the constituents. This would work to save tennis player if tennis + player ("one who plays") -> tennis player ("one who plays tennis professionally") but "professionally" being an in-built part or a connotation of the meaning of "tennis player" has been challenged and debunked multiple times. So I don't think that English mechanical engineer is intended to be saved by WT:TENNIS as the word "engineer" in it already contains a sense restricted to a professionality. Svārtava (tɕ) 20:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like having an easy-to-remember rule is a recipe for WT:THUB apologia by opponents as well as people defending its namesake rather than take on WT:SoP accusations, which leads to "debunked" instead of arguments. But TAKASUGI Shinji there seemed to do a good job explaining WT:TENNIS (a test which proves added layers, not proves exclusivity of some kind), and the "debunkers" never attacked the test itself on its own turf of WT:IDIOM. Lumbering in thought (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support—Test is too broad and would allow virtually limitless SoP combinations. Mihia (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, as the test is too broad and should be replaced by a better one that wouldn't allow useless SoP entries but would permit useful entries like those examples AG202 gave. Davi6596 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Too many professions are simply SOP. If we're not careful we'll start including Gracie Fields' famous profession, 'the girl who makes the thing'[1]. In my eyes, the reason tennis player is idiomatic has nothing to do with it being a profession and everything to do with it being more vastly more commonplace than tenniser. Perhaps we could formulate a rule to keep entries on that sort of basis?--Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I recall that (relative commonness) being discussed with regard to something like English studies vs Anglistics (though I can't relocate the exact discussion) — as you say, if anyone wants a guideline covering that principle, it's something else than this guideline. Are there any such things we'd want to keep that aren't covered by THUB, I wonder? I assume rare single words don't automatically make more-common multiword strings inclusion-worthy, e.g. the marginal existence of "Discordian" doesn't create a need for the more usual "user of Discord" / "Discord user", nor "Redheadditor" "red-headed Redditor".) - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave some examples in my vote below. AG202 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the song's whole point is driving at the eponymous Thing-Ummy Bob, it seems questionable to stop at "the thing" without all its qualifiers. Lumbering in thought (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Mihia. PUC – 17:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Unfortunately took a while to vote, but here's the thing: the test was created with English entries in mind, because their translations were useful, and that's just WT:THUB. As for the words in other languages, they should be discussed case-by-case instead of getting a blanket keep. For example, I'd indeed like to delete French guide touristique, but as we currently define English actor (and thereform Spanish actor), actor de voz is not SoP; as currently defined, I don't see Yoruba onímọ̀ ẹ̀dá-èdè as SoP either. And if it does turn out these words are SoP, then I would want them deleted. Polomo47 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I would support the inclusion of the examples that have been adduced on other grounds (fried egg test, THUB, etc.) or would support including them as collocations rather than full entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: merely being a profession doesn't make something automatically worth keeping, and we shouldn't be suggesting it does. However, as I understand it, this test and most of the tests on WT:IDIOM are not policy (they don't mandate "we must include x"); with a few exceptions, the page is mostly explanatory, explaining (describing rather than prescribing) that de facto people often vote to keep entries for certain types of word; in that sense, it seems like regardless of whether we keep or delete the test, the people who want such entries will still vote to keep them, and the people who don't want them will still vote to delete them. (Arguably, WT:IDIOM could be improved by more often recording instances when terms were deleted despite meeting a certain test, to give readers of the page a better sense of how accepted a given test is...) - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose: (For context, the THUB addition was added to tennis player in 2023) In general, though, I do think that having words like border guard, mechanical engineer, nail technician, teaching assistant, etc. are helpful to have in a dictionary since people are likely to look them up and dictionaries like MW keep track of some of them as well. Not all of them will pass THUB either. I could support a more narrow reading of WT:TENNIS, but I can't support a wholesale removal of it. This would also negatively affect the languages outside of English that can't rely on THUB for inclusion, so entries like Spanish actor de voz (“voice actor”), French guide touristique (“tour guide”), and Yoruba onímọ̀ ẹ̀dá-èdè (“linguist”). WT:IDIOM and similar policies are not just for English, and I continue to feel that most people forget about that fact when making policy changes like these. AG202 (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologise for repeating myself, but I feel obliged to counter the "THUB" argument on this page too. The thinking seems to be that we wish to keep certain ostensibly SoP phrases because they are "helpful", "useful" or "common", and that THUB is handy way of achieving this (which is something that certain RFD discussions already smell of). In my view, we should not be using THUB as a way of getting around SoP policies by the back door, in order that we can keep "helpful" entries. Instead we need a policy to define what kind of "helpful" and "useful" entries we wish to keep on their own merits. Mihia (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, you yourself fell for the trap by mentioning WT:THUB, not taking on WT:SoP accusations and finding another idiomatic way (which I think the test lends itself to granularity well but regardless may fall under other tests) yourself which would have led to a more productive RfD. Lumbering in thought (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: This just seems like change for change's sake. Having redundant reasons to include entries causes minimal harm. If there was some crisis of proliferating profession names that caused reconsideration of this guideline, that would be one thing; instead, it seems like this proposal was prompted by reading the guideline and imagining what hypothetical issues there could be with it. But it is already listed as a guideline/test, so if it had real negative effects, we'd see them already.--Urszag (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like opposing change for the sake of opposing change. If a guideline is both redundant (i.e., useless), and liable to cause harm, why should it be kept? You don't seem to contest the lack of positive effects. Polomo47 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per AG202.--Saranamd (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Strong in group-thinking and central coherence, neurotypicals go for social status and societal value provided by professions, not the activities their designations describe. It is doubtful that this applies for all one can be a specialist or instructor in, however, for example bullshit academia positions advertising some university institute, behind which there are basic professions like reader or professor, while a tennis player is not a player, so in my opinion LunaEatsTuna is putting out a strawman, we won’t add diaper engineer, epistemology expert, and C++ developer. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per AG202. Binarystep (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per AG202 and Urszag. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per AG202 and Urszag. There is a vast amount of harm this will do as THUB is a blunt instrument. I would have my own test of "the" definite article with the specificity self-contained (not "the tennis player over there...", instead "the effect of the tennis player on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere")/narrow idiomaticity. Lumbering in thought (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. PUC – 09:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this WT:CFI quest, I'm building up an argument relating w:Article_(grammar)#Definite_article to the WT:Idiomaticity prong (tellingly as opposed to the WT:THUB prong) which references the WT:SoP guardrail that everyone in support of this deletion is harping on. Lumbering in thought (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusion Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get what you mean. If you're suggesting that sono tennista refers to a professional tennis player in Italian but sono un(a) tennista refers to an amateur one, then you're probably correct but that is only an issue if we look at the role the indefinite article plays, I can't see how the definite article comes into play. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per above. Megathonic (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. DonnanZ (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Close call. Imetsia (talk (more)) 21:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I think the test protect entries that have value and that the test is a useful practical expedient for decision making. Perhaps, it could be written more narrowly but I don't think it should be cut. John Cross (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Awdhi (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not eligible to vote in this vote — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Vergencescattered (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I'm generally against removing large amounts of entries, but maybe we should narrow the test to make sure that Brazilian jiu-jitsu coach doesn't become a lemma. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per AG202 and Urszag. – wpi (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Decision

Retiring the English verb conjugation table

Voting on: Retiring the English verb conjugation table {{en-conj}} (example here) from general use, and replacing it with a feature to show archaic, obsolete and other verb forms not in standard modern use that cannot (or cannot desirably) be incorporated in the headword. {{en-conj}} may be retained for the very small number of verbs, notably the "be" verb, that have standard forms not accommodated (or accommodatable) in the headword.

This vote is on the principle that the presentation to the user will be that of a display of archaic, obsolete and other non-standard forms, not a general-purpose conjugation table, and the exact design and layout can be decided if there is support in principle. However, to give a general idea of what is proposed, in the case of clarify:

Archaic or obsolete verb forms

This proposal does not affect languages other than English.

Rationale

The standard modern forms of almost all English verbs can be accommodated in the headword. However, the conjugation table gives the impression that the situation is more complicated than this, and that English verbs may standardly have more parts and forms – for example, an irregular subjunctive or imperative, or a past tense varying by number or person. In practice, the table seems to be used mainly as a way to link to obsolete/archaic forms, as the documentation at {{en-conj}} encourages, but this is not clear to ordinary dictionary users.


Schedule:

Discussion(s):

Support

  1. Support Seems like it would improve clarity. John Cross (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support 🌙🐇 ⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀ 22:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Chihunglu83 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – about time. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support mildly: I previously expressed the view that to call this "retiring" the template is a bit misleading as it sounds like we are doing away with it entirely, but since the proposal is "replacing it with a feature to show archaic, obsolete and other verb forms not in standard modern use that cannot (or cannot desirably) be incorporated in the headword", I don't have a strong objection to it. (I am also fine with maintaining the status quo.) We aren't discussing the format of any new template to replace the old one yet, but I would just say that it would be better if the new template puts the archaic forms side-by-side with the modern forms for comparison. Users unfamiliar with grammar may find a term like "2nd-person singular present tense" mystifying, but if the archaic form clarifiest is placed alongside the modern form clarify this would be helpful. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Imetsia (talk (more)) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Pvanp7 (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. To me the standard "conjugation table" format is a more natural and less verbose way to present this information in comparison to using lots of words, even if the table leads to some redundancy.
    • I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement. The |old=1 parameter needs to be removed, and the template should only be used on verbs where "old" forms are attested. Unnecessary parts, like the imperative and (probably) the subjunctive, can be removed too.
    • The argument is made that "the conjugation table gives the impression that the situation is more complicated than this, and that English verbs may standardly have more parts and forms" - I would counter this by saying that, in general, Wiktionary's inflection tables assume that the reader has some level of grammatical knowledge of the language in question. A link to the relevant appendix can be included if felt necessary.
    • No other language uses the proposed "ersatz text-based collapsible box" approach to present verb forms. The {{en-conj}} style of conjugation table is used by English's closest relatives Middle English and West Frisian. Yes, English's verb is even simpler by comparison, but nothing beats a clear table for showing the forms.

      This, that and the other (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Oppose per the above. I don't really see the harm with having the conjugation table, and contrary to the vote's description, the headword line does not contain all the standardly used conjugations in Modern English. The subjunctive is still used quite often especially in American English, so unless we make that clear elsewhere, I don't see why we should remove that. The conjugation table also puts the information in a clear and succinct way, as to be quite honest, I do not like the wordiness that (third-person singular simple present [term], present participle [term], simple past and past participle [term]) has on the headword line. It looks cumbersome. If the issue is the archaic forms, then we can hide those or change them to a parameter. AG202 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the subjunctive always identical to the infinitive? I'm not sure what value there is in having it in the template at all. This fact should simply be made clear at Appendix:English verbs imo. (Of course, you could make the same argument for turfing out the 1st person singular – and I think Mihia would – but then, without that, the template only has some of the persons and starts to look incomplete. I'd rather keep that in.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as American English is concerned, Simon and Garfunkel did sing “I wish I was homeward bound” rather than using the subjunctive “I wish I were homeward bound” and in that case the subjunctive would be identical to the past tense not the infinitive. As for the main issue that we’re voting on here, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wish I were" is past subjunctive, which is never identical to the infinitive. The present subjunctive, "She ordered that he be ready", is identical to the infinitive. — Eru·tuon 16:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it be/is the case that the present subjunctive is used more in American English than British English then perhaps we could mention it somewhere here on Wiktionary. I would’ve thought that people on both sides of the pond are equally likely to avoid any subjunctives outside of a few set phrases but your example of ”She ordered that he be ready” is a good one as I would always rephrase it as “She ordered him to be ready” instead. Perhaps the subjunctive is more common in phrases following the word ‘that’ Stateside? Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per the aforementioned points. Besides, at least the Vietnamese Edition of Wiktionary has and uses a similar template, if I recall well. --Apisite (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above and per my comments on talk (and in various past discussions of this); I find it weird that the English Wiktionary has big tables of all the (rare, obsolete, etc) forms of other languages' words, but is reluctant to acknowledge them for English... and this is a collapsed table that takes up one line unless someone wants to see it and clicks to expand it; I don't see how the undefined possible replacement could be any more compact, and such a replacement seems certain to be less quickly intelligible than a table. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I agree with TTO that this is a better way to give the information—especially for phrasal verbs. I don't think the headword setup on absorb oneself in, for example, is good at all. I would, however, support removing the subjunctive from all tables except be. Vergencescattered (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Awdhi (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Unnecessary deletion Purplebackpack89 12:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose I agree with -sche. MedK1 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I agree with This, that and the other. The template should just display the archaic forms by default. It actually used to work like that until Theknightwho changed it in September 2022 (see here). He then manually added the now-necessary |old=1 parameter to many pages but forgot about 80 of them. In November 2023, I removed the conjugation section of these forgotten pages, mistakingly believing that these verbs didn't have any archaic forms since I didn't see them displayed by the template. Furthermore, when you look at the amount of existing archaic forms (2nd present, 3rd present, 2nd past), you can see that there are at least 2000 verbs with an archaic form, but {{en-conj}} is only used on about 400 pages. Maybe we can create a bot that automatically adds a conjugation table to the pages missing one. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. Abstain It is essential to have entries for archaic and obsolete forms for users' decoding purposes. I have some trouble seeing the use case for coding archaic and obsolete forms. Accordingly, I'd be happy with no coverage whatsoever at the lemma entry for archaic and obsolete forms. DCDuring (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DCDuring: I feel strongly there should be some way to link archaic and obsolete inflected forms of verbs to the lemma. Since such forms are not (for good reasons) placed in the headword, a conjugation table seems a good way to do so. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the use case? DCDuring (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DCDuring: in the absence of the conjugation table, there would currently be no way for users viewing the lemma to know what the archaic or obsolete inflected forms are unless they are already aware of how such words are formed. It's akin to how I, as someone who knows no Latin, can look up a conjugation table to discover the present active participial form of a Latin word. Of course we could come up with some other way to display these words (put them under "Derived terms"??—not that I think this is a good idea), but since other languages have conjugation tables it seems fine to me to just use that. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But what is their query besides "I want to know what the archaic forms of X are?" If they are decoding, the entry for the form exists. Are we trying to help people encode into archaic/obsolete speech? Why should we have entry clutter for other users to support that. There are fairly simple ways to search for archaic/obsolete forms of a given lemma. Or have we we made that hard? DCDuring (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could imagine someone composing text in Elizabethan English in a religious or theatrical context. But we don't apply that criterion for most languages when deciding whether the lemma entry ought to link to its inflected forms. Ancient Greek entries sometimes have tables for obscure dialects. For instance, ὑμεῖς (humeîs) has tables for the Doric and Aeolic dialects. Should we remove those tables because the vast majority of people are only learning Koine or Attic Greek (or remove all tables because almost nobody probably writes in Ancient Greek anymore)? — Eru·tuon 03:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain I was going to oppose on the basis of be and similar but it looks like the vote specifically addresses this. So the vote name is really misleading, since nothing is being retired. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, in cases where the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or where 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.

Forthcoming votes:

Wiktionary:Votes/2023-12/Represent the GenAm NURSE and STRUT vowels as schwa
Wiktionary:Votes/2024-06/CFI for mainspace constructed languages
Wiktionary:Votes/2025-03/Definite article and encapsulation to meet CFI as idiomatic enough
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Streamlining the approval process of online sources
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-07/Stubifying alternative forms
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-11/Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes&oldid=80698124"