Wiktionary:Votes

Wiktionary > Votes

Votes formalize and document the consensus-building process and the decisions that the community makes. This page displays the full contents of recent, current and planned votes. Edit Wiktionary:Votes/Active to add new votes and remove old ones. Finished votes are added to Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline, an organized archive of previous votes and their results, sorted by the vote end date.

Policy and help pages, respectively: Wiktionary:Voting policy (including who is eligible to vote) and Help:Creating a vote.

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

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2019-02/Title of vote}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-02/Title of vote}}
Note: add to this page and WT:A. {{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-02/User: for admin}}	Note: add to this page and WT:B. {{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2019-02/User: for bureaucrat}}
Note: add to this page and WT:C. {{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2019-02/User: for checkuser}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2019-02/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

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

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

Current and new votes

User:Per utramque cavernam for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Per utramque cavernam (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Per utramque cavernam is an active editor of French, English and classical languages and also requested a link to this section for full disclosure.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 11:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept.

• Languages: fr, en-2
• Timezone: UTC+1

Per utramque cavernam 04:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Comes across as diligent and sensible. -Stelio (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support – Jberkel 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Fay Freak (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Everybody is weird on Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Equinox ◑ 20:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support If we're going to have a standard of conduct for admins and their conduct and usernames it needs to be written down and not arbitrarily applied in other votes.DTLHS (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
8. Support--Calak (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
9. Support my mentor (not just patroller). He is a born teacher: patient, passionate. He is young. Exciting. His humour, aristophanic. And his greek is excellent. sarri.greek (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
10. Support DCDuring (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Have only really had pleasant interactions w/ this user and appreciate their many high-quality contributions (both to mainspace entries and to debates in the discussion rooms) & rollbacks of vandalism, and I was not aware of any issues until checking out this vote. But that self-nom-via-sockpuppet episode, which was only a year ago, seems extremely weird and red-flaggy to me. And, leaving aside for the moment the self-block request which was over two years ago now, the 10+ sockpuppets brought up by Victar also puzzle me, and include some pretty objectionable (1), (2) (cf. négraille: this is equivalent to someone editing under the username "nigger") ones. I am not sure this is the right time for adminship. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Mnemosientje: His current username is actually a reference to a Roman text slandering a woman, saying that she gets molitur per utramque cavernam (“fucked through both holes”). Pleasant. --{{victar|talk}} 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   With that revelation I can see another name change on the horizon. DonnanZ (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Donnanz: If he was really serious about becoming an admin, he should have changed it back to Fsojic or Barytonesis, instead of choosing a sexist and vulgar username. --{{victar|talk}} 19:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   To Donnanz: I don't plan on changing usernames again, no.

   That being said, I've had some misgivings myself about my current name when LBD offered me to be nominated; working as a regular contributor, I don't really see a problem, but if I were to work as an administrator, people might be disturbed by seeing such a username in a managerial position. Especially if, as Mnemosientje writes below, an admin is representative of the site. I don't know. Per utramque cavernam 18:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Some 2000-year-old obscenity doesn't really bother me, it's those specific things I mentioned that disturb me a bit, considering an admin is also supposed to be (imo) representative of the site as a whole. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   The idea that admins represent Wiktionary is an interesting and underdiscussed assumption that many, though not all, of us hold. Some historical background on people's views can be found here, among other places. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   That's why I'm all for breaking up admin abilities into smaller roles, like we did for page moves. If someone needs a tool, let's just give them that tool. --{{victar|talk}} 01:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   I agree, but I have two remarks.

   • I'm chiefly interested in page-deleting rights, as I spend a lot of time in RFD. However, it's already quite a powerful tool, and in my opinion there should be a vote of some sort every time before granting it to a user.
   • I'd also like to be able to block vandals as soon as I spot them. But the blocking tool is probably the most powerful tool, and the one requiring the most discernment; with that in mind, I suppose once a user is granted that right he might as well be granted all the others. Besides, having blocking rights without page-deleting rights seems somewhat inefficient.

   So yes, I agree that creating smaller roles is a good idea, but it will require a bit of discussion, and I don't think it will (entirely) eliminate the need for votes (or any procedure allowing one to express one's trust or distrust in a user.) Per utramque cavernam 18:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply, @Per utramque cavernam. I think it's always helpful to get a list of what nominees actually want to do with their adminship. I've been giving this some thought, and maybe what's needed is a blocker role that allows users to add blocks, but those blocked users are then are placed on a list for review by an admin. Something similar could be done for deletions, but isn't that what {{delete}} is anyway? Maybe we could make a more expedited {{delete|vandal}} ({{dv}}) tag category. --{{victar|talk}} 18:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Basically, what you say here is: Umm, I expect he would use the admin tools right. But … but what then against his being admin? This is it. It’s not like he would mistreat people because they are women or black. Being racist or sexist is a meme. What matters if one judges individuals as individuals, individual cases individually, unsettled by the torrents of words. How poor would someone be who lets himself be guided, captured by how he has named himself!? Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak: What I'm saying is that I would be OK giving him the tools on a role basis, which is easier to grant, and just as easy to take away. Vahagn's de-synop vote is a perfect example of how the de-synoping process is virtually impossible to pass. --{{victar|talk}} 22:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak: I'd like to point out that being racist and/or sexist is not a "meme", it is being racist and/or sexist. And you have the logic backwards, it is not a concern that in choosing a name s/he may be influenced by that name, but it is a concern that there is a decided lack of wisdom, decorum, decency or civility shown by the choices which have been made. - TheDaveRoss 17:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   Particularly with people interested in multiple languages I would be careful to assume them being “racist”. This is an indication that they aren’t. They rather just like to exert their vocabulary. Extrapolating degrees of “wisdom, decorum, decency or civility” there is magniloquent. What about creativity? Choosing names is hard. There are also many good books with bad names.

   Surely it is a meme since these words are often used and rare with clear concept. Being racist is when you take actions only to further the cause of a race. Or when a cop let’s someone go because it is a fair woman, irrespective of the character or degree of offence, that’s sexism. People give themselves names like “Shqyptar” or “Iranian” without this being problematic. Being “somehow focused on race” is not racist. Andrew Anglin is also not racist. Ironically, it was purported that he abides in Nigeria, and it was totally possible. This part is crucial: “Though it doesn’t matter who I am, as the only thing that matters is my plan, it may be worthwhile to let the record show that I am a very nice person, who has always treated people of all races as individuals in any and all of my one-on-one interpersonal interactions.” I wouldn’t have a problem if Mr. Anglin appeared and made good edits and were planned to be made admin. People get upset in many wrong directions. Fay Freak (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   I was not making a judgment, you said "Being racist or sexist is a meme.", I was disagreeing. Also, if you think Andrew Anglin isn't a racist/sexist simply because he said that he isn't... well I have a bridge I would love to sell you. - TheDaveRoss 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   It's not the vularity that really bothers me, it's the history of sexist rhetoric, as exampled by "Fickle as a female". --{{victar|talk}} 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose for obvious reasons. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- good editor, not sure about judgement and that has been a problem with existing admins of late (or always). - TheDaveRoss 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Mnemosientje, including self-nom-via-sockpuppet. The people who want to be admins so much that they have to resort to that kind of thing are the people who should not be admins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per raised issues. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose as well. I've only had good contact with him, but the issues mentioned above, especially the relatively recent ones, make me think he isn't ready to be an admin yet. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose per my comments above and below. --{{victar|talk}} 06:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

abstain DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote changed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

1. abstain Very wary, given past history of unusual behaviour, from his requesting a self-ban, his frequent account name changes, to his sock-puppeted self-nomination last year. Abstain for now as more people comment. --{{victar|talk}} 01:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   All very weird, a sign of instability? DonnanZ (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Donnanz: That is what I'm worried about, that he lacks the emotional stability and maturity to be trusted with admin tools. --{{victar|talk}} 19:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   It's adminship we're talking about, not access to the nuclear briefcase. – Jberkel 19:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: So you're saying that emotional stability and maturity isn't required for adminship? --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   Shouldn’t one develop oneself instead of being stagnant? Fay Freak (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak: In regards to changing usernames? Inherently that's not an issue -- many admins have changed usernames, though not a frequency as him (you're a good second, I imagine) -- but it appears to me a symptom of a larger picture. --{{victar|talk}} 20:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Victar: Some is certainly required, but I think you're reading too much into it. Changing usernames frequently does not automatically equal instability. And he's requested the disclosure of the self nomination, where he even admits that it was a bad idea. To me this is a sign of maturity. – Jberkel 21:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   I address just that (username changing) above. I don't think admitting something is a bad idea, especially after you're caught, is any sign of maturity beyond that of an 8yo, nor does it negate the act. --{{victar|talk}} 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   It's worth considering that requesting full disclosure goes beyond merely admitting wrong. The current list of socks has also been disclosed for about half a year (the later edits added IPs). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Fair enough. If he hadn't, that would have been worse, for sure. The list of socks was created at the behest of Meta. --{{victar|talk}} 18:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision

• 10-7-0 is not a sufficient majority. Vote fails no consensus. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep. I'm disappointed, but that's ok; I understand the reasons for the oppose votes. Anyway, thank you for the nomination, and thanks for the other votes of confidence too. Per utramque cavernam 18:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    For the record, we usually close this as no consensus, but the result is the same. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    • BTW I am thinking User:Per utramque cavernam should at least be given template editor permissions, if he is interested. I will go ahead if the user is interested, unless someone seriously objects. Benwing2 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Benwing2: Thanks for the offer, but I don't have any technical skills, so I don't think it would be of much use. As of yet, I've never been in a situation where having the template editor status would have been useful. Per utramque cavernam 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Per utramque cavernam: OK. Benwing2 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Banning Altaic

Voting on: Banning Altaic.

• Proposed action: Remove Altaic language grouping and remove Proto-Altaic as a valid language.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Crom daba (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/2013-11/Proto-Altaic
• Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/January#Banning_Altaic_reconstructions

Support

1. Support Little to no support amongst linguistics. Reconstructions are embarrassingly far-fetched and ill-conceived, both semantically and morphologically. --{{victar|talk}} 05:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support I don't think there has been much new evidence to support the Altaic hypothesis from ever since the 1960's, when it was still in vogue. It's now firmly considered to be equivalent to pseudo-linguistics. — surjection 〈?〉 09:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Even if the Altaic hypothesis is true (a theory that lacks solid evidence) the proposed reconstructions are linguistically unsound.  --Lambiam 12:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support embryomystic (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support mellohi! (僕の乖離) 15:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Crom daba (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
8. Support: Looking just at Japonic terms that appear in StarLing and related materials, I'm finding an error rate north of 25%. When every fourth "Japonic" descendant of a proposed Altaic term is in fact derived from unrelated components, the researchers' underlying approach is severely flawed -- and that calls into question all of the other proposed descendants as well. Some of the hypothesized relations are suggestive and may be worthy of further inspection. But on the whole, the Altaic reconstructions I have seen are problematic at best. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
9. Support Although some linguist supporting it exist, we do not have to include what would be not be seen outside of places where the context and meaning of those words were already explained. —This unsigned comment was added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) at 21:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC).
10. Support. I would still be fine with putative Altaic connections mentioned in etymology sections, as long as they use the word "controversial". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
11. Support Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
12. Support Putative Altaic connections can be mentioned in the usual comparison way “compare Mongolic X”, “compare Turkic Y”, and so on, hypotheses directed at an Altaic connection can be mentioned without the “controversial” word (I mean if you know what “Altaic” means you also know that it is controversial). It appears that if the existence of Altaic is dubious then there are also no sound laws known secure we cannot reliably put reconstructions here, so as an entry language it must be banned. Fay Freak (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
13. Support There really is not much of a point to being a mirror for the Altaicists' databases. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
14. Support Ƿidsiþ 12:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain I am not a linguist, and my primary source of knowledge about linguistics is Wikipedia. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Abstain, verging on Support: I don't see anything wrong with banning from the dictionary what seems to be garbage, but I'm not really qualified to judge. Per utramque cavernam 23:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Abstain ‘Moscow school’ long-range reconstructions border on crackpottery. Traditional Altaic comparative linguistics (represented by e. g. Poppe, Ramstedt) isn’t nearly as bad (but still may be too controversial, and hasn’t produced an etymological dictionary). Guldrelokk (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Guldrelokk: The only way they could be more crackpottery if they were made by Rasputin himself. XD --{{victar|talk}} 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

4. Abstain. I know close to nothing about Altaic and do not feel like getting into the subject. On this vote page, I see nothing that would lead me to oppose the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Lemming principle into CFI

Voting on: Adding the following as the next-to-last paragraph of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and therefore, as the paragraph before the one starting with "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic ...":

An attested term that appears to be a sum of its parts yet is included in at least two professionally published general monolingual dictionaries should be included. Such dictionaries include but are not restricted to Merriam-Webster, OED, AHD, Cambridge, Collins, Macmillan, Longman, German Duden and Spanish DRAE; dictionaries that do not count include WordNet.

Rationale: See vote talk page. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI

Support

1. Support. Let's face it, many of the dictionaries used as references are predecessors of Wiktionary in printed form. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support It is a reasonable shortcut for including terms that are useful to readers, as other dictionaries seem more eager to include fixed phrases. Some SOP terms that can be kept via the Lemming principle are drinking water, local area network and white supremacist (though some could be kept by means of other rationales, others cannot). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support in general for attested terms. Acceptable dictionaries for specific languages to be agreed on separately. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, provided that some indicator of the SOP-ness of a term can be added, should a term be challenged in RFD. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per rationale on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

   An example nomination: WT:RFDE#president-elect: I check president-elect at OneLook Dictionary Search, and off I go building the dictionary; case closed. I can also ponder independently on usefulness of "president-elect" and I see one, but I can be spared the trouble. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

6. Support Mofvanes (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support We still require attestation, which is good and ensures we are documenting language as it is used. If independent groups of professional lexicographers think a term is worth explicitly defining, I'm fine with following that lead. The proposed rule allows us to rapidly close some RFD discussions, freeing up editors' time to invest in other things on the site. The application of both attestation and multiple dictionaries protects us from the risk of fictitious entry copyright traps. -Stelio (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

   Well put. --Dan Polansky (talk)

8. Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
9. Support — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
10. Support — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
11. Support פֿינצטערניש (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
12. Support per Dan Polansky rationale. Richardb43 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC) (See old persona at user:richardb)
13. Support. Generally I'd consider it not so much an argument in itself as an argument in favour of some other grounds for inclusion, one which is obviously recognised by professional lexicographers – but as a shortcut, I would support this. Ƿidsiþ 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
14. Support This is a good practical way to do things. John Cross (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Other general dictionaries are bad. The less one has to use them the better. Fay Freak (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   Re: "Other general dictionaries are bad": Untrue generalization, with zero substantiation. A substantiation would consist e.g. in giving example entries that are bad, in other dictionaries, and these would be bad sum of parts entries since attestation is not given up by the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose: Most of the English entries I've created are supported by two or more lemmings, but I still want people to feel free to RFD them if they have good reason to think we shouldn't have them. Similarly, I don't want to be shut down with a peremptory Keep per WT:LEMMING when I nominate entries for deletion. In other words, let reasoned discussions keep happening. By the way, more doesn't necessarily equal better. Per utramque cavernam 01:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   Let me add that I concur with -sche. Per utramque cavernam 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   "More doesn't necessarily equal better". I have added a reference to the more the merrier. DonnanZ (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose Different dictionaries can have different "words" in them. That's a good thing. We should aim to describe language and not other dictionaries. I particularly object to sentiments like "for the sake of competition, we should include everything multiple professional dictionaries include". Finally I think that the list of acceptable sources is slightly nonsensical and I imagine that it will lead to many disagreements in the future about "acceptable" dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   1) The aim indeed is to describe language, not dictionaries, and to indicate that an attested term, using attestation methods of en wikt, means such and such; that is not a description of other dictionaries. 2) The "for the sake of competition" rationale is not part of the main rationale presented on the vote page. It cannot possibly be that a proposal is opposed only because of opposition to one of multiple independent rationales supporters have: a theorem is proven when one correct proof is found regardless of how many incorrect proofs were submitted. 3) The list of sources is there to give an idea of a broader term "professionally published", and that it is so is reinforced by "include but are not restricted to" phrasing; I don't see how it is "nonsensical", and disagreements about the scope of "professionally published" can be there either way, and the examples merely reduce the possible disagreement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose Equinox ◑ 20:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I think lemmings can guide us in our determinations of whether or not something is NISOP or otherwise inclusion-worthy, but I don't want a rule that indiscriminately includes anything other [pairs of] ["acceptable"] dictionaries have. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose. This rule could allow a lot of entries that really don't need to be included. In my opinion, an entry "needs" to be included if someone might come to Wiktionary looking for its definition, and although some of the entries the lemming principle allows will meet this requirement, all of them definitely won't. We shouldn't have to include a term that no one will ever look up just because another dictionary does, and this still applies even if several other dictionaries decide to unnecessarily include that same term. Implementing this policy would make editors of professional dictionaries indirectly responsible for judgments about what belongs in Wiktionary instead of allowing Wiktionary editors to directly make those judgments. Making a policy like this feels dangerous to me because it takes some power of judgment away from us as editors. It might make RFDs quicker, but quicker doesn't necessarily mean better if it robs us of a piece of our independence. —Globins (yo) 08:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

   I find it likely that professionally published dictionaries include additional terms because people keep on looking them up; Wiktionary editors keep on proposing for deletion useful entries that people keep on looking up, from my experience. The notion that lemming-included entries will include those that "no one will ever look up" seems rather unlikely, and in any case, unsubstantiated: not a single example has been provided. And even if the lemming criterion would lead to inclusion of some terms that are not looked up, that is compensated by additional inclusion of terms that people do keep on looking up, and would not find in Wiktionary otherwise. Put differently, adding meat and protein is good even if it means adding a little amount of fat and carbs as well (the analogy is not so good since we do need fat and carbs, as well as dietary fiber). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

   I agree that it's better to have unnecessary entries than to not have necessary entries, but my point is that we shouldn't trust other dictionaries to make decisions for us about which entries are the necessary ones; we should be the ones making those decisions independent of what other dictionaries are doing. —Globins (yo) 09:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

   That's a matter of cost benefit analysis. This proposal is a partial outsourcing proposal (attestation is not given up), and also a proposal to include more, never to include less because of lemmings. It is not an utter and complete delegation of inclusion criteria to other dictionaries. An alternative is to keep on developing all criteria in house. As a wiki lexicographer, I am doing my best to stubbornly try to think clearly and look at and search for evidence, but I do not have the time to devote to figuring out criteria and their repercussions, and I would much prefer to have more of my energy spared for expanding the dictionary rather than having to discuss and show evidence in RFD when useful entries are being threatened with deletion, sometime by students who have not seen a paying customer in their lives, and have no sense of economy of effort and delivery of results. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

7. Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 06:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 23:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose — Julia ☺ ☆ 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose with a heavy heart. This does not accomplish much because of the "multiple respectable" dictionaries restriction. As unintended consequences often flow from the application of legalistic argument to novel wording, The small benefit does not seem to me worth the risk. DCDuring (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

    @DCDuring: Could you clarify? The wording used is "at least two professionally published", not "multiple respectable". The wording is a result of Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI#How to gauge dictionary quality?. Without such a requirement or similar, amateur monolingual dictionaries would count as well. And what is the "risk" you are talking about? What makes you think "at least two professionally published" significantly reduces the benefit? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    I don't. I just see it as having insufficient benefit. It will not help in adding terms from the worlds of work and crafts, where we are notably deficient, because the glossaries that contain such terms are not "respectable" and too few in number in the numerous special areas involved. I view any additional wording added to our rules, coupled eith a decided tendency toward legalistic argumentation, as providing too much opportunity for unintended consequences. DCDuring (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    @DCDuring The proposal says "professionally published", not "respectable". Do you have a particular glossary in mind that is not "professionally published" and yet worthwhile? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    In your Beer parlour proposal years ago, you wrote: "In the interest of speeding up RfDs for English terms and senses [...]". Does the proposal fail to achieve the speeding up that you intended? Also, you wrote: "If it can't be enacted into something virtually automatic, it wouldn't do the job I was looking to have it do." If a proposal is automatic, it has to contain something that prevents inclusion of unreliable amateur works, doesn't it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    Absolutely. So, on mature reflection, having seen how marginal most new English entries are, and recognizing that our ability to have this principle operate automatically at the definition level will not be very good, and for the reasons stated above, I oppose this. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    The rate of speeding up RFD does not seem to depend on new entries but rather on those that end up in WT:RFDE. And in WT:RFDE, my experience is that there is plenty of use of WT:LEMMING. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

11. Oppose—The lemming test is a useful diagnostic, but it shouldn't give an automatic pass. If several dictionaries list a multi-word phrase as an entry, Wiktionarians should be able to articulate why and use that argument to keep the phrase, rather than simply pointing to those dictionaries and calling it sufficient. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose – We don’t know which criteria the editors of some professionally published dictionaries use to include some (in my eyes occasionally obviously Ni) SoP entries; we should not be bound by them and be free to apply our own judgement to the question of idiomaticity.  --Lambiam 23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose: Inclusion in other dictionaries may be taken into account, but ultimately we should make our own decisions about what to include in Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Mahāgaja. — Droigheann (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain good arguments on both sides, can't decide. – Jberkel 12:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

If the vote fails, what will happen of Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD § Lemming test? Per utramque cavernam 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this should change the results of past RFDs. If the word passed, then I don't see a reason for it to be deleted, especially considering that the lemming principle has never been an official policy. —Globins (yo) 02:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Globins: I'm talking specifically about the "Lemming test" section on the page I linked to, not so much about the entries that have been kept thereby. Should it be kept there, or should it be removed entirely? Per utramque cavernam 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It can stay until there's a discussion (and consensus) that's about deleting it. Most of the other tests on that page aren't backed by CFI either; the point of the page is "to rationalize how and why some terms are idiomatic when others are not". Several of the people opposing making this a rigid policy explicitly think it's fine as an advisory guideline, and the page does say "tests can be used as guides during RFD, but they are not hard/fast rules". - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Per utramque cavernam 22:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Phrasebook CFI

Voting on: Changing the phasebook criteria in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as follows:

New:

Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. An attested English term that appears to be a sum of its parts should be included as a phrasebook entry if it is present in at least three independent professionally published phrasebooks; if an attested English phrasebook entry does not meet that, it can only be included if consensus grants an exception. For attested non-English terms, the phrasebook inclusion criteria are unspecified, but being a translation of an includable English phrasebook term is a hint. An example phrasebook entry is what is your name.

Old:

Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.

Rationale: See vote talk page. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Phrasebook CFI
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Phrasebook CFI

Support

1. Support in general as a phrasebook contributor. For non-English phrases, we should also aim at including stock phrases used in specific languages and cultures. For example, Arabic السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ‎ (as-salāmu ʿalaykum) (used by Muslims), Japanese ご苦労様 (くろうさま)でした (go-kurō-sama deshita) (a stock phrase usually used by a senior towards subordinates), Sinhalese ආයුබෝවන් (āyubōvan) (a form of greeting) should be included, even if their translation (especially literal) into English is not necessarily includable as a phrasebook entry. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   All your examples are already included based on our current policies; are there any entries that we want that this vote would allow but are currently excluded? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

   As for entries included only because of phrasebook, I am thinking of I'm hungry and it counterparts cs:mám hlad (redlink, "I have hunger") and de:ich habe Hunger ("I have hunger), and further I'm cold, cs:je mi zima (redlink) and de:mir ist kalt (redlink). There are more examples at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#Usefulness of phrasebook. Note that these are not currently excluded since we do currently have a phrasebook provision in WT:CFI, just that the provision does not provide any operationalized criteria. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support per my rationale on the talk page. The prasebook is useful but having no easy-to-administer criteria is something of a problem. An example RFD currently ongoing: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#I'm genderfluid. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Support.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Wiktionary isn't a paper phrasebook. I don't think phrases should be limited to what's in paper phrasebooks and agreed to bureaucratically. Having said that, I can't offhand think of a much better set of criteria to replace the "consensus." — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

   Let me point out that the part "if an attested English phrasebook entry does not meet that, it can only be included if consensus grants an exception" does provide for inclusion of phrases not in other phrasebooks, albeit against the bar of 2/3 supermajority. Thus, if there is a consensus for including an extra item, it can be included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I think the old text is incomprehensible though, so the proposed text would be an improvement in that respect at least. Per utramque cavernam 18:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Per utramque cavernam: Would you care to provide a rationale for the oppose vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   As I've said before, I'm not keen on having phrasebook entries in the mainspace (though I realise my vote doesn't really help in going in that direction).

   I think the phrasebook entries possibly worth having are already salvageable by other means.

   Also, I find the proposal too abstract: I don't know what items we have that we wouldn't have with the proposed criterion; conversely, I don't know what items we don't have that we would have with the proposed criterion. Per utramque cavernam 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   "I'm not keen" is not stated in term of benefits for the reader. As for "too abstract", the proposal is not abstract, but you seem to be missing example phrasebook entries, and these are I'm hungry (cs:mám hlad) and I'm cold (cs:je mi zima). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   Maybe not, but I'm thinking of something else that seems as important: the task of a dictionary. Here's our definition of dictionary: "A reference work with a list of words from one or more languages, normally ordered alphabetically, explaining each word's meaning". We can argue endlessly on the definition of "word", but I'm pretty sure everybody agrees it does not include complete sentences. How is "how do I get to the bus station" a word?

   All I'm saying is: we can be useful, yes, but not at the expense of forgetting our purpose here: building a dictionary; not a grammar book, not a phrase book.

   "you seem to be missing example phrasebook entries, and these are I'm hungry (cs:mám hlad) and I'm cold (cs:je mi zima)": this isn't an answer to my query above. I've asked for concrete examples of what would be allowed with the proposed criterion that isn't currently allowed, and conversely. Per utramque cavernam 18:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I'm hungry is allowed by the proposed criterion and needs the phrasebook protection; as for current criterion, it is so vague that it is not very clear what it protects and what it does not protect, although it probably does protect I'm hungry as well. Because of the vagueness, I cannot answer your question; rather, I propose to replace a vague criterion with very unclear boundaries with a specific, easy-to-administer criterion. As for "word" and dictionary, that is the wrong way of looking at it; black hole is not a word, and nor are proverbs words but rather complete sentences. We have WT:CFI#Terms spelling it quite clearly. Wiktionary is not narrow-minded, or at least the English Wiktionary is not. As for "we are building a dictionary", we are not building anything narrowly conceived: we have a rhyme guide, a thesaurus (semantic network), topical categories, etc. The phrasebook makes good use of our entry format as for translations, and is a welcome addition, providing added value to the reader. The quoted definition of a dictionary is wrong anyway; there are pronunciation-only dictionaries and etymology-only dictionaries, etc.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   Be it proverbs, affixes, compound nouns, idioms, all of those are included by virtue of being non-SOP "lexical units" in some way. We can argue over what is and what is not SOP, but we're working under the assumption that for something to be included in the main space, it mustn't be SOP. Translation targets go against that notion, and that's why I disagreed with the THUB proposal. I think phrasebook sentences are an even worse type of translation-target entries, and that to start including those will further dilute the essence and purpose of the main space.

   "we have a rhyme guide, a thesaurus (semantic network), topical categories, etc." Yes, and all of that is outside the main space. That's why I don't have a problem with it. Per utramque cavernam 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   The point is that 'We can argue endlessly on the definition of "word", but I'm pretty sure everybody agrees it does not include complete sentences' needs to be retracted as irrelevant. There has to be a meaningful development in the discussion. Wrong arguments need to be retracted when pointed out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I don't see what warrants this grating remark; I've already reworded my initial message. The term "word" may have been poorly chosen, though I thought it sufficiently vague to include all sorts of "lexical units" (including proverbs and compound nouns); what else do you want me to say? Do you disagree with something in particular in the first paragraph of my 19:25 post? Per utramque cavernam 19:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Dan Polansky Per utramque cavernam 11:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

   If you support the phrasebook in a separate mainspace, you need to 1) admit that it will still be part of Wiktionary database, and 2) you need to explain the benefit to the reader of the dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   Here's what I was writing: If we want phrasebook type content, fine, but I'll add: "not in the main space; let's find another way". You generally object that something has to be in the mainspace for maximum utility and visibility. I disagree with your assumption. By the way, I don't ever see you voice such misgivings about the Thesaurus. I'd like to find a list of synonyms of "weird"; how am I going to know that I have to type "Thesaurus:strange" into the search bar? Well, I look around a bit, using my common sense. I find there's a link to the Thesaurus in the synonyms sections of both weird and strange, and everybody is happy. Per utramque cavernam 19:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose: I'm in two minds about this, but erring towards Oppose. The existing wording does need improving, but I think the proposed wording isn't quite right. I'm sorry that I didn't formulate and voice these opinions before the vote started, but it's taken me a while to process the implications and get my thoughts in order. -Stelio (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (re-signed with sig on same line as vote, so that it is counted correctly)

   • On the one hand, it's a phrasebook equivalent to the lemming vote: three professional publications include a phrase, so we should too. Additional phrases require consensus. Attestation is required either way.
   • On the other hand, whereas dictionary entries are (arguably) objective units of language for which I think we can take the lead of professional lexicographers, I find phrasebook entries to be far more subjective. What gets included in one phrasebook and not another varies. As does the exact wording.
     • Would you include all of these phrases if they each passed the proposed test? "Do you have a room?" / "I would like a room, please." / "Are there any rooms left?" (related but different phrases).
     • Would you include all of these phrases if they each passed the proposed test? "I want the bill." / "I would like the bill." / "The bill, please." (rephrasing a single underlying intent).

   I feel like referring to professional publications is a useful test for whether we include a phrase, but I also feel like we should have the option to refuse to include a phrase, even if it's in three professional publications, if our consensus is to exclude it (perhaps, for example, because it practically replicates an existing phrasebook entry that we have listed).

   I have the suspicion that there are published phrasebook entries that we as a community may feel we don't need to list at all. Perhaps an example would be phrases from old phrasebooks that are effectively obsolete? Something like, "When does the next Zeppelin depart?"

   And there doesn't appear to be a way to disallow published snowclones under this proposal ("I am an accountant." / "I am an actuary." / "I am an architect." / "I am an astronaut." / "I am a baker." / "I am a banker." / "I am a boxer." / "I am a butcher." / "I am a candlestick maker." / "I am a cartographer." ...).

   Lastly, I note that English As She Is Spoke has been published by professional publishers. I'm sure we would not consider such a work as a "professionally published phrasebook" for the purposes of this proposal, but there's nothing in the wording that allows for an exclusion for this or other works of similarly dubious quality (in the same way that the lemming vote allows for certain sources to be excluded).

   -Stelio (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose Illogical extension. The proposed wording talks about “sum of parts” when it did not matter for phrases under the phrasebook project anyway. The usefulness criterion is fine. Not sure what “three independent professionally published phrasebooks” could tell us, only that is surely would be contentious. Finding that “phrasebooks” can contain everything (what is a phrase? You know how broadly it used, like in “nominal phrase”, “verbal phrase”) we would still fall-back to the usefulness criterion. So this vote only introduces discord and solves nothing. Fay Freak (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   It is actually usefulness that brings about discord, as per past discussions. The proposal replaces something vague with something reasonably specific and easy to administer. There can be disagreements about which phrasebook is "professionally published", but much less so than about whether a phrase is useful for a phrasebook. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   There will be many question marks about which phrases count or what qualifies. A “phrasebook” isn’t as much a closed thing as you might imagine.

   Plus I pose the question if looking through phrasebooks is what dictionary editors should do: Our company isn’t that large that this work wouldn’t make a difference. Instead of looking through phrasebooks you could just decide “This phrase is useful, Imma create it”: WT:BOLD. Other people wouldn’t look anyway and just create, since this is what any IP can do. Spare your own time please. Fay Freak (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   An IP can create a phrasebook entry, sure, but when the entry lands in WT:RFD, multiple editors have to spend their attention in figuring out whether to keep or delete the entry. Furthermore, an editor pondering to enter a phrase may be demotivated by lack of certainty as to whether the phrase is going to be deleted. The proposed criteria provide something like legal certainty for a core of the phrasebook, and can be effectively used in RFD, sparing editor's time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   And you think editors rummaging phrase books would be less attention-intensive?

   You are projecting. You would be motivated more, I assume, but if one is not motivated without such certainty it probably isn’t worth it to create the phrasebook entries in question. Phrasebook entry deletion requests have been not many, had little chances anyhow. I am concerned that the new rule would motivate you to create phrasebook entries that aren’t worth it. I mean well towards you and assess that you are more fruitful a creator without such a rule. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I do take my chances at times, but I prefer to operate under legal certainty. Multiple phrasebook entries have been removed; I have no idea where "had little chances anyhow" is coming from. As for editors searching for phrasebooks, there is google books:intitle:phrasebook "I'm hungry", which finds enough items and the case is closed real fast, with almost no cognitive effort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose since, from the discussion I've read, a lot of this seems to be purely a reaction to the existence of phrases like "I'm genderfluid". פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I don't understand. I don't see what "a lot of this" refers to. As for "I'm genderfluid", let's see: should it be kept in the phrasebook or not, and if yes, why yes, and if not, why not? The phrase "I'm genderfluid" is just an example of something that the proposal makes easy to administer, while the current criteria are so vague as to provide very little guidance on what to do with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I always find it revealing which sentences just happen to be used as examples. It explains, for example, why these new CFI are so drastically different from the CFI for normal entries, which require citations in durably archived sources instead of appearances in professionally published dictionaries. Regardless, I don't think these CFI are coherent with the CFI for normal entries. Perhaps to be fair we should just leave the phrasebook stuff to Tatoeba. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   This is not about attestation (WT:ATTEST): phrasebook entries still have to be attested, as per the proposal. It is about sum of parts. I'm hungry is a sum of parts; the point of the phrasebook criteria is to include it anyway. I noticed I'm genderfluid today; it is not an example driving this vote in any way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose, principally because of the word "should"; Stelio points out a range of unwanted entries that this policy would say we "should" include (even if it does not require that we do). On the whole, this is an intriguing proposal, but to cast it in political terms, we need revolution rather than reform. That might mean a wholly new namespace and format, rather than a modified guideline in the CFI. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose -- Mihia (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose -- Jberkel 01:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstain for now. I would suggest distinguishing phrasebook entries from ordinary dictionary entries using "Phrasebook:". This will help in distinguishing such entries from ordinary entries that are simply non-idiomatic sum-of-parts terms. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Phrasebook entries are usually distinguished using a conspicuous box, e.g. in I'm hungry. Moving them to a separate namespace would make it harder for the dictionary user to look them up; it would complicate things with no or little benefit in return that I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Provided phrasebook entries are properly marked, I have no objection to them. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Moving Novial entries to the Appendix

Voting on: Moving all Novial entries from mainspace to Appendix space, e.g. chokolate#Novial to Appendix:Novial/chokolate. All Novial translations in mainspace would also be removed, but Novial could still be linked to in other contexts. Novial would also be moved from the “excluded except” list to the “should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace” list at WT:CFI#Constructed languages.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/January#Novial entries are all lacking citations
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-01/Moving Novial entries to the Appendix

Support

1. Support Finding enough citations for the language does not seem possible. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Support As I said at the Beer Parlor, it's hard to find citable authors other than Otto Jespersen, and given the language being most successful 1928-1943, any works are not freely available on Google Books or Hathitrust. I don't oppose appendixfying, but I really think it better to just point to Otto Jespersen's works on the subject and let it go at that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support —Mahāgaja · talk 07:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, for the same reasoning as Lojban. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain. I tend to Support, and might move this to the support section before the end of the vote, but I'd like to remind everyone of this discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/June § On the placement of constructed languages, and on the attestation of appendix-only languages. Per utramque cavernam 11:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Abstain. For reference: Wiktionary:Votes/2018-02/Moving Lojban entries to the Appendix. I am not very clear about the benefit of moving something to an appendix space; what it does is that it introduces incovenience, while the content will still be in Wiktionary database, accessible to readers. I am not sure what the appendix namespace does that a badge of shame in the mainspace stating the relaxed attestation criteria would not do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit

Voting on: When citations can be provided showing that a romanization of a Sanskrit word is attested in a string of transliterated Sanskrit text (used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years; see, e.g. [1], [2]), a Sanskrit entry for that romanization consisting of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry should be included, as a minimum. This proposal makes no statement about whether more than modicum should be included; it ensures that, as a minimum, modicum can be included.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit
• WT:RFDE#mahā#English
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2
• Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/January#Allowing IAST Romanisation entries for Sanskrit
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit

Support

1. Support. As someone who has looked up romanized Sanskrit words in English text (not being used as English words) and not found them on Wiktionary, I think this would be helpful. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

   Wut? If I search for śabdakośa, शब्दकोश is the first entry to come up. --{{victar|talk}} 10:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

   A similar search for mahā does not fare so well: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit#Test case: mahā. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   You consider a result positively matching the first entry in Sanskrit not faring well? --{{victar|talk}} 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   It seems you are confusing Sanskrit with Devanagari. How is the reader of a Latin-script text such as this[3] going to know that the script which they do not know and found in search results is to be associated with Sanskrit? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I'm referring to the Sanskrit entry of महा. I see no problem in searching for Sanskrit words using Latin transcriptions. --{{victar|talk}} 08:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Support for IAST romanisations (those usually encountered), but not for other or ad hoc schemes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

   Metaknowledge: Can you please clarify whether this conditional or restricted vote that you cast is in accord with your understanding of proper voting procedure, as you understand it? (I am not objecting at all; I am merely trying to confirm what I see.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I think this kind of vote is acceptable, although I acknowledge that some disagree. I would probably be more strategic and leave out conditions if this were a well-written vote that had a good chance of passing, but unfortunately it is neither of those things. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you. I am looking forward to see your vote about Sanskrit, one which you think has a good chance of passing. In fact, the proposal of the present vote nearly passed multiple years ago, so I don't think the chances are that bad. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

   I wish I had seen some discussion of this vote beforehand so I could help. (Perhaps you posted in the BP and I missed it?) Unfortunately, there tends to be some vote fatigue, so we'll have to wait a while before bringing the same question to a vote once again. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

   I think we do not need to wait before we bring an amendment of a running vote to Beer parlour discussion. To the contrary, the subject of the vote is activated in people's minds anyway so there is some economy of cognition in doing so. In any case, I think the restricted vote you cast is a very productive and unbureaucratic way of doing things, and I appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Support Support per the rationale on the talk page. In sum, let us create the best experience for our readers that we know how, and let us make no artificial restrictions on the WT:CFI's general principle that "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", with the use of the core evidence-based (as opposed to analysis-based) principle of CFI, which is the attestation requirement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Words should be entries that can be looked up here, no matter what the script.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support I would prefer allowing IAST romanizations of all Sanskrit words, regardless of attestation (i.e. treating Sanskrit like Gothic, Chinese, and Japanese), but if this weakened proposal is the only one that can get consensus, I'll support it. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support per Andrew Sheedy and others. --Droigheann (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Because of being coupled to attestation. As I said: “I would understand it if one created just mechanically, that is by bot, all romanized forms, but attesting romanizations I do not understand, this siphons off the limited attention of editors.” It will be a cringe experience if editors start to attest romanizations instead of the words themselves. I would perhaps ignore this vote if it were just about mechanical additions like with Pinyin or with Serbo-Croatian where one script entails the other and there being two scripts does not double the attestation requirements, but this vote’s differentiation has no rationale I can follow. Fay Freak (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

   The attestation requirement is linked to the rationale: if the form is actually used, then it is included. In that sense, the proposal is merely a confirmation of what is already entailed in WT:CFI as currently written. If this vote passes (a big if), we could create another vote that lifts the attestation requirement for IAST. The main thing is to have a clear statement that editors are allowed to create the best experience for our readers that we know how, as long as they consider that to be the wise use of their resources. To prevent editors from helping our readers so that the editors would have their resources conserved is an undue patternalism, a violation of Mill's principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak: Can you please indicate what is your position toward automatic IAST Sanskrit? Above, it seems you would be okay with it; is that accurate? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Yes. Okay I would be with it. I would not be particularly for it, since as I said on the verso page the cost-benefit assessment does not lean well into the positive sector. If I support it can only be appeasement – weak support perhaps. But apparently most editors prefer to gently push into getting off the Latin script and using the actual scripts, which is sane. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Strongly oppose: See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Victar: Which of the reasons for opposing in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit#Oppose do you agree with? Can you please identify at least of them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Lol, no —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 23:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   @JohnC5: Would you care to provide a rationale for your oppose vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose When Romanisations are allowed as entries, they are eventuall treated as regular native scripts, native word, a replacement for difficult script, which is wrong. For example 犬, 狗, いぬ, イヌ are all acceptable Japanese words/spellings but [[inu]], written in Roman letters is not a Japanese word, it's only a romanisation. Similarly, महा is a Sanskrit word but [[mahā]] is not. My position hasn't changed since the last vote on Sanskrit romanisations. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   "When Romanisations are allowed as entries, they are eventually treated as regular native scripts": I don't think that's true. Gothic aflagjandans is clearly marked as a "Romanization of 𐌰𐍆𐌻𐌰𐌲𐌾𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌰𐌽𐍃", not as a "Latin spelling of 𐌰𐍆𐌻𐌰𐌲𐌾𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌰𐌽𐍃" (so there's no way to mistake it for a native-script entry), and it's going to stay that way.

   Also, I think it's more wrong to treat mahā as an English word than as a Romanized Sanskrit word. Per utramque cavernam 12:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   Let me first thank you for a reasoned oppose. Now, as for "महा is a Sanskrit word but [[mahā]] is not": In fact, a Sanskrit word is an auditory phenomenon that can be put down on paper, screen or other medium either as महा or mahā, whichever is considered to be more convenient. The proposal of the vote has a link to a source that chooses mahā as the means of representation of the word. Strictly speaking, neither महा or mahā are Sanskrit words but rather means of recording or showing a Sanskrit word in a medium. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we often say things like 'cat is an English word', and in that sense, both महा or mahā are Sanskrit words, alternative forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   But is IAST really less ‘native’ than e. g. Devanāgarī? Sanskrit has been written down in an insane number of writing systems, all of which its core predates by centuries. Sanskrit texts have been traditionally transmitted orally anyway. Sure, Devanāgarī is a kind of academic standard; but so is IAST. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose non-IAST Romanisation entries. Abstain otherwise (see below). Per utramque cavernam 12:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Vahag (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain. I tend to Support, as I would prefer this to having a bunch of English entries for words that aren't English (mahā, osthya, etc.). However:
   • I agree with Fay Freak that it would make more sense to have romanisation entries for everything, not just attested romanisations.
   • The fact that all the contributors to Sanskrit content have disagreed with this must count for something. Per utramque cavernam 10:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC) 

   I can't help but find it unfortunate that an inactive user who has little to no connection to the issue at hand, like Prosfilaes, can have equal voting power to people that work in the area every day. --{{victar|talk}} 03:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

   Great way to encourage people to work on Wiktionary. If you want to build your own little Sanskrit dictionary, go elsewhere; Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary where there should be a consistent style and what's done in one language affects what's done in another language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

   I certainly encourage you to contribute to the languages you vote on. --{{victar|talk}} 02:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

   Let me add that I've just remembered a collection @Mahagaja has mentioned in a previous discussion: the Clay Sanskrit Library. These are bilingual English-Sanskrit editions of Sanskrit classics, and the original text is entirely written in IAST (an example here). To me, this is a rather strong argument for why we should even have alternative spelling entries (I wouldn't push for that though; I'd be fine with Romanisation entries). Per utramque cavernam 12:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   I don't object to automatic IAST Sanskrit, but let me point out that the text you brought forward (for which I thank you) pertains to attestation. You say, look, here is a complete text. And the idea is, when it is attested in use, we include it. Let me again emphasize in use, as contrasts to mention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree. What I meant is that it seems a mistake to me to ignore entire books published in IAST. Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Abstain per above. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Abstain Not too familiar with Sanskrit and issues surrounding it, so I'm reluctant to vote. But I agree with a lot of points raised by the proponents of this vote, as well as the opposition to the attestation requirement raised by both proponents and opponents of the vote. It seems to me that IAST-based romanization entries w/o attestation requirement would be ideal (mirroring the romanizations of Gothic, Japanese etc. which have perfectly fine romanization systems as has been brought up already in the discussion above), so long as they can be generated automatically based on an unambiguous reading of the native script (usually impossible with abjads, but then Devanagari is a syllabic script so I think we should be fine). I'm not sure why these votes so often hang on the attestation requirement: romanizations are essentially soft redirects, they're basically there to compensate for an imperfect search engine. The attestation requirement should imo only be for the entry in the native script(s), not the romanization that links to it which should only exist if the native script entry exists anyway. (If there should exist somewhere a romanization entry without a native-script entry, such an entry could be categorized automatically, as with Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry, and the reverse should also be possible.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

   I think the larger important question is whether we can be sure to include Latin-script Sanskrit at all. If we can get attested Latin-script Sanskrit to pass (a big if indeed), my hope would be that it shouldn't be too hard to pass an automatic IAST Sanskrit via a follow-up vote. My guess is that most opposers of Latin-script Sanskrit oppose both proposals. As for native script, is Devanagari really native script of Sanskrit? W:Sanskrit tells us that "Sanskrit texts dated to the 1st millennium CE were written in the Brahmi script, the Nāgarī script, the historic South Indian scripts and their derivative scripts.", and has it sourced. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

4. Abstain. If there is no universal policy stating that any script is allowed for any language as long as it is attested, then I would prefer to leave questions of Sanskrit up to Indian people. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   The thing is, this is the English Wiktionary, serving above all native English speakers and speakers who have English as the second language. These people are necessarily acquainted with Latin script, but not necessarily with other scripts. The dictionary does not serve exclusively readers from India. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

   And as a native English speaker who isn't from India and uses Wiktionary, I want the quality of Wiktionary to be as high as possible, which is why I think it's a good practice to refrain from making it worse through voting out of ignorance. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

   I do not see how the proposal reduces the quality of Wiktionary or makes it worse; to the contrary, on the talk page I argued that the proposal makes Wiktionary better by improving its usability, which I showed in greater detail for a particular use case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Abstain per some of the above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

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