Wiktionary:Votes

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/2018-12/Title of vote}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Title of vote}}
Note: add to this page and WT:A. {{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-12/User: for admin}}	Note: add to this page and WT:B. {{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2018-12/User: for bureaucrat}}
Note: add to this page and WT:C. {{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2018-12/User: for checkuser}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2018-12/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:

• Pages starting with "Wiktionary:Votes_".
• Pages starting with "Template:vote-_".

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

Current and new votes

User:Mnemosientje for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Mnemosientje (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Mnemosientje is the main contributor to Gothic and would often be the first to spot non-obvious vandalism or an error in those entries. Also contributes to Ancient Greek, Latin, English, Dutch and German. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 08:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Vote created: ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance:

• Languages: nl-N, en-4, he-3, got-2, grc-2, la-2, fr-2, de-2, es-2 (and 1 on various Germanic languages)
• Timezone: UTC+1

— Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, of course. Also good at not scaring newcomers off. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support —Rua (mew) 12:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support  --Lambiam 13:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Support SemperBlotto (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Per utramque cavernam 23:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
7. Support. I'm not especially convinced that we need admins across a full spread of languages, but what motivates me to vote in favour is that Mnemosientje has consistently produced high-quality content, while being kind and helpful to everyone from new contributors to long-time collaborators. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
8. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
9. Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
10. Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote for the editor to keep the admin flag and the vote does not achieve consensus; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
11. Support Jberkel 18:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
12. Support Always patiently explained my mistakes to me (and I make a lot of them) so I could learn from them. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Support --{{victar|talk}} 06:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Support   AugPi 07:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Passes 13-1-0. (If we throw out Dan Polansky's vote as invalid, as Andrew Sheedy suggested here, it is unanimous.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And I've made it so. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

---

User:Donnanz for admin

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

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 23:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Vote created: XY3999 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance: Nomination accepted. It may be better to delay the vote until after the vote for Mnemosientje is finished.

• Languages: en-n, da-1, de-1, nl-1, nb-2, nn-1, sv-1.
• Timezone: UTC0.

DonnanZ (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Why not. DTLHS (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

   I personally love Wonderfool, but I think probably there are some people who would oppose strictly on the basis that the person was nominated by him. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 15:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

   I wondered about that too, but had to assume the nomination was made in good faith. As the discussion on my talk page was omitted from the nomination I am adding it here. DonnanZ (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

2. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per comment section. @Stephen G. Brown, your comment sounds like a support vote. Is it? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Sorry, I don't vote. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Oh, yes, of course. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

4. Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote for the editor to keep the admin flag and the vote does not achieve consensus; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle.

   Now to the candidate: I have quite some reservations about the nominee, but as long as he can be desysopped by a mere superminority--and my vote does not lend itself to any stronger position--he can be given a chance to prove himself in a role that will require a new self-restraint on his part. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   Can you really condition support this way? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   You cannot, unless other editors agree. In the absence of other supporters agreeing to this stipulation, we are forced to count this as an oppose vote, and that is what we've consistently done. Usually, admin votes are not close, so it has not mattered, but in this case, Dan's abuse of parliamentary procedure could endanger Donnanz's chances. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   I think to have established before that conditional supports are okay, and were used before by other people without much complaint, but some disagree. As for my alleged endangering Donnanz chances, I think that, to the contrary, I only feel okay supporting Donnanz because of the ease of desysopping should there be such a need; without such ease of desysopping, the issues with Donnanz I am aware of, some of which were articulated by the right honorable gentleman, would lead me to oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   I encourage you to try to convince @DTLHS, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Andrew Sheedy and any other potential supporters to agree to this condition. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   For other readers unfamiliar with this issue, this vote provides more background on Dan's reasoning and various lines of argumentation against it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   I support his condition, provided that should we vote on this issue in the future, it be approved by a 66% supermajority. (Just kidding, I support it unconditionally.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

   This is nonsense. You either support someone, or you don't. There is no such thing as conditional admin votes. --{{victar|talk}} 06:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   The key point is that Wiktionary votes are actually votes-cum-discussions, in light of the fact that pure votes have some undesirable characteristics. Wiktionary votes are attempts to find what there is consensus on. If this vote would need my vote to pass, and at the same time, if there was any concern about this violating "parliamentary procedure", we could create a second vote for Donnanz in which my condition would be part of the proposal voted on. In that vote, those who supported Donnanz for full adminship would be able to explain why they do not support him for an easy-desysoppable adminship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   Again, a conditional adminship is nonsense. --{{victar|talk}} 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, that's your position, completely free from argument or evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   Dan, it's not just my position, it's been consistently the case every time you try and make these conditional votes. --{{victar|talk}} 16:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

   As I have said many times before, Dan cannot piggyback his conditions into unrelated votes. Until there is a vote directly addressing the notion of votes of no confidence for admins, this condition must be ignored. —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 00:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   If Dan's vote and the votes of any others supporting the condition prove to be pivotal (which doesn't seem very likely, but more likely than the vote passing with an unconditional majority), I don't object if the condition applies for some limited term. But should the condition apply indefinitely, I would object. I am not going to support the condition, however. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   I think it is necessary to interpret Dan's phrase "in future" as meaning "in perpetuity". (Please correct me if I am wrong.) As a result, your statement does not change anything with respect to vote-counting. (I'm not really saying this to you, Lingo, so much as to myself or any other admin who has the task of closing this vote.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   Given that other supporters of this vote have not stepped forward and supported Dan's condition, I withdraw my support for it. My support is primarily for this vote, and only for Dan's vote inasmuch as it helps this vote to pass (which does not seem to be the case). I think Dan's votes should either simply be counted as support or oppose depending on what section he puts them under, or be considered an abstention. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

   Counting it thus would be explicitly contrary to his stated and bolded intent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

   Then his vote should just be ignored. He's voting for a (currently) non-existent option, and thus could be considered to have not participated in the actual vote. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

   Currently, it doesn't make a difference whether we count him as an opposer or if we strike his vote as invalid — both lead to no consensus as the outcome. (With his vote struck, it would come to 62.5% support, as in this vote closed as "no consensus".) That said, if more votes come in, it could potentially make a difference, so we need to decide how to handle it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

   My vote should be count as oppose toward unrestrained adminship. It only supports restrained adminship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

5. Support --Vahag (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Support --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

---

1. Support Sorry I'm late. DCDuring (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but too late. If the vote had been made on time, it would be 66.6 % in favour, right on the perceived borderline. DonnanZ (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring any vote-count minimum, Dan's conditional vote is void, so it still would not have been enough to pass. --{{victar|talk}} 20:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any final decision was ever made on that, in any case I wasn't particularly bothered by Dan's stipulations. No one bothered to ask me either. DonnanZ (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're bothered by it or not, we don't allow for conditional adminships, which is also why his vote is void.--{{victar|talk}} 22:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to argue the point. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As for "we don't allow for conditional adminships", that is factually incorrect in that no determination by editors to disallow restrained adminship can be found. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What caused all the fuss here was the unusually narrow margin in favour. If you can't find any proof, @Victar needs to back his statement up with other instances outside this vote (bearing in mind Dan's conditions are often unchallenged). DonnanZ (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Uhhhh, "Dan's conditions are often unchallenged"? Did you miss the whole conversation above? --{{victar|talk}} 02:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You obviously missed "other instances outside this vote". DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (assuming the vote has indeed started). I have not seen evidence that Donnanz needs admin tools: I have not seen him regularly undo vandalism or need to edit protected modules. More importantly, I have seen evidence that when Donnanz has been faced with tasks of the sort admins must handle, he has not performed them well. One important example is his conflict with Koavf over a categorisation scheme for counties, where he resorted to mild personal attacks ("Are you a bit thick?"), vague threats, and even butting into another conversation to say that Koavf should remove the "fake heart" from his signature (see User talk:Koavf for these and more). In this case and in others, he has wilfully ignored consensus, and at innumerable votes in RFD, he has ignored policy as well, instead bringing up personal feelings about the word in question as his rationale. Donnanz has contributed many good entries to the dictionary, and I hope he continues to do so; I merely think that he is unfit for the mop. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

   It's not true to say I don't revert vandalism, I do but not on a regular basis, and have picked up and reverted (mopped up if you like) undetected vandalism months afterwards. I wouldn't use admin tools regularly if I had them, there are times when a page is admin only, and they would be useful to have without having to trouble another admin. But if that is your judgment, so be it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

   I would like to put the record straight on the Koavf affair. I felt badly let down by him after he "fished" for my support in his admin vote, which I gave in good faith. I certainly don't want to follow that example and fish for support here. My character is nowhere near as bad as Metaknowledge paints it. DonnanZ (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   I don't remember that "fishing", nor do I see how it is relevant. As for my part, I have merely described your actions, as a manner of determining how you might act as an admin. Your character is not under examination, as far as I am concerned. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   The "fishing" should be recorded in the Koavf vote archive. I admit my emotions may have got the better of me on occasion. I know another admin "loses his rag" occasionally, and I have been on the receiving end. But having met him I consider him as a friend, and won't condemn him. BTW, thanks for the feedback on my contributions, it is much appreciated. DonnanZ (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

   weak Oppose per Metaknowledge. I don't think there would be misuse of the admin tools, but I've had several unpleasant interactions with Donnanz, and many "wtf" moments. Per utramque cavernam 12:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think most of my adverse comments have related to RFD, where you are a proven deletionist, but don't always make good decisions. Your independent assessment is still welcome however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

   Switched my vote to abstain. Per utramque cavernam 12:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose partly per other votes, mostly per nominee's responses here — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose: --{{victar|talk}} 06:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose: -- Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain Per Stephen and Dan Polansky. Per utramque cavernam 12:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Abstain — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment

• I'm not perturbed by any occasional impoliteness, as Donnanz is in my experience generally helpful to newcomers, or by his reasons for voting in RFD, as he can vote any way he likes imo, even as an admin. But I would like to know from Donnanz whether he intends to act in accordance with policy as an admin. And I'm curious for what kinds of things he would expect to use admin tools. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that I already act in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but I think the only area I have a problem with is SoP policy, which I find very restrictive, and which has affected my voting in RFD, where RFD nominations shouldn't in a lot of cases be rubber-stamped. What would I use admin tools for? Combatting vandalism of course, which I do already on a limited scale, and a few other places where editing is admin-only and I feel competent. Nothing ill-considered hopefully, and I don't want to create any botch-ups. I am still developing skills and acquiring knowledge about the workings of Wiktionary even though I have been a registered user for five years now. DonnanZ (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am particularly interested in administering the etyl cleanup, which Mahagaja used to do. At current rates this could still be going on in ten year's time, particularly English. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• The admin tools are not (and should not be) given out as a party favor to candidates who we like (for whatever reason). The tools are given out for the benefit of the project. That's it. If a candidate for admin is doing good work, creating good pages, good edits, the tools will help him or her to work better and more efficiently, which benefits the project. As a bonus, having the tools helps to keep constructive admins around for a longer time.

New candidates who have never been an admin on any Wikimedia project always have some ideas and expectations about the tools, what they do, and they also have ideas about what will be expected of them (their duties) ... but their ideas and expectations are always inaccurate to some extent, especially in regard to what's expected of them. They don't really know what the tools are, and they don't know what will be expected of them. Often they think that they will have to put in regular hours, like a 9 to 5 job, or may have to do programming work (modules, templates) that may be beyond their capabilities. Or they think they will be required to act as police, judge and jury in regard to anons and other users, and they may feel uncomfortable with that. The reality is that they can just continue doing what they've been doing all along. It's nice if they will accept some mopping-up jobs like patrolling new edits, but that's not a requirement. There are no scheduling requirements, no being saddled with certain unpleasant tasks. Admins just do the things they're good at and enjoy doing, or are willing to accept and take on, and the tools will make it easier for them to do that.

The main complaints that some of us have about some new candidates are usually that they might be hard to get along with and could cause trouble and damage that's hard to clean up. That's simply nonsense. Anything an admin does can be quickly halted if need be, and any damage is easily and quickly set straight. The important thing is whether the candidate is doing good work (whatever work that may be), and that he edits well enough that other admins do not need to clean up after him. I see no reason at all that DonnanZ should not have the admin tools. It will help the project, and I don't think there is a downside. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Votes like this bring to mind that we need to segment more admin powers into roles. In that way, we can pick and choose what powers to grant users and allows us to forgo much of the politics. --{{victar|talk}} 18:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Metaknowledge did hint that he may close this vote, but under the circumstances I feel that would be unacceptable given his strong opposition, and further attempts to derail the vote, all of which may have affected any potential votes in favour. An independent decision by an admin who didn't vote is preferred. At the close it was 63% in favour by my calculation, which may not be enough, if Dan's vote is disallowed the figure would drop to 60%. DonnanZ (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I did oppose (not sure I would say strongly; after all, there are many people who would be disastrous admins, and you are not one of them), although I did not derail. Per your wishes, I will let another admin close this vote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"... and you are not one of them". That wasn't the impression I got (and maybe others) when I read "I merely think that he is unfit for the mop." DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much experience closing votes, but I have to say this Fails. However you calculate it, it's not quite the supermajority that we seem to require: I've seen discussions in the past about whether the minimum should be two-thirds or three-quarters- neither of which are met here- and the lukewarm and/or ambivalent nature of comments by some of those in favor doesn't argue for pushing the boundaries in this instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Could you find a link to this requirement, please? I disagree that votes should be based on the "warmness", passion or comments provided. A vote is a vote, one doesn't require to make a "strong support", just "support", provide comments or rebut opponents. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "warmless" was a factor at all. This ratio would have failed regardless of the subject of the vote. I do think though that admin votes should require a certain vote count and only pass with a super majority, and I believe that has been always been at least the de-facto requirement. --{{victar|talk}} 18:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A de-facto requirement obviously isn't good enough. Has a supermajority ever been specified? Not to my knowledge. DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It has, but I too am unhappy with the fact that there is not a set percentage we can refer to. I think that there should really be a vote on this, and I will probably create one if nobody else gets around to it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That part of my comment was just an aside. As for the margin needed: if you can show me admin votes passing on less than two-thirds, I will change my result. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that the vote in favour was over 50%, no consensus would be more appropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You have a point. No consensus is indeed a better description. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this is no consensus. As for the proposed unrestrained adminship and the support and oppose that can be determined from this vote page, I see 7 supports (my vote not including, DCDuring including) and 5 opposes (my vote including), amounting to 58.3% support. As for restrained adminship that I support, that would have to be done via another vote, given the opposition voiced to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

DCDuring's vote does not count, as it was after the deadline, which would make it 6-5-2. --{{victar|talk}} 02:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Dan never changed his vote, so it ended 7-4-2, without DCDuring. DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever makes you feel better, man. --{{victar|talk}} 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Permission required to use Shahab.bot on English Wiktionary

Voting on:

• My user name is user:شہاب
• The proposed bot user name:Shahab.bot
• I will be using Pywikibot/PageFromFile.
• I have already used this bot successfully on Urdu Wiktionary for creating new pages by Pywikibot/PageFromFile. Now I want to add Urdu words with English translation & English transliteration into English Wiktionary.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Vote created: شہاب (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/year/month#discussion
• [[User talk:#]]
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/bt-2018-11/User:Shahab.bot for bot status

Support

Support Tahir mq (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not eligible to vote according to the voting policy due to not having enough edits. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Support— Bukhari (Talk!) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Now that he has shown to care about transcriptions I expect a good stock to be built. Fay Freak (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Still some issues (what's up with ابابیل?) and I would like to see some more example edits. I will happily switch my vote to support if this is addressed satisfactorily. @AryamanA, Fay Freak, Shahab.bot, شہاب —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Shahab.bot, I am happy to see more example edits, but I also see more problems. One example is ابتدائی حروف, where the transliteration is still not following WT:UR TR correctly. Another example is ابتسام, where you did not add the divider (----) between language sections, and placed an unnecessary period at the end of the definition. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   To be honest, I did not know about divider. Thanks for guidance. Please inform me if you find some mistake. Shahab.bot (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

   @Shahab.bot: The transliteration is still wrong. ابتدائی حروف should be ibtedā'i hurūf, as I understand it, and ابو should be abbū. At ابلیسیانہ, I believe the transliteration should be iblisiyānā. Meanwhile, at ابن الوقتی, there is an unrelated problem where the related term was linked incorrectly (I have fixed it) — I'm not sure if that was a bot edit or a manual edit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

   @BukhariSaeed, AryamanA, I have never studied Urdu, so I would really appreciate if you guys could do some checking of the contribs as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose: Not enough oversight. --{{victar|talk}} 06:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I think this editor is too new to the English Wiktionary and should get more accustomed to the norms of entry format here before making a large amount of bot edits. @Metaknowledge is right in saying that the transliteration scheme they are using is not standard here. But I am definitely not opposed to the editor gaining bot rights in the near future if they do edit enough to become more familiar with our norms. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose per AryamanA. — Eru·tuon 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain I could support this if I knew that the bot would be used for Urdu only, perform once-only tasks, and not diversify into other languages. I am very wary of bots that perform the same task repetitively, which can prove to be a nuisance. DonnanZ (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

   I dont know any language other than Urdu and English, and can not work on other languages. I am on wiki for more than 10 years, and was never blocked for any nuisance. Shahab.bot (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply. I will still abstain as I know nothing about Urdu, despite having met and worked with many Urdu speakers during my working life. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Allow semantic relations under definition lines

Voting on: Allow semantic relations to be placed directly under definition lines, in addition to L4/5 sections (====Synonyms==== etc.).

The aim of this vote is to formalize an already common editing practice and to make Wiktionary easier to use for readers, especially on entries with many senses. See transclusions of synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms and hyponyms for examples.

Replace the section "Synonyms" in WT:EL with:

This is a list of words that have similar meanings as the word being defined. They are often very inexact.

Where several definitions of the headword exist, synonyms can be given in a separate list for each meaning:

1. Summarise the definition for which synonyms are being given with {{sense}}
2. List the synonyms for this definition, in alphabetical order and separated by commas, wikifying each synonym using {{l}}
3. Use one line for each definition, beginning each line with a bullet.

The synonyms section for apogee might look like this:

* {{sense|point in an orbit}} {{l|en|apocenter}}, {{l|en|apoapsis}}, {{l|en|apsis}}
* {{sense|highest point}} {{l|en|acme}}, {{l|en|culmination}}, {{l|en|zenith}}

To avoid identical lengthy lists of synonyms in many entries a single reference can be made in each to a common Thesaurus page:

* {{sense|highest point}} See also [[Thesaurus:apex]]

An alternative to listing synonyms in a separate section is their placement immediately under the corresponding definition lines with {{synonyms}}:

# The point, in an orbit about the Earth, that is furthest from the Earth.
#: {{synonyms|en|apocenter|apoapsis|apsis}}
# The highest point.
#: {{synonyms|en|acme|culmination|zenith}}

The choice between the two formats is subject to editorial discretion.

Implementation:

All semantic relations placed under definitions are collapsed by default, similar to quotations, except for synonyms and antonyms, which are always displayed but might be partially collapsed if the list is very long.

For regular users a preference will be added to collapse all semantic relations by default. For consistency, every semantic relation which can be meaningfully grouped under a definition will have a correspondingly named template: {{synonyms}}, {{antonyms}}, {{hypernyms}}, {{hyponyms}}, {{meronyms}}, {{holonyms}}, {{troponyms}}, {{coordinate terms}}.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Jberkel 01:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Your placement of various "nyms"
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/February#Placement of synonyms
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/May#Poll: putting "nyms" directly under definition lines
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/January#Nym-type in bold
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/November#Layouts of zenith, nadir
• Wiktionary talk:Entry layout#Two ways of entering synonyms, but only one is mentioned at WT:LAYOUT

Support

1. Support – Jberkel 17:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support. Excellent, commonsense rule. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Support, and would support the "stronger" policy of this being the exclusive format. - TheDaveRoss 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Support, and would support this being the exclusive format. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Per utramque cavernam 18:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Support Fay Freak (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
9. Support —Rua (mew) 21:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
10. Support —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
11. Support--Cinemantique (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Support -Stelio (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Support — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
15. Support and may support the stronger policy after significant discussion. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
16. Support, I didn't like this at first, but now I find that synonyms help with the definition. --Vahag (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
17. Support --Droigheann (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
18. Support I like these too. They save space and keep the stuff attached to the relevant sense, instead of potentially drifting out of sync by being in a different location. Equinox ◑ 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Placing semantic relations in between definitions makes the entries so much harder to use as for perusing of definitions, as seen e.g. in cat#English and also in blanquette#French. It is especially so for longer and more complex entries. This could be addressed by making the semantic relation content collapsible, but then why has this not been done yet? We don't have a chance to experience this solution of collapsible semantic relations in between definitions. Furthermore, making semantic relations collapsible is a further step toward having lexicographical information hidden by default, which is far from perfect. For translations, having them collapsible is justified for there being potentially so many items in the translation lists. Moreover, the collapsible boxes are not collapsed per default on mobile devices. I do admit that it solves the problem of assigning a synonym list to the sense to which it belongs, but we do have a solution of using {{sense}}, and it is quite okay. Let me also emphasize that this concerns not only synonyms and antonyms but also hyponyms, hypernyms, meronyms and holonyms, leading to as many as 6 lists per definition, making the definitions even more harder to skim than would be the case otherwise in the uncollapsed state. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That’s quite pessimistic. At the point where we have 6 lists you can compile a Thesaurus entry. I trust editors to have senses of proportion – it’s lamentable if this freedom is not esteemed, but the chances being stifled is even more. I voted in favour because I am an anarchist and have high regard for free competition and chances for each format to improve technical details to greater satisfaction of the market. Fay Freak (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no free competition, and will not be. The switchers started switching entries to the new format some time ago, in edits that made no substantive contribution. They will continue the switching. I will have no say in keeping entries I have created in the old format; they have switched some of them and will switch more. This is kind of okay in that they are switching to what is an overwhelming majority preference. But it is not a free competition. There is no analogue of market going on as for the choice of the format. There would be a market if there were no switching: the content creators would choose the format. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain for now: in principle I am not opposed to the proposal, but have a few concerns:
   • I have no problems with synonyms and antonyms being placed under definition lines, but if we add other semantic relations such as {{hypernyms}}, {{hyponyms}}, and so on, it seems to me that the block of text will look very unwieldy.
   • Should a thesaurus link also be placed under a definition line as shown below?
     • {{synonyms|en|ABC|XYZ}}, ''see also'' [[Thesaurus:ABC]]
     • ''See'' [[Thesaurus:ABC]]
   • I'm doubtful that placing semantic relations under definition lines should be made the sole option. For example, what if a particular word is a synonym of all the senses of the entry? Would it not be easier to put the synonym under its own section rather than insert a synonym line after each definition?

— SGconlaw (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As it says in the vote, all but syn/ant will be collapsed by default, so it won't look unwieldy. The Thesaurus links should probably stay in Synonyms sections. As it says in the vote, it will not be the sole option. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So if there are, say, synonyms and a thesaurus link, do we put the synonyms under the definition and have a separate "Synonyms" section containing the thesaurus link, or do both the synonyms and thesaurus link remain in the "Synonyms" section? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have the synonyms section linking to the thesaurus and to have senses with {{synonyms}}, etc. Maybe not for the same definitions though.

Regarding your last point, the problem with putting supposedly all-encompassing synonyms in a synonym section is that I have rarely found that the synonym applied to all the senses. Usually, it applied to all the definitions early in the entry's history, and as soon as a less common figurative or technical sense was added, it no longer worked, and made me unsure which definitions it did apply to. This is especially annoying for FL entries, where I don't know the language as well and therefore can't tell if the synonym actually applies to all definitions or not. It's much clearer if the -nyms are kept separate for each sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Note that I thought it is intentionally avoided to specify possible formattings for Thesaurus links. When it is said “a single reference can be made in each to a common Thesaurus page” this precisely only says that synonyms in a Thesaurus section can be referred to (which is only declarative, because this vote would not be meant to touch the existence of Thesaurus entries and thus of linking them), not about the way this is done. I haven’t had peculiar ideas about formatting Thesaurus links to be honest, therefore I had not suggested any amendments for them before the vote started, and as it stands their placement is also subject to editorial discretion and to later developments (people have to try a bit how to link the Thesaurus and it is not excluded that a special template or more get created for linking Thesaurus entries under definition lines – all intentionally not regulated because the Wiktionary Thesaurus in total is underdeveloped and underused and Wiktionary is simply yet merely occasionally at the point of being a Thesaurus). Fay Freak (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Am I correct that Thesaurus pages are sense-based, like {{syn}} is? —Rua (mew) 21:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What else could they be? As you see can see by already existing countless examples they are. We don’t duplicate content if a sense exists in various words, if that’s what you mean. Thesaurus:gay which redirects to Thesaurus:homosexual refers to Thesaurus:happy in a See-also section. Wiki-structure might be a bit problematic for Thesauri. Fay Freak (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2018 (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:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-09/All plants and animals to meet CFI
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms

^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-08/Minor policy page changes

^ Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to entries