Wiktionary:Votes

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

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
Ends Title Status/Votes
Jun 17 User:Whymbot for bot status passed
Jun 27 New logo 2 passed
Jun 30 User:OrphicBot for bot status decision?
Jul 6 Spaces in links Symbol support vote.svg11 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
Jul 19 label → lb Symbol support vote.svg9 Symbol oppose vote.svg1 Symbol abstain vote.svg2
Jul 22 User:Smuconlaw for admin Symbol support vote.svg6 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
Jul 28 CFI: List of terms Symbol support vote.svg3 Symbol oppose vote.svg0 Symbol abstain vote.svg0
Aug 4 Tohru for deadmin starts: Jul 6

User:Whymbot for bot status

  • Nomination: I (User:Whym) would like to run an interwiki bot under the account Whymbot (talkcontribsrights), and would like to ask for approval. It is a bot based on interwiki.py. My plan is that, instead of working on all pages, it will focus onto pages that have no interwiki links yet. I believe such pages warrant more attention, and that a bot dedicated to them will nicely complement the other interwiki bots. Edits to be performed look like these: [1][2][3]. Notice the lack of interwiki links in the previous versions of the pages. The bot's latest source code is available for your review. Whym (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: 10:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted user and experienced bot operator. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, because somehow our existing interwiki bots seem to be unable to keep up with the work. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but why is there suddenly an influx of interwiki bots? --WikiTiki89 18:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    I dunno, but it's something I can't complain about. We really need them, considering how fast new pages can be created across all of the Wiktionary variants. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Strong support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision

6-0-0 Passes --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. —Stephen (Talk) 02:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

New logo 2

  • Derivative of the tiles
    For reference, the current logo
    Voting on: Using the logo to the right as the logo of the English Wiktionary, a derivative of the tile logo.
  • Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-05/New logo 2#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Tulros (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I have some reservations, among them that I find the image somewhat less like a logo without the actual tiles, and that this would introduce yet another logo among the Wiktionaries. That said, this is decidedly superior to the incumbent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Better than the current one, IMO. Equinox 21:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support The caption font feels weak but otherwise this isn't bad. —suzukaze (tc) 21:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Certainly better than the existing one, though it's not my first pick. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support, reluctantly. I don't like the idea of adding another logo to the already complicated situation among the different Wiktionaries, but this is better than the current logo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like this one. Although I have nothing against our current logo and would be sad to see it go... --WikiTiki89 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd remove the shading on the "W" to make it the same solid red as the WMF, Wikidata, and Commons logo. But even if that isn't done, at least it's an actual logo, as opposed to the block of text we're currently using. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's pretty. And much better than the current one -- the fact that it gives only an RP pronunciation (and an outdated one at that) grates on me, and IMO makes the project look less professional, as it suggests (wrongly) that it's non-inclusive of American English. Benwing2 (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  14. I'm not that happy about it (see my comments below, sub "Oppose"), but I Symbol support vote.svg support it.​—msh210 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support Decent enough, and an improvement on what we have. —Vorziblix (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support - albeit reluctantly. There should've been time for more people to submit candidates before a vote was started in the first place. Surely there are people editing Wikimedia projects that have some graphic design skills besides Dan Polansky? — Kleio (t · c) 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support — Looks pretty. Stands out. Seems like it should be recognizable at various sizes. I like it. — hippietrail (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Simply not my taste, though nothing's objectively wrong with it. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The design is poorly thought out. With the tiles removed, the logo now has too much (and uneven) whitespace between the characters, e.g. the Chinese character is twice as close to the Hebrew character as the lambda is to the W. The characters also have no discernible significance, and without the tile backgrounds, it's also no longer discernible why the letters are tilted; it looks like they are being blown over. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please have an actual logo creation contest before giving only one single alternative to the current bad logo that most people will vote against. With the way things are, we're going to end up with a logo that is only just "less bad" than the current logo, when what we need is an actual "good logo". — Dakdada 11:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Darkdadaah: You really think it's a problem for us to have a better logo? Bear in mind that I already tried a vote with the established logos, to no avail, and the choice you wanted will almost certainly never be selected, because it outright failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's a problem for us to have a bad logo, and it's a problem that rather than going to the drawing board and designing multiple new logos that might actually be good, this vote proposes a binary choice between a rushed jumble of letters and the current logo as if they were the only options. The comments of several of the supporters suggest that they would like a better logo than this — so instead of locking in this jumble, how about let's design just such a better logo? - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree. An oppose vote here does not necessarily endorse the current logo. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    No, but an affirming vote here does not necessarily endorse the new logo, it might for some users simply be a way to decry the old one. This shoehorned vote would likely shut up the debate for a while, even if most people are not actually satisfied. I fully agree with Dakdada and -sche. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    I completely disagree with that as well. If you vote support here, you are endorsing the logo proposed in this vote. --WikiTiki 89 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    Do a reality check, we have multiple people on record already who say that they only vote for this logo because it's not the current one, even though they don't like this one too much either. If this vote passes, it will be because this logo offered here is now the only alternative offered to the much despised current one. This vote is a die loaded by bureaucratic lag which prevented it from being entered in the last vote. Which, no irony, I'm sure was not intended. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    Any decision between 3 or more things can be logically broken down into a yes/no decision for each pair. You are welcome to create a new better logo and set up a vote for that one. This vote nevertheless is valid. Equinox 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's their own problem. When you vote for something, it doesn't matter why you're voting for it. No one expressed any conditions that their vote is invalidated by a better option in the future. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    So? Nothing is stopping them from coming up with another logo and starting another vote after this one passes (if it does, natch). (I don't know if WMF will be happy about it, though.) More importantly, note that this logo was designed specifically in response to objections to the candidates from our preceding vote: that is, it was designed specifically to meet the community's consensual idea of what the logo should look like. That's a good thing: discussion leading to a proposal-cum-vote. Much better than the preceding vote, which afaict was just "throw a few old ideas on the vote page".   That said, it would probably be better to do as I suggested in the preceding vote, namely list all known proposals for a logo and have a Borda vote.​—msh210 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    There was a logo creation contest back in 2009. The tiles logo won, which is why most of the other languages are using it. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Um ... you mean this vote? Seems to me the book logo won. Some might even argue that it won again recently, being the only one out of three which has got more supporting than opposing votes. Which is probably why we now vote on the other two, one of them modified, with the book logo just lurking in the background in case the tile logo once again failed to make it against the current one. Y'know, I like how, being a dictionary, we're as mathematically logical as a living language. --Droigheann (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Darkdadaah: In Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo, you supported the tile logo with a comment starting with "The less bad of the three proposals". But here, you are telling us that 'we're going to end up with a logo that is only just "less bad" than the current logo, when what we need is an actual "good logo"'. That is a bit puzzling. In any case, you seem to accept the tile logo and dislike this modification of it; and that's fine.
    As for logo contest, a logo creation contest was at meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting (see also meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally, meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals, and meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/candidates) in 2009-2010. The two logos that gained most votes there were the book logo, and the tile logo. In Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo, none of the two leaders gained consensus. The tiles logo won a 2006 contest that culminated in meta:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. The present proposal is a modification of one of the two leaders to address a common complaint: that it reminds of Scrabble too much. Yet another contest on Meta would lead to considerable bureaucratic overhead and delay that, to me, seems uncalled for. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    It depends what we want in the end. We can settle for what may be considered a sub-par logo right now, to get rid of the current "text" logo, but that would then well may be a temporary solution. I am trying to push for the use a single logo for all projects, hence my vote for the tiles logo (even though we can do better). If we go in the direction of a new logo (even a variation), we might as well try to create a brand new one that more people would like. We can take our time to do this too. There is probably no way to avoid any kind a bureaucracy if we go this way, but we can at least avoid previous mistakes (e.g. only allow actual Wiktionary contributors to vote). — Dakdada 08:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DTLHS (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with the sentiment about generating many alternatives and then having a limited number of votes, rather than having a runoff whenever another alternative is proposed. - TheDaveRoss 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    And who exactly is going to generate alternatives? Nobody else has made any more, and we were unable to get a supermajority in favour of the only logos that have historical support. This sounds like a fantasy to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    Presumably the same sorts of people who generated dozens of logos years ago when the tiles and book logos were first proposed. I am not a big fan of any of the proposed logos, none of them actually seem like logos to me. To be certain the current logo isn't much of a logo either, but I am sure there are some decent graphic designers around Wikimedia who might come up with something new. - TheDaveRoss 20:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    We can use the proposals from the m: votes.​—msh210 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It looks awful, lacking visual balance. This, that and the other (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I still think we'd be better off with the standardized Wiktionary logo used most Wiktionaries. NMaia (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Vahag (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Mountebank1 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Who cares? Purplebackpack89 21:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain per Purplebackpack89. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Decision

17-7-6 (70.8%-29-2%) Passes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

phab:T138801 --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Huzzah! 😄 --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


User:OrphicBot for bot status

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:OrphicBot for the following purposes: Most Latin and Greek entries do not have relevant external links, which in the past often had to be located by hand. I have rewritten a few modules (R:L&S, R:LSJ, R:Woodhouse, R:M&A, and R:Strong's) to locate important classical resources reasonably accurately, and would like to add templates consistently, while, as brought up in the discussion, removing deprecated links to dictionaries' Wikipedia pages. I would also be willing to try my hand at updating Greek pronunciations and declensions templates in stages, as others suggested when I brought up the topic of a Greek robot, if there continues to be interest after this small project is finished.

Sample edits: Δαναΐς, οἶνοψ, ἀλεκτρυών, ἀρσενοκοίτης, καταφρονέω, χρηστότης. The first shows how this version of the robot addresses an error created in the samples produced by the previous version, as was pointed out to me. The last five were chosen by a random number generator.

New sample edits:

diff:Δαναΐς diff:οἶνοψ diff:ἀλεκτρυών diff:ἀρσενοκοίτης diff:καταφρονέω diff:χρηστότης diff:arma

Notes: References are partially sorted by preference and DGE is only linked in the a-ek range. Otherwise, the references are not changed; for example, a bullet point is not added to the existing R:LSJ template in χρηστότης, and </references> is not moved, in the interest of conserving as much of the original file as possible. καταφρονέω now includes a prototype pronunciation template update from grc-ipa-rows to grc-IPA, as discussed. Only 1/8th of the set changes this template due to ambiguous vowels. The pronunciations are a work in progress. Arma is obviously a Latin sample, mutatis mutandis. The edit summaries are unfortunately all wrong. Isomorphyc (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Isomorphyc (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: 06:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC) - extended - at least 14 days for bot votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. The edits look look good. The bot owner is responsive to feedback and willing to clean up his mistakes. --WikiTiki89 14:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 04:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose placing LSJ last when it should be the first dictionary listed, certainly not after Diccionario Griego–Español, and probably not after Strong and Woodhouse. I see no better suited dictionary than LSJ so LSJ should lead the list. I saw this problem at diff. Maybe oppose is too strong for this objection? I welcome the initiative of adding these links by a bot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    That's close to my preference too. Does anyone object to sorting the list? I added the new links to the top to keep the pre-robot entries together. I personally tend to use LSJ and Middle Liddell a lot, and everything else not so much. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I object to sorting the list alphabetically; or did you mean something else? LSJ should be the first item. And I wonder whether we want Diccionario Griego–Español on every page at all; it would make sense on pages where we can't get LSJ, but where we have LSJ, adding a Spanish dictionary is unobvious since we could also add a German one, etc. Is Diccionario Griego–Español exceptionally good? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    I meant sorting by likely utility. I would probably suggest: LSJ, DGE, Strong's, Woodhouse. DGE is worth having because the fascicles up to εξ- are essentially modern revisions of LSJ. It was an error on my part (involving alphabetical order and unicode) to include DGE for entries past εξ-. I will post some revisions of the links soon. Is there anything else you would like to see linked? Isomorphyc (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation about DGE. I take back my opposition as long as LSJ comes out the first. I know of no other dictionaries to link for Ancient Greek; we used to link LSJ a bit and it seems real good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Let me emphasize that you need to check the existence of the target pages of the added links before you add them. This can be probably done via a script. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    All of the modules do this already; I have these lists because I wrote the modules. Isomorphyc (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't understand. How does the module make sure you do not add link if the target does not exist? Can you point me to one of the modules that does this, and to the specific part of the code that does this? Do you mean Lua modules or do you mean something else? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    For LSJ, Perseus-style alpha-coded links will be valid unless there are two words with the same name. In this case, the link is redirected to a collision resolution page. The list of collisions is here: Module:R:LSJ/collision-data. The list of headwords in Perseus/LSJ is available in the Perseus XML file, so it is easy only to link words with valid headwords. This is not an entirely complete list, because the Perseus data are not formatted entirely consistently; but it is close at least to 99% complete. Similarly for R:Woodhouse, there is a full reverse index in the five sub-modules, mainly Module:R:Woodhouse/reverse_index, which are loaded with mw.loadData() in the main body of the module. You will find the same in Strong's and M&A if you review the modules. Also, if you look at the Python source code in updateReferencesGreek.py at User:OrphicBot you will see these lines which load the index data, which are checked against for list inclusion:
    strongs = set([unicodedata.normalize('NFC',x) for x in re.split('[\[\]a-zA-Z0-9{}=\",\s]', readFile(basepath + "strongsNumbers.txt")) if len(x) > 0])
    woodhouse = set([unicodedata.normalize('NFC',x) for x in re.split('[\[\]a-zA-Z0-9{}=\",\s]', readFile(basepath+"woodhouseReverseIndex1.txt")) if len(x) > 0])
    Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure I understand all of this. I will assume then that each link that you will add will point to a target page with data relevant to the entry from which the link goes rather than "not found", and that if in a small number of cases "not found" will be there, humans will manually remove the links from Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well, normally I try to check a hundred random cases for obvious errors, though I don't always know what constitutes an error until something gets posted. It's a slightly iterative process, but ideally no more than a couple of dozen pages will have to be revisited later for errors-- hopefully not by a human. In any case, list inclusion is something which gets tested for on two levels. If a word is known not to be in a list, the robot won't post the reference. If the reference is used anyway without arguments, the module will normally check against its internal list and display a bibliographic reference with no links. If a human supplies a link anyway, then this supersedes the module's checking, and the link is posted. But the robot will only post argument-free references, which leaves link validity checking to the modules. Thanks for taking an interest in these slightly tedious details. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In χρηστότης, the DGE link leads to http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/χρηστοτης which shows no data. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    As mentioned above, anything past εξ- in DGE is an error which will be fixed with the revisions also showing the revised preference-ordering. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky Please see above for updated changes. Isomorphyc (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    I checked χρηστότης again and the DGE problem remains. I don't know where I should look to see updated changes.
    I checked you recent edits and they use wrong edit summaries: like in diff, the edit summary is "grc-ipa-rows -> grc-IPA test (unambiguous vowels)" but the only change the edit does is change in template order. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    I am restoring my opposition. This vote will probably pass anyway, but I think a bot operation needs to be much more careful than what I see here. I am sorry for that; I welcome the bot initiative in principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think I explained this very well. The current revisions demonstrate three things: 1) the robot does not add R:DGE past ek-; this is visible in οἶνοψ. As you can see in the history, I had to remove R:DGE by hand to show this. 2) The robot does not remove R:DGE past ek- if it is already present. This is visible in χρηστότης which you noticed, and also καταφρονέω. As there are only three such examples, it is obvious these should be revised by hand, not by a robot. If a human added R:DGE past ek-, I am not desirous to remove it with a robot. The two examples in which it is not removed demonstrate this behaviour. 3) The pronunciation template is now changed from grc-ipa-rows to grc-IPA where only unambiguous vowels are present. This is indeed mentioned in the edit summaries. The pronunciation template is the only change of any complexity being tested. It is also the only change which requires posting to Wiktionary to see the results, due to server-side module execution. It indeed runs on every example, including Latin ones, and a null-change is evidence for correct behaviour in the presence of ambiguous vowels or in a Latin article. The edit summaries are badly worded, and I mentioned this myself in my commentary. Still, they are relevant for Greek editors interested in the accuracy of the pronunciation code. Unlike the references shuffling, where small differences from peoples' preferences are easy to notice and fix, the pronunciations are not linguistically so trivial and are important to get right. —This unsigned comment was added by Isomorphyc (talkcontribs).

Abstain

Decision


Spaces in links

Voting on: Adding a rule to WT:NORM:

  • No spaces between a linked term and the opening or closing brackets, or between a linked term and the pipe. ([[example|examples]], not [[ example | examples ]])

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, obvious measure. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 15:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportVorziblix (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support, since the spaces aren't visible when not in edit mode, and they can cause confusion to new editors who might think those spaces will be visible (and part of the link), they shouldn't be allowed TheWombatGuru (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not an eligible voter. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I thought this was already covered by WT:NORM. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support - but I would support allowing (or even encouraging) a space between the namespace and the entry, like [[Category: asd]]. --Dixtosa (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support: It's kind of trivial, low value-added change since I have not seen this "norm" violated, but I support it anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 02:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don't see why anyone would even want to put them, so I assume when someone does, it'll have its reasons. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Decision


label → lb

Voting on:

  • Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to replace {{label}} by {{lb}}.

Rationale:

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but this shouldn't have been a vote. Part of the reason that people were annoyed by your votes, Daniel, was not just the frequency of them, but also how unnecessary some of them were to have as votes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I dislike the introduction of {{context}}, {{label}} and {{lb}}, but now we have it, and the markup should be as short as possible so that the label itself is visually more distinct and so that the markup takes as little space before the definitions as possible. Thus, in {{lb|en|medicine}}, the word "medicine" is more conspicuous, which I like. Therefore, this is not only about typing in wikitext but also about wikitext reading. Furthermore, this matches some recent trends such as going from {{term}} to {{m}} and going from {{usex}} to {{ux}}, both achieved via passing votes. The short {{lb}}/{{cx}} was preferred by a majority at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Templates context and label, but let us get surprised in this vote.

    On the need of a vote: You absolutely need a vote if you want to do this switching via a bot, trivial as it might be. It is very uncertain whether this will pass. Thank you, Daniel, for the vote. Since you created this vote without also creating 9 other votes at the same time, this does not look like an overflood of votes to me. In Wiktionary:Votes/Active, I see two votes created by you. Fine with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you. Since the proposal is about editing all entries, I agree that a vote is simply required. We need to demonstrate consensus as suggested by WT:BOT.
    Concerning what @Metaknowledge said above, sometimes it seems normal for some people to say about a vote: "we can do this without a vote", while others say: "we need a vote to do this". If there's any doubt or disagreement about whether a certain proposal that affects all entries needs to be voted or not, maybe the "default" course of action should be creating the vote and let the result speak for itself.
    That said, I am trying to exercise restraint in creating votes and not overflood Wiktionary:Votes/Active with votes created by me.
    I did not understand the part: "but let us get surprised in this vote". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dan Polansky —suzukaze (tc) 09:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dan P Benwing2 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mulder1982 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Waste of time, and probably also far easier more new users to figure out what the purpose of {{label}} is than {{lb}}. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: It's use or waste of the bot operator's time, which they should feel to dispose of as they see fit; we should not act as managers of other people's resources. There is some use of editor attention in this vote, but not too much. The argument with ease of figuring out did not find favor in Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m and in Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux; we have migrated away from term to m. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough, though I still think there are better things bot users could be doing. I don't feel strongly about it, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Feels like useless busywork to be honest. Unless we are actually deprecating/obsoleting the label form, then why remove it? There are more important things to do. Equinox 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    I guess use of {{label}} directly in wikitext will be deprecated, like {{usex}} now is; usex lost in Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux. Or in any case, anyone will be free to run a bot to switch any newly appearing occurrences of {{label}} to {{lb}}.
    Very important it is not, sure. OTOH, it does make the markup nicer via a transparent process, and most of the cost of doing so is borne by the bot operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain A matter of no importance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Decision


User:Smuconlaw for admin

  • Nomination: I hereby nominate Smuconlaw (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Involved in WOTD, friendly and decent. Turnedlessef (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Acceptance:
    • Languages: en.
    • Timezone: UTC+8
    SMUconlaw (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Turnedlessef (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sockpuppet of permablocked user. --WikiTiki89 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Since when do we allow non-admins to nominate people for adminship, let alone non-whitelisted users? I think this vote should be redone with a proper nomination. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    We don't have any rules against it. I've been nominating people for adminship for years now (under various usernames, of course), and by and large they've been successful - in fact, I've probably nommed more successful sysops than any other user. But it's a good point that you make. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well we certainly have a rule against permablocked users starting votes. --WikiTiki89 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision


CFI: List of terms

Voting on: Editing WT:CFI#Terms to add more types of allowable terms. (diff)

Current text:

Terms

A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

Proposed text:

Terms

A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

Disclaimer:

  • The proposed list is probably still incomplete. This vote is meant as an improvement to the current text, not as the "final" version of it.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Tohru for deadmin

  • Voting on: Removing Tohru as an admin. No edits since 2012.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Recently ended votes

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

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: