Wiktionary:Votes

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

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

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2018-08/Title of vote}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-08/Title of vote}}
Note: add to this page and WT:A. {{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-08/User: for admin}}	Note: add to this page and WT:B. {{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2018-08/User: for bureaucrat}}
Note: add to this page and WT:C. {{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2018-08/User: for checkuser}}	{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2018-08/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

Restructure comparative and superlative categories

Voting on: Restructuring the comparative and superlative categories.

Currently, categories for comparative and superlative forms of adjectives take two forms, which for comparatives are

• LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms (a non-lemma category; despite its name, most of its kind do not contain inflected forms, but the comparatives themselves)
• LANGUAGE comparative adjectives (a lemma category)

LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms has no associated category for inflected forms. LANGUAGE comparative adjectives uses LANGUAGE comparative-adjective forms for its inflected forms, or incorrectly uses LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms for that purpose.

The proposal is to supplant these with a unified category tree. The following section shows this new structure, with Finnish used as the example language and adjectives used as the example part of speech. The categories marked in italic already exist, while the categories in bold are new:

• Category:Finnish non-lemma forms
  • Category:Finnish adjective forms
    • Category:Finnish comparative adjectives (contains the comparative forms themselves)
      • Category:Finnish comparative adjective forms (contains the inflected forms of comparatives)
    • Category:Finnish superlative adjectives (contains the superlative forms themselves)
      • Category:Finnish superlative adjective forms (contains the inflected forms of superlatives)

This change would apply for all applicable languages and parts of speech, not just adjectives (indeclinable words, such as adverbs (at least in most languages), would simply have no category for inflected forms).

This means that the two existing category types, "LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms" (containing comparatives) would be merged into "LANGUAGE comparative adjectives", which would be moved under adjective forms (and therefore stop being lemmata), while a new category for inflected forms of those comparatives would be created. The same change would apply to superlatives as well.

• Rationales:
  • The category tree is based on how participles currently work; see Category:Finnish verb forms, Category:Finnish participles and Category:Finnish participle forms.
  • The current format, where some languages may have two different comparative/superlative categories, one of which have their entries marked as lemmata but the other one does not, is wildly inconsistent.
  • It also does not have a way to distinguish between comparatives/superlatives and the inflected forms of such, despite the fact that in many languages comparatives/superlatives can actually be inflected.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Vote created: SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/July#Are comparative or superlative forms lemmas?
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/June#Inconsistency in the treatment of comparatives
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2018-07/Restructure comparative and superlative categories

Support

1. Support as nom. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 00:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   For anyone voting, please also read the clarification on the vote talk page. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Support. -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Support. -- This would be useful for German, where comparatives are often identical to inflected base forms. Mofvanes (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Support. PerfectlyOutOfSync (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Support.  --Lambiam 14:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Support – I was initially skeptical, but have been won over more or less, as a similar scheme is used for participles. The proposed scheme works both for English (whose comparatives or superlatives don't have inflected forms) and for German, Latin, Ancient Greek, and so on (whose comparatives and superlatives do). It could also be extended to elatives, which haven't come up in the discussion; for instance, in Arabic, the masculine singular elative أَكْثَر‎ (ʾakṯar, “more, most”) could be kept in Arabic elative adjectives, and the feminine singular كُثْرَى‎ (kuṯrā), masculine plural أَكَاثِر‎ (ʾakāṯir) and أَكْثَرُونَ‎ (ʾakṯarūna), and feminine plural كُثْرَيَات‎ (kuṯrayāt) could be moved to Arabic elative adjective forms. — Eru·tuon 03:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Support for consistency and clarity. -Stelio (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
8. Support Fay Freak (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It isn't made clear whether this applies to all languages, or only to those where it is considered necessary. You can do what you like with Finnish or German, but I don't think it is necessary for Norwegian for example, where indefinite and definite superlatives are already dealt with. It doesn't apply to comparatives, and mer/meir and mest (like English more and most) are also used. DonnanZ (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   It would apply to all languages. For Bokmål, indefinite and definite (adjective) superlatives would probably both be under Category:Norwegian Bokmål superlative adjectives. Since they seem to have no inflected forms, Category:Norwegian Bokmål superlative adjective forms would probably simply not exist. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   Category:Norwegian Bokmål adjective superlative forms has existed for years. DonnanZ (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   Those seem like superlatives, not inflected forms of superlatives. Further goes to show how this current system is confusing. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   All superlatives, just two forms, indefinite and definite, are in the one category, and I don't see the need to break them down further. Comparatives have only one form, and aren't inflected any further. DonnanZ (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think they should be broken down further, so Bokmål would, as I said above, have Category:Norwegian Bokmål comparative adjectives and Category:Norwegian Bokmål superlative adjectives, but no categories for the inflected forms of such. In effect, the existing categories would be renamed to a new scheme that would better accommodate other languages. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   The same applies to Nynorsk, Danish, and possibly Swedish. DonnanZ (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   I would like to make a point though: the categories here are somewhat loosely defined, so the more exact decisions would be made on a per-language basis. For the North Germanic languages, the categories for inflected forms of comparatives and superlatives will likely not be used at all and therefore do not need to exist, but the scheme applies in general and considerably accommodates languages better in general. It is also more consistent in the way that we have Category:LANGUAGE participles, not *Category:LANGUAGE participle forms for the participles themselves (as opposed to inflected forms of participles). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   I think the current category titles are more accurate than what you are proposing, as they are derived from (and forms of) the basic adjective. There are one or two superlatives and comparatives which aren't, but I don't think there is enough of them to warrant special treatment. DonnanZ (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   But so are participles, they are derived from verbs and are technically verb forms, but since in many languages they themselves can be inflected and therefore a separate participle forms category is needed, the category for participles themselves does not contain the form word in any way. You could also argue the same for many adverbs, as they are regularly inflected (read: derived) from adjectives. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   I avoid categories for participles, but any that are used as adjectives in Norwegian would use mer/meir and mest for comparatives and superlatives. DonnanZ (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I am a fan of consistency and simplicity, and I find this proposal appealing for that reason. But I also care significantly about accuracy, and, as discussed above, the proposed category titles are not as accurate as the current titles for languages such as English or Norwegian. To say that slower, for example, is a "comparative adjective" is simply not correct: it is a degree inflection of an adjective that gives it a comparative function. It's a bit nit-picky, I admit, but I just don't think that sacrificing accuracy for the sake of a smoother system is the right way to go. Natural language is rarely tidy. I want to support this for the languages for which it is actually accurate, but the details of this proposal don't allow for that. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

   It is indeed very nitpicky, seeing that "slower" is used like an adjective and could be considered an adjective on its own right (with the meaning "that which is slow compared to something else; that which is more slow") for that reason alone. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

   Perhaps, but clever wording could give the illusion that any non-lemma form is an lemma (to clarify, I'm taking "adjective in its own right" to imply lemma-hood, because I'm not sure what "in its own right" would mean otherwise). The definition of apples could be "the fruit of the Malus domestica, when found in groups or quantities greater than one", or "a group of fruit from the Malus domestica". Sounds like a noun in its own right, just like a litter is, more or less, "a group of puppies, kittens, etc.". But its not right. I don't like putting ever-so-slightly ovoid pegs in round holes. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Eh? This vote was meant to end ages ago. It's a clear pass. This, that and the other (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

---

User:Surjection for admin

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

Surjection has been around since February this year and is very active, mostly working on Finnish, but also reverting serious amounts of vandalism. Since s/he is not an admin, this tends to lead to tiresome vandal revert wars until an actual admin turns up. Please see a little prior discussion at User_talk:Surjection#Admin?.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 23:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's customary for admin votes to run for two weeks. Per utramque cavernam 05:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

    OK, changed. I used the default; maybe that must also be changed? Equinox ◑ 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

    I've done so at {{vote-sysop}}. Per utramque cavernam 09:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

    I should have kept my mouth shut. Can't we give him the admin tools already? Per utramque cavernam 19:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

    No admin is on, so probably no bureaucrat either. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Vote created: Equinox ◑ 23:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance:

• Languages: fi, en
• Timezone: UTC+02:00 or UTC+03:00 on DST

SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as leet nominat0r Equinox ◑ 23:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support, been watching the Recent changes and it was heated. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 23:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support PseudoSkull (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support. Per utramque cavernam 05:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Support. For anyone who noticed and is curious, I see that Surjection was suspected of being a sock of long-term problematic editor Diabedia over at en.wiki, but they don't seem to have been very careful — every indication to me is that Surjection was reverting various Diabedia socks. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
7. Support. John Cross (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
8. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
9. Support per above and below. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
10. Support I see nothing to fear from giving this editor the admin bit. bd2412 T 12:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
11. Support Fay Freak (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
12. Support communicates well, and counters vandalism. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
13. Support —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
14. Support — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
15. Support — Surjection is responsive and forthcoming, not to mention very hard-working and goal-oriented. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
16. Support — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
17. Support — Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 22:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain One particular admin I supported this year couldn't be trusted, and caused me a lot of trouble. Once bitten, twice shy. DonnanZ (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Donnanz I advise not to base all admin votes on the perceived problems with one particular admin. Each person is individually different, so they should be evaluated on an individual basis. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

   I haven't voted against, this is just a shot across the bows. DonnanZ (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Abstain for a few missing edit summaries. Otherwise, I would support. Jusjih (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

   I think that I actually make fewer edit summaries as a result of your bizarre criterion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Support. Has a sense of humour--New WT User Girl (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This vote has been discarded since the above user is a Wonderfool sock. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Decision

• Passes 17–0–2. Needs a bureaucrat: @SemperBlotto, @Stephen G. Brown? Per utramque cavernam 08:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Made it so. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

---

User:Julia for admin

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

Another hard-working contributor who has expressed interest.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 21:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Vote created: Equinox ◑ 21:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance:

• Languages: en, de-3, cmn-2
• Timezone: UTC-5 (ST), UTC-4 (DT)

Thank you! — Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I just joined a D1 sport and I definitely won't have any time for Wiktionary. So I'm withdrawing my acceptance. Thanks for the votes though. I'll probably be active a couple times a week, but not as much as I'd like! Sorry for the late notice. — Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 01:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Equinox ◑ 22:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Support Yes. Per utramque cavernam 22:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Polite, competent, and efficient. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Support I echo PseudoSkull’s description. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
7. Support I have gone through all her edits and haven’t found anything suspicious. Fay Freak (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
8. Support Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
9. Support. Julia seems like someone who is bound to get adminship eventually. This is earlier than I would have nominated her, but I see no harm in giving a trusted user the bit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Sorry, Julia/Gormflaith is a tad too green, IMO, and still makes a lot of rookie mistakes. I also don't see them making use of admin tools as of yet. --Victar (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Victar: What rookie mistakes have you observed in recent edits? Can you provide diffs or examples? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

   Well, lately they've been converting the Germanic descendents trees to {{desctree}}, which is great, but there have been some sloppy mistakes, like this one, which I had to revert. I have nothing against their temperament, which is what people above are applauding, but I think they still have quite a bit of learning the ins and outs of formatting practices and modules usages until they're ready. --Victar (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Oppose, sadly. This user is bound to become an admin eventually, but I think right now is too early. It's only been a few months since they've started editing and they haven't really shown that they need the tools yet. I have no qualms about their adminship otherwise. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Acceptance withdrawn. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

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