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

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

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

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-12/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-12/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2016-12/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2016-12/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2016-12/User: for bot status}}


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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline)
Ends Title Status/Votes
Nov 26 Redirect fullwidth and halfwidth characters passed
Dec 3 User:Gamren for admin decision?
Dec 30 Abbreviations Symbol support vote.svg4 Symbol oppose vote.svg2 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Jan 9 Removing label proscribed from entries Symbol support vote.svg2 Symbol oppose vote.svg19 Symbol abstain vote.svg3
(=4) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=44)

Redirect fullwidth and halfwidth characters

Voting on:

  • Redirecting all fullwidth and halfwidth characters to their normal forms. This includes redirecting all fullwidth letters, numbers, symbols and punctuation, halfwidth katakana, and hangul letters.

Special considerations:

  • If the normal form is a redirect itself, the fullwidth or halfwidth entry should be a redirect to the same entry. Ex.: halfwidth should redirect to 「 」, because the normal already redirects to 「 」.
  • This proposal says nothing about whether the normal entry should exist. If the normal entry "" should not exist, then the halfwidth "" need not be created as a pointless redirect.
  • This proposal says nothing about words written using these characters, such as CD, compact disk or ウィクショナリー ("Wiktionary" in halfwidth katakana).


These specific examples are for illustrative purposes only. The full list of affected entries is believed to be linked at Appendix:Unicode/Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms.


  • Fullwidth and halfwidth characters are encoded in Unicode for compatibility purposes. The fullwidth A is merely a typographical variant of a normal A. While there are some entries for typographical varieties like (small caps A, used as a phonetic symbol) and ª (feminine ordinal indicator, which is a superscript a), we may argue that some of them have value as separate entries specifically because they represent different concepts. Having a separate entry for "fullwidth A" is arguably the same as having other separate entries for "italic A", "bold A", "underlined A", "yellow A", "blue A", "sans-serif A", "cursive A", etc. which probably don't represent separate concepts (until proven otherwise).
  • This vote does not deal with longer terms written in halfwidth and fullwidth characters such as compact disk because they are potentially infinite. Apparently, per Talk:CD, consensus is that these entries should not exist. If someone tries searching for compact disk and fails, there's a chance that they will try to search for the component characters of the term they seek.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Older discussions:

Recent discussions:


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support support redirecting existing entries, but oppose systematically creating new redirects from non-existing entries. --WikiTiki89 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    I am kind of hoping we could redirect all the halfwidth/fullwidth character entries whenever possible, including those pages that don't exist yet. There are 235 pages linked in Appendix:Unicode/Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms. Of these, 187 pages already exist (defined as "fullwidth form of" or "halfwidth form of") and 48 don't exist, which is 20.4% (~= 1/5). Basically, most pages that don't exist are halfwidth hangul letters and most halfwidth hangul letters don't exist yet. "HALFWIDTH FORMS LIGHT VERTICAL" (│) does not exist either.
    My reason is: I'd like to have a consistent system if possible, which can be achieved in a number of ways: 1) having all [full/half]width entries as hard redirects to the normal entries (which is being voted right now), 2) having all [full/half]width entries as normal separate entries, 3) having all [full/half]width entries as hard redirects to the Unicode appendix, 4) outright deleting all [full/half]width entries without creating any redirects. I prefer the type 1 because this way readers can still search and use these characters. I believe, if we have a reason to keep ᄁ  as a redirect (which is a halfwidth hangul page that exists since 2009), then we have equal reason to keep as a redirect (another halfwidth hangul letter that was not created yet). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    Note that this vote does not make it clear whether it is referring to existing entries or all potential entries. I think we should have each voter clarify which of those they are consenting to. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    I understand. Actually, I may be mistaken in how clear the vote needed to be because I created it, but I intended "Redirecting all fullwidth and halfwidth characters to their normal forms." to mean all entries, whether they were already created or not. But even excess clarity may be a good thing, so I should probably have mentioned in the vote "all entries, whether they were already created or not".
    I think the thing we are discussing at the moment is basically: "Should halfwidth hangul letters be redirects to their normal letters?" because these are the group mainly affected by your concern. If this vote passes, I'd say: why not? -- and I gave my reasons above as to why I think that creating these redirects is a good idea. If this vote fails (which seems unlikely at this point), we would presumably keep a lot of separate entries for fullwidth and halfwidth forms. In this case, I think that people would still be able to create new separate entries for halfwidth forms of Korean hangul letters, rendering the distinction of "created and uncreated entries" moot, until further discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support redirecting existing entries; (very) weak support for creating redirects for non-existing entries. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSMUconlaw (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support – as long as character boxes are added to the entries to which the full- and half-width character entries redirect. I do not object to adding redirects from full-width or half-width character entries that do not yet exist. — Eru·tuon 18:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. They're used as sutegana in Miyako. ズ has no sutegana codepoint, and is present in the words ぴづズ (pidzɿ, "elbow") and ズざら (ɿzara, "sickle"). Nibiko (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nibiko: The vote says that it will have no effect on words written with these characters. This is only concerning the characters as they are used on their own. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Sutegana characters have entries on their own that describe their distinct phonetic usage, so it is not uniform to have some characters that are used as sutegana with entries on their own, but others with no entries on their own. The sutegana codepoints are listed under sutegana#See also, and in case of a missing codepoint, halfwidth characters are used in place. Miyako is a Ryūkyūan language and has a distinct phonology from Japanese. Anyway, I managed to combine the Ainu consonant character with the rendaku mark to create ㇲ゙. The standards for Miyako need to be drafted, but for now I'll use the Ainu characters and strike my vote. Nibiko (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Just like we have and ª as entries for typographical variants that represent separate concepts, I'd support keeping separate entries for any halfwidth or fullwidth characters that mean something other than "fullwidth (or halfwidth) form of something". Sorry I didn't add this caveat in the vote. I think we should create ㇲ゙ (Ainu consonant + rendaku mark), as a Miyako entry explaining the character. It looks better to me than using the halfwidth ズ, but if Miyako editors prefer using the halfwidth one as a normal entry, I'd support doing it. In my defense, at the moment there is no halfwidth katakana entry defined as anything other than a halfwidth katakana, so apparently they can all be safely redirected, I believe. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I think these are useful as separate entries on single character level; compact disk is a different story. Thus, I think it worthwhile if someone who accidentally sees a character somewhere is able to enter it into Wiktionary, and get an express information on that character or code point. I do not see how hard redirect is more useful for the reader than what we currently have. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    Naturally, you and I may have different opinions. I do believe hard redirects are better, but we may want to discuss further what are the merits of each way to treat some codepoints.
    For example, I would like the entry $ (which is the normal dollar sign) to have codepoint information for (FULLWIDTH DOLLAR SIGN), 💲 (HEAVY DOLLAR SIGN), (SMALL DOLLAR SIGN).
    I feel that, even if we had separate entries for each dollar sign, it's a good idea to have a complete list of codepoints in the main entry, because they're basically the same character. It follows that, if the main entry explains everything anyway, it may be a good idea to redirect the alternative codepoints to it.
    The Wikipedia page w:dollar sign also has a list of multiple codepoints for that symbol.
    Personally, I specially dislike when I see a character variation in the "Derived terms" of the normal character, because I feel that this invites people to waste time seeing multiple entries for basically the same thing. (Setting aside the trouble of citing a small character or a fullwidth character vs. citing the normal character.)
    Similarly, considering (LATIN CROSS) as the main "Latin cross" entry, I already redirected these other Latin crosses to it: 🕇 (HEAVY LATIN CROSS), 🕆 (WHITE LATIN CROSS), (OUTLINED LATIN CROSS), (SHADOWED WHITE LATIN CROSS). The main Latin cross entry currently has information on all these codepoints. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    With hard redirect, the user may not even notice they were redirected; with soft redirect, they would at least notice since they stay on the original page until they click on the link. And these kinds of characters can be puzzling, depending on their rendering in the font. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    I take your point: "the user may not even notice they were redirected". Still, I wonder if it's worth creating or otherwise keeping whole separate entries to make it clearer that the readers are dealing with separate codepoints.
    For one, if we define "D" as "Fullwidth form of D", this would not make a lot of sense if Wiktionary were printed or if the reader does not care about separate codepoints. We might as well define "D" as "Comic Sans MS form of D".
    There are other websites where we can search for each codepoint in Unicode. We could discuss the possibility of using Wiktionary as a huge Unicode database too, with one entry for each codepoint, even all the unattestable ones: ¤ and failed RFV at some point and were deleted. Actually, even if we did that, personally I'd prefer redirecting fullwidth and other entries, but that's a separate discussion. As per Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Redirecting combining characters, we redirect COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT to ACUTE ACCENT, because the distinction between them is meaningful to computers rather than people. Currently, Wiktionary is not a comprehensive codepoint database anyway: if readers can't access separate entries for ¤, and the combining acute accent, I'm not sure why we would keep separate entries for fullwidth and .
    That said, I prefer using hard redirects, but if people want to have separate entries for fullwidth characters, I suppose we could have soft redirects using {{no entry}}. At least, I'd like to make it clear that alternative typographies of symbols are not "real" entries like the others, if it's OK with everyone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Redirecting combining characters was, in my opinion, a vote held without full knowledge of its effect. Consider, for example,  ̓ (COMBINING COMMA ABOVE) and  ̔ (COMBINING REVERSED COMMA ABOVE), which are, respectively, the combining forms of three and two different codepoints each; obviously, they can't just hard redirect to their spacing variants, hence the way they're currently defined. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    I understand. I think you're right. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: For consistency, I would prefer that all combining characters were handled like that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    Personally, I don't like that idea very much. Still, if anything, I admire the motivation of seeking consistency in entries. We can surely discuss what you proposed.
    Per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/October#Proposal: Redirect many single-character entries, I'd like if basically all single-character entries that are the same thing as other codepoints (or variations in typography/appearance) were redirected, which is a different attempt at having a consistent proposal. Some people seem to be accepting it well, judging by three redirect votes that already passed with zero or one oppose votes (1, 2 and the current one).
    In my opinion, if the same combining form has multiple spacing forms, the combining form can exist as a "disambiguation" page, but I'd prefer not having two separate entries for the "combining acute accent" and the "acute accent", which are the same thing. This is related to the fact that, per Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries (which was created as a result of 4 votes that passed), we need and as separate entries for disambiguation purposes, but and should be redirects.
    The vote "Redirecting combining characters" probably should have mentioned "when possible, redirect the entry, otherwise the vote is void for that entry in particular", though it didn't.
    The vote did say, though, "When the title of an entry is a combining character, common tasks such as typing the title and linking to the entry are usually very problematic. These entries are relatively unreachable to users below a certain level of knowledge of Unicode.", so in my opinion it may be a good idea to limit the number of entries with these problems. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT suffers from the same problem as U+0313 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE and U+0314 COMBINING REVERSED COMMA ABOVE: It is the combining form of U+00B4 ACUTE ACCENT, U+0384 GREEK TONOS, U+1FFD GREEK OXIA, and maybe others (like U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME and U+02CA MODIFIER LETTER ACUTE ACCENT). I note that msh210 said in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Redirecting combining characters that “[t]here are 1199 Mn characters”, that “[c]ertainly not all of them have non-combining counterparts”, and that he'd “venture a wild guess that most of the first eighty do, and that few of the others do.” It seems to me like a bad idea to create such a vote when it can only apply to about 7% of all combining characters and when it is unworkable even in its application to many of those. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Late Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan and because I do not like the silent nature of redirection and because two character boxes are just too geeky to understand. If traditional Chinese character entries are not redirects then this should not be either.--Dixtosa (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Chinese redirects would conflict with Japanese. Nibiko (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I'd oppose redirecting traditional Chinese characters, per Nibiko's stated reason above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Re: "two character boxes are just too geeky to understand". I respect that you have an opinion that is different from mine. Still, if we mean to say "the character (...) is an alternate codepoint of the character (...)", the information presented is just as geeky if split into two separate entries, with the added drawback of having to visit both entries in order to understand the difference. If Unicode has multiple codepoints for the same (or basically the same) character, in my opinion the "main" character entry should explain all the codepoints, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of separate entries for them. I support using the usage notes section to explain codepoints when applicable, in addition to the charboxes. Click here too see the entry for the hyphen, where the usage notes section currently explains the "hyphen-minus", regular "hyphen", "non-breaking hyphen" and the "soft hyphen". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)



  • How does this affect the provision of {{character info/new}} for these fullwidth and halfwidth forms? Pinging @Daniel Carrero as vote creator. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @I'm so meta even this acronym: See !, $, +, @, 🛇, 🌎, 💾, , , .
    When I feel that a given codepoint is just alternative typography, appearance or simply the same character from a different codepoint, I like to redirect it to the "main" character and add multiple charboxes in the main character corresponding to each separate codepoint. (if it's OK with everyone, of course)
    With that in mind, I'd like to redirect (fullwidth) to A (normal). In the entry A (normal), I'd like to add a new charbox about A (fullwidth).
    Another example: I'd like to redirect (halfwidth) to (normal). In the entry (normal), I'd like to add a new charbox about ヒ (halfwidth).
    How to handle charboxes is not part of the vote. (But it could have been!) So, the vote could pass and if people prefer doing things any other way, we don't have to do it the way I described.
    --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: I'm sorry I didn't help to revise the vote text before the vote started and I'm also sorry that I didn't respond to this discussion in time to cast a vote at its conclusion.
    Re 🌎(EARTH GLOBE AMERICAS), I predict possible political objections to hard-redirecting 🌍(EARTH GLOBE EUROPE-AFRICA) and 🌏(EARTH GLOBE ASIA-AUSTRALIA) thereto…
    Re the scope of this vote, does it only govern codepoints in the range U+FF00–U+FFEF? If so, would it be possible to add code to {{character info/new}} that causes it to display “It is a formal policy of the English Wiktionary that all codepoints for halfwidth and fullwidth forms redirect to their normal-width counterparts.” (or a similar note) whenever its |1= is left unspecified or is specified as |1=＀|1=￯, |1=0xFF00|1=0xFFEF, or |1=65280|1=65519? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    It's all OK. Maybe I could leave you a message in your talk page when I have new proposals in mind, concerning character boxes. I have a .txt file on my PC with some ideas that I did not yet present to the community because I kind of like to discuss one new thing at a time.
    What you said about the globes is a very good point. Maybe there's some merit to the idea of re-splitting the globe back into three entries, for the same reasons we have separate entries for color and colour, but I'd really prefer not, because they appear to be exactly the same thing (a globe) seen from different perspectives. I'm also considering the idea of redirecting all the three globes into 🌐, which is a generic globe ("with meridians") and has basically the same meanings currently in the separate 🌎 entry.
    The idea of using the charbox to let people know of tWiktionary policy sounds nice, but that text is a bit too long for my taste, and could be shorter. That line of text would be repeated in all (or almost all) the 235 entries that have a fullwidth/halfwidth form, which are basic, common characters in different languages. Maybe we could create a comprehensive policy named Wiktionary:Character boxes, and then make something like this appear in the charboxes: "The fullwidth entry redirects to the main entry. See Wiktionary:Character boxes for more information." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: Don't get me wrong: I don't care which globe is the lemma, I just know how touchy people can be; maybe redirecting all three to 🌐 can cut that Gordian knot. I am perfectly happy with a shorter note like the one you propose; it could be even shorter, like “See Wiktionary:Character boxes for the relevant redirection policies.”, perhaps. Yes, I'd appreciate you “leav[ing me] a message [on my] talk page when [you] have new proposals in mind, concerning character boxes”; thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


Passed: 7-1-0 (87.5%-12.5%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Gamren for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Gamren (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.


  • Vote starts: 18:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC) (as soon as accepted by nominee)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Equinox 18:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept. Thank you.__Gamren (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Languages: da-N, en-3, de-2
  • Timezone: UTC+1, DST from April to October (ca.)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. Equinox 12:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportUngoliant (falai) 11:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping adminship; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. A clarification: My position is that my condition only applies if passing of the vote depends on support of editors who used this condition.

    Note: When admins are easy to desysop, it is easier to take risks, enadmin even relatively new contributors and see how they perform in their admin roles. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    By the way, here are new pages by Gamren, tools.wmflabs.org. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support a bit soon, but hey, whatevah. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)



  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: A little too soon, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Hasn't been around that long and hasn't made that many edits. I see no reason to oppose, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

# Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I have never seen this user, but we've only had one new admin in 2016, so we could definitely use a new one. Juan the fool (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)



Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Abbreviations, a subsection of WT:EL#Definitions.

Current text:

The “definitions” of entries that are abbreviations should be the expanded forms of the abbreviations. Where there is more than one expansion of the abbreviation, ideally these should be listed alphabetically to prevent the expanded forms being duplicated. The case used in the expanded form should be the usual one — do not capitalise words in the expanded form of an abbreviation that is made up of capital letters unless that is how the expanded form is usually written.

Where the expanded forms are entries that appear (or should appear) in Wiktionary, wikify them. Expanded forms that are encyclopedic entries should also be wikified and linked to the appropriate Wikipedia entry. When the expanded form does not merit an entry of its own, either in Wiktionary or Wikipedia material, wikify its component words and give a gloss (italicised, in parentheses) after the expansion explaining what the term means (see SNAFU for an example).

See PC for an example entry.

Proposed text:

For abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms (such as PC and SNAFU), the definitions usually use templates linking to the expanded forms of the abbreviation. For example, one of the senses in the entry PC may be a template that displays "Initialism of personal computer." (Additional formatting may apply.) Do not capitalise words in the expanded form unless that is how the expanded form is usually written. (In the previous example, don't write "Personal Computer".) Where the expanded form is an entry that exists (or should exist) in Wiktionary, link to it. Otherwise, if an appropriate Wikipedia article exists, link to it. When the expanded form does not merit either a Wiktionary entry or a Wikipedia article, link it to its component words. You may expand the definition with a gloss if appropriate.


  • Shorter text; it says the same thing, unless otherwise stated in this rationale.
  • Edited the part mentioning "encyclopedic entries", because it's not clear what it means. The concept "dog" may be explained in an "encyclopedical" manner.
  • Only one rule was removed, because it's not clear if it's true for all entries: "ideally these should be listed alphabetically".


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)



  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 06:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support The new text seems better. It immediately exemplifies, and seems to have a better flow. Admittedly, such an assessment is probably subjective to an extent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not an improvement. Shorter isn't always better, particularly when the text isn't very long to begin with. This, that and the other (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    In the original text, the last two sentences are:
    "(see SNAFU for an example).
    See PC for an example entry."
    This was needlessly repetitive; why mention "see (...) for an example" twice? In the proposed text, this was converted into:
    "(such as PC and SNAFU)"
    In my opinion, this constitutes one of multiple improvements in the shorter text. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose New form is a bit too compact, like dense legalese, thus harder to read. And other reasons which I won't go into. Equinox 09:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)



Removing label proscribed from entries

Voting on: Giving a go ahead to all automatic and semi-automatic edits that remove label "proscribed" from Wiktionary entries.



  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I agree with Dan Polansky in that the label "proscribed" is imperative in disguise, and it implies that we, the English Wiktionary, are proscribing a word or a sense. We can use the "Usage notes" section to mention if there are any authoritative sources that consider a certain term or spelling incorrect. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. My rationale is on the talk page but let me try a different wording and one analogy. The idea that reported proscriptions are no longer proscriptions is an ingenuous one, but not to be accepted in a descriptivist dictionary. It comes without saying that a sourced wiki cannot contain original proscriptions ("You should not use word X") but rather reported proscriptions ("Alleggedly, you should not use word X"). A reported proscription still has the nature of proscription. And now the analogy. It does not make much of a difference whether you make an illegal drug or you just peddle it: even peddlers are criminally liable. A descriptivist dictionary does not deal in proscriptions: it does not make them, and it does not peddle them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. Every description can be taken as a proscription; "do not take Apfel to mean orange, do not use Apfel to mean orange." "Proscribed" is exactly parallel to "offensive"; some people will respond poorly to this use of the word, the main distinction is how.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      Re: "Every description can be taken as a proscription": Not really. The above two imperatives do not necessarily follow from our definitions in Apfel. Someone who reports actual usage in a dictionary can be oblivious about other people's behaviors, merely trying to provide best accurate information to anyone who happens to care about accuracy. By contrast, whenever person X commands Y, "person X commands Y" is a description of fact, as well as "at least one person commands Y".
      But even if you were right, it would not really diminish my argument, which is of the following general form: look at the essence of what is being done, not at its surface syntactic form. And my imperative or exhortation is this: in a descriptivist dictionary, don't peddle prescriptions and proscriptions that contradict statistics of actual usage. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      1. And my exhortation is that we produce a dictionary worthy of standing alongside Wikipedia, one that manages to serve all groups, including people who need to produce works for picky bosses or misguided teachers. We should be looking for reasons and ways to support them, not reasons and ways not to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
        That's circular: the same bosses and teachers are going to use reference works such as Wiktionary to show that the term in question is objectionable. When a disagreement arises, they're going to say: look, even Wiktionary indicates the term or use is proscribed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
        I doubt they're going to use Wiktionary for that; they're working on their own biases. And if they are, they're going to use Wiktionary to establish that Apfel does not mean orange. We can't compel people to treat a descriptive dictionary as descriptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I would rather see it dealt with in a Usage note, I think. Ƿidsiþ 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Widsith You realize that this vote doesn't allow for that, right? It would permit bots to simply remove the labels without replacing them with anything. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    In which case, switching to oppose. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    The vote does not forbid use of usage notes to convey similar information in a more descriptivist tone. In the rationale, I argued that we should use usage notes, and gave an example: 'Pravidla českého pravopisu, a handbook considered by many Czechs to decide what is correct spelling, does not contain "tchýně" and only contain "tchyně".' However, it is to be admitted that the proposal as formulated gives a go ahead to remove the label without at the same time expanding the usage notes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    An alternative proposal: Give a go head to remove proscribed label as long as similar information is provided in the usage note of the entry, the intent being that the label is eventually replaced with usage notes in all entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I think such a proposal would pass, but you'd have to create a new vote. Most people's objection to this vote, including my own, seems to be due to the fact that it offers no replacement. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    The only place I'm really uncomfortable with the replacement of a proscribed label with a usage note is in long entries where it would mean you'd have to read the whole page to realize the connection between one usage out of a dozen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Most of these could be labelled better (and it should be made explicit what authorities are doing the proscribing), but this is still valuable information that shouldn't be merged. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. If native speakers perceive certain words as proscribed, we need to know that. If the usage of a term, e.g. Russian ложи́ть(ložítʹ) is considered proscribed in Russia, foreigners need to know about this and avoid using these terms, even if they are used and attested.
    My opposing to removing the labels doesn't mean I'm opposing to having such entries in Wiktionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Anatoli T.: ложи́ть(ložítʹ) contains non-standard and low colloquial. Given that, what is the additional value of "proscribed"? I mean, low colloquial alone suggests it usually not used in formal communication, isn't it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    There are many overlaps and it's not always easy to explain the exact difference or choose the right category. E.g. брю́лик(brjúlik) is a "low colloquial" or slang word for "diamond". "Low colloquial" means here "uneducated", "low class" word, these category will also include words, which are stylistically or ethically unacceptable. This is an attempt to render the Russian term просторе́чие(prostoréčije). Non-standard is admittedly closer to proscribed but IMO proscribed better describes how language authorities (if they exist) treat a term. Since disputed categories are subcategories of non-standard categories, the "non-standard" label can be potentially removed. In general, I support language specific labels/categories, if they are commonly used and better understood by native speakers or if they add a feature specific to those languages, e.g. humble or honorific in reference to Japanese, Korean, etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WikiTiki89 01:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Having honest, truthful labels that are useful to users and will prevent them from looking like fools for using a proscribed term is much more important than trying to promote a sociolinguist’s utopia. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    If a person uses a "proscribed" term that is widely used by the native spekars, that person cannot possibly look like a fool. One measure of competence in a language is to be undistinguishable from native speakers based on language production alone; and since the term is widely used by natives, it will not serve to mark off the non-natives from the natives. What foreigners probably should not do if they want to sound native is use rare terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, that’s one measure of competence. Another measure of competence is being able to use standard language and avoid proscribed terms and constructs. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    You mean like google:"proscribed terms" (1,760 hits) or google:"proscribed constructs" (45 hits)? Or google:"proscribed words" (6,430 hits)? By the standard of rarity, I submit to the reader that these putative terms are not really in widespread use. The sad circumstance is that it is this alleggedly descriptivist dictionary that introduces a new terminology to sneak in prescriptivism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    That's an entirely different argument. If you wanted to make the point that we should use another word rather than "proscribed" because no one uses "proscribed" that way, that would be a different story. But this vote does not provide any replacement, because your real goal is not to label these words with anything. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    I concede your point to an extent, but let me point out the implied, unspoken argument, which was presented by showing rather than stating: frequency is the indicator sought, not proscription. I do not need a source "proscribing" the term "proscribed construction"; frequency alone tells me hardly anyone uses the term. For instance, have a look at regardless,(irregardless*500) at Google Ngram Viewer: whatever proscription was made, it was successful in driving the frequency down to yield a frequency ratio characteristic of misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    The idea that something is inappropriate if it is uncommon and appropriate if it's common is absurd. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    I did not say "appropriate" or "inappropriate". Since, "appropriate" for what purpose? The idea that, if you want to sound like a native and want to avoid what many natives will consider to be error, you should avoid vanishingly rare forms, is just common sense rather than being absurd. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    So, rare like your google books:"characteristic of misspellings" shouldn’t be used, Polansky? — Ungoliant (falai) 13:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    The rarity of the above does give me a pause. However, single words in a dictionary are not combinations of words, and their rarity or commonness is a fairly good guide to their being accepted. When the commonness of a putative word drops to zero, we exclude it from the dictionary no matter how "logical" or well formed the putative word may be. A zero-attested word may even be in a dictionary and we still exclude it.
    By contrast, the pronouncement of an unelected authority does not alone serve as a good guide to acceptance since they do not purport to empirically enquire into acceptance in the population of speakers by polling and similar means of empirical science, but rather try to tell the population what they ought to do. Relying on authoritative sources for acceptance is no better than relying on authoritative sources for existence, and the latter is what we do not do for well documented languages per WT:ATTEST. We figure that authoritative sources all too often include too little and sometimes include too much, and that we can do better by looking at evidence ourselves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crom daba (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wyang (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since we are voting on "the proposed action, not on the rationale", I have to go with the gut feeling. I think I'd prefer more prescriptivism, and learners who have to pass exams like IELTS would benefit. Equinox 11:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    If a rationale in support of an action is good and sound, so must be the action, right? It does not hold the other way around: if a rationale is bad and unsound, the action can still be good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The fact that a word is proscribed by mainstream sources is important sociolinguistic information, and it would be a shame for that information to be removed. I might be able to tolerate removing all of the "proscribed" labels if they are replaced with usage notes conveying the same information, but the wording of this vote seems to allow users to remove the "proscribed" label from lots of entries without replacing it with anything. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my comments in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:nonstandard_spelling_of. As Jack Lynch said, "a good descriptivist should tell you [...] not only how many people use [a word], but in what circumstances and to what effect." - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    Now is Jack Lynch a descriptivist? And if he is a prescriptivist, should I take what he says about "good descriptivist" seriously? He is not an editor of a descriptivist dictionary, is he? And why should I take his statement seriously when no argument supporting his statement is made available at the same time to me? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    Anyway, that Jack Lynch does not appear to have a Wikipedia page, but the above quote can currently be found in https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/writing/p.html. Per http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/, Jack Lynch is "Professor in the English department, of the Newark campus of Rutgers University, specializing in the English literature of the eighteenth century and the history of the English language."
    The linked web pages seems to have been published as The English Language: A User's Guide, Jack Lynch, 2015. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Per -sche. Tharthan (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mr. Granger. Proscription is valuable information, and must be included. I would prefer a more in-depth usage note, however, rather than a vague label. I'm not opposing the removal of the "proscribed" label per se, but I strongly oppose the removal of that information. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, even descriptivism should note the existence of proscription. Anti-Gamz Dust (Here's Hillcrest!) 03:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Even though I hate the word "proscribed" because the average reader is unlikely to be familiar with it, the value in noting that terms are proscribed is very high. This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  16. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose all automatic removal of potentially useful information. That said, I think this label should always be specified, as eg at specially, however#Conjunction or even biological; simply labelling a sense "proscribed" as at eg alternately tells me nothing, not even whether it really is proscribed. (Not to mention obscurities like "somewhat proscribed".) --Droigheann (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  17. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  18. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per WikiTiki89 (18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)).​—msh210 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the feature the label is fulfilling is very useful. Labelling something as "proscribed" does not imply that we are an authoritative source on the matter (on that note, I do think in these cases Wiktionary should have referencing proving that a term's definition is seen as incorrect). I may be tempted to agree with something that provides a formal replacement (which may, instead of requiring automated edits to remove this information, require a simpler change to the {{lb}} template to deprecate the current label and display the new one instead (dunno if that's standard practice here)). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible to vote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  19. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in current form. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  20. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a descriptive fact that some forms are proscribed in the standard written form of some language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I find the label 'proscribed' pretty absurd; 'proscribed' means 'forbidden', so the label seems to mean, if not "We forbid this usage", then at least "We believe that some magical authority has the power to forbid this usage, and that (s)he's done so". That is pretty obviously a nonsensical and prescriptivist view with no place here. The only reason the label has survived so long as it has is that we've managed to convince ourselves that it means only "some authority has condemned, or would condemn, this usage".
    But for most usages with this label, I do think we want some label. So voting to let a bot remove this label from all entries, with no guidance at all on what else the bot should be doing at the same time, seems like a bad idea.
    RuakhTALK 00:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Ruakh: Thank you. An alternative to the proposal of this vote would be to make an addition freeze on proscribed. I would list all current uses of the label on the vote talk page, and any new uses would be removed; someone might modify the modules to show a deprecation warning in the entries that use the label. One alternative label is nonstandard, which dictionaries actually use, with I am told has a slightly different meaning. Then we would manually process the entries marked as proscribed, with no time pressure. We could be manually replacing the label with usage notes, where the usage note would indicate who proscribes, and possibly be inline-referenced to the proscription.
    The problem with that is that most people do not seem to have a problem with the label and its meaning at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain We define the label proscribed as Some educators or other authorities recommend against the listed usage. This information is retrievable by clicking the label. Any phantasmagorias about the label having another meaning or implication I cannot share. Keeping the info in usage notes might be more precise, but I don't really care in which of these two options we present it. We must present it, of course. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, the information that someone somewhere forbids or discourages the use of a term is useful, on the other, Wiktionary's use of the label could mislead people into believing that Wiktionary is the one forbidding or discouraging. It might be better to move it to a usage note and tell who is the proscriber, and, if applicable, why. But I don't feel very strongly about it right now. — Eru·tuon 17:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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: