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 and Help:Creating a vote.

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

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2016-09/Title of vote}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/Title of vote}}
Note: add to this page and WT:A. {{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-09/User: for admin}}	Note: add to this page and WT:B. {{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2016-09/User: for bureaucrat}}
Note: add to this page and WT:C. {{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2016-09/User: for checkuser}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2016-09/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:

• Look at pages starting with Wiktionary:Votes_.
• Look at pages starting with Template:vote-_.

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

Current and new votes

Using template l to link to English entries

• Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that:
  1) All definitions of English entries use {{l}} to link to English terms instead of the plain [[]] wiki link.
  2) All translations on the definition lines of non-English entries use {{l}} to link to English terms.
• Example wikitext before the propose change, for a definition line of cat:

# A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].

And after the proposed change:

# A {{l|en|meowing}} domestic {{l|en|animal}}.

• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/July#Using template l to link to English entries

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

Support

1. Support all the way and will not change. L is super useful. We should use that to link to all languages IMO, not just English. Philmonte101 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

   Support MackyBlue11 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

   Ineligible to vote. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support no more ambiguous links please… Jberkel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

   Support unless something better like the {{def}} template proposed on the talk page can be implemented. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

   Support I created {{def}} now. —CodeCat 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

   Note that this vote has nothing to do with {{def}}. --WikiTiki89 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Support - Can also be used for non-English links within non-English entries, such as derived terms. I do it all the time now. DonnanZ (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   No. This vote is only about definition lines, which only contain English links. There is another vote for see-also-type sections. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   I support that anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

5. Support AtalinaDove (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   I oppose edits like "# A {{l|en|meowing}} domestic {{l|en|animal}}." because it gets more annoying to read the code. I support edits like simply "# {{l|en|cat}}", which don't have that problem. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, this. {{def}} seems fine for long definitions, but for single-word translations, {{def|[[cat]]}} seems silly. I probably found this vote too late to affect it, though.__Gamren (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose because I'm sick of this "automatic and semi-automatic edits" qualifier that's inserted into every vote without any plan to actually do so. DTLHS (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   @DTLHS: Do you have anything of substance to say to the actual proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose. In Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/October#Boring cleanup work for money, User:Wikitiki89 said, "If we want to link a word that we happen to use in running English text, then I think plain links are the best choice in order for the wikitext to remain easy to read. But if we were to talk about a word or present an example of text, then we should use a template even if it is in English." I agree. In the example above, I think the "before" wikitext is better than the "after" wikitext. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. I hate reading the {{l}} template, and hate typing it out even more. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

   I should point out that there's nothing in the vote that says human editors should use l, just that wikilinks should be changed over by bot to l. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

   I guess the second part of my statement is irrelevent, but I do realize what we're voting on. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose, as it seems like too much bother and mess for too little reward. I'm intrigued by {{def}}, however. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Mr. Granger. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose, I would prefer using {{def}} instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose, mistook the meaning of the vote. —CodeCat 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Daniel Carrero and Mr. Granger. —suzukaze (t・c) 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose I haven't seen any intelligible statement of benefits to others and I cannot imagine any for me. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose Lack of convincing rationale by vote creator and supporters. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose Annoying! Equinox ◑ 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose Makes wikitext less legible. Wikitext is the primary user interface to the wiki. The link retargetting to #English can be achieved using a MediaWiki plugin or using JavaScript. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose Not needed. That's definition in English just like the language of project. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Afaict, the two benefits of using {{l}} are (a) that it marks the text as foreign (for purposes of script choice and HTML lang attributes, possibly inter alia) and (b) that it links to the relevant section of the target page. For English terms, "(a)" is not a consideration, since the language is inherited from the page, and "(b)" is barely a consideration, since English is usually first on the page anyway. (And even when we mean to link to the English entry, the Translingual entry may be of interest also.) So there's really no reason to use this template for English links in an English context (e.g. a definition line in any L2, or a 'nym list in ==English==). Moreover, it clutters up the wikitext. In fact, I routinely change such template use to a bare wiki link (e.g.) (though obviously I'll stop if the vote passes).​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

    Note that the diff you link to does not apply to this vote, but rather to another currently ongoing vote Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Using template l to link to English entries from English entries (yes, these votes are poorly named, but read the "voting on" section). --WikiTiki89 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

    I did read "Voting on" here, and item (1) is what I was commenting on. Did I misunderstand?​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

    Oh, the diff. Right, the diff was an example, not covered by this vote, of the same idea.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

    Ok, as long as you're aware (because some people were confused by these two votes). --WikiTiki89 18:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain I don't know yet enough about Wiktionary to make up my mind which way to better links to prefer and to vote here, but I "vote" do do something: After all, by using "# [[cat]]" we link to a page, which does not make sense to me, we want to link to an English word. In my opinion, the markup should reflect this - somehow - , and the link should lead the user directly to the start of the English word within the page. Rbrunner7 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Failed: 5-16-1 (23.8%-76.2%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

---

User:Dan Polansky for admin

• Nomination:

I hereby nominate Dan Polansky (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Projects in which he has been active include Czech entries and Wikisaurus. He often engages in policy making, discussion and votes.

Dan Polansky started editing in 2006. Numbers according to the Wikimedia stats page, as of July 2016: main namespace edits = 83,314; other namespace edits = 25,816.

He has chosen to decline previous nominations to become an administrator, in past years. This appears to be the full list of nominations:

• User talk:Dan Polansky/2008#Sysopship
• User talk:Dan Polansky/2009#Admin?
• User talk:Dan Polansky/2010#Administrator → old vote
• User talk:Dan Polansky#Admin

In the nomination discussions, some people appeared to be looking forward to see him as an administrator. This is one of those cases when you might be surprised to learn that the person is not an administrator already. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
• Vote ends: 23:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Acceptance: I accept. I pledge to give up my admin rights in future if there is no longer consensus to support continuing adminship; thus, if a future vote to confirm my adminship yields no consensus, I shall cease to be an admin.
  • Languages: cs-N, en-3, de-2, sk-1, ru-1
  • Timezone: UTC+1, in Summer UTC+2.

  Dan Polansky (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Support "This is one of those cases when you might be surprised to learn that the person is not an administrator already" — totally. I think Dan is sometimes a little inflammatory but he makes good decisions and isn't as awful as me. Equinox ◑ 13:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Support I often disagree with Dan, and often find him to be unreasonably scared of change, but I see no reason whatever not to trust him with the tools. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Daniel is like a Czechoslovak robot who doesn't understand that the rules can sometimes be bent, but we need his stickler attitude to counterbalance more unruly Wiktionarians. --Vahag (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you. My support of keeping translation target entries despite CFI shed some doubt on the above diagnosis but I sure am pretty adamant when it comes to consensus and modifying policy pages only via votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   I support modifying policy pages only via votes. Last year, I tried editing WT:EL by myself, and Dan Polansky asked the policy to be reverted to the previous version. After that, I created most policy votes in the last year, and was able to get a good chunk of WT:EL voted and approved in the meantime. It takes much more work, and time, to create votes for policy changes than simply editing the policy with abandon or with a small discussion, and policy votes fail more often than I would be comfortable with. But when a vote passes above the 2/3 threshold, then we have a clear consensus. In other words, the voted and approved rules are more reliable, lessening the danger of the policy being malleable and changing whenever a given person wants. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

5. Support (though partly because I thought he was already an admin, not because I have a strong opinion either way--in other words, count my vote as an abstension if the vote barely passes). per Equinox and Angr. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Support per Angr and Equinox —suzukaze (t・c) 05:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Support To counterbalance Lenka64's vote. (For the record, Dan Polansky is definitely not a troll nor has he ever been. His discussion contributions to Czech and Slovak Wiktionaries are substantial. Lenka and her friends managed to delete all images from Czech and Slovak Wiktionaries without never having reached any consensus for that. The leader of this clique, Danny B. has been recently desysoped on Czech Wiktionary. Lenka is just trying to take revenge here. Other members of this clique are likely to follow...) --Auvajs (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   User:Auvajs is multisuckpuppet from cs wiki supported by Dan Polansky. --Lenka64 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   For the reader: Yes, but in 2006 and on a different project (cs.wp). As a sidenote, cs.wp ArbCom decided (2013) Lenka64 was a "notorious, verbally aggressive editor" --Auvajs (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

   User:Lexiq was your suckpuppet 2014/2015 on cs wikt.... --Lenka64 (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   So can you link to any edits where I used this account to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies and not to have a clean start under a new name? ;) Again, as a sidenote, you are using several accounts too. Better speaking, you are being verbally aggressive on several accounts at the same time. --Auvajs (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   Your answers are manipulative ....and Dan Polansky is probably out.... --Lenka64 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   No links? No evidence? So you are just lying. User Lexiq was not a sockpuppet. For the record the actual reason I used a new account was to avoid harassment from you and your friends. You and your friends are harassing users who oppose you on several projects. Dan Polansky is one of your victims.--Auvajs (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   rofl.... --Lenka64 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   This is irrelevant to this vote, but anyway: Auvajs is an interesting editor. In his youth, he engaged in massive sockpupetting and disruptive behavior in the Czech Wikipedia. However, he ceased and, in recent time, he did excellent work in bringing consensus-based voting processes into the Czech Wiktionary. Just recently, he nearly made it to be elected as an admin: cs:Wikislovník:Správci/Žádost o práva správce Auvajs. In that vote, the opposing voter Dubicko is Lenka64. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

   Re: "To counterbalance Lenka64's vote". If it's true that some opposing votes were unfair for one reason or another, bear in mind that the vote needs a 2/3 majority to pass, so 2 support votes are needed to counterbalance 1 oppose vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

8. Support Dan gets a lot of flak for things which I don't think he deserves. He is possibly the best force for good on this project that I have seen yet, and I'm amazed that nobody's thought to help improve that before. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 05:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   To clarify: I think there's a recurring pattern of people (and not just on enwikt) who make edits that run afoul of the consensus, and often the rules, and get into conflicts with people who can't be bothered to be polite about it, and then the former goes off and complains about how the latter was rude to them. The word 'harassment' is often used. I don't interact with a lot of people here, it is true, but it seems evident that DP belongs to the latter group, and a lot of the flak he gets comes from the former, and while I can't condone rudeness I also can't condemn it in the face of certain behavior. I did oppose Romanophile's nomination largely on the grounds of 'causticity', but I also said that causticity wasn't enough for me to clearly object to adminship, and I stand by both of these statements. Looking at Romanophile's contribs page I didn't see many positive and useful contributions. DP I am much more inclined to support. For example:

   JohnC5 mentioned below one time in which DP challenged our orthographic standards for Ancient Greek. I distinctly remember this incident (link) and I rememember my initial knee-jerk reaction of "how dare you, you come into our Houſe, you ſhit on our orthographick Conſenſus, you ſhit on everything we ſtand for" but then eventually realized that, no, he did have some good points. He told us that we were doing it poorly, and could do it better, and I think he was right at least in some areas, and I'm thankful to him for that. I only wish the vote was better designed (because, honestly, that was not a good way to design a vote, and I wish people in general would stop doing it like that.) Anyone who is inclined to poke about with a stick may well have a better stick for poking with, in my view. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 17:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   Also: I don't know where the idea that he disregards the rules came from at all. Rather the converse, I find he is too tied to the rules, although that's largely just me hating the concept of votes, which I feel are honestly a terrible way to run things. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 18:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

9. Support, precisely per Aɴɢʀ. At the end of the day this discussion is about whether to give a very active editor a mop with which to do more work. bd2412 T 19:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
10. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose —CodeCat 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose, because he has a history of driving productive users off the project for good. With admin rights, he will be able to do this even more effectively, which is very worrying. I trust him not to do anything worse than bite the newbies, but he bites hard, and we need newbies rather badly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As Meta notes, Dan has driven off some prolific editors (Speednat comes to mind), and this community has had several discussions about how biteyness leads to us having a small editor base; we even just had two different BP discussions about admins whose attitudes have led to editors leaving. (Conversely, he opposed blocks of some not-so-active but persistently-problematic editors — the paranoiac Srebrenica POV-pusher comes to mind.)
   I also find Dan to be obstructionist; his efforts to insist on votes for things like improvements to template functions are, as one of our more colourful editors said in the past, bureaucratic masturbation, and the tendency to switch to votes when discussion is moving towards a result he dislikes is an effort to move the goalposts and subject changes which may have majority support to higher thresholds and procedural hurdles in an effort not dissimilar to the way a filibuster vs cloture works. I don't think such a bitey and obstructionist person should be in charge of issuing blocks and page protection.
   - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   I'd like to see some evidence of the "the tendency to switch to votes when discussion is moving towards a result he dislikes is an effort to move the goalposts and subject changes which may have majority support to higher thresholds and procedural hurdles". Specifically, I'd like to see specific examples and to know what he should have done differently in your opinion.

   There are a few ongoing votes right now that were created by Dan Polansky, about using {{l}} and {{def}} in basically all entries, and a vote concerning the exact name of {{ux}}/{{usex}}. I'm glad he created those, otherwise some major changes could have been done after mere quick discussions with few people. But if you are thinking of other examples that I didn't mention, we can discuss those too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   For the reader: Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin#Driving away Speednat. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   And Dan played a large part in driving away Kephir, among others (but I'm sure he'll come up with reasons for being rude to everybody). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   For the reader: Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin#Driving away Kephir. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose: diff. Wyang (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Lenka64 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)... bad experience with his trolling on sk wikt[1]... --Lenka64 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   The reader will be probably interested in some background. I contributed a bit to removal of the rule of a very iron fist clique of Czech Wiktionary admins most conspicuously noted for wholesale removal of images from the Czech Wiktionary. The non-consensual wholesale removal of images from the Czech Wiktionary was led by the above Lenka64. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   The indef on Slovak Wiktionary was given by JAn Dudík, for "intimidating behavior/harassment". JAn Dudík is part of the said clique. I tried to prevent non-consensual removal of images also from Slovak Wiktionary, but that did not work well. Slovak contributors are now protesting the image removals but to no avail. I cannot do anyting to help them; I am indefinitely blocked and I have blocked access to my talk page there. Incidentally, this relates to the conversation I was having on the talk page of this vote with Vahag about different cultures and their attitude to proper government and free speech. The English Wiktionary is extremely tolerant of a great variety of speech, as far as I can judge and compare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Slovak contributors are now protesting.. = 1 or 2 contributors... --Lenka64 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   To be fair, the Slovak Wiktionary does not appear to have a lot of contributors. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   yes.. but majority is against "wild" pictures.... --Lenka64 (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   Links to past discussion would be appreciated ^_^ -Xbony2 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

6. Oppose - He makes great contributions, I will say. But he has a history of flaming and offending users inappropriately. I totally get it, everybody has bad days. But I feel like I couldn't trust him with the admin tools; what if one of those bad days led to the deletion of the main page again, for instance, or some other misuse of the tools as a personal attack method? Now, I'm not saying I'm the perfect person here; I'm certainly not. I've made many mistakes myself, and my lack of maturity shows pretty clearly at times. That's why I haven't even asked to be admin. It's because I'm much more prone to mistakes with the admin tools than other editors here. I'd rather just stay a regular user. I certainly can't say I haven't trolled here myself, but I believe I tend to stay away from personal attacks. Anyway, anyway, I got off-topic here. Dan Polansky doesn't personal attack here that often as it seems, but he's done it to me once, and as it seems Romanophile and other users. I will say this; I think most of the time his admin powers will be used for good, but on one of those bad days I speak of...I fear it. Philmonte101 (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Also, I forgot to mention that during discussions, I've seen him saying somewhat derogatory things about other people's ideas in a quite unprofessional manner. Such as "that's just complete rubbish" or saying other things that makes it clear that he thinks that the user's well thought idea is idiotic, even when other people support the idea or at least partially support it. This is another thing that, as said by other users above, has the potential of driving newbies and active users away. Philmonte101 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   I find the above concern with deleting the main page really far fetched; and even if that happened, the main page would get quickly restored, right? Also, the above user notified Romanophile who he knew had a conflict with me, in diff, which seems less than proper to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Like I said, this isn't about me! It's about you. And FYI, before Wonderfool went on a vandalism streak, he acted like pretty much all the other admins here. As I've read, nobody had any suspicion whatsoever that he'd go batshit insane like that. My point? The point is, anything could happen. Therefore, I feel like an administrator should be someone who can be completely trusted with the tools to the extent that the majority of the users know. I don't think either you or I should have the tools. Go a couple of years or more without any personal attacks, or a little extent of those, and I'd change my mind about your capability of using the admin tools.

   I want to let you know that out of all the things I am saying, I am not trying to give a personal attack myself. I'm just giving my personal opinion; I don't trust you to use the tools properly.

   Okay, so you want a concrete better example. Okay, I'll give you one that seems like it could be common here. Okay, so let's say you have a conflict with someone here. So you get mad and want to flame them. Then you block them (for a bad reason, such as, let's say, the fact that you and them have a difference in opinion) Now you may think a bad block would be reverted by an admin quickly. But this doesn't always happen. A block that says something such as "intimidating behavior/harassment", "vandalism", etc. could easily be overlooked, as I feel. Now, I don't know if this is exactly what would happen, but this is one of the things I fear. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Um, that's still a thing you made up in your head. A "concrete example" is one that actually exists. You don't have to take part in every discussion just because it's there. Equinox ◑ 02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   There; see the diff, I changed it. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   On another note, the reason I don't think I'd be suitable for adminship is because a lot of my edits, I have to admit, are done like ready, fire, aim. So I don't even trust myself to block people properly, or delete pages when they really should be deleted, etc.Philmonte101 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   I am only one person's opinion. Other people may oppose him for different reasons, but I feel I've made my statement. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I agree that that notification was improper. On Wikipedia, selectively notifying users with a particular point of view about a discussion is explicitly prohibited (w:WP:VOTESTACK). We don't seem to have a specific policy about it here, but I don't think it's appropriate. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Can we please move on from that part now? It's done and over. I only notified one person anyway. This does not have to do with the vote itself. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Please deliver all the other comments you have about my "votestacking" to my talkpage or elsewhere. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   For the record, Philmonte101 sent my user page to RFDO as per User talk:Dan_Polansky/2014#RFDO discussion: October 2014. She did so using their Ready Steady Yeti user. That was the occasion where Kephir indefinitely blocked me, and Rædi Stædi Yæti was there to add salt to wound, both in that RFDO and on my talk page. I recognize the user for what she is, and am not surprised to find her in the oppose section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   #adHominemAttackWithIntentToDiscredit —JohnC5 15:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   Why does this all of a sudden have to be about me? We're talking about your adminship here. This has nothing to do with my decisions in the past. What do you think they're gonna do, scratch my vote and not count it? Philmonte101 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   Alright, I better shut up before we start a war here. Seriously, I'm not saying anymore in this discussion. I've said what I was going to say to share my personal opinion on the matter. I don't know how turning this on me and pointing out all my mistakes is appropriate. Do that some other time, like say, in an admin discussion for me if that ever (but very unlikely) comes around. I mean all of us can agree that both me and Dan want what's best for the project, even if we have a difference in opinion sometimes or if one of us or another does something wrong one day. So why not keep it that way, and let's pipe down. And on another note, Dan I apologize for rubbing salt into your wounds years ago. I admit, that wasn't right of me, as I wouldn't want somebody doing that to me either. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   It is because the above user is giving their "personal opinion on the matter", as they said, with no substantiation, that poiting out who the person is as I did is not the logical fallacy of ad hominem. What is not a fallacy of irrelevance is thereby not the fallacy of ad hominem. The validity of a piece of evidence is usually independent of the supplier but the validity of witness not so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

   Re: "all of us can agree that both me and Dan want what's best for the project": no, we can't. A person who still creates unattested entries after they've been here for over 2 years (since 9 May 2014) and who is repeatedly creating new accounts because they are bored with the old ones is not here for the best for the project. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

   User Philmonte101 was renamed to PseudoSkull, per "user request, name preference". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

   For the record, I did not use the pronoun "she"; that was changed by Philmonte. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose strongly. Has no idea when to let go of an old grudge, and misbehaves persistently. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   On a side note, it seems that not even the supporters are enthusiastic about his adminship. Not a good sign. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   I am one of the supporters. I look forward to see Dan Polansky as an administrator. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

8. Oppose It's not personal – I actually have a great amount of respect for Dan and all his contributions, and I truly encourage him to keep up the good work. However, I agree with comments made by other users concerning his at times harsh attitude towards new editors, while he shows far more understanding for problematic editors. Scaring off productive editors and keeping the problematic ones is not the way to go if we want to maintain a high standard around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   @Robbie SWE: I would appreciate if you could be specific about the productive contributors that you think I drove away. The problematic contributor that you would probably like to see gone is BAICAN XXX, a Romanian contributor to whom I seem to have successfully explained that only attested entries can be made. I am quite happy with my communication with the Romanian contributor, and actually think it is a good example of my sometimes succeeding in doing the opposite of what I am accused of, in this case explaning our policies to a contributor in a way that makes him to start to adhere to them without losing the ability to contribute by being blocked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Except that it didn't help. He just recently got back from being blocked for a month for adding bad entries, reference falsification and not communicating with other editors. During his block, Baican moved on to the German, Spanish, Italian and French Wiktionaries, causing just as much havoc – he's currently blocked in the German Wiktionary. Keeping this in mind, how have you been successful in reaching out to Baican? Honestly Dan, I understand your benevolence – if only I could be as benevolent. But reading through comments made here, it raises a lot of questions. As I said in the beginning, I have respect for all your efforts but do they make you worthy of adminship? I'm not convinced and it seems that I'm not alone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   @Robbie SWE: Now as before, I would appreciate if you could be specific about the productive contributors that you think I drove away. As for BAICAN, I see he was recently blocked by CodeCat without provision of any bad diffs; I do not know what edits he was blocked for. I feel an attempt to explain things to him was worthwhile, and does not suggest I am going to misuse admin tools. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   I see you have removed DEX from spionat that BAICAN created, and that could have been the alegged "reference falsification" that is in the block summary by CodeCat. spionat is an inflected form; it seems BAICAN thought reference was good enough as long as it found an entry for "spiona". That was less than perfect from BAICAN but not really reference falsification. If the things just said are examples of my being too benevolent, I guess I am guilty as charged; I do try to assume good faith and explain things to people. In fact, luckily enough, I do not need admin tools to continue doing so until the end. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   @Dan Polansky: Looking at one (!) edit doesn't prove a point (Baican added an incorrect translation as late as yesterday, only two days after his block was lifted) – I have spent countless hours on several projects correcting his mistakes and trying to make him stop insulting and attacking others (most recently a global sysop). On a side note, I find it kind of amusing that you oppose the use of other languages on Wiktionary (as pointed out by Anatoli T), considering that you had no problems communicating in German with Baican on his talk page who until recently attested to having a level 2 understanding of English (which you took the liberty of downgrading yourself). If they have such a limited understanding of the official project language, why do you still deem them as trustworthy?

   This is however neither the time nor the place to discuss Baican's participation – heaven knows he's already taken too much of my time and patience already. We're here to vote and discuss a potential adminship and you asked me to exemplify where your behaviour has driven off contributors. If I set aside Speednat and Kephir discussed previously, I have issues with the way you motivated your opposition to Romanophile's adminship. I'm well aware that Romanophile can fend for himself and that he doesn't need anyone standing up for him, although his sporadic participation lately has indeed worried me. If we disregard the history you two have with each other, would you mind explaining to me and to the community how your "[My] plan is to largely avoid interacting with the user lest I get into trouble" would work in reality? Being an admin implies that you at times have to work with bureaucrats, administrators and users who may strongly disagree with you. Can you allow yourself the luxury of not interacting with participants due to issues you might have with them? I'm worried that you might block someone on a whim and even if you end up regretting it, the damage would already be done. As I said before Dan – and it's worth repeating – I only have respect for everything you've accomplished and I hope we can continue to collaborate peacefully despite us having conflicting views in certain issues. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   (outdent) @Robbie SWE: I responded at Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin#Limiting interaction with some users, to make the discussion easier to follow. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

9. Oppose In many cases, I understand Dan's struggle to fight in a world of madmen trying to trying to destroy the status quo ante. I would like to respond to the claim that he fiercely adheres to the rules. I have found in many instances that his understanding of parliamentary rules is contrary to the common practice and what is even feasible. For instance:
   1. Starting (I think) with my nomination and continuing for a couple thereafter, Dan attempted to adjoin a separate requirement on the ensysopment in a manner that was both unfair to the people up for election and impossible to execute from a policy standpoint. Again, I'm not saying term limits or something similar are a bad idea, but the continued insertion of side clauses as a way to sidestep the normal policy voting system represents an imperfect understanding of the rules.
   2. On several occasions, Dan has used specious status quo ante arguments born from his aesthetic views or a lack of knowledge concerning the field in question (e.g.). Status quo ante arguments are, of course, a warranted tool with in the structure of our debate, but I find that he often comes into topics that are not his area of expertise, claims that everything is being ruined and made hideous, and then disguises his opinion as tradition.
   3. Most troubling I find are the specious ad hominem attacks that sometimes crop up in debate. In a few sentences in this discussion, Dan implied that ISMETA, Newt, and I are attempting to pervert the layout of entries due to our love of typography. I will freely admit to liking different forms of typography, but to use aesthetic views I espouse in my personal pages to discredit the longstanding practice for Latin and Greek entries is inappropriate. On other occasions, I have seen him claim that other users have agendas or biases which make their opinions irrelevant (I can't remember when, which will surely be used against this point, but my recollection stands). Of course everyone has an opinion, agenda, or bias which is why we debate issues. His aesthetic opinions mentioned are above perfectly understandable and legitimate, but they are his opinion. His dismissal of other contributors due to his feeling that they are biased represents a misunderstanding of how debate works.

   Dan Polansky is a redoubtable contributor who makes numerous and excellent contributions to this project. I will admit that we have not always seen eye-to-eye on issues under discussion, but I feel that some of the descriptions that he is a “Czechoslovak robot who doesn't understand that the rules can sometimes be bent” misrepresent the many occasions when he has intentionally bent or subverted the rules for his own agenda. I'm not saying that having and agenda is wrong or that rules always bear absolute adherence, but he sometimes disguises his opinion as the spirit or letter of the law. This sort of mercurial interpretation of rules does not become one with the power to block other users. I hope that the above statements do not read as screed, as I do not mean to insult Dan, but I do not support his nomination. —JohnC5 18:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   As for "the many occasions when he has intentionally bent or subverted the rules for his own agenda": I do not know what you mean. Do you mean my support of translation target entries despite CFI? As for "adjoin a separate requirement on the ensysopment", this did not violate any rule that I know of, only a rule that you claim there is, but one that is not a policy of Wiktionary. You seemed to claim conditional votes in a vote are inapropriate, which did not seem right to me, and which I have shown runs counter to Wiktionary practice. Anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   As for "claim that other users have agendas or biases which make their opinions irrelevant": I am not aware of any such thing. I do not remember to have used the word "agenda", but I may be wrong. I do not remember claiming someone's argument should be ignored because of who they are, but I might have made an error there since it is all too easy and tempting; yet I do not remember the error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   For reference, the translation targets discussion is one that has never interested me and of which I have little knowledge. For the conditional voting, I misspoke if I implied that conditional voting itself is verboten (though I do think the current system should be either stopped or altered). As in the arguments given previously, I meant that your insertion of conditions that could be used as policy instead of implementing a policy directly is out of order. That is to say, by inserting a clause in someone's nomination that you can later call for reëlection, you would be trying to create a precedent which would either be unfair to that particular admin (as (s)he would have a separate clause applying on only that ensysopment) or would allow you to expand the calls for reëlection generally (which would be a change in policy, which should be executed through a policy vote). The argument here is that you've tried either to impose unfair burdens on specific users or policy changes through the power of conditional voting, which I find to be undesirable (my opinion).

   As for the agendas and biases point, we are at somewhat of an impasse of poor recollection. Since you are innocent until proven guilty, I shall let the general point be stricken until more evidence may surface. The specific example in which you spoke against ISMETA, Newt, and me shall remain as an example of (in my opinion) poor judgment and poor tact. —JohnC5 19:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   @John: Would you admit that you were and are here superimposing a rule on me that I do not recognize to be a rule, one that is nowhere written and that is not part of my awareness of propriety? Do you also admit that the same complaint you made was made by one more editor, maybe two more, but I received no other complaint in that regard? I deliberated on your would-be rule and found it inapplicable and wrong. Therefore, I do not see this as bending and circumventing any policies. I do not know why you have provided so many general accusations without substantiation with examples; it feels really inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   No. Just because a rule does not exist explicitly does not mean that parliamentary procedure is being broken. Inserting kill pills in votes is always bad in any circumstance. My issue may appear abstruse until such time as you should try to enforce your condition. I count 4 others (ISMETA, MetaKnowledge, DCDuring, and Angr) who have raised concerns in part or in whole with your tactic. I have also, in each case provided examples, which you may dismiss, but which I feel fully demonstrate my arguments. To be clear, I do not admit to and do furthermore reject both of your above claims. —JohnC5 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   My bad; these were more people than I remember. I am certain we had debate on this and I had tried to explain my position and respond to your concerns. By the way, I tried to find google:"kill pills in vote" and did not find anything. It is possible that I have a poor understanding of "parliamentary procedure" but it is also possible for you to be wrong. Be it as it may, I have not violated a written rule of Wiktionary or one supported by demonstrable consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   As for the specific example you mentioned, the first relevant statement is "The templates are not evidence supporting the claim that the macron information is very important; they only show proclivities of those who created and support the templates." The question is whether I have engaged in a fallacy of irrelevance. I am not sure. If I have not engaged in a fallacy of irrelevance, then I have not enganged in a fallacy of ad hominem since that is a fallacy of irrelevance. It still seems to me that the typographic proclivities of the editors under discussion did have bearing on the templates under discussion, and on what these template were evidence of. Here again a link. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Well, rereading the above, I'd say, indeed: if some editors have a certain proclivity toward typographic ornament beyond the mundane, then these editors' creating templates with macrons is not much of evidence to support the claim that the macron is important. If the very same templates with macrons were created by editors without a proclivity for typographic ornament, than the templates having macron would be more of evidence to support macron being important. No fallacy of irrelevance here, and in fact no personal attack as far as I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   Whether comment was irrelevant or not, I feel that it was disrespectful and meant to discredit your opposition. In any case, I have said my piece here. I cannot guarantee that I won't jump back in later, but I see little point in debating these points further. —JohnC5 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   But my point was relevant. It was meant to show that using the templates as evidence of macron being important was wrong. I encourage the reader to read the linked discussion if having enough time. The discussion in section Rationale for opposition starts with a listing of specific points and is only later concerned with the templates. I did not mean to wholesale discredit the opposition, but rather to discredit the specific argument that the templates are evidence. I hope that is apparent from the discussion linked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

10. Oppose Echoing what others have said [2]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

    He does use the rhetoric of asking someone to admit things often, doesn't he (going back at least to this discussion)? An interesting linguistic practice. I wonder how often people admit to his suppositions. —JohnC5 00:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Well yes, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian endend up 6:6, no consensus. After that, you went and converted single-Norwegian entries to split-Norwegian entries in volumes. If you feel disgruntled about this, I cannot help it. I don't think what you did is anything you can be proud of and my attempt to stop this via discussion anything I should be ashamed of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    An interesting thing is that Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/March#Stop treating Nynorsk and Bokmal as languages separate from Norwegian showed 8.5 for support and 2 for oppose. For some reason, voters weakened their stances in the vote as contrasted to Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    The fact that DP is not an admin already (but acts like one) doesn't justify the pressure he has put on various users, including myself when I was still a relative newbie. Therefore I consider him to be unfit for adminship. DonnanZ (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

11. Oppose diff Don't use languages other than English on user talk pages, D.P. will get you, especially if he thinks you're plotting something illegal - e.g. soliciting opinions, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Quoting Mr. Granger: "On Wikipedia, selectively notifying users with a particular point of view about a discussion is explicitly prohibited (w:WP:VOTESTACK)." I recall you selectively soliciting votes from users supportive of your view, doing so not only in English but also in Russian. I thought it would be only proper if that soliciting was done in English so that everyone could see what it was. If that request made you disgruntled, I will have to learn to live with consequences of my actions, in this case just actions as far as I can tell. I recall you took multiple other things I said to you personally, so you will oppose for other reasons as well; I remember pointing out that taking example sentences from other dictionaries word-for-word was a copyright violation, which you seemed to take as a personal attack, whereas my point was to bring the point across and stop the practice. As for "soliciting opinions, LOL" in relation to votes, that again is not an occasion for LOL. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Examples of what look like soliciting is diff and diff; probably in Ukrainian and not Russian. It is not soliciting for vote but for a Beer parlour discussion, but that discussion alone can lead to people starting to do something, in this case add definitionless Ukrainian entries, which was a subject to controversy. Admittedly, the cited posts have an English title, at least. An example of post that did not have an English title is diff; probably no soliciting here but the problem is that it is not obvious. I think my post to your talk page (diff) was reasonably polite and made a reasonable request in the context of your posting soliciting edits in a language other than English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Just to clarify - I didn't take personally your request to not use word-for-word citations, this request is perfectly OK. It's the way you communicate, which pushes away people - very unfriendly, almost hostile. Somehow you're always there if someone "needs" to be punished or bullied. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Maybe so, but I need examples to learn from. Like, did diff show manner that was "very unfriendly, almost hostile"? Since that is the diff that you supplied as your evidence. Does anyone else find that diff unfriendly or hostile? How would other people formulate that diff to make it more friendly? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    I have no intention to rub it in. Other editors have already provided some evidence in that respect. I just chose to show the post where you demanded the use of English in a multilingual environment, which nobody mentioned earlier. I still think it was very wrong of you. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Was the post hostile or was it not? I still don't know. I still do not see why it was wrong; I explained above why I still think the post was a good idea, and you have not explained why posting soliciting posts in Ukrainian when both the poster and the recipient know English is a commendable practice. I don't see you responding to substance, and with argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    As for "you demanded": I posted "I would like to ask you to post in English whenever you post to multiple editors something that looks like soliciting opinions or input to a discussion. ..." Does that sound like demanding? Someone please correct me or explain that to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Dan Polansky asked specific questions as to whether his post was hostile or not. I can't read Atitarev's mind, but I'll try to formulate a plausible hypothesis. Maybe Atitarev felt, on the grounds of free speech, that it is not in one's place to criticize how another person wants to communicate. Maybe Atitarev felt that one person saying "when communicating with other people, use only the language chosen by me" (even though this is the English Wiktionary) is as silly and inappropriate as saying "I counted the letters in your post, and it was an odd number; that makes me uncomfortable, please only send messages to other people with an even number of letters in the future".

    "I would like to ask you" was polite of Dan Polansky. If he said: "Do you think you could?" (I mean: "Do you think you could refrain from posting in English whenever you post to multiple editors something that looks like soliciting opinions or input to a discussion?"), it would be even more polite because that question would actively seek confirmation from Atitarev, the person that would choose to accept or decline the request. But I admit it's a hair-splitting difference, and worrying about it would be walking on eggshells. Dan Polansky actually did not demand the use of English as he was accused of.

    At the moment, I seem to be the only other person weighing in against a few bad accusations. (not counting the fact that Dan Polansky is defending himself) @Atitarev, in my opinion, it is unbecoming to oppose a sysop vote while linking to a petty disagreement from 2 years ago as the opposing reason. Suppose we had the rule that any sysop who ever found himself in any form of conflict whatsoever against another user loses their admin rights. Many of us would have to lose the tools. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    My reason for voting against is not about the "petty disagreement" but inappropriate demand (request, if you wish) and nominee's character. Some editors chose not to give their reasons at all. You don't have to. Echoing other editors' reasons. You don't need to ask me further. I'm not going to search for all discussions where DP gave me or other people hard time or was unfair to people. I've know DP long enough to make an opinion. It's my opinion, right or wrong. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

    For the record, I don't mind that the diff is 2 years old. If two years ago I did something improper, I find it okay to be presented, at least an example of what someone means by "bad behavior". I am just having hard time finding the post under discussion improper; I still think it is soliciting votes in Ukrainian that is improper, and it does not seem that Anatoli sees that. On a related note, the failure to respond to my questions, which I think were reasonable, raises questions as to whether the case is strong, as is the evasive talk about no need to state reasons; since that suggests that articulable reasons are lacking, and that is no good sign for a substance-based conversation, and indeed, substance-based decision making. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    (outdent) Let me make a rather unrelated note: By the pledge to give up my admin rights in future if there is no longer consensus to support continuing adminship, I reduce the risks associated with my being admin since I can then be quite easily desysopped in case some bad behavior develops. And I am the first to admit that putting into power all too often breeds corrupt behaviors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

12. Oppose — Jberkel (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose When I was newer and just starting to use Wiktionary (this is less than two months ago), but still working my way around figuring out the status quo and thus not making many contributions other than requests, he noted (nicely at first) on my talk page that requests weren't useful (in his opinion). When I responded with an explanation that I was using the information from the requests and intended to make more contributions in the future, and also noted that some requests did get filled rather quickly, he stated "I'm glad you feel you are making a "contribution"". The sudden change in attitude startled me and prompted a rougher response from me, to which he responded "And I don't appreciate editors filling Wiktionary with pointless requests, especially by people who seem to have nothing else to contribute." Those statements made me feel less welcome and I was afraid of starting to make larger edits (such as creating pages) because I felt like I would be scrutinized instead of getting pointers in how to improve. I understand that he has made many contributions to Wiktionary over the years, but I feel that someone who is not welcoming and instead harsh to new editors does indeed drive away people (I was actually going to stop editing altogether, even if it was a small thing, as I get anxiety when in new communities, but an admin stepped in and gave me a few pointers, which, contrary to Dan Polansky's approach, made me feel more confident asking for help and making larger contributions). With the title of admin it would make the driving-away effect even stronger as the weight of his words increase. AtalinaDove (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

    I guess I was more rude than I needed to be, but it was in response to what I considered to be rude behavior: When someone starts their editing on the project by indiscriminate injection of requests for pronunciation, I find that rude. When that person continues by "contributing" petty manual template replacements that could very easily be done by bots (diff), I actually find my initial guess about the character of the person's contribution confirmed. There's so much reader-visible non-bottable useful work to be done on this project, but some people are happy enough to "make edits". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Dan Polansky: I have something to say in defense of @AtalinaDove: She did her first edit on July 4, and your conversation with her was on July 15. As a new user, she stated that she did not know about {{hu-IPA}}, the template that generates Hungarian pronunciation automatically. There's no reason to assume, either, that she should have known that the template is easilly bottable.

    If you already knew of {{hu-IPA}} at the time when you first said "Greetings, I for one do not think they are very helpful." in July 4, then you failed to say: "There is a template named {{hu-IPA}}. It adds the Hungarian pronunciation automatically."

    If you, Dan Polansky, did not know of {{hu-IPA}} before, (which is within the realm of possibility) then at least you certainly came to know the template once AtalinaDove started to use it, otherwise you could not have been bothered by her edits. In this case, you failed to say: "Please don't add {{hu-IPA}} to many entries. It is easily bottable." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    I did not know of {{hu-IPA}}. Changes like diff are obviously bottable: no information is being added to the markup. I don't really find it wrong to add {{hu-IPA}}, though, in contrast to adding IPA requests for Norwegian indiscriminately; it's just that it tells you something about the sort of editing that you can expect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    On a related note, would not it be more useful for the reader if {{hu-IPA}} was added where pronunciation is missing rather than being placed to entries that already have pronunciation? That's pretty obvious, isn't it? Now, you might think I should post it to the user talk page. Maybe so, but we have to ask whether contributors should show an elementary capacity to giving thought to what they are doing and why they are doing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    To my defense on the template replacements (like {{hu-IPA}}), Panda10 actually suggested that I do this on my talk page, as it was a task that needed to be done. Therefore, I have been going through the 32,000+ Hungarian entries with IPA pronunciation and checking them all to see that they have the right template. I am also converting the old Hungarian declension templates to the new one as I go, and expanding and adding information if I can. With my limited knowledge of Hungarian, this is the best I can do right now, but I have made thousands of these edits, and there is currently no bot that seems to be doing this. --AtalinaDove (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you for the Panda10 mention. I apologize for the above unnecessary critical words about bot-like contributions. Sometimes, a human manually doing bot-like edits is better than nothing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

    You may think that adding {{hu-IPA}} is bottable, but it is not. There are words where a human editor must provide phonetic respelling as an input parameter to make the output look right. As for replacing the existing IPA with the template, it is also very useful and necessary because the template contains several improvements in pronunciation, and as a result, can use [] instead of //. --Panda10 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Panda10: Okay. How is someone who does not know any Hungarian going to know which already entered pronunciations can be replaced with {{hu-IPA}} and which cannot, as per "there are words where a human editor must provide phonetic respelling as an input parameter to make the output look right"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    Atalina compares the original IPA and the templated IPA, if the two are different, she leaves a note. Also, as I mentioned on Atalina's talkpage, I patrol her work. --Panda10 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you; makes sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    (outdent) For the record, I rest my case that the diff in question was bottable as long as the diff was part of the process described above, namely, compare the IPA in the entry with the IPA produced by the template and if the two IPAs are same, replace the original template with the new template. Not that it matters, but anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

14. Oppose — He makes a lot of great contributions to the Czech part of Wiktionary, but he can be hard to deal with. — V-ball (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose — Panda10 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain Octahedron80 (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain This is the most votes I've seen in two days :P -Xbony2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Abstain I'm unsure. --WikiTiki89 11:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Abstain – I think Dan has good intentions, but he does not phrase things well, so he often causes offense. For instance, when he requested that Atitarev post in English, not Ukrainian or Russian, he said he "opposes" posting in another language. I just don't understand that phrasing: it sounds like he's saying if you're posting in another language, you must be soliciting votes, and therefore it is always wrong. I would prefer to think he meant to say that it was unwise because most people don't speak those languages and they may misinterpret the situation. But the phrasing was so direct that he did not convey that idea. I don't want to vote against his nomination, because I think he has good intentions, but I do not want to vote for it, because he seems to lack diplomacy and I am not sure if that is a good quality in an admin. And I am not very experienced; this is my first admin vote on any Wikimedia project. — Eru·tuon 05:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
5. Abstain Dan's mainspace contributions are qualitatively and quantitatively miles ahead of many editors on this project. However, while some of the opposition seems less than fair, others (especially Wyang, AtalinaDove) have made me aware of certain points that are making it difficult for me to support this wholeheartedly. Be that as it may, I would still support giving him rollbacker privileges in a heartbeat, and template editor too if that becomes a thing. — Kleio (t · c) 18:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

   Abstain as I'm not allowed to vote. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

   I'm not even sure that you're allowed to abstain, I think abstain votes are taken into account. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

   I'm striking the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

6. Abstain My image of almost every editor here is that they are dutiful and businesslike people. I recently learn that Wiktionary is a lot more like a soap opera than I could have imagined. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

   I've been discovering the same of late. Guess Wiktionary isn't much unlike other internet communities in that regard. — Kleio (t · c) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

   The only difference is that we all care about the same cause, that of building a dictionary. As much as I might disagree with Dan, we both know that we both earnestly want to improve the project. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Failed: 10-15-6 (40.0%-60.0%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Using template l to link to entries

• Voting on: For languages other than English, allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all links in Synonyms, Antonyms, Hyponyms, Hypernyms, Related terms, and Derived terms are linked using {{l}} template rather than plain wikilinks.

  Thus, instead of

  [[escuela]]

  there will be

  {{l|es|escuela}}

• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to entries#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/July#Vote: Using template l to link to entries

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

  Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries - this is about English entries only

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support, already been done IIRC. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --WikiTiki89 19:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Support, though it's moot, it has already been done. —CodeCat 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
8. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Support — Eru·tuon 04:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Support Philmonte101 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
11. Support Mulder1982 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
12. Support --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
13. Support --AtalinaDove (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
14. Support --Vahag (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
15. Support --Mistrz (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC) The service delivered by the template is not worth the additional line noise. Furthermore, that service can be achieved using JavaScript as was done in tabbed browsing: there, retargetting already works even without {{l}}. Alternatively, this seems fit for a MediaWiki plugin, executed on the server site. Let's keep the markup that is the editing interface of Wiktionary simple. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   Some people say that votes are evil. I am not one of them; I vehemently oppose that meme. But it has not escaped my attention that the supporters did not raise any points or respond to any points raised by me. Like, MediaWiki plugin is a bad idea because X. Or JavaScript would slow down the browser. Or whatever. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   WikiMedia plugins are out of our control, and it would be silly to develop a plugin that is so specific this one purpose. JavaScript would both slow down the page loading time and cause the link and formatting to be temporarily incorrect while the page is loading. --WikiTiki89 19:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   I don't understand the plugin argument. The plugin would produce the {{l}} markup, and that markup would render whatever we let it in the code of {{l}}. Don't see anything "silly" about it. But let me make a note about JavaScript: editors voted to enable tabbed browsing by default. This has not been done yet, but the approving vote is there. And that tabbed browsing already does use JavaScript to make that retargetting automatically, without {{l}}. So by voting to enable tabbed browsing by default, editors already voted in the JavaScript overhead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   Plugins are not cheap. They require a good deal of development, testing, rollout, more testing, maintenance, etc. And all of that is done by the devs, not by us, which slows down the process even more. So unless they make our lives significantly easier, we should avoid them. In this case, replacing links with {{l}} is not such a big deal that we should create a plugin to avoid doing that. I'm not sure exactly what retargeting you are referring to in tabbed languages, because I've never used tabbed languages. But if replacing links with {{l}} would allow us to remove some JavaScript from the tabbed languages code, that would be a good thing. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   As for the expense of the plugin, they obviously have enough resources for sci-fi rocket-science projects like Visual Editor and Flow; a little plugin that makes some very simple replacements on the text level would be ridiculously cheap in comparison. As for tabbed browsing, you can try it: enable tabbed browsing in prefs and try browsing old versions without {{l}} and see whether you see the added # targets. But I accept your point that {{l}} could make the tabbed browsing cheaper on JavaScript. OTOH, my guess would be that the retargetting is one of the less expensive parts of the whole tabbed browsing functionality. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   Did I mention that plugin development is outside of our control? And every plugin is a headache no matter how small; the fewer the better. More importantly, it doesn't solve any essential problem. I don't see any downside to converting these lists of links to use {{l}}. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   If the problem solved by {{l}} is not essential, then I don't see why we are bothering with complicating our wiki markup with {{l}}. Plugin development is not outside of our control. Anyone can develop a plugin for MediaWiki. Another thing is having that plugin deployed; that could be out of our control, just like deployment of things we did not approve is out of our control. But with a good and simple plugin developed, I don't see why devs would oppose deployment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that the problem solved by the plugin is not essential, because it can be easily solved with {{l}}. --WikiTiki89 14:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

   Let me add: This is a bot-maintained redundancy in the markup in the best case, and human-maintained redundancy in the markup in the worst case. It is telling the computer something via the markup that the computer should already know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain The last time CodeCat+MewBot did it automatically tons of {{l}} links had the wrong language due to human editor peculiarity, etc. Unless bot logic is better this time... —suzukaze (t・c) 14:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Support for non-Latin-script languages

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --WikiTiki89 19:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Support —Enosh (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Support especially strongly here Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Support —CodeCat 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Support — Eru·tuon 04:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
8. Support Philmonte101 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Support Mulder1982 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Support --Vahag (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
11. Support --Mistrz (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for non-Latin-script languages

1. Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain for non-Latin-script languages

1. Abstain —suzukaze (t・c) 14:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain May be yes, may be no. Some terms of non-Latin script cannot be decided which language they are. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

   @Octahedron80: Can you give an example of what you are talking about? In all these cases, the language should be the same as the language of the entry. For example, a synonym of a Japanese word, must also be Japanese. --WikiTiki89 13:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   I think about synonyms that are symbols, which are already under a language section. Or should they be put as 'mul' instead? Simple example of these is centimetre. (Sorry for Latin example) --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, they should be 'mul' whenever that symbol would be included as translingual. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup

• Voting on: Making {{usex}} the primary template name to be used in the wiki markup of entries rather than {{ux}}. This proposal is about template name, that is, "usex" vs. "ux"; it is not about template parameters or syntax.
• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Vote: Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup

  Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup

  Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Template:ux to Template:usex

Support

1. Support Superior to {{ux}} in initial intelligibility; more obviously pronounceable, ergo more memorable for low-frequency contributors. {{ux}} can be kept as a redirect, but a bot should be charged with converting it to {{usex}}. Using "usage example" would better serve all the objectives, but at the cost of more typing, more non-content cruft in edit windows, and a bit more bulk for storage and download. {{usex}} is an effort to balance the various considerations. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   As a clarification: In RFM, I proposed to use {{usage-example}} because I misunderstood the RFM. I thought the RFM was to establish a situation like we have for {{lb}}, which is that {{lb}} is the main form in the mainspace while {{label}} is the actual template name. But it turned out that multiple people understood the RFM to be about the predominant markup in the mainspace, and I obviously do not support that such a long name is in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Vahag (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per DCDuring. And because UX means something very different. —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
5. Support per Ruakh.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

   According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ux, this change would affect 26,622 (main namespace) entries.

   The name {{ux}} recently passed per Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux. I'm uncomfortable with changing the name of the same template twice in short succession.

   In my opinion, we could focus on other template name changes: I'd like to propose renaming all instances of {{non-gloss definition}} into {{n-g}} eventually, if people support this idea.

   Besides, in my opinion, neither {{usex}} nor {{ux}} is that great of a name. I've been using {{eg}} for new usage examples. It is an unvoted template that redirects to {{ux}}. (Before anyone asks, I oppose using a bot to convert all entries to {{eg}} without a vote; doing this would require a vote.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I don't think either one is better than the other, so there's no point. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. "usex" is not really easier to understand than "ux" if you are a newbie. ux is shorter to read and type. I opposed the templatization of user examples but if we are to have it, let it be really succinct. My position seems in keeping with Wiktionary:Votes/2016-06/label → lb, which passed 11-4-5, and would be 11-5-5 with the late vote there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Echoing what Dan Polansky said about it being shorter and there being no difference for newbies in understanding "usex" vs "ux".
5. Oppose Shorter is better. Understanding should be facilitated with a dictionary for high frequency templates. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose having this vote

1. As in the past, I oppose the suggestion that maintenance like updates to template names must be subjected to votes; one of our more colourful editors in the past called it bureaucratic masturbation. And the tendency of certain users to hold votes when discussion in discussion fora is moving towards a result they don't like is an effort to move the goalposts and subject changes, which may have majority support, to higher-than-usual, higher-than-majority thresholds in an effort not dissimilar to the way a filibuster works. (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-03/Japanese Romaji romanization - format and content is a previous vote with an "Oppose having this vote" section.) - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

   This vote started as a result of Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Template:ux to Template:usex. The RFM discussion presents some different points of view and arguments. This vote is an opportunity for me to vote Oppose. I said my reasons in the Oppose section.

   I agree with having this vote because I believe that an RFM discussion should not be able to override a high-profile recent vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux, which passed in January 2016. Specifically, the proposal "usex → ux" passed with 19 participants. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain I don't really like either of 'em anyway. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain As long as the syntax is the same—i.e., as long as {{usex|aa|Text|Translation}} works just like {{ux|aa|Text|Translation}} works—then I don't really care which one is the primary name and which one is the redirect. I just don't want to use the old, clumsy {{usex|Text|lang=aa|t=Translation}} syntax anymore. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

   {{usex}} is a redirect, so the syntax is the same. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

   Or not, but the syntax would be the same anyway I guess. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Abstain I don't care and I would just like consistency and for people to stop moving them back and forth. DTLHS (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Abstain —CodeCat 21:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
5. Abstain - I tend to agree with Equinox. DonnanZ (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Abstain —Enosh (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Placing English definitions in def template or similar

• Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all definitions of English entries are within {{def}} or similarly named template.
• Example wikitext before the propose change, for a definition line of cat:

# A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].

And after the proposed change:

# {{def|A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].}}

• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/July#Vote: Placing English definitions in def template or similar

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries#Separate proposal

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

   I support using {{def}} for all definitions, except those that already use {{n-g}}, {{form of}} or varieties of {{form of}} ({{plural of}}, etc.)

   But I'd prefer if {{def}} could be used around the whole list of definitions, like this (a simple version of the entry bat):

   {{def|

   # A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s.

   # A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]].

   }}

   --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Support since plain links often don't work correctly. Inconvenience for editors is not as important as misleading links for readers. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "don't work correctly"? --WikiTiki89 12:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose More overhead to support techno fantasies. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Equinox ◑ 00:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Makes entries more difficult to edit, with only minor benefits for most readers. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose. Not useful in most cases, and annoying to type, but an improvement over {{l}}. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose I like {{l}} \o/ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose no rationale can justify the proposal.--Dixtosa (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose — Saltmarsh^{συζήτηση-talk} 04:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose I don't want this imposed on us (yet). The idea is relatively new and not thoroughly tested. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose Makes wikitext less legible. Wikitext is the primary user interface to the wiki. The link retargetting to #English can be achieved using a MediaWiki plugin or using JavaScript. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. The primary user interface to the wiki is the displayed page. Wikitext is not a "user interface" in the general sense; at best, it forms part of the user interface experienced by editors. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose Octahedron80 (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Placement of "Alternative forms" 2 (weaker proposal)

Note: This is a follow-up to Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms". It ended as no consensus in March 2016, with 10 supports (52.6%), 9 opposes (47.4%) and 0 abstentions. This is a "weaker" version of that vote, as discussed here.

Voting on:

Allowing editors to be free to place the Alternative forms section in either of the following places, on a case-by-case basis. Individual entries should be discussed, in case of disagreement.

1. Before the definitions. Details:

   The Alternative forms is to be placed before the definitions; more specifically, before the Pronunciation and Etymology sections, using the same header level as both the Pronunciation and Etymology sections¹. (this is the status quo)

2. After the definitions. Details:

   The Alternative forms is to be placed after the definitions; more specifically, directly before the Synonyms section, with the same level as the Synonyms section².

Footnotes:

¹ Concerning the type 1 (Before the definitions), it is out of the jurisdiction of this vote to answer the question: "In case of numbered etymologies, should we place Alternative forms before Etymology 1 or as a direct subsection of Etymology N?" This question remains, no matter whether the vote passes or fails.
² Concerning the type 2 (After the definitions), if the entry does not have a Synonyms section, the rule remains: the Alternative forms section is to be placed after Usage notes, Inflection, Conjugation, Declension, Mutation and Quotations; the Alternative forms section is to be placed before Antonyms, Hypernyms, Hyponyms, Meronyns, Holonyms, Troponyms, Coordinate terms, Derived terms, Related terms, Hyponyms, Descendants, Translations, See also, References and External links.

Rationale:

• Arguably, synonyms and alternative forms are related concepts, and sometimes it makes sense to place both together.
  • Both sections are lists of terms with the same meaning as the current term.
  • If you are in doubt whether a term fits in Alternative forms or Synonyms, it helps to show both sections consecutively.
• Removing Alternative forms from above the definitions is a way to promote the definitions.
  • Definitions are more important than alternative forms. Readers are likely to be more interested in definitions than in alternative forms. This is a way to avoid forcing readers to scroll down or read past the upper sections if they don't want to.

Simplified examples, concerning English entry hardworking:

Type 1. Before the definitions. ==English== ===Alternative forms=== * {{l|en|hard-working}} ===Adjective=== {{en-adj}} # Definition. ====Synonyms==== * {{l|en|industrious}}

Type 2. After the definitions. ==English== ===Adjective=== {{en-adj}} # Definition. ====Alternative forms==== * {{l|en|hard-working}} ====Synonyms==== * {{l|en|industrious}}

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Older discussions:
  • Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/April#Moving 'alternative forms' down in ELE
  • Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/December#Alt forms BEFORE the definition?
• Previous vote:
  • User talk:Daniel Carrero#Reordering L3 headers
  • Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/February#Alternative forms after definitions
  • Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms" (vote page)
  • Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Alternative forms" (vote talk page)
• Current vote:
  • Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Alternative forms after definitions — weaker proposal
  • Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-09/Placement of "Alternative forms" 2 (weaker proposal)

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Support insofar as it is a step towards having them all directly preceding the "Synonyms" sections. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Support —CodeCat 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Support; I am persuaded that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, as in the previous vote, especially with this vote's allowance for the current setup to continue in any entries where it is more desirable to us. An advantage of the current placement is that readers may want to see pertinent alternative forms (like US/UK differences) at the top of the entry to reassure them that they are at the right entry; a drawback is that potentially long lists of obsolete, archaic, uncommon, and/or equally-standard alternative spellings take up space that pushes the definitions down, which is especially noticeable when there are a lot of alternative spellings, as in voivode and Muhammad. There is also sometimes ambiguity over what is an alternative spelling and what is a synonym (for instance at voivode or hajduk, where different spellings may be from different languages). This proposal does not solve that issue (forms still have to be listed in one place or the other, or both) but does mitigate it (the sections are now next to each other). - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
5. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Support —Enosh (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
7. Support. The French Wiktionary has been doing so for a long time. See fr:color#en for example. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
8. Support I am already handling it like that for Middle Low German; I'd sworn this proposal already had consensus. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose For the same reason as in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement_of_"Alternative_forms": The proposal increases the actual number of occurrences of Alternative forms heading, since now they are a node subordinate to language, while in the proposal, they are a node subordinate to part of speech. For example, in color we only need one alternative forms section but with the proposal, we would need two. In color, what really pushes definitions down the page is the etymology section, not alternative forms. On a slightly related note, I proposed to exclude obsolete forms from alternative forms, which would drastically reduce the number of entries that have alternative forms header, but the vote did not pass; that would really help promote definitions over "alternative forms" sections. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

   As for "synonyms and alternative forms are related concepts": I don't agree with that: synonymy is semantic relation while being an alternative form a morphological one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

   About semantic vs. morphological relations. AFs still need to be attested for each part of speech. (I wonder if they need to be attested for each sense of the main entry, but that's beside the point.) In the set of main entries with multiple POS sections and nonzero alternative forms (which are exactly the entries that may have duplicate AF sections), there must be a non-negligible number of AFs that don't apply to all POS sections of the main entry. I admit I don't have any actual numbers.

   Besides, synonyms and alternative forms fit the broader set of "stuff you can substitute for the current word". For "hardworking", you can write either "hard-working" or "industrious".

   If people want to avoid duplication of AF sections, you can still have it at the top in entries like color even if this proposal passes. That said, my opinion is different from yours: I think it is really better to place the AF as an L4 section after the definitions, before the "Synonyms", and I don't think the duplication is a problem. In my opinion, it is better to place the AF twice below the definitions, than once at the top of the language section in color. I'd like to promote the definitions this way.

   For the record, your vote about Allowing "Obsolete forms" heading to be placed somewhere before "Anagrams", containing obsolete forms. is this one: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-10/Obsolete forms heading. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain I prefer above the definition, but apparently I can't vote just for that. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Description

Voting on: Allowing a "Description" section in entries for symbols, to place a visual description the current symbol.

Section contents:

1. The visual description should be as short as possible. Just using the name from the Unicode codepoint should usually be enough for the character description.
   • The entry ⌛ (Unicode name: HOURGLASS) may be described as "An hourglass."
2. When the Unicode codepoint name does not tell anything about the character shape, a short shape description may be added in one's own words.
   • The entry 🔗 (Unicode name: LINK SYMBOL) may be described as "Two or three interlocked chain links."
3. Major rendering variations may be mentioned.
   • The entry 🏦 (Unicode name: BANK) may mention: "This is sometimes rendered as a bank emoji, or just the written work 'bank'."

Section placement:

1. The Description section is to be a level 3 section.
2. The Description section is to be placed among the first sections that exist before the POS section. More specifically: before the level 3 Etymology and Pronunciation sections when they exist, and after the level 3 Alternative forms section when it exists.

Rationale:

Many entries of symbols are currently using the Unicode character name as the single, or first definition. One may be tempted to define ⌛ as "An hourglass." However, the current (unvoted) consensus as per this 2015 discussion is that we must not document individual characters just because they exist in Unicode.

The sense "an hourglass" (the object) may not be attestable. To attest that specific sense, it would be enough to find quotations like this: There is a hole in my ⌛, so the sand is spilling out!. Otherwise, the sense or entry may fail an RFV discussion. People may still be tempted to add the "an hourglass" sense; given that this is the Unicode character name, arguably it should be mentioned somewhere in the entry, other than infoxes such as {{character info/new}}. A few entries use the Etymology section to place information like "an hourglass". (These entries currently have a shape description in the Etymology section: 🔇, ⚤, 🗕, 💡, ☞, etc.) However, descriptions are not etymologies.

If this vote passes, we will be able to use the Description section for the entry ⌛. A Description section is easy to find and brings consistency to the entries, as opposed to scattering symbol descriptions in definitions, Etymology and Usage notes sections. If we introduce the Description section and start adding it to entries, it should be easy to see which symbols lack a description, to add it in those as well.

Concerning the entry ⌛, compare:

Exhibit 1. Single definition.	Exhibit 2. Multiple definitions.	Exhibit 3. Etymology section.	Exhibit 4. Description section.
(wrong per discussion)	(wrong per discussion)	(this is an allowable section, but descriptions are not etymologies)	(proposed new section)
==Translingual== ===Symbol=== {{mul-symbol}} # an [[hourglass]]	==Translingual== ===Symbol=== {{mul-symbol}} # an [[hourglass]] # [[time]] # [[busy]] [[application]]	==Translingual== ===Etymology=== An [[hourglass]]. ===Symbol=== {{mul-symbol}} # [[time]] # [[busy]] [[application]]	==Translingual== ===Description=== An [[hourglass]]. ===Symbol=== {{mul-symbol}} # [[time]] # [[busy]] [[application]]

Status quo:

If this vote fails, maybe the Etymology section can still be used for visual descriptions until further discussion, because Etymology is already an allowable section, and Description needs to be approved by vote before it starts being used in entries.

Other examples:

• ⌛ = "An hourglass."
• 💡 = "A light bulb."
• 📞 = "A telephone receiver."
• 💾 = "A floppy disk."
• ⚤ = "Interlocked Mars symbol (♂) and Venus symbol (♀)."
• 🔇 = "A speaker with a stroke. Sometimes, shown as a speaker with a prohibition sign (🚫)."
• 🚫 = "A circle with a 45º diagonal line inside it."
• 🗕 = "A horizontal bar at the bottom of the image, representing a minimized application."
• ☞ = "A hand pointing right using the index finger."
• ⚠ = "An exclamation point (!) inside a triangle."

Disclaimer:

• Until further discussion, it is not known if all characters of all scripts merit a Description section. For example, one might argue that Han compounds like "秋 = compound of 禾 ‎+ 火" should use only the Etymology section and don't need a separate Description section.

Procedural note:

• There are no entries with a Description section yet. That is, there was no attempt to add the section without a vote. If the vote passes, a Description section may start being added in entries.

Final comment, future plans:

• This is not part of the current vote, but rather something that can be discussed eventually: if we have the Description section, we can either: 1) keep striving to have only the attestable symbols, deleting all other symbols; or 2) if people want, we can try having a large Unicode database, with unattestable entries that have the Description section properly filled with a textual description, and a single definition along the lines of: "# Symbol not attested. This entry merely describes the Unicode character."

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/January#Is documenting all Unicode characters within the scope of Wiktionary?
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Proposal: "Description" section for symbols
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Poll: Description section
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#Please vote in "Poll: Description section"
• Talk:💬 (a discussion about placing a visual description of 💬 in the Etymology section)
• Talk:🔗 (a discussion about the etymology of 🔗)
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Description

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

   In my opinion, the information "an hourglass" must be somewhere in the entry ⌛ (besides {{character info/new}}), even if the entry already has as image. An "hourglass" is what the symbol is.

   If someone asks: "What is ⌛? I don't seem to have the right Unicode fonts to see it.", someone else could check Wiktionary and reply: "Turns out this is the hourglass symbol."

   Another conversation could happen with the opposite problem: "Where is the hourglass symbol? I can't find it.", and someone else could say: "I found it for you, here it is: ⌛."

   The proposed description sense introduces what exactly the character is, not counting the attestable definitions. It would feel off not having "an hourglass" anywhere in the entry, and people might feel tempted to create a sense "hourglass". The entry was created in 2009 (see revision) defined as "hourglass" even though this specific sense seems to be unattestable and would fail RFV. Many other symbol entries have a sense that is merely the Unicode codepoint name, which is unwanted per this discussion. Having a "Description" section is intended to curb that practive, while still describing the symbol somewhere in the entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Support Using the "Etymology" section for this is silly, but until now it's all we had. In case anyone supports the idea but opposes the specific name of the header ("Description"), I hope they would consider supporting this vote regardless, so that we can talk about the name of the header after this vote has finished. This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. If this doesn't pass, then there should be images in each entry for characters/symbols, showing a number of different variations. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

   Per my "Support" section, in my opinion, the Description section is not merely a fallback in the lack of images. I believe he Description section would be useful even if all symbol entries had images. That said, I agree with you on this point: no matter if this proposal passes or fails, it would be great if all symbol entries had images, eventually. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

4. Support. I don't greatly care, but this would increase our ability to manage these entries in a consistent and (hopefully) CFI-compliant way. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There is simply no evidence that this will be useful to anybody; I regard it as a vanity project. "Can" does not imply "should". Equinox ◑ 11:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

   Feel free to disagree with me, but I said in my support vote why exactly I believe this is useful. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

   Daniel, you have recently had a big argument with Wyang over the fact that what is useful doesn't matter, but only what the community votes on. It is therefore disingenuous if you piggyback users' votes to say "well, your vote isn't my opinion", especially when you started the vote. Equinox ◑ 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

   I also can't possibly see the value of saying "I explained why I think this is useful" when you are holding a vote. If your "usefulness" somehow takes priority over our oppose votes, then there shouldn't be a vote: we would just go with your superior choice. If we do have a choice, then don't be so presumptuous as to stamp over it. Equinox ◑ 02:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

   But it's normal to reply to votes of other people in a way to build a discussion. I believe it would be okay if I asked to you in the first place: if you feel the proposed Description section is not so useful, where would you say "an hourglass" in the entry ⌛, if anywhere? ... don't you agree? Or did I sound like I was ordering you around? I apologize if I sounded like that.

   Concerning "what is useful doesn't matter, but only what the community votes on" ... for implementation of some big and/or controversial things, and for policy edits, yes. In the current vote, I believe that having a new heading would be a great idea, but I would only be able to use it if the vote passed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose Would not be useful, since most of the uses are better served with images. --WikiTiki89 11:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

   Feel free to disagree with me, but I said in my support vote why exactly I believe this is useful. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

   The {{character info}} box already shows the Unicode name, which solves the issue you mentioned. --WikiTiki89 00:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

   I mentioned {{character info/new}} in my support vote. In my opinion, floating infoboxes feel somehow "outside" the main contents of the entry, and something important like the short character description (which states what the symbol is) should be mentioned in the main body of the entry, not only in the infobox. I imagine that a reader will sometimes be more interested in knowing what a symbol is than knowing what are the attestable definitions.

   I stated that the "Description" section should be able to curb the practice of people creating an entry like ⌛ with non-attestable definitions like "# hourglass". In the entry ✓ (diff), I replaced a simple "# Symbol for tick, checkmark, check." by three semantic definitions.

   See ⛽ for a symbol entry created a few weeks ago. It has two definitions:

   1. fuel pump
   2. (figuratively) petrol station, gas station

   I'm not convinced that ⛽ is actually used with the meaning "fuel pump" in the real world; for this reason, I believe the 1st sense should be deleted. But the symbol does appear in maps, meaning "gas station". If printed maps with that symbol are found on Google Books, then I would consider the 2nd sense attested. The older infobox {{character info}} that you mentioned exists since 2009 and that unwanted practice of creating senses for Unicode names is still widespread, which suggests that the infobox is not helping a lot to curb the practice. The entry ⛽ was created with both an infobox ({{character info/new}}) and the sense that is merely the seemingly-unattestable Unicode codepoint name ("# fuel pump"). The existence of a "Description" section (rather than an infobox) should make it clearer that there's a difference between what is a descriptive Unicode name and what are the attestable, semantic defititions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

   That's exactly the point. This content does not belong in the main entry, that's why we stuffed it in an infobox. The infobox just tells you about what page you're on. --WikiTiki89 01:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

   As I said, feel free to disagree with me. It's okay that we have different opinions. I'm just explaining what I think, even if it does not sound convincing to you. Concerning your last point, my opinion is as follows: Actually, not only this content does belong to the main entry, it's one of the most important things to have in the main entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Adding "template editor" group

• Voting on: At Wikipedia, they have a user group called "template editors" who can edit protected, high-visibility templates and modules. More information on how they handle it can be found here. This seems like it would be a useful thing to have here, because someone shouldn't necessarily become a sysop because they're technically adept, and the technically adept shouldn't necessarily have to wait on sysops to carry out their edits for them. We would add editors to this group like we add autopatrollers, at WT:WL.

• Vote starts: 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:Beer parlour/2016/August#"Template editor" user group

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right (the vote over at 'pedia)

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Adding "template editor" group

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --WikiTiki89 02:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Benwing2 (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
5. Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Support — Kleio (t · c) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
7. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
8. Support — Eru·tuon 21:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
9. Support tentatively. One question, however. We have protected templates/modules not only for boilerplate (e.g. {{Policy}}) or data manipulation (e.g. {{IPA}}) purposes, but also for storing various data (e.g. Module:families/data). Would this editor group be intended to include also editors who may have some need to edit the latter, even if they do not have particular familiarity with template coding etc.? --Tropylium (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

   Apparently, template editors would be able to edit with all protected templates and modules, because they would be trusted to either understand what they are doing or not do it... If someone does not know Lua, they would not edit modules, or they could start learning with simple modules. If someone breaks something, it's reversible anyway and if it's in bad faith, we could consider taking template editor rights away. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain Equinox ◑ 16:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain - I don't see why they shouldn't just be a sysop if they are trusted enough to change high visibility templates. Other than community trust what are the prerequisites for being a sysop? - TheDaveRoss 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Using template l to link to English entries from English entries

• Voting on: For English sections, allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all links in Synonyms, Antonyms, Hyponyms, Hypernyms, Related terms, and Derived terms are linked using {{l}} template rather than plain wikilinks.

  Thus, instead of

  * [[bakery]]

  there will be

  * {{l|en|bakery}}

• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Using template l to link to English entries from English entries#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Vote: Using template l to link to English entries from English entries

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Using template l to link to English entries from English entries

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Support again. —CodeCat 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Support, but as Equinox says, it would be better to have language headers automatically detected somehow. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Support "Harder to read the markup" simply doesn't fly for me. We're here to produce a dictionary that works for all our consumers, be they humans, other websites, bots, scripts run by researchers or analysts, etc. The convenience of us editors should be a secondary priority, and in any case, this is only a minor change (five additional keystrokes) for those who don't already do it. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

   "We're here to produce..." means we need not to be hindered in producing. I have averaged more than 100 edits per day (mostly creations) for most of a decade and I can tell you those five keystrokes add up: and it takes longer to read the markup too when it's full of templates. Equinox ◑ 07:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

   You can still enter plain wikilinks, this vote won't stop you from doing that. This vote just allows bots to fix it up after. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

5. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Support. I think it is important to keep markup readable. However, I think that {{l}} is perfectly readable when used in lists like this (as opposed to its use in running text). --WikiTiki89 18:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
8. Support Mulder1982 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Support AtalinaDove (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Support --Mistrz (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    User:Mistrz has 79 edits between 9 July 2013 and 22 April 2016. The user is eligible to vote, per WT:Voting policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Harder to read and write the markup (and the visual editor isn't an acceptable alternative for me either). I wish we could detect language headers and set language links accordingly. Equinox ◑ 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

   This vote does not mandate that you write it that way, only that a bot can convert your additions to that format. --WikiTiki89 13:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose Totally pointless AFAIAC. Also per vote creator's comment elsewhere. --Droigheann (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose, since proper redirection can be done using JS.--Dixtosa (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Equinox, myself as referenced by Droigheann, and Dixtosa. In another vote, I pointed out that the linking could be done by either Javascript or MediaWiki plugin, with no need to make the markup harder to read. I also pointed out that tabbed browsing, which was voted to be enabled via a passing vote but is not enabled yet, already has the function using Javascript. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per what I wrote at Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose DCDuring TALK 22:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Matched-pair entries — policy page

Voting on: Creating a new policy page, based on the following votes and discussion.

1. The rules that were already voted and approved in:
   • Wiktionary:Votes/2015-08/Allowing matched-pair entries.
   • Wiktionary:Votes/2015-10/Matched-pair naming format: left, space, right.
2. And new rules about redirects and placement of definitions, as discussed in:
   • Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/June#Redirects to matched pairs.

Implementation details:

Title: Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries.

Header statement: "It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE." (currently generated by {{policy-VOTE}})

Contents:

Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries

These are the rules concerning entries for matched pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks. Entry name (L2 header) The title of a matched-pair entry consists of both left and right symbols, with a space in between. Examples: ( ), [ ], “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?. Definitions and redirects (L2 header) If a symbol is only used as part of a matched pair, redirect the symbol to the matched pair. If a symbol is used as part of multiple matched pairs, create the entry for the symbol, with a definition linking it to all the matched pairs. If a symbol is used by itself and also as part of at least one matched pair, create the entry for the symbol and list the individual uses normally, plus create a definition linking it to all the matched pairs. Examples: The symbols ⌈ and ⌉ are used together to form the ceiling function in math. Unless any of these is attested as used by itself, both entries should redirect to ⌈ ⌉. The entry ” may exist, with a definition pointing to matched-pair entries that include this symbol, such as: “ ”, ” ” and „ ”. The entry ) may exist, listing any senses where it is used by itself, which may include: used in lists, like "A) milk, B) eggs, C) flour". There should be a definition pointing to ( ). References (L2 header)

Edit WT:EL#Entry name accordingly, replacing this red-bordered text by the green-bordered text:

WT:EL#Entry name

Matched-pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks, can be defined together as single entries. The entries are named with a space between the left and right characters. Examples: ( ), [ ], “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?. References For names of matched-pair entries, see Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries#Entry name. References

Edit WT:EL#Definitions accordingly, adding this text:

WT:EL#Definitions

For definitions concerning matched-pair entries and their components, see Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries#Definitions and redirects. References

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/June#Redirects to matched pairs
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#Matched-pairs policy
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-09/Matched-pair entries — policy page

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Support This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Support This isn't much for one policy, don't you think? -Xbony2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

   Maybe. I'm open to discuss other suggestions, but I wanted to have a single place for information that WT:EL would probably have in the separate sections "Entry name" and "Definitions". I wouldn't want to create a separate EL section like "WT:EL#Matched-pair entries" either, because the policy is really about some entry names and definitions. Additionally, in the future, I'd like to discuss separate rules to add to this policy, if other people agree:

   • suggesting that a matched-pair entry can use character boxes for their components... * * has a box explaining the * (asterisk)
   • suggesting that the headword line of a matched-pair entry should also use the format "left, space, right" (without ellipsis or whatever), linking to the components: * *

   I like to try to keep policy proposals simple... For example, I dislike the style of the (think thank) Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms. For a policy page, it contains a lot of encyclopedic information instead of a link to Wikipedia, and only a few actual regulations. (P.S.: If we wanted to add an explanation about the history of parentheses and quotation marks to Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries, it could be a lot longer... But I don't think we want to do that. I'm just criticizing when it happens in other pages.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Request categories

Voting on:

• Renaming the request categories in all languages, according to the table below.

Rationale:

1. Using consistent names in all categories, with proper grammar/syntax.
2. Using the word "requests" instead of "needing". These categories track where something was requested, not where something is needed.
3. Using the word "review" instead of "needing attention" or "to be checked". Arguably, if we are requesting something to be done, it is for people to review the entries.

Proposed names:

Proposed name	Proposed umbrella category	Current name
Category:Requests for etymologies of English terms	Category:Requests for etymologies by language	Category:English entries needing etymology
Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies of English terms	Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies by language	Category:English entries with incomplete etymology
Category:Requests for review of etymologies of Latin terms	Category:Requests for review of etymologies by language	Category:Latin etymologies needing attention
--
Category:Requests for pronunciation of English terms	Category:Requests for pronunciation by language	Category:English entries needing pronunciation
Category:Requests for audio pronunciation of English terms	Category:Requests for audio pronunciation by language	Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation
--
Category:Requests for example sentences in English	Category:Requests for example sentences by language	Category:English requests for example sentences
Category:Requests for quotations in English	Category:Requests for quotations by language	Category:English entries needing quotation
Category:Requests for dates of English quotations	Category:Requests for quotation dates by language	Category:Requests for date (no language-specific category)
--
Category:Requests for translations in Sanskrit	Category:Requests for translations by language	Category:Translation requests (Sanskrit)
Category:Requests for review of translations in Sanskrit	Category:Requests for review of translations by language	Category:Translations to be checked (Sanskrit)
--
Category:Requests for terms in English	Category:Requests for terms by language	Category:English term requests
Category:Requests for native script of Sanskrit terms	Category:Requests for native script by language	Category:Sanskrit terms needing native script
Category:Requests for transliterations of Sanskrit terms	Category:Requests for transliterations by language	Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration
--
Category:Requests for definitions of English terms	Category:Requests for definitions by language	Category:English entries needing definition
Category:Requests for inflections of English terms	Category:Requests for inflections by language	Category:English entries needing inflection
--
Category:Requests for review of English entries	Category:Requests for review of entries by language	Category:English terms needing attention
--
Category:Requests for images representing English terms	Category:Requests for images by language	Category:English entries needing images
Category:Requests for references about English terms	Category:Requests for references by language	Category:English entries needing reference

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/Language-specific rfi categories (see the discussion in the vote page)
• WT:RFM#Categories for requests and needs
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/July#Vote: Request categories
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Proposal: Request categories with longer names
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Request categories

Support

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Support – The names are definite improvements, though it is unfortunate that the language name gets shoved to the end. That just has to be lived with, I guess. You can at least find all the categories under Category:English entry maintenance. — Eru·tuon 06:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

   Support - User:Bcent1234 I strongly support consistent cross-language names for categories Bcent1234 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

   I appreciate the support for my proposal, but to be eligible for voting, you need at least 50 edits in entries or some related namespaces before the vote starts, per Wiktionary:Voting policy. I'm striking your vote now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Support — A definite improvement, even if not absolutely perfect. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Support, although this did not need to be a vote. Imperfections such as ISMETA speaks of can be improved via RFM. I agree that "English requests", "Latin requests" sound like categories for {{attn|I request...}} vs {{attn|Quaerō...}}. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

   @-sche: This proposal started in RFM (see WT:RFM#Categories for requests and needs). In that discussion, when I proposed renaming all request categories at once, @Dan Polansky suggested doing it by vote, and I agreed. My opinion is this: renaming a huge number of categories should need a vote, especially if the idea is proposing a new naming scheme for all categories of a certain type. This has been done before, for examples see: Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories, Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Add en: to English topical categories, part 2. I'm fine with using RFM for future changes that affect only one or few categories in all languages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

5. Support —Enosh (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. (weak) Oppose. I like being able to type "Category:English _" and viewing all of the English categories. Maybe it's a silly reason to vote against, but it's what I would prefer. I'd like language-specific date categories though -Xbony2 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   These aren't actually English categories, but cleanup categories regarding English. When Wiktionary is "done" (at T+infinity) these categories no longer need to exist. --WikiTiki89 11:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain. I don't really care which way this vote goes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Definitions — non-lemma

Note: This follows Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-08/Definitions — introduction, which edited the first paragraph of WT:EL#Definitions.

Voting on: Editing the next piece of WT:EL#Definitions.

Current text:

The vote “2006-12/form-of style” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.

The vote “2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.

Proposed text:

Non-gloss definitions are italicized. Non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.) are treated and formatted as non-gloss definitions, linking to the lemma form, which is in bold when the linked term is in the Latin script.

References

Rationale and notes:

• The previous text contains two vote links concerning rules that were voted and approved. Specifically, one vote is about italic "form-of" definitions and the other vote is about bold links in "form of" entries. The proposed text states the actual rules.
• Mentioning non-gloss definitions.

This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#2nd Definitions vote
• User talk:Wikitiki89#Next definitions vote
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma

---

No headings nested inside templates or tags

Voting on: Adding this rule to WT:NORM#Headings:

• No headings nested inside templates or tags, as in {{template|==English==}} or <div>==English==</div>.

Note:

• WT:NORM applies to entries only. Some talk pages use headings inside templates, but they won't be affected.

Rationale:

• No entry does this anyway, and explicitly disallowing this would make parsing of entries easier, because it would not be necessary to determine if a heading is "real" or is nested within a template or an HTML tag.

This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Proposed addition to WT:NORM: headers cannot be nested inside things
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#Vote about not nesting headings inside stuff
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-09/No headings nested inside templates or tags

---

Renaming transliteration

Voting on: Renaming transliteration to a more accurate/descriptive term.

Transliteration is not an accurate term for what Wiktionary uses it for in practice, and one user has expressed concern for this naming. Therefore, it is proposed that transliteration is renamed in all places in Wiktionary's pages and infrastructure, to a more accurate term.

This includes renaming the category Category:Transliteration policies and all transliteration pages:

• Wiktionary:Japanese transliteration
• Wiktionary:Russian transliteration
• etc.

Option 1: "transcription"

The standard parameter name can be kept as tr=, but some internal variables used in modules will need to be renamed. Transliteration modules will need to be renamed as well, as will {{xlit}}.

Option 2: "romanization"

This will require renaming the parameter names as well. Additionally, transliteration parameters are currently used for Japanese to convert to the "other" script, and these are not strictly romanizations.

• Vote starts: 00:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.

• Vote created: —CodeCat 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/June#Automatic transliteration for Thai has been disabled for now

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/June#Thai Transliteration Debate Explained (I think)

  User talk:Wyang#Reverts

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#Sysop

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#Restoration of Sysop Privileges

  User talk:Wyang#About your proposal

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Renaming transliteration

---

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/2016-08/Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-09/Coauthoring policy votes
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-03/Excluding most sarcastic usage from CFI‎
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Redirecting attested romanizations
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Definition layout
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Common placenames get entries
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/ELE Amendment 1
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/ELE Amendment 2
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-12/Attestation criteria