Wiktionary:Votes

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

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned and running votes [edit this list]
Ends Title Status/Votes
Apr 18 Removing "Quotations" decision?
Apr 20 Attestation vs. the slippery slope 2 decision?
May 13 User:Romanophile for admin Symbol support vote.svg15 Symbol oppose vote.svg5 Symbol abstain vote.svg3
May 25 New logo 94 (38 people)

Removing "Quotations"

Voting on:


Proposal 1:

  • Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to remove the "Quotations" section when the only purpose of the section is linking to pages in the Citations: namespace.

Example (proposal 1):

Quotations

Rationale (proposal 1):

  • This is a duplication of the link to the citations namespace that is found at the top of all entries.

Proposal 2:

  • Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to remove the "Quotations" section when it has actual quotations in it, with the requirement that all affected quotations shall either be moved the respective Citations: pages, or moved manually to the appropriate senses in the entries.

Rationale (proposal 2):

  • Quotations are more helpful when found under the respective senses. A bot is most certainly unable to arrange quotations in the right senses, but it can move the quotations to the Citations: page, where they can either be kept without that arrangement, or be manually sorted into senses later.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to: 23:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Place the "see Cites" links under the relevant senses. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. --WikiTiki89 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makaokalani (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per -sche. We should heed This, that and the other's warnings about this proposal's impact on mobile-device users. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC) — I've changed my vote to one in opposition. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jberkel (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Weak support. I agree with everything M.E.T.A. said. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are many of reasons why this is not a good idea:
    • When using the Wiktionary mobile website and Wiktionary app, there is no way to get to the Citations page from an entry other than to use the link in the Quotations section. By removing this link, people who use Wiktionary in these ways (there might well be more than you think) will no longer be able to reach the Citations page (short of constructing the URL manually, which is an unreasonable thing to expect of all but seasoned participants in the project).
    • The tab bar along the top of the page mostly contains tabs of interest to contributors: "Discussion", "Edit", "History", "Move"... The one exception to this is the "Citations" tab. Its inconspicuous location among otherwise irrelevant interface elements reduces the chance of a casual reader noticing it to practically nil.
    • The "Citations" tab along the top of pages is inserted using JavaScript. Users who do not use a JavaScript-enabled browser, which includes various kinds of basic mobile devices, will not see that tab. Although browsing without JavaScript might make it less pleasant to browse Wiktionary, we should not effectively deny non-JavaScript users access to some of our content.
    Unless these issues are resolved, I cannot support this proposal. Citations are often a very interesting and rich aspect of this project, and they need to be made as accessible as possible, rather than being hidden away behind an obscure tab that many of our readers don't even have access to on their device. This, that and the other (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    @User:This, that and the other: Can you please clarify why placing the "see Cites" links under the relevant senses does not address your concerns? I can't offhand find an example entry but I have seen a link added below quotations under a sense, a link pointing to the citations tab. @User:-sche: Do you know of an example entry to point to? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I don't think you're quite asking the right question. Placing the "see Cites" links under the relevant senses (of course, using a better wording than literally "see Cites") would go a long way to addressing my concerns, but that's not what we are voting on here. This, that and the other (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    @User:This, that and the other: I think the idea of this vote is to have all quotation-related data directly under senses. The Quotations heading is a remnant from the time when all quotations were supposed to be under that heading. The question is, I think, whether linking to Citations tab from the most common location of quotations nowadays (under senses, not in Quotations), seen e.g. in hydrogen (thanks -sche), does the job for you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Dan, quill (last verb sense) and hydrogen are examples. @This, "{{seeCites}}" is the name of the template that links to the citations pages (whether under a sense, as in the previous example, or under a Quotations header).
    Because policy already allows (encourages) quotations to be placed under relevant senses rather than separate headers, I've been moving quotations and "see Cites" links to put them under senses (and then deleting the empty quotations sections) for some time now, and AFAICT neither outcome in this vote will discourage that behaviour. - -sche (discuss) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    Note, I would support a vote that (a) incorporated proposal 1 of this vote, with the exception that where citations are present on the Citations page that belong to an unknown, unclassified or missing sense, the Quotations header is retained; and (b) mandated the placement of the "see Cites" links under a sense when at least one cite for that sense is present on the Citations page. This, that and the other (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per TT&O. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per TT&O. Mostly concerning mobile support; I could care less about people who doesn't have JavaScript enabled. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above —Internoob 03:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the Citations page too inconspicuous, and often I only notice the fact that there are citations when there's a quotations or similar section that calls attention to it, so I think it's useful to have this cross-reference. Benwing2 (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — I would change my vote to one in support if the criteria for his support listed by This, that and the other in his post above (timestamped: 22:25, 15 March 2016) were incorporated into proposal 1. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per This.​—msh210 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I find it unhelpful both for editors and for readers that quotations/citations for a single entry can be placed more or less arbitrarily in three places (under particular definitions, in a Quotations section and on a Citations page), but I think this should be treated by a single proposal describing the whole mechanism of cutting this number to two places (or even just one), not by separate uncoordinated steps. (Personally I'd cancel the Citations namespace and move the contents from there under the definitions and into the Quotations section, making the latter collapsible, but this is just a personal notion, not a proposal.) --Droigheann (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    The purpose of the citations namespace is to house quotations that are necessary for attestation but not helpful enough to readers to be included in the entry. Having quotations under particular definitions is helpful in illustrating the particular definitions, so putting them all in one place would make them less useful. --WikiTiki89 01:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Droigheann I doubt that we can reduce the number of locations to one. The Citations space is useful for as a storehouse of citations that don't currently fit on the main page and sometimes just duplicate the citations on the main page.
    1. Some citations may be for definitions that we don't have, possibly because we don't have three of them or because the definition has failed or might fail RfD.
    2. Some citations, especially older ones and some literary ones, are highly ambiguous, sometimes by the intention of the author, sometimes because they are hard for contemporary users to assign to a definition.
    3. Some citations, may be in support of some grammatical point useful for sustaining a PoS header, or a usage note, or .... [typically as Wikitiki89 says]
    If I had to get rid of one location, it would be on the main page, where the best use of the Quotations header is to direct new and occasional users to the citations page by overcoming the "frame blindness" that may keep them from noticing the citations tab. Inevitably, though, if we keep the header, then quotations will accumulate under it. It seems that we would need a filter to prevent or maintenance to clean up such accumulation. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks to both of you, I didn't realise the namespace had a specific purpose different from illustrating the senses to the reader. As I said, it was just a notion (of which I'm disabused now). But I'm still unwilling to take a stance on this patchy vote about a complex matter. --Droigheann (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Support

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is easier to move citations from a header in principal namespace than from the citations namespace. This will probably further retard the process of moving quotations to the appropriate senses. What does this do except give some party the ability to do more automated cleanup? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These should be handled manually. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Makaokalani (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Wikitiki89. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInternoob 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason: Bandwagon. Also, as others said, there is a point in moving the quotations to the appropriate senses, rather than moving them all to the citations page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose removal of information. (The proposal doesn't say the bot must add the info to the cites ns, only that it shall be moved, perhaps at some point in the distant future by the bot owner.) Plus what DCD said.​—msh210 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I think this should be a purely manual task. After the citations are moved to the citations page, it's unlikely that anyone will ever get around to sorting them into senses. May as well leave them where they are, perhaps get a bot to come through and tag each quotation-containing "Quotations" section into a specific cleanup category, and then let humans do the work knowledgeably. This, that and the other (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    Nothing prevents a human from easily finding these and no rule prevents the edits now. DCDuring TALK 19:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Quotations should be moved under senses: this is almost always possible, and current policy allows it (as I noted in the BP). There will be a minority of entries where a quotation uses e.g. three senses in the same sentence, but then, those quotations aren't great illustrations of any one sense, are they? So I don't mind moving them to the citations page. Likewise, there will be quotations where the sense is unclear, either absolutely or just to the person adding the quotation, but I don't mind those being moved to the citations page. But doing all this by hand or with AWB is not prohibitive and is perhaps better than doing it by bot, as DCDuring notes. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as described under Proposal 1. --Droigheann (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Decision

  • Since the result of the 1st option is 8:4, at least two votes were closed as passed with the ratio at or below the 2/3 threshold, and at least one editor disputes the 2/3 threshold as too low, I propose to extend the vote to yield a more clear result. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Attestation vs. the slippery slope 2

Voting on:

Removing the section WT:CFI#Issues to consider completely, including the subsection WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slope.

This is a repetition of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Attestation vs the slippery slope.

Issues to consider
Attestation vs. the slippery slope (subsection)

There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form. Some examples:

  • Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry).
  • Any word may be rendered in pig Latin, but only a few (e.g., amscray) have found their way into common use.
  • Any word may be rendered in leet style, but only a few (e.g., pr0n) see general use.
  • Grammatical affixes like meta- and -ance can be added in a great many more cases than they actually are. (Inflectional suffixes like -s for the plural of a noun and -ed for the past tense of a verb can actually be used for almost any noun or verb.)
  • It may seem that trendy internet prefixes like e- and i- are used everywhere, but they aren’t. If I decide to talk about e-thumb-twiddling but no one else does, then there’s no need for an entry.

Rationale:

  • This is an essay arguing against the use of the argument that "adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms". It is akin to Wikipedia's Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. These are not criteria for inclusion. If these items are true and supported by the community, they can be kept somewhere else.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to: 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Previous vote:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support  --Dan Polansky (talk) As before at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Attestation vs the slippery slope: The section is unnecessary and misleading for its use of terms "common use" and "general use". But let me consider a weaker proposal: removing the bullet items, and thus keeping only the following in "Attestation vs. the slippery slope" section:
    There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form.
    Do any of the opposers support this proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    I would support that. --WikiTiki89 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    This is OK. --Tropylium (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    I am in favour of this as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like having examples, but I guess the way it's worded now is misleadng. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
    I support this as well. (Noting this after I was pinged, below.) - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    For the avoidance of doubt: I support this too. --Droigheann (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. As has been noted in previous discussions, pig Latin terms etc don't have to be in "common use", they just have to meet CFI (they may be attested only thrice and thus quite rare). - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I think this is helpful in deciding whether to include a term, not only as "argument not to use for deletion". Maybe the section should be reworded and renamed, but not removed. --WikiTiki89 03:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insofar as at least "each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form" is still a (meta-)criterion for inclusion. (But Dan's proposal above to only remove the bulleted list would be a good compromise.) --Tropylium (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DCDuring TALK 15:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I found this helpful in understanding CFI and what belonged in Wiktionary when I first signed up. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: What do you think of Dan Polansky's suggestion above? --WikiTiki89 16:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is useful. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I think the text is partly helpful per WikiTiki89 and partly misleading per Dan Polansky. Dan's proposal to just leave the two initial sentences looks good. Droigheann (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I agree with Droigheann: reducing it to what Dan proposed seems like a good idea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. But I support Dan P.'s proposal.​—msh210 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision

  • Vote extended by one month. Current results: 6-4-1. Like in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Removing "Quotations"#Decision, this vote did not meet the threshold of 2/3 but was close enough to it. According to @Dan Polansky in that vote, "at least two votes were closed as passed with the ratio at or below the 2/3 threshold, and at least one editor disputes the 2/3 threshold as too low". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Instead of extending the vote, why not just create a new one for Dan's new proposal? --WikiTiki89 17:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    Because I promised I wouldn't make new votes for 3 months after I created many votes at once and some people complained. In retrospect, one could argue it was a silly promise, but I'm gonna stick with it. (Or one could say that I did the right thing by promising that, whatever.) You can create another vote if you want.
    Extending the vote made sense to me, because I still like very much the idea of removing that paragraph completely, and most voters are supporting it, (60%, not actually able to pass but close enough) but I don't mind if people want to close this vote right now. If the other vote were created right now, I'd like it to have both options, "Remove the paragraph completely" and "Replace it by (that shorter version)". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    I like extending the vote, but you may be accused by some of fishing for results or something of the sort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    I think my proposal has passed via this vote; I don't think it needs a separate vote. Anyone disagrees? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    No problem with me. I am pinging all the participants of this vote to make sure. (@I'm so meta even this acronym, -sche, Xbony2, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Tropylium, DCDuring, Andrew Sheedy, Droigheann) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, it seems to be dissatisfaction with the no-consensus result of the vote as originally scheduled and formulated that has motivated the arbitrary extension of the vote without any extenuating circumstances. Now we are creating the impression that deadlines are not to be taken seriously. Are there other parts of due process that are subject to arbitrary revision too?
The only honest thing to do is to start over with a better proposal. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
How much process is really "due" here? Is the notion that Wiktionary policy updates have to be decided by vote itself anything more than a community practice? I agree that the discussion of this vote seems to have ended up leaning in support of Dan's proposal, and that this seems sufficient for updating the policy. --Tropylium (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I just work here. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is definitely in support of that. DCDuring is being ridiculous; as usual, he dislikes having frequent votes, but proposes that more unnecessary votes be made. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think User:Dan Polansky's proposal passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Which makes the extension unnecessary. --WikiTiki89 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Normally I'd say a proposal during the vote (which I'll call "subproposal" for brevity) cannot be said to have passed. Consider someone who looks at every vote page, saw this one, decided not to vote, never returned to see the subproposal, and would have opposed it. Saying the subproposal passed ignores that user. However, in this case, the subproposal (Dan P.'s) is a weaker form of the main proposal, removing less from CFI than the main proposal proposes to, and I think it's fair to say that almost every use who would oppose Dan P.'s proposal would oppose this vote also. Therefore, it is fair to tally up support for Dan P.'s proposal. I mention all this so that this vote is not used as precedent for future passage of subproposals that aren't weaker forms of their main proposals. (Also pinging DCDuring, since this is partially in reply to what he wrote, above.)​—msh210 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Romanophile for admin

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support (thus breaking my personal rule not to support self-made requests, but I was thinking of nomming him anyway). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Most importantly, he has proven willing and capable of discussing, correcting, and learning from his mistakes. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Romanophile does top-notch admin work over at es.wikt. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Courteous, eager to discuss issues and always lends a helping hand when needed – I'm convinced Romanophile is going to do excellent work as an administrator. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support 1) Has a silly signature. 2) Will chat with me in Latin. 3) Has always been respectful and helpful. —JohnC5 17:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. This is ending on the 13th. Really? -Xbony2 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Which is also going to be a Friday... --WikiTiki89 18:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ki ki ki, ma ma ma! --Romanophile (contributions) 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool guy, long time editor, I'm sure he will make good use of the tools. As noted in the BP discussion, some people seemed to think he was already an admin, which I think is always a good sign when someone is nominated to become one. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    +Comment: The list of Seth's deleted contributions in the main namespace[1] contains 1,000+ pages, starting from 2011. Many are requests for speedy deletion using {{d}}. If he becomes an admin through this vote, then he'll be able to delete pages like those by himself in the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very polite and considerate editor. I am sure he will be a good admin. Yurivict (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Good behavior on the sister project I've patrolled him, so he can represent with dignity. JackPotte (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Well duh —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support — The vituperative tirade against Dan Polansky was unbecoming of an administrator, but it occurred over eighteen months ago, and I believe it is something that Romanophile would be unlikely to do today. Opposition to self-nomination for administratorship is a good principle, but one I feel to be best waived in this case. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support, despite being a fat troll. --Vahag (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Vai com deusJberkel (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lots of admins have railed against other contributors. Rob Ullmann said I was committing genocide for supporting the idea that Serbo-Croatian was a language. Ivan Štambuk had harsh words for several contributors. WF has been on the receiving end of ill wishes. Dick Laurent was cross with Razorflame. Liliana and CodeCat. I've seen a lot of it over the years. I don’t see that Romanophile’s case is anything unusual. —Stephen (Talk) 10:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    The complaint is not of "railing against" but rather "expressing a wish of death", a more specific and severe thing, IMHO. That said, some of the above mentioned admins should not be admins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Saying “I’ll kill you” is a common exaggerative statement that many people utter in the heat of the moment. It really is not a death threat, or a threat at all. Wishing death on someone is even less offensive, and certainly not a threat (unless you believe in voodoo). It is an immature way of saying “I hate you.” All these words mean is that the user is very upset. The words say nothing good or bad about the person addressed. Calling someone a moron is much worse, since it slanders the targeted person and calls his competence into question. —Stephen (Talk) 20:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Stephen G. Brown: I’ve recently been questioning the concept of intelligence, and the way how it’s always used to explain the inexplicable, so (at least now) I don’t think that D.P. (or anybody else) is a ‘moron.’ --Romanophile (contributions) 22:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    "Calling someone a moron is much worse": Absolutly not, by my assessment. By my assessment, calling someone a moron is a common lexicalized or "conventionalized" insult, used very often as an expression of anger at someone's actions regardless of inteligence. By my lights, it is much more harmless, and it certainly does not feel much worse. The discussed Romanophile attack leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, as it were, whereas when Romanophile called me "moron" and "god-damn fucking idiot" in 2011, I felt nothing of the sort. Also, when he called me these names, he was not blocked, as he should not have, whereas for the discussed attack he was blocked for one month, whereas I expected he would be banned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    Also, Romanophile himself wrote in that attack that he knew he was going to be blocked for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    If the polemic still disgusts you so much, why don’t you just petition for my permanent removal? Do you expect to lose? --Romanophile (contributions) 11:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think the above question is not worthy an admin. A good admin would not ask the question. It does not serve information gathering; it serves to annoy and provoke an undue response. Since, the answer is obvious to anyone looking at this vote: I don't stand a chance getting Romanophile permablocked; and if I thought back in 2014 when the incident occurred that permanent block were necessary, I would have tried my chance back then. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    But surely a reasonable individual like yourself can convince the others to remove me, can’t you? You could attempt to persuade them, or call their support into question. That way, you or somebody else might learn something new. The point is, you want me gone right now, so you need to figure out the fastest way to remove me. Are you going to do anything about my presence, other than keeping track of my misbehaviour? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    Given the last two years' behavior, permanent block is uncalled for. The above speculation about my motives and wishes is uncalled for as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Everybody deserves a second chance. As long as he understands what is expected, I believe Romanophile has the potential (and then some) to make an excellent admin. Leasnam (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seems to have personal issues with me? -- Liliana 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Liliana has been globally banned since this vote, does it still count? Donnanz (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    I would think it doesn't count, but I can't find a guideline which states that. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    The best guess about the cause of the ban is that it relates to the trouble recently discussed in Beer parlour. In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/March#User:Liliana-60's de.wikipedia troubles., the English Wiktionary editors expressed no wish to desysop Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    It would be standard practice to strike the vote of a permablocked user, but I am somewhat uncomfortable doing so in a case in which our wiki had no say in the permablocking. As it stands, her vote makes no difference, so I will let it stay. Also, I am annoyed that I cannot easily find the discussion leading to this block on Meta or elsewhere. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An editor who expressed a wish on-wiki that another editor dies cannot be an admin. Evidence is in the history of my talk page; if wished, I can post a diff.

    Also a note on self-nomination: the English Wiktionary has the interesting tradition of avoiding it. The only other self-nomination I remember is the one of Razorflame. By contrast, self-nomination is usual in Czech wikiprojects. I find the English Wiktionary reluctance to self-nominate a really interesting cultural trait, one that is worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    • Actually, Wonderfool managed a couple of successful self-noms, and one nom by his own sockpuppet. --S03f0i3 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    You guys are hella dramatic :/ -Xbony2 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I guess you are referring to this. Thank you for pointing this out, but I am not going to change my vote. --WikiTiki89 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: I already e‐mailed that to you, but I guess that you didn’t check your box. I rarely become enraged like that, but it’s a combination of long‐term abuse and him insulting me. D.P.’s modus operandi is to bring up irrelevant relics in order to shut people up, which he did in the link in my topic and he did again here. I guarantee you that he did not even feel a micron of guilt over my polemic. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    I am most definitely not shutting people up; that is plain wrong.
    I only brought forward one verifiable salient incident; it is my testimony that I saw a long-term pattern of problematic behavior on part of the candidate, and I am certain multiple editors recall that pattern. Whether the recent remission of that problematic behavior is temporary we do not know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe not silencing, but discrediting. Like I said, your tactic is to bring up irrelevant relics that most people don’t care about. If you had improved since then, I would regret my polemic, but you obviously haven’t improved since the day I met you. --Romanophile (contributions) 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, and perhaps you’d like to revoke Equinox’s privileges because of this comment? --Romanophile (contributions) 08:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I would. Especially since his rant of Daniel Carrero's harmless, good-faith action. Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @User:Romanophile: Can you please clarify which users, if any, have you sent an off-wiki email in relation to this vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, have we decided that e‐mailing users about elections is against common practice and policy? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @User:Romanophile: Can you? Or can anyone else report any emails they have received in relation to this vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Very interesting to watch you evade uncomfortable questions. Here’s similar instance and another. --Romanophile (contributions) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    The reader may, like myself, like to know to what extent (if any) is this vote driven by an email campaign. As to who evades important questions pertinent to this vote, I will leave the judgment to the kind reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I mailed one user, @Stephen G. Brown, about it, asking ‘Would you like to cast a vote?’ That was it. Now tell me why you need to know. --Romanophile (contributions) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky, and why don’t you tell us why Equinox can wish death on others (I can’t), delete his talk page (I can’t), why I need to be accountable (you don’t, right?), why a certain administrator can insert an unattested Latin translation (I can’t, as my link above showed), and why certain users can ‘threaten to leave the project’ (I can’t)? --Romanophile (contributions) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Why I need to know should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with problems of fairness of voting and campaigning: a campaign can skew the results as long as the emailer notifies people who are likely to support him and not those who are likely to oppose him. But one email is not a campaign. That email should better have not been sent, but does not pose a serious problem as long as it is only a single email. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, and he evaded my questions again. --Romanophile (contributions) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not quite sure how Romanophile would get ahold of my email address since I don't give it away. But, anyway, stay civil please, the both of you. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Xbony2: If you have an email address registered with your account and have the option to receive emails enabled in your preferences, then other users can email you from the Special:EmailUser page (without finding out your email address). --WikiTiki89 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yerp, I don't have an email registered here :D On the wikis I do it's usually disabled. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    To answer at least one of Romanophile's questions, about the mentioned Equinox diff: yes, that diff is a ground for considering desysopping. I would probably not support such a desysopping since Equinox is a great lexicographer and proven admin, and the mentioned unfortunate block summary was targetted at Wonderfool, a banned user who is intermittently tolerated since no one came up with anything better to do. If Equinox made such comments before he became an admin and proved to be an excellent one, I would probably oppose his adminship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    So by being an established admin, he's beyond the law? (I'm not saying he should be desysopped, but I require a bit more explanation) -Xbony2 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Which law? I don't know what you mean by "established admin"; I said "proven admin", by which I mean, an editor proven to be good in the capacity of admin. I also highlighted that the Equinox target was a banned editor that gets on multiple editors' nerves, an editor against whom Equinox is entirely powerless. I have learned that I am powerless against Romanophile, who trolled me also in diff, in User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013#lorem ipsum (where he complained of me creating Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-10/Removing SAMPA and X-SAMPA) and on multiple previous occassions. He even apologized to me once, but then went on to troll me more. He also trolled SemperBlotto and Equinox (search "Geequinox" on en wikt), which may be a causal explanation of why certain humans on this vote page are a little less forgiving, being merely humans. You do realize Æ&Œ and Pilcrow is Romanophile, right? My plan is to largely avoid interacting with the user lest I get into trouble. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, by law you mean the principle that I stated at the outset. The principle needs to be amended thus: "An editor who expressed a wish on-wiki that another editor dies cannot be an admin unless there are extenuating circumstances." In my view, the fact that the Equinox text was short, appears unpremeditated and was targetted at a banned user who stays here by sheer force of creating new users as fit is an extenuating circumstance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I guess. I consider Equinox's actions inappropriate, but not worthy of desysoping. Maybe of a short ban, 1-7 days according to policy? But, of course, it's too late for action now.
    Many of Romanophile's actions (which you've linked) have also been inappropriate, but, they're all actions that took place a fairly significant time ago. This is where our opinions differ- I think these actions are historical, and should be forgiven, whereas you don't. Both are respectable. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    You do realize desysopping practically requires a 2/3 supermajority, right? And that once Romanophile becomes an admin, it will be really hard to desysop him even if trouble ensues? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yes. But I don't think there will be trouble. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    I will disclose that Romaniphile's email to me had to do with Dan's comment and had nothing directly to do with the vote itself. Furthermore, I did not read the email until after he pinged me above; thus, neither my vote, nor my previous comments were affected by it. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky. Romanophile seems competent overall, but that talk page comment is too serious to overlook. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The combination of self-nomination, 3 usernames in 5 years and that harangue is enough to prevent me from supporting, but not enough to make me oppose. Droigheann (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    What is the problem with having 3 usernames in 5 years? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I also don't see any problem with him having changed his username a few times. --WikiTiki89 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I mean, pick a username dude, but I won't consider it a negative factor in a vote. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I was a teenager when I first commenced editing, and I was still figuring out my tastes and my identity. This might be the last time that I switch names, but I’m not going to promise anything. --Romanophile (contributions) 17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I have no problem with your username changes per se, but together with the other things I mentioned (and the "I'm depressed" on your userpage, and now what I've seen on Donnanz' talkpage) they indicate to me somebody who isn't well-adjusted (well-balanced, composed, mature, call it what you like) enough for adminship. Again: the impression isn't so strong as to make me oppose your nomination, but I can't with clear conscience support it. --Droigheann (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Droigheann: so wait, do you think that depression is a valid disqualification? And asking ‘What’s your name from? Does it mean something?’ and ‘So Donna is your given name?’ are distasteful? Or extremely annoying? I don’t get it. --Romanophile (contributions) 11:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    No, I don't think that depression is a valid disqualification. For the talkpage questions I'd sooner use 'a wee bit infantile' than the epithets you propose. --Droigheann (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    We have never had any policies or rules against infantility, depression, or otherwise not being well-adjusted. We’ve seen lots of infantile behavior here, hissy fits, signs of depression, autism, OCD, anal retentiveness, and so on. The questions are: (1) does the candidate have need of the tools (that is, have you looked at his work, is the work worthwhile, is it well done), and would the candidate be likely to misuse the tools (for instance, by vandalizing pages, by doing shoddy work, by blocking others inappropriately, and so on). I have seen lots of Romanophile’s work (including on es.wiktionary), and it is very professional in my opinion. I don’t believe Romanophile would ever stoop to vandalism, and I think he would be unlikely to abuse blocking (although misuse of blocking is something we never know about until the power has been granted). I think that you are holding Romanophile to a higher standard than we have ever held our admins to before (on en.wiktionary), and I don’t think it is appropriate. —Stephen (Talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    I really don’t understand how I was being infantile. People ask each other about their pseudonyms all the time and it’s rarely ever considered offensive or ‘infantile.’ I can only assume that this phenomenon is stigmatized in your culture, because otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense. --Romanophile (contributions) 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I have no plans to change my user name, despite Romanophile's nosiness. Donnanz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: I don't understand. Is this in reference to Romanophile's post somewhere? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, on my talk page. Donnanz (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for now: On the one hand, I want to oppose per Dan Polansky (and, honestly, Droigheann). On the other hand, the title of admin on Wiktionary (besides being a status symbol?) really only has the effect of (1) allowing one to fight vandalism, basically at all, and (2) allowing one to edit important pages; meaning it's harmful if you (1) are a POV-pusher or (2) intend to vandalize. An editor who is undesirable for the sole reason of being caustic (and this is evident) therefore needs not be prevented from adminship on those grounds alone. Trouble is, (a) I am hesitant to allow a caustic person to gain any title of importance, regardless of actual utility, and (b) while this user is not apparently known as being a POV-pusher, a review of their contributions page yields a lot of what look like neologisms, none of which are apparently cited. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    @ObsequiousNewt: I look for potential citations before including terms, particularly on Google Groups and Google Books. The reason why I rarely add citations is because it’s tedious to copy the text and apply all of the extra information. I am prepared to cite my works in any case. As for the other reason… exactly how long do you people need to hold the sins against others before they become irrelevant? Five years? Ten years? Thirty? Are you going to keep bringing up the time I made {{suffix}} when it’s 2094? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    It is required to not only look for citations, but also put them in the entry proper. I recommend that you do so from now on. I'm not speaking about holding past "sins" against people and if I was, then the accidental creation of a page with a ligature wouldn't belong on a list of sins, it'd belong on a list of hilarious gaffes. I have such a list. I'm on it several times. I'm talking about current behaviour. I don't know about your past interactions with other editors, having not seen any—but simply looking at the way you interact with people on this very page is enough to show me that you are a caustic person. Polansky's comment is 1.5 years old, it is true, and I am easily willing to accept that a person has changed in that time, but your behaviour largely seems to suggest otherwise. Droigheann's comments are all made about your current behavior (with the exception of name-changing, which practice you immediately afterward stated you were not necessarily going to cease.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    Reflecting on my past behaviour, I remember a lot of melodrama, pettiness, excessive seriousness, obstinance… I doubt that anybody here would prefer a revision to that state of mind. Yes, I become very frustrated and impatient, but when I have to deal with people who are being persistently uncooperative, that’s exactly what happens.
    When did you people decide that asking about somebody’s pseudonym was infantile? Why does having three different usernames disqualify me? Better yet, why not formally prohibit them from the project if they annoy you so much in the first place? Have we decided that they’re ‘obvious’ (just like everything else)?
    Perhaps responding to the comments here was a fruitless endeavour. --Romanophile (contributions) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Newt: You said "It is required to not only look for citations, but also put them in the entry proper.", which is patently untrue. It is better not to make up rules to criticise another editor adding new, correct entries that pass CFI to Wiktionary, which is how the dictionary is expanded and is thus one of the single most valuable tasks that can be done around here. (And if any user is caustic, DP has driven multiple hardworking editors off this project for good, which is certainly a title that Romanophile can't claim.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    "DP has driven multiple hardworking editors off this project for good": A statement of this sort requires a proof. Those editors should be mentioned. Then, it should be clarified in what manner I have driven them off and what, if any, were obvious problems in the contributions of these hardworking editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    I will help you. I played a role in ReidAA leaving and Speednat leaving. ReidAA did not have to leave if he did not take the stance of "my way or highway"; one editor said "good riddance" in relation to ReidAA. ReidAA was not blocked and was not prevented from useful and non-controversial editing. The talk page of ReidAA contains misgivings some other editors had with ReidAA. Speednat did not have to leave either. I repeatly pointed out to Speednat that the simple manner in which he is transferring content from a certain dictionary into Wiktionary is copyright violation. Speednat was not prevented from productive editing either. I do not remember any other cases from the top of my head; some of the last interactions with Razorflame were by Metaknowledge rather than me, AFAIR, and Pass the Method was ultimately blocked after multiple editors posted multiple misgiving to his talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    On a purely logical note, whether DP has driven someone off is entirely irrelevant since this is not a vote for ensysopping DP and DP is not an admin. This irrelevance is especially clear in relation to the statement made above: " I am hesitant to allow a caustic person to gain any title of importance". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: CFI states "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary." I don't really understand what else this is supposed to mean, unless it's "we don't need a citation unless someone challenges the term at RfV", in which case I would be willing to do so. With respect to causticity—I find that, while I have disagreed with DP on numerous occasions (exhibit 1), he does not speak aggressively the way that, say, PB89 does. Romanophile is hardly as bad as PB89 in my opinion, but is definitely too caustic for me to vote 'yes' here. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    You're a sysop already, and although I don't see you at RFV much, I think you already know how this works. Please feel free to submit any entry Romanophile has created to RFV, but iff you really can't cite it yourself, which I find unlikely in the extreme. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    @ObsequiousNewt: At RFV, your policy quote is traditionally interpreted as a requirement for citations to exist, but not necessarily to be added to the entry or citations page; although it is encouraged that if you have already done the work of finding citations, that you should copy them to the entry or citations page for ease of future reference, but is common for RFVs to pass with as little as "I checked Google Books and there seem to be a lot of relevant results". --WikiTiki89 15:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision


The current logo
The book logo
The tiles logo

We have spent many years with a logo with which many users and readers have expressed dissatisfaction. Votes on Meta which were intended to standardise all Wiktionaries with a single logo were not adopted by our community (the relevant parts of this history, minus the more acrimonious bits, can be seen in the discussion links). This vote has a separate section for each of the three logos with the most historical support, and will work as follows: whichever logo gets the largest support:oppose ratio wins iff that ratio equals or exceeds 2:1, and if neither the book logo nor the tiles logo reaches that ratio, the current logo will remain.

The current logo has been the incumbent for many years, and thus may have greater recognition, but it is often criticised for having a pronunciation that is rather strange (and in contravention of a Wiktionary vote).

The book logo was the winner of a vote to choose a logo for all Wiktionaries and represents a dictionary well, but is used by only a few other Wiktionaries.

The tiles logo is the one used by most of the other Wiktionaries, and also has a favicon which matches it that we could choose to use, but some editors think it does not represent our mission.

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The current logo

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support - I would be happy to see the pronunciation and other aesthetic changes applied to a similar style as well. - TheDaveRoss 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support We don't have to be conformists. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support simple, clear, expressive--Dixtosa (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    And also, the logo is in SVG format, so in case our logo is to be printed on a large canvas we are fine xD. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportUngoliant (falai) 16:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    (note: I’m supporting the general idea of this logo, but it definitely needs a redesign!) — Ungoliant (falai) 19:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Well, you're effectively supporting this exact image, actually. But if this vote does not change the status quo, and you are capable of producing a good redesign, I would be happy to set up a vote for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I’ll worry about that if the current logo is maintained, which doesn’t look like is going to be the case. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    That's a very odd statement to make... currently, it appears that neither logo is doing so well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Droigheann (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the wilco subliminal message. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps it literally is the next reasonable word? --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support - Amgine/ t·e 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for the pronunciation. JackPotte (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 15:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support This is the best of the three; I would suggest changes to it though, including cleaning it up and removing the IPA. Deonyi (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Not eligible to vote. Equinox 13:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support — It's still the best of the three. If the IPA transcription is a problem, let's fix it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. We really need a change. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The best logos are graphical, not pure text, and people always complain about the dodgy IPA pronunciation too. Equinox 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. —CodeCat 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Only one dialect's pronunciation and does not represent our current layout. —JohnC5 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – as Equinox points out, it's just text. It doesn't look like a logo. (Look at the sister project links at w:Main page, where this logo sticks out like a sore thumb next to all the others.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Problematic for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure I'm not the only one getting tired of newbies coming to complain about the phonetic transcription. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. As noted above, it favors one obscure pronunciation, it doesn't match our layout, it's just text... it's a bad logo. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Lmaltier (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Vorziblix (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. English-centric, illegible at small sizes, non-standardized with the majority of other Wiktionaries, pronunciation issues, and a confusing inclusion of "encyclopedia" at the top (meant to indicate Wikipedia being the entry above). Quiddity (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose RUSTY NAILS 207 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC) This logo only reflects one dialect of one language of a multi-dialectal multi-lingual dictionary.
    User not eligible to vote. Equinox 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Too text-heavy, not really a logo. Jberkel (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. A lot of wrong stuff: the slogan and the title of the project are included (it shouldn't, see all other projects); the slogan is the wrong one (see front page: "The free dictionary"); the top and bottom words (Wikipedia and wilco) are not the actual previous and next words in en.wiktionary itself, and it can still change; the IPA is controversial; the IPA uses [] when the actual page uses //; the noun is abbreviated, again unlike the current style of the English project. Furthermore: only using English hides the multilingual aspect of the project (that also makes it impossible to be used for other languages, so no way to use it as a brand). Too much text, too complex, no colour, can't scale, not a hint of symbolism. How is this a logo? — Dakdada 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Bland logo with disputed content. --ContraVentum (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — This just doesn’t matter. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Stylish and clever in its way, but very problematic (texty, not graphical, content distracting). —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Actually, I'll abstain from this one -- but anything but the one w/ the tiles, please. · 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Doesn't look like a logo. But it's the best of the options on the table.​—msh210 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The book logo

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like both of the new logo options. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's okay. Might be nicer with some subtle colour. Equinox 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    If you wanna design it, be my guest... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. —CodeCat 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. - This is my first choice. - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. —JohnC5 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support, second choice. Better than the current logo, but I don't see how a book is specific to Wiktionary as opposed to other WMF projects like Wikipedia and Wikibooks. It also seems sort of anachronistic to me—some of the most valuable aspects of Wiktionary are due to the fact that it is not a paper dictionary. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportUngoliant (falai) 16:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. A serious-looking logo, unlike the tiles, and one which does apply to a dictionary rather than only to a game, although Mr. Granger has a good point that an encyclopedia or Wikibooks book is also a book. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Even though I kind of like the logo we have now, this suggestion is slightly more pleasing. Have to stay true to my one and only rule though…new is always better…always. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Looks professional. —TeragR disc./con. 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like this one. It reads "dictionary" to me and has a nice consonance with the Wikipedia logo. It also seems that it would be easy to adapt the text itself for Wiktionaries other than en., rather than needing to adapt the logo itself as is the case with the current one. —Leftmostcat (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support as second choice. Vorziblix (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support RUSTY NAILS 207 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC) I like how this logo is an actual dictionary
    User not eligible to vote. Equinox 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- the best of the three. It's not great, but I certainly like it more than the others, especially that one with the tiles, which looks like something straight out of 2005. · 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is the ugliest of the three. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seriously? A book, just a book and the title beneath it for WT logo?--Dixtosa (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2004 called. They want their awkward back. —suzukaze (tc) 19:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have a theory why almost none of the language variants of Wiktionary use this logo- it is the ugliest logo I've ever seen. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See the initials of the first three words in this logo for my response. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    You mean, like Wikipedia :D ? — Dakdada 10:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Amgine/ t·e 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark, too much detail, subtitle is hard to read. And I can't find it in a good resolution. Enosh (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for above reasons. And it seems there was a copyright issue. Lmaltier (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Muddy, too detailed and generic. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing with Wikibooks; Would add a third variation to the global Wiktionaries logo inconsistencies; too generic. Quiddity (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ugly, and using the dated and overused book metaphor. Jberkel (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It is trying to imitate the Wikipedia logo, which is already bad, but it also of bad quality. The top right puzzle piece doesn't look like one, instead it looks like the book is disintegrating or burning. The right page is supposed to be assembled puzzle pieces, but it just look like a grid. The book is too generic and could represent Wikibooks or Wikisource: it actually looks more like an encyclopedia tome than a dictionary. Too much detail, not scalable, no colour. (The title and slogan use wrong fonts and sizes, but this can be changed). — Dakdada 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Unoriginal motive and grainy. Wrong illumination and angle. --ContraVentum (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Not clear how a book represents an online dictionary any more than it represents any other online version of something available offline also (e.g. 'pedia, 'source, 'species, 'quote). Plus, the right-hand page needs Scotch tape.​—msh210 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — This just doesn’t matter. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Meh. Better than the current logo, but not as good as the tiles. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Angr: If you prefer it to the current logo, then the tactical choice to make would be to support this logo as well. It remains, of course, your choice how to use your votes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: If it looks like it could make a difference, maybe I'll change my vote later on. At the moment, though, it doesn't look like any of the logos has community support. If that happens, I guess we're stuck with the status quo, though I wish it meant we would have no logo at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Comment — As it stands, I don't think the book logo is an improvement over the current word logo. However, if it were made more dynamic – for example, if instead of showing the whole book the logo focused on just the incomplete jigsaw page, perhaps tilted at an angle – I might reconsider. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The tiles logo

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like both of the new logo options. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support If we are to get rid of the current logo, this one is far better than the book logo. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, first choice. Visually appealing; hints at words, which are what dictionaries collect; indicates the multilingual nature of the project, like Wikipedia's logo; and seems to be the most popular logo on other large Wiktionaries. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I've already altered my preferences to display this when I'm logged in. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless a fourth option arises, this as good as it gets IMO. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. The favicon overall color is enough different from the sister projects. JackPotte (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @JackPotte: Just to clarify, can you add the {{support}} template if you intended this as a support vote, or indent your statement if you did not. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    It was indeed a supportive vote without any template. JackPotte (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I prefer the book logo. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Really ideal, in my opinion. Much better than the Wikipedia logo, but consistent with it, as you also may think to a game. Lmaltier (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Only iconic one, multilingual, suggests words. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the tiles symbolize the way the characters/graphemes can be rearranged to form words. Limited characters, huge combinations thereof. It also hints at our multi-lingual nature, which is important and a core aspect. Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support as first choice. Vorziblix (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support RUSTY NAILS 207 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC) I like how this logo fits into the Wikipedia logo
    User not eligible to vote. Equinox 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Like the idea of the logo, but would love to see some further design / colour adjustments. – Jberkel (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The less bad of the three proposals. Different enough from the other Wikimedia logos with recognizable shapes and colours, with an easy favicon as a bonus. Good symbolism (the building blocks of words, multilingual); more joyful than the two other proposals: why should a dictionary be austere? Also, this is the most used logo outside of en.wiktionary, so it may lead to a universal brand for the project (finally?). Cons: latin-centric W at the centre (and with a different colour to bout); people may think "Scrabble" (or word games) before "Wiktionary". The design could use some work. — Dakdada 09:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    The W in the middle definitely shows some bias, but it's not as much of a sin as the current logo. To give the tile logo some slack, the book logo may also have a bit of bias- although it's small and hard to tell, it looks like the words on the page go left-to-right. Fortunately, the majority of languages use the Latin alphabet, and the majority of languages are left-to-right, and both details are small components of the logo. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Creative and cheerful. --ContraVentum (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Makes me think "word game", not "dictionary". Equinox 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Rearrange the following letters to form a word: λWشЖש Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    말ش 말λWЖ approximates marshmallows. How many points do I get? Equinox 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. —CodeCat 14:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. —JohnC5 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is clear and colourful but does not go with our bleak design.--Dixtosa (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. With all due respect to Smurrayinchester, I feel that this logo looks rather childish. In my experience talking about Wiktionary with random people in real life, it seems that almost everyone thinks it’s a “nerd’s Urban Dictionary”. We need to send the message that Wiktionary is serious business, and we need a serious looking logo for that. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Equinox and Ungoliant. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Droigheann (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See the initials of the first three words in this logo for my response. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Vahag (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Amgine/ t·e 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the colours are ugly. Enosh (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Per Ungoliant. —TeragR disc./con. 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This logo has never made sense to me and always struck me as being out of character both with the logos for other projects and with Wiktionary itself. I think it does nothing to convey the purpose of the site. —Leftmostcat (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Words are made of letters, and we study words. The different scripts convey the purpose "words of all languages". This logo conveys the purpose of the site much better than other proposals. Lmaltier (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. · 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  16. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: What does Scrabble have to do with a dictionary? (In other words: What Equinox said.)​—msh210 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — This just doesn’t matter. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the vote

Oppose this whole vote since it is structured in a way that does not make it clear that status quo prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
My bad: the vote page says "whichever logo gets the largest support:oppose ratio wins iff that ratio equals or exceeds 2:1, and if neither the book logo nor the tiles logo reaches that ratio, the current logo will remain". And that is fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the fact that the status quo prevails. I think that if none of the candidates gets at least 2:1 support, we should have no logo at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Having no logo would be ridiculous. And, unfortunately, I don't think it's likely any of the logos will get 2:1 support. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be less ridiculous than the current logo. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It is also looking like the winner will have the least support. Rules 1, common sense 0. - TheDaveRoss 12:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If editors want to enable the plain-majority winner, they can do so via what I call an amplifying vote: a subsequent vote for the plain-majority winner of the present vote. While it looks like needless bureaucracy, it makes it possible to have status quo prevail and yet let plain majority decide if a supermajority so decides. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of the tiles
I posted a derivative of the tiles to the right. It probably does not matter, but anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


I oppose this vote for two reasons:

  • The rule "whichever logo gets the largest support:oppose ratio wins iff that ratio equals or exceeds 2:1" doesn't represent the votes well. For example, if logo A gets 8 supporters, 2 opposers, and B gets 800 supporters, 300 opposers, I don't think it makes sense to change to A just because it happens to have eight supporters. Perhaps a Borda vote (with mandatory ranking of all options) would be better.
  • The vote pits three logos against one another without first offering people the opportunity to submit other possibilities, restricting the field for no apparent reason. At the very least, the other logos from the previous m: votes (1, 2) should have been included as options.

​—msh210 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@msh210: It's true that this vote design could lead in theory to such a problem as you describe, but it obviously won't, given our community. Why did I restrict the field? Well, to try to concentrate support instead of sprinkling it across logos with marginal support at best. The incumbent and the two that have actually won votes at Meta quite obviously enjoy a level of historical support that is above the rest. I'm just interested in getting us a logo that won't elicit frequent complaints due to how bad it is. I gather from the fact that you're opposing this vote that you don't actually care about that, but if you or anyone else does, I welcome discussion on the talkpage of the vote or at my talkpage about how we can draft a vote more likely to produce a consensus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Even in theory, voters are likely to vote support or oppose for each of the logos, which would keep the total number of votes roughly equal for each logo. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision


Recently ended votes

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

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: