Wiktionary:Votes

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/2017-01/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-01/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2017-01/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-01/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2017-01/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline)
Ends Title Status/Votes
Dec 30 Abbreviations passed
Jan 9 Removing label proscribed from entries failed
Jan 15 Division of Church Slavonic languages decision?
Jan 20 Voting limits 20 (12 people)
Feb 22 "References" and "External sources" starts: Jan 24
Mar 7 Boldface in image captions 11 (11 people)
Mar 15 Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 Symbol support vote.svg3 Symbol oppose vote.svg1 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
(=7) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=80)

Abbreviations

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.

Rationale:

  • 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".

Schedule:

  • 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)

Discussion:

Support

  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)
  5. Weak Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  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)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: Doesn't make much sense. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

This may be of interest: As you can see, in the proposed text, I included this as the vote creator: "Additional formatting may apply."

At some point in the future, I'd like if we stated in WT:EL exactly how non-glosses are formatted (italic text, with bold link, with additional information between parentheses, etc.) A previous vote about this had a number of issues and failed, and can be revised and created again in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we all agree that abbreviations in definitions are formatted like any other non-gloss. So, ideally, if/when an explanation of non-glosses is voted and approved to exist on WT:EL, we can remove the "Additional formatting may apply." about abbreviations and just say something like: "Abbreviations are formatted as non-glosses" (or maybe something shorter).

P.S.: As a separate subject, I don't think that abbreviations in etymologies should be italicized, unlike abbreviations in definitions, but I believe this can be discussed later. Both the old and the proposed texts are part of the "Definitions" section (not "Etymology" section) in WT:EL and they don't say exactly how to format abbreviations, so this distinction is moot. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Passed: 6-2-1 (75%-25%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:16, 31 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.

Discussion:

Support

  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)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Better labels might include "dialectical," "colloquial," "informal," or even "non-standard." There is no reason to even mention that it has been proscribed. And who proscribed it? If the answer isn't in the usage notes already, it might as well just be eliminated without replacement. Jan sewi (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    The use of proscribed can usually be taken to mean none of those labels are appropriate. And the reason to mention it is to warn users that someone might give them crap for using it, even if there's no good reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    Can you give an example of where none of those labels apply? I just looked up, for example, "irregardless," and it has "nonstandard" along with "proscribed." It then goes on to say that it is discouraged in the usage notes. The word "proscribed" is redundant and, as has been pointed out already, seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to save prescriptivism. Jan sewi (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    Singular they is perfectly standard, used across dialects, and can be found in formal writing, but it is still sometimes proscribed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you. In that case I would just put it in the usage notes and link the Wikipedia article, which is probably already done. Throwing the word "proscribed" in there makes it seem far less acceptable than it actually is, imo. Jan sewi (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  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)
  21. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bulk removal of useful information, though I would possibly support an alternative. Dbfirs 09:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  22. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  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)
  4. abstain Late abstention: terms cannot be proscribed. Use can be. Automated removal of the label should probably occur, but only in a contextually-sensitive manner: if a term is proscribed by an authority in a durably archived manner, it should likely be mentioned in usage. OTOH, giving someone (say, Chicago Manual of Style) undue weight as an arbiter of English usage is just as great an error as airily allowing drive-by labeling as proscribed. Strunk opposed the use of contractions, all contractions, in written text except as eye-dialect. Maybe he is correct, but we should not mark them all as proscribed. - Amgine/ t·e 00:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Decision

Failed: 3-22-3 (12%-88%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Division of Church Slavonic languages

Voting on: Separation of Old Church Slavonic and Russian Church Slavonic.

Rationale: English Wiktionary recognizes only one Church Slavonic language — Old Church Slavonic (OCS), but it’s incorrect because there exists a lot of CS languages, and all of them are extremely different. They have different letters, different paradigms, different vocabulary. OCS disintegrated in about XI century.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Γρηγόριος (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussions:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Γρηγόριος (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until I hear further. Not discussed and editors who have worked on OCS have not shown interest in splitting these in the past. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the vote itself. This issue needs to be discussed first. --WikiTiki89 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now; it needs more discussion first. Certainly RCS is different from OCS, but I don't know whether it's different enough to warrant being a separate language as opposed to a regional/temporal dialect; in other words, that tagging Russianisms with {{lb|cu|Russia}} or the like isn't sufficient. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I'm pretty sure we can use WT:RFM to suggest splitting languages. I feel RFM implies discussing and possibly changing a proposal based on other's ideas, while votes are to implement something "set on stone" and already revised/discussed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I know nothing about Church Slavonic languages, and I don't recall there being a discussion about this prior to the vote. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Decision


Voting limits

Voting on:

Proposal #1 — Removing this rule from Wiktionary:Voting policy:

  • "No topic should have a new vote more than once a day (24 hr period)."

Proposal #2 — If, and only if, the Proposal #1 passes, adding this new rule in Wiktionary:Voting policy to replace what was removed:

  • "The same person cannot create more than one vote in the span of 7 days. (For example, if someone creates a vote on December 9, then they must wait until at least December 16 before creating another one.)"
  • Note: If the proposal 1 fails, then the proposal 2 is void.

Rationale:

  • The Proposal #1 is about removing a rule about voting "once a day (24 hr period)", which translates as 30 votes per month and therefore is not an useful limit. (and it uses "topic" as an additional criterion without actually defining it: could we create 60 votes per month under 2 different topics?)
  • The Proposal #2 is about a suggested more feasible limit on the number of votes created by someone. It translates as 5 votes per month, per person.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Proposal 1

Support
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support - TheDaveRoss 20:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh. 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Remove the rule: it does not do anything useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support - DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg SupportEru·tuon 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. We don't need more bureaucracy for its own sake. When has creating too many votes been a problem recently except with Daniel, who has clearly learned his lesson? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: You are opposing the idea of removing a useless rule, and saying: "We don't need more bureaucracy for its own sake." Are you sure? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for correcting me. I should've read it more carefully. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It's allright. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need more limitation, not less, on these proposals. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Not eligible to vote per Wiktionary:Voting policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Abstain

Proposal 2

Support
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support DonnanZ (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 13:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I will support anything which discourages the use of votes as a way of deciding issues. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Continual votes are a method of wearing down opposition. We can't have this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Not eligible to vote per Wiktionary:Voting policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WikiTiki89 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - TheDaveRoss 20:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAndrew Sheedy (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is such a thing as too many votes but I don't think we need the proposed rule of max 1 new vote per person and week. My rule of thumb is that there should never be more than 10 votes currently running, but even that should not be made into a ridig rule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Abstain

Decision

Withdrawn --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The vote was edited and re-scheduled to start, per the talk page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"References" and "External sources"

Voting on: Implementing this project concerning a number of entry sections, as described below, in its entirety.

Full list of steps:

  1. Renaming the "External links" section to "External sources" in all entries.
    • Rationale: The word "links" may not always be applicable. Some external sources may point to offline/paper works, such as "Foclóir Gaeḋilge agus Béarla, Irish Texts Society, 1927, by Patrick S. Dinneen" (see {{R:ga:Dinneen}}).
  2. Explicitly defining what is the purpose of the "External sources" section, and what is the purpose of the "References" section. (details in subsequent items below)
    • Rationale: Currently, these two sections are used in entries in a way that is interchangeable to some extent. If we define their purpose explicitly, the entries are going to be more consistent, and we will be able to know exactly what to expect when clicking on a link in any of these two sections.
  3. Allowing the use of the "References" section only for the purpose of referencing specific statements in the entry. (examples: we might have references for usage notes, etymologies, etc. but this does NOT replace the need to attest definitions through citations)
    • Rationale: This is to avoid the use of the "References" section to list links to other dictionaries and encyclopedias that are mere suggestions of places to look and may not add any new information that can't be found on the Wiktionary entry itself.
  4. For "References" section, always requiring the use of tags <ref></ref> and <references/>. The footnotes are presented as a numbered list.
    • Rationale: This is in line with the notion that references must serve as proof to statements in the entry; the footnotes mark the affected statements. A number of entries currently have references either as bulleted lists or as numbered lists, which is inconsistent; this proposal limits them to numbered lists only, which is the format used by reference tags anyway.
  5. Allowing the usage of "External sources" only in cases where other dictionaries and encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) are listed as suggestions of places to look, without serving as proof for specific statements in the entry.
    • Rationale: Either a link serves as proof for statements in the entry or it doesn't. If the "References" section covers the first possibility as defined above, then the "External sources" covers the second possibility.
  6. Editing WT:EL#List of headings: the section "External links" appears three times. They should be replaced by "External sources".
  7. Updating WT:EL#References and WT:EL#External links (which must be renamed to WT:EL#External sources), and adding a new section in the policy: WT:EL#See also.
    • Rationale: In WT:EL the aforementioned sections must be edited to reflect the new rules if this vote passes. The new policy section "WT:EL#See also" is to explain that the "See also" section in entries is for Wiktionary pages only; otherwise, people might use "See also" to link to pages outside Wiktionary.

Below are the specific policy edits as mentioned in the item #7 above.

Remove this from WT:EL:

External links

Any line of text whose only purpose is linking to an external website (for example, a link to an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, or 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica), should be placed within an "External links" section, and never within a "See also" section.

References
Main article: Wiktionary:References

The References section contains external sources where the information available on our entries can be verified. This improves the reliability and usefulness of Wiktionary. References are especially encouraged for unusual or disputable claims in etymologies — such as the etymology of windhover — or usage notes.

References are listed using bullet points (the character *). References may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication. Reference templates (beginning with “R:”) are used for some of the most common sources. See the example below for two references used in the entry water:

Code:

* {{R:Century 1911}}
* {{R:Webster 1913}}

Result:

Add this to WT:EL, which includes replacing what has been removed:

See also

The See also section is used to link to entries and/or other pages on Wiktionary, including appendices and categories. Don't use this section to link to external sites such as Wikipedia or other encyclopedias and dictionaries.

External sources

The External sources are simple recommendations of further places to look.

  • This section may be used to link to external dictionaries and encyclopedias, (for example, Wikipedia, or 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) which may be available online or in print.
  • This section is not meant to prove the validity of what is being stated on the Wiktionary entries. (the References section serves that purpose)

Examples:

References
Main article: Wiktionary:References

The References section contains reference works where users can verify the information available on our entries. This improves the reliability and usefulness of Wiktionary. References are especially encouraged for unusual or disputable claims in etymologies — such as the etymology of windhover — or usage notes.

  • This section requires using footnotes marking the specific statements in the text that is proved by the listed references. use <ref></ref> and <references/>. (see mw:Help:Cite for help) This generates a numbered list.
  • References may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication.
  • Reference templates are used for some of the most common sources.

Note:

  • If this vote passes, many templates such as {{R:Century 1911}} and {{R:Webster 1913}} (which begin with "R:" for "References") may start being used only in the "External sources" section, or simultaneously in both the the "External sources" and the "References" sections. This vote does not necessarily require changing the name of all the templates. The idea of renaming templates may be discussed eventually and implemented if people want.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Boldface in image captions

Voting on: Whether to make the headwords in image captions bold. Example entry without bold: this revision; example entry with bold: this revision.

  • Option 1: Make the headword bold
    Follow-up action: Feel free to edit in volumes to make the headwords in image captions bold.
  • Option 2: Avoid making the headword bold
    Follow-up action: Feel free to edit in volumes to remove boldface from the headwords in image captions.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support option 1: Make the headword bold

Support option 2: Avoid making the headword bold

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support: I think it's unnecessarily intrusive. It's already evident elsewhere on the page what the headword is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Not really necessary. Some captions might not even include the headword. Equinox 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, some captions don't use the headword. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm all for consistency! I don't really care whether all or no headwords are bold in captions, but I'm supporting the winning option to help ensure that one of them passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Striking for now. Boldface can be useful for diagrams that have a lot of text in the key, such as at sternpost, so I'll have to think about this. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: The caption in sternpost is unhelpful; it should only identify that sternpost is number 4 without providing labels for other numbered items. Furthermore, an image that needs a caption for the reader to see which part is meant is not the best possible one; a better image can be made in which the part can be highlighted e.g. using red outline, by using white background for non-highlighted parts or via other means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's a good point, though I do sometimes find it helpful when looking up multiple related terms to find them all on a diagram and see how they all relate to each other. I am reinstating my vote, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. As an aside, look how this particular caption is further made unnecessarily busy by stating the names of colors in words, driving the attention of the reader away from the words illustrated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    The caption for the sternpost image looks perfectly OK with the highlighted headword. DonnanZ (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    A different example of the use of boldface can be found here. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per SMUconlaw and per my rationale on the talk page of this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both options. The status quo, with each editor deciding for himself how to format the captions he writes, and no one wasting time on mass edits switching from one format to the other, is preferable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Aɴɢʀ: I understand this to mean that avoidable lack of unity AKA consistency in formatting is preferable, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Consistency has its place, which is why we have templates, but in this case I feel that any attempt at consistency would be unnecessarily disruptive and would not bring any benefit except consistency for consistency's sake. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    How would removal of boldface from captions in volumes be "disruptive"? What would it "disrupt"? I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It would disrupt my work to have my watchlist filled with edits doing nothing constructive, but merely adding or removing boldface from captions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    The watchlist tool makes it possible to hide bot edits. And since many entries are affected by a variety of bot edits anyway, he who does not want to see trivial edits on their watchlist has to use that feature. Removals of boldface would add just a small fraction to the overall bot edit volume. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Angr. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'll also add that the argument for boldface is for the same reason we use boldface in usage examples. It's not to make the caption stand out, it's to make the word stand out within the caption. --WikiTiki89 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It is because the caption is not a usage example and the caption should be short that the word does not need to stand out there. The caption is relatively unimportant and should be unconspicuous; it is the image that is important, and is there to illustrate one of the uses of the word, which is always the page headword. The boldface and the caption should not drive the reader attention away from the image. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    The image would not be added unless it is relevant to the headword, so highlighting the headword if it appears in the caption is IMO a good idea. And the caption can be a usage example if it's written in a foreign language. I am rather puzzled by your attitude here. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: changing vote from abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain (vote changed) - I am generally in favour of making the headword bold in captions, but I think that in short captions it may look silly. I think it should be left to the editor to decide, but as I can't vote for either of the given options I am abstaining. DonnanZ (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz If I understand the vote correctly, a vote in the "Oppose" section would support leaving it up to the editor on a case-by-case basis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This needs to be verified. It's not the impression I get when I look at the follow-up action. DonnanZ (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? Follow-up actions are listed for options 1 and 2, but not for the "oppose" option, so I assume that if neither option succeeds (i.e., if the oppose votes win), then the status quo (which is that many captions have bolding and many don't) will continue. What other outcome could there be if the oppose votes win? Pinging vote creator @Dan Polansky for confirmation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If opposes win, there is no decision, and status quo ante remains, whatever the status quo ante is. As far as I can see, the status quo ante does not forbid editors from using boldface or avoiding boldface when adding a new image with a caption. What is more open to doubt is adding bold or removing bold while doing no other thing to an existing image caption. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@DonnanZ: I wonder: what do you mean by up to the editor? Do you mean that any editor should feel free to add bold or remove bold as they see fit, regardless of whether they are the one who added the image or the caption? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I really meant the editor who is adding the image and caption. I wasn't thinking about subsequent edits, but that is open to discussion. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain It's a pretty pointless vote. --Quadcont (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    I want to start removing boldface but only if this is supported by consensus. So I need something like this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Removing boldface shouldn't be the purpose of the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain This is a non-issue and this is a pointless vote. Leaving it up to the individual editors, and to the separate-language editor communities, seems best to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: As I commented under Donnanz's vote above, I think you might want to vote oppose. That is the status quo option, which would leave it up to individual editors as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

Voting on: Removing the following two sentences from WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia section: "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words."

The section before the change, with the planned removal in red:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.

The section after the change:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.


Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohn Cross (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The main removed sentence is of the form "Many places, [...], are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." It is not significant for places that they qualify for inclusion as these names since they qualify for inclusion as place names; the sentence may lead to the impression in the reader that place names are not welcome unless they are also given names or family names. The 2nd removed sentence is basically a repetition of the 1st sentence in the paragraph. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the shorter sentence can be deleted, but the fact that place names are unaffected is left unsaid. Shouldn't it be mentioned that they are allowable, providing the entry is not encyclopaedic? Any encyclopaedic entry could be trimmed anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


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: