Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 to the "active" list 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.

Before clicking the "Start a new vote!" button below, change "Title of vote" in the field just above the button to a short descriptive title.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2020-05/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-05/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-05/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2020-05/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2020-05/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2020-05/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

New reconstruction headers

  • Proposal: Allow for the following L4 headers on reconstructed entries below definitions:
    • Item #1: ==== Alternative reconstructions ====
    • Item #2: ==== Reconstruction notes ====
  • Rationale Currently, this formatting has become inconsistent and there is a lack of consensus.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: {{victar|talk}} 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Item #1

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, though I don't have much of a stake in this, so if this vote doesn't attract more interest from those who work on reconstructions, it should be stricken. Andrew Sheedy (talk)
    I also support what This, that and the other mentions below. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. PUC – 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Jonashtand (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support For the record, I endorse what was said in the recent BP discussion about "Alternative forms" being used for alternative forms which appear to have existed in parallel in the proto-language, while "Alternative reconstructions" is used for alternative reconstructions of the same form. In general, I would imagine that "Alternative forms" would become quite rare in the Reconstruction namespace. This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per This, that and the other, namely that "Alternative reconstructions" should be used in addition to "Alternative forms", not instead of it. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support NativeNames (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: The proposal for this made on Include "Reconstruction notes" and "Alternative reconstructions" in WT:EL? is too vague. The line between ===Alternative reconstructions==== and ==Alternative forms=== poorly delineated and fodder for edit wars. --{{victar|talk}} 19:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

Item #2

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, but see my vote above. Andrew Sheedy (talk)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. PUC – 19:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support: Easy support and only makes sense we have reconstruction notes next to Usage notes. --{{victar|talk}} 19:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Jonashtand (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg SupportEru·tuon 05:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMahāgaja · talk 13:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support NativeNames (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support embryomystic (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision

Both items pass. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


Attestation of comparatives and superlatives

Voting on: Codifying whether comparatives and superlatives need to meet CFI's attestation criteria.

Option 1:

Adjectival and adverbial comparatives and superlatives can only be included if they are attested in the sense of CFI; it does not suffice that the base form is attested. Each comparative has to be attested, and each superlative has to be attested independently of the comparative. If a comparative or a superlative has multiple subforms (which happens in some highly inflected languages), the attesting quotations for the subforms can be pooled for attesting purposes.

Option 2:

For English and some other languages, adjectival and adverbial comparatives and superlatives can only be included if they are attested in the sense of CFI; it does not suffice that the base form is attested. For these languages, each comparative has to be attested, and each superlative has to be attested independently of the comparative; if a comparative or a superlative has multiple subforms (which happens in some highly inflected languages), the attesting quotations for the subforms can be pooled for attesting purposes. The list of languages to which this applies has not been determined.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support option 1

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support per rationale on the talk page. I may reconsider if someone provides convincing examples of words (in some language) for which the proposal would cause problems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support I too had many of the concerns listed on the talk page, but those were all quelled by the responses to those concerns. A careful balancing analysis shows (to me, at least) that the pro-attestation position wins out marginally. Because this vote merely makes clear that comparatives and superlatives must be attested (i.e. that there is no difference between "requires attestation" and "can be challenged through RFV"), it is the sort of "closing minor policy gaps" that was advertised. Also as a result, I don't foresee too much new "busywork and tedium" that wouldn't already have been part of RFV. What this vote does do, however, is foreclose useless arguments "with continental editors that attestation is" not required. Imetsia (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support when option 2 fails. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 03:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support although I agree with Lambiam that this should apply to all inflections. --Droigheann (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 1

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This would make it difficult to handle words that are not well-attested and creates a lot of busywork and tedium that doesn't meaningfully advance Wiktionary. If comparative forms aren't attested for a otherwise well-attested adjective/adverb, it can be handled on a word-by-word basis; for example, a (no comparative or superlative forms) label can be added beside the headword, or existence/rarity of the comparative/superlative forms can be discussed through RFV. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Hazarasp: Can you give us some example words where this causes a problem? And if a base adjective is attested but a comparative is not attested, how do you know that the comparative exists? As for "existence/rarity of the comparative/superlative forms can be discussed through RFV", that is what this proposal is about: it is about placing the same attestation rigor on comparatives and superlatives as is placed on base forms, and the attestation rigor is conventionally handled via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The wording “include” is unclear, and there is no real problem solved with making the rules even longer. Fay Freak (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    The real problem is the above user suggesting on the talk page that some unattested comparatives can be included; or maybe I misunderstood what the above user was saying. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    As for the clarity of "include" wording, the wording is approximately parallel to current WT:CFI wording:
    • "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”, subject to the following criteria"
    • "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic"
    • "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion"
    • Etc.
    --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    Mahāgaja, can you clarify whether you think comparatives can be included only if attested?
    The problem is that we have no clarity on whether comparatives are subject to the same attestation standards as base forms; there are people claiming that inflected forms can be included even if not attested, and comparatives are like inflected forms in some ways but not in other ways. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    If the adjective is comparable, and if the language's method of creating comparatives and superlatives is beyond doubt, then comparatives and superlatives should be allowed even if not attested. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t see the need for burdening the CFI with this complication. If there is a real problem (which I doubt), it is a problem for all inflected forms, so then his compication addresses only a small part of the issue.  --Lambiam 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No examples of any real problems are presented, so it looks like a solution to a problem that does not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A solution in search of a problem, as others have said. Will only complicate the already time-consuming citation process without improving the overall quality or reliability of entries. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain from option 1

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Support option 2

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support per rationale on the talk page. I prefer option 1, but if people want to play it safe, option 2 is also worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support per my rationale above. Imetsia (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 2

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See my rationale above. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The wording “include” is unclear, and there is no real problem solved with making the rules even longer. Fay Freak (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See my rationale above.  --Lambiam 16:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is getting too vague, with languages unclear. RFV can deal with inappropriate addition of forms that are not used for major languages. For hard-to-attest languages we can just let for form pass, unless it is getting ridiculous, and then RFV can handle it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Some other languages" is too vague. --Droigheann (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain from option 2

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Decision

Both of these fail, with more opposing votes than support votes. — surjection??〉 16:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
To test the hypothesis that comparatives can fail RFV, I created Czech morphologically plausible yet unattested comparative lumbálnější and sent it to RFV. The result of the RFV will be archived to Talk:lumbálnější. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Style changes to the criteria for inclusion

Proposal: Make the following changes to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion

  1. Un-bold all text in the body.
  2. Un-italizice all text italicized for emphasis, i.e. leave titles or word mentions italic.
  3. Replace all manually created "See also" links with instances of {{see also}} at the top of their relevant sections.
  4. Replace all manually created mention links, both italicized and plain, with uses of {{m}},
  5. Replace serial commas and serial semicolons respectively with instances of {{,}} and {{serial semicolon}}, using the shortcut {{;}} for semicolons.

Rationale:

  1. Bold text is not used to specifically communicate meaning, is used when plain text would suffice, and is used in a way looks like a heading, but is not.
  2. Italic text makes the style of the page seem more conversational rather than explanatory or matter-of-fact. The latter is more standard for technical and documentation writing.
  3. Standardization of formatting to match content pages and to allow for conformation to user preferences. (See here for an example of how users change display.)
  4. Standardization of formatting to match content pages and to allow for conformation to user preferences. (See here for an example of how users change display.)
  5. Standardization of formatting to match content pages and to allow for conformation to user preferences. (See here for an example of how users change display.)

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support change 1

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support The headers should be enough to draw the reader's attention. Elsewhere, bolding provides no adequate change of meaning and may confuse the reader regarding the importance of certain sections. In WT:SOP, the top sentence has the only bolded words in this section thus shifting emphasis to the top while the sentences below are the most important as they are the ones that describe the policy. If any of the words or sentences below were bolded, however, the reader may be led to believe that these are the only sections necessary to read (bolding is particularly problematic in WT:BRAND, "Given and family names," "Genealogical content," and "Company names" with each having a bolded introductory sentence). Generally speaking, while bolded words can shift attention to the desired area, they also deemphasise the other important areas. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    A minor quibble: in WT:SOP, the first sentence is actually most important: it defines the term "idiomatic", which is then used in the main policy "[...] including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Having read the post by Ilawa-Kataka above, I now realize it is probably a good proposal. There will be a minor loss of emphasis, but the overall gain in removal of arbitrariness of bolding seem worth it. A policy is a policy, whether bold or non-bold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose change 1

Oppose unbolding all words; e.g. bolding in the following seems useful: "[...] attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic [...]". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I am honestly unsure how the bolding in the example you provided is useful and/or conveys meaning. I would appreciate more detail on how that is the case, thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The boldface does not convey meaning, but it highlights two most important principles/keywords of the whole policy. Removing the boldface would not be a major loss, but it does not seem to be an improvement either. But I am not sure; let's see what other think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan—the bolding generally seems useful to me to draw the reader's eyes to important points and terms (in fact it could probably use a bit more for consistency). —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan and Nizolan. I do support unbolding entire sentences, but key words should be kept in bold. Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: Assuming this change does not receive consensus support, would those of you who currently oppose it support a similar change reworded to only included blocks of text in the set of things to unbold? That is to say, a proposal to only unbold words were two or more words are bolded in a row? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    I'd still like "sum-of-parts" to be bolded (depends on whether you count that as one or three words), but other than that I'd support that proposal. Imetsia (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Nizolan, including for blocks of words. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain change 1

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg AbstainSuzukaze-c 00:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Support change 2

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support; the examples provided in the oppose section are convincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportNizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support John Cross (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose change 2

oppose un-italicizing all text italicized for emphasis: while I cannot quickly find any example of this in CFI, italics is used for emphasis in general, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Examples of italics in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion include: "Terms in reconstructed languages such as Proto-Indo-European do not meet the criteria for inclusion", "They are about the name as a word", and "We do not quote other Wikimedia sites". —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I find your examples convincing and am switching to support: the italics does not seem ideal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Italics emphasize some important words or add stress to certain clauses of a sentence. The examples provided exemplify this. Though I'd support a closer examination of items that should and shouldn't be italicized, I oppose a blanket ban on italics on CFI. Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Imetsia: I recognize that this is just a semantic distinction, but I think it is worth noting that the proposal is not to ban italics from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, but instead to remove all emphasizing italics from words. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I understand that. I worded it as a "ban on italics" just in the name of economy of word (and to not sound too repetitive with my word choice), though I can now see that wording might have been imprecise. But my basic position is still that the current italics on CFI are helpful because they stress important words and phrases. They therefore should be kept. Imetsia (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain change 2

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. The language is also informal in numerous places. —Suzukaze-c 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Support change 3

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 10:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSuzukaze-c 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportNizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support John Cross (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose change 3

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose replacing all manually created "See also" links with instances of {{see also}}; there is no visible benefit to the reader and the less a policy page depends on templates with low-added value for it, the better; then it needs fewer updates driven by various template changes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain change 3

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Seems like make-work to me, but I have no principled objection. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Pointless but harmless. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Support change 4

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSuzukaze-c 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportNizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support John Cross (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose change 4

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose replacing all manually created mention links, both italicized and plain, with uses of {{m}}; no added value visible to the reader, and the less a policy page depends on templates used in the mainspace, the better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain change 4

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Not unreasonable, but not necessarily in need of standardization. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Support change 5

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSuzukaze-c 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't see why not. —Nizolan (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    Changing to oppose. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose change 5

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose replacing serial commas and serial semicolons respectively with templates: this kind of trivial concern should be a non-concern for a policy page. In a similar vein, some pages use British spelling and other use U.S. spelling; it is inadvisable to start introducing templates to create some preferred rendering that makes no semantic difference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This adds no value that I can see, standardization notwithstanding. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Personally I'd ban the templates altogether. --Droigheann (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Droigheann: Can I ask why you would prefer the templates for serial commas and serial semicolons be deleted altogether? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    Goes beyond what I perceive as a reasonable degree of personalisation. Like having a template for, say, having a {colour/color} option in definitions, or {ground floor/first floor} in usex examples &c. (Or, thinking of another recent vote, a template for making the first letter in a definition line upper or lower case.) --Droigheann (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    Got it, that makes sense to me. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oh, heck no. --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dan Polansky. I like standardisation, but this seems an awkward way to do it. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain change 5

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Decision

  • Results (support-oppose-abstain):
    • change 1 failed, 4-5-2.
    • change 2 passed, 8-1-3.
    • change 3 passed, 8-1-3.
    • change 4 passed, 7-2-3.
    • change 5 failed, 4-5-2.
  • surjection??〉 16:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Someone will need to actually implement these changes, though. — surjection??〉 16:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tr-conj-bot for bot status

Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:Tr-conj-bot for the following purposes:

I made a newer version of the templates {{tr-conj}} and {{tr-conj-v}} that is easier to use, is more correct, and most importantly supports irregular verbs. If you want to check it out, a test page with comparisons is in here and the template itself is here. I'm making this request to replace the current template with the new one, and then using a bot to change the template syntax to use the new one.
Example edits: Special:Diff/59346783, Special:Diff/59346782, Special:Diff/59346781

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 11:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: betseg|g 11:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, as there seems to be sufficient consensus for these edits as per the BP discussion. — surjection??〉 13:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support: @Lambiam supports this, so I do too. PUC – 10:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Great improvement.  --Lambiam 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support as it makes the templates smarter. Fay Freak (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. There's too many headless chickens running round already. DonnanZ (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Donnanz: ...what. Is that even a criticism? --betseg|g 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Decision


Changes to Alternative form headers

  • Proposal: Depreciate L4 header ====Alternative forms==== and add ====Alternative form notes====
  • Rationale:
    The below the definition L4 header ====Alternative forms==== was added as an alternative to the above the definition L3 header ===Alternative forms=== with the rationale that it would be closer to ====Synonyms====.
    Since ====Synonyms==== is being generally phased out in favor of {{synonyms}}, combined with the creation of the inline template {{alter}}, its usage has been relegated to that of personal preference, resulting in inconsistencies and fodder for edit wars.
    Restoring the placement of ====Alternative forms==== to above the definition better directs readers to important alternate forms, such as differences between UK and US spellings, and adding a new ====Alternative form notes==== header would still allow for lengthy notative forms, like found on color and Muhammad.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: {{victar|talk}} 22:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussions:

Past votes:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --{{victar|talk}} 01:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I disagree, I think there may be a place for both L3 and L4 headers depending on circumstance, but I favour L4 and use it in preference to L3. With synonyms there is also still a place for the L4 header; {{syn}} tends to be used in entries with multiple senses when a synonym may apply to one sense only. DonnanZ (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This sounds like the current, multi-standard situation, except adding yet another standard to keep track of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Well if you look at my example with color, you'll see it under Usage notes, but that's not really a proper header for what it's being used for there. Then on Muhammad, the header is called Alternative forms, which is also not quite right either. For the distinction between Usage notes and Alternative form notes, see the similar discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/November#Include_"Reconstruction_notes"_and_"Alternative_reconstructions"_in_WT:EL?. --{{victar|talk}} 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems completely unnecessary. —Rua (mew) 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. There is nothing in the title "Alternative forms" that excludes explanatory content. It just indicates that "here's some information about alternative forms." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I agree in principal it may be useful to put alternative forms before a definition, however in my mental, hypothetical model it would be the first subsection header. In that case it would make sense to aggrandize L4 to L3, but as it's being proposed here, I don't support it. While there's always room for improvement I still don't see a necessary need to change the organization of entries, and the significance of distinguishing L3 and L4 is entirely based on the positioning of the section in the grand scheme. So while I do not cast support for this due to the sequence it proposes, I likewise do not oppose it as its principle is still meritting a further, separate consideration. NativeNames (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Never noticed L4 Alternative forms and didn't find it in WT:ELE either. --Droigheann (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Decision


Use of "pronunciation spelling" and "eye dialect" labels

Voting on: Use of "pronunciation spelling" and "eye dialect" labels.

Please vote separately on the three options below. In the event that more than one option passes, none will automatically be implemented.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 23:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Mihia (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Time stamps updated. PUC – 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Option 1

Retire the "eye dialect" label and use the "pronunciation spelling" label for both nonstandard spellings that represent nonstandard pronunciations and nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations.

Support
Oppose
Abstain
Decision

Option 2

Retire the "pronunciation spelling" label and use the "eye dialect" label for both nonstandard spellings that represent nonstandard pronunciations and nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations.

Support
Oppose
Abstain
Decision

Option 3

Restrict the "eye dialect" label to nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations, and restrict the "pronunciation spelling" label to nonstandard spellings that represent nonstandard pronunciations.

Support
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Pronunciation spelling and eye dialect are two different things, and we should use the terms correctly. However, a nonstandard spelling reflecting a nonstandard pronunciation is simply a {{nonstandard form of}}. A pronunciation spelling does not necessarily reflect a nonstandard pronunciation. Things like lite, tonite, and donut represent standard pronunciations, but they're not eye dialect because they aren't used to imply that the speaker uses a nonstandard dialect. They are simply pronunciation spellings. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
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.