Wiktionary:Votes

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

Wiktionary > Votes

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

See Wiktionary:Voting policy and Help:Creating a vote.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-08/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-08/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2016-08/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2016-08/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2016-08/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

Current and new votes

borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor

Voting on: Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to perform these tasks:

  1. Replacing {{borrowing}}, {{borrowed}}, {{loan}}, {{loanword}} by {{bor}}.
  2. Converting the format {{bor|es|whatever|lang=fr}} to {{bor|fr|es|whatever}}. (that is, removing "lang=" from the template in all entries)

Examples:

{{borrowing|it|pizza|lang=en}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}
{{borrowing|en|it|pizza}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}
{{borrowed|en|it|pizza}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}
{{loanword|en|it|pizza}}{{bor|en|it|pizza}}

Notes and rationale:

  • Currently, {{borrowed}}, {{loan}}, {{loanword}} and {{bor}} are redirects to {{borrowing}}. It follows that this proposal does not change the displayed text and categories. It just changes the code to {{bor}}. Compare:
  • {{der}} and {{inh}} use the format "{{foo|xx|yy|word}}" instead of "{{foo|yy|lang=xx|word}}". ({{cog}} uses the format "{{foo|xx|word}}" with a single language code.) Therefore, this proposal makes {{bor}} use the same syntax as the other templates in all entries.

Entry count as of July 29, 2016 (using WhatLinksHere):

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mulder1982 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    I just changed {{borrowed}} and {{loanword}} to {{borrowing}}. Bot actions are kind of pointless if it's just 3 or 5 entries that need to be changed. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leasnam (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Enosh (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support — Ultimately, this makes things easier for new editors, since {{bor}} will hereby be made consistent in use with {{der}} and {{inh}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky (talk) I realized I actually support the renaming, as per recent renamings to {{m}} and {{lb}}. ISMETA above makes a further good specific point. I do not really support the existence of the template, but that is not what this vote is about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJohnC5 15:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support: Makes sense for the three major etymology templates to all be abbreviated, and take the same parameters. — Eru·tuon 01:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Less typing is better typing and 'bor' is not so cryptic to confuse new editors. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree in principle. But I am still confused when to use bor, der or inh because they are similar. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    bor is for direct borrowings from one language to the language of the entry. inh for terms inherited from an earlier stage of the language. der is for everything else, or if you aren't sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Korn. Benwing2 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Once more an proposal that is exactly backwards (like {{label}} → {{lb}}). We need more intuitive aids to new contributors, not more jargony template abbreviations that discourage even veteran users who haven't been following votes, let alone new contributors. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many bot edits and it seems too insignificant. Nibiko (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would never use it . What's wrong with "from"? DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    This isn't about using it. This is just about bypassing template redirects, which we used to always do without even voting on it. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    OK, struck that bit. DonnanZ (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    Still, this isn't about {{bor}} vs "from", this is just about bypassing templates redirects. --WikiTiki89 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    WikiTiki89 is right. For example, click here to see a diff where {{borrowing}} is changed to {{bor}}. The vote is about doing edits like this in all entries. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    I am actually opposed to the use of the terms "borrowing" or "borrowed" anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: What term would you use instead of "borrowing" or "borrowed"? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    On that note, as discussed here, I'd prefer if the template didn't return the "Borrowing from" part, but this is a separate issue. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    Just use "From ..." instead. That is perfectly adequate. DonnanZ (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The "rationale" doesn't explain why this is worth doing. Equinox 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    So we don't have a million names for the same template? --WikiTiki89 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but support using a bot to change all instances of {{bor}} to {{borrowed}}, and {{cog}} to {{cognate}}, etc., allowing editors to save keystrokes, while making it easier for later and newer editors to read. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm all for using {{bor}}, but I'm opposed to having bots fix redirects that ain't broke. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Aɴɢʀ: What is the disadvantage of using bots? Will not bots make the conversion to {{bor}} faster, on the assumption that people often copy what they seen in existing entries, and the fewer non-bors there are in the wiki markup, the fewer models there are to pick non-bor from? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    It's a waste of the bot operator's time and an annoyance to anyone watchlisting the pages to have bots doing nothing to pages but changing the names of templates. At the very least, I don't want to see bots making edits doing only this; if a bot does it incidentally while making some other, genuinely important edit, that's less of a waste of time and less annoying to others. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Aɴɢʀ: Frankly, the bot operator's time should be the operator's concern, and if the operator wishes to do something, no one should hinder them only on account of that being waste of operator's time. As for watchlisted pages, that's a valid point although one that I am surprised to see made. --Dan Polansky (talk)

Abstain

  • abstain. On an important if marginally relevant note, I am not convinced the borrowing vs. inherited distinction should have been introduced and cemented via templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Just as a thought: I believe we overcomplicate Wiktionary for occasional editors. I just discovered I am a few templates behind. I am still using the etyl-template followed by the term-template for example adding "loan translation" or "borrowing", not the borrowing or der templates or any of its variants. And I am still wrongly using the context template and not the label or the lb template. Likely there were good reasons for these changes, but how to take occasional editors along? How to inform them and keep things simple and consistent? Morgengave (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    The good news is that {{m}} was installed via a vote showing plentiful consensus, which brings me hope that we will not see a similar change any time soon. That's one good thing about votes: they slow down the juvenile love of change. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Undecided. Consistency across templates is a good thing, but the the tendency towards cryptic template names is a bit worrying. Can't we just keep {{borrowing}} and change the template arguments (make language required and use the proposed order for {{bor}})? – Jberkel (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Jberkel: As I said somewhere else, I find long names too distracting when lots of etymology templates are read together. If possible, I'd like to avoid situations in which I would read "borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, derived, derived, derived" over and over in the same paragraph, which add up and make longer paragraphs. I prefer when the borrowed word itself is more distinct than the template, so I prefer {{bor|en|it|pizza}} over {{borrowing|en|it|pizza}} or {{borrowed|en|it|pizza}}. This is just my opinion. Feel free to have your own opinion on the matter. See Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux and Wiktionary:Votes/2016-06/label → lb for different arguments from support/oppose/abstain sections. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

A question to opposers: Are you actually comfortable with using a longer syntax for the borrowing template? @Nibiko, you said: "it seems too insignificant", but the longer syntax is actually cumbersome for some people to use (I mean, I hope it's not just just me). If you want to say that English "foie gras" is borrowed from French, are you comfortable with typing the whole "{{borrowing|fr|foie gras|lit=fat liver|lang=en}}. instead of the shorter "{{bor|en|fr|foie gras|lit=fat liver}}."? Honestly, I used to forget at times if the "lang=" parameter was the source or target language, and had to check. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if other editors want to type it that way. Unlike {{lb}} or {{m}}, {{bor}} isn't used as frequently, so it doesn't bother me. When creating Japanese gairaigo entries, I copy a previously-created entry, so I rarely type it out. It makes sense that the "lang=" parameter is the target language, since that is how every other template works, but for templates that use the named sort and language parameters, I put them first so as to go along with the templates that don't use them. Nibiko (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nibiko, you said: "It makes sense that the 'lang=' parameter is the target language, since that is how every other template works". Right now, I don't remember other templates that use "lang=" as the target language, as in a source/target distinction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "lang=" usually just means "the current language section", like in: {{alternative form of|foo|lang=en}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe a better analogy is that {{m}} puts the source language immediately before the source term, as does {{bor}}. In any case, {{etyl}} is the odd one out. Nibiko (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with the speed of change. Barely has a new convention been introduced when we want to standardise it, ditch the old one that editors have hardly managed to memorise yet, and wipe out all traces overnight with a bot. I find myself comparing this with the hard work done to make Windows 3.x apps still run up until XP. Equinox 23:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Nibiko (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision


CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections

  • Voting on: Updating WT:CFI to let terms be linked to pertinent sections where they are defined for CFI purposes. In particular:
    1. In section General rules, linking the word "term" in "including a term if it is attested and idiomatic" to CFI section Terms.
    2. In section General rules, linking the words "attested" and "idiomatic" to CFI sections Attestation and Idiomaticity rather than to mainspace entries.
    3. In section Attestation, linking the phrase "conveying meaning" to CFI section Conveying meaning.
    4. In section Attestation, linking the word "independent" to CFI section Independent.
    5. In section Attestation, linking the phrase "different requirements" to CFI section Number of citations.
  • Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    But we could have just edited CFI without a vote, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    In the future, I support editing CFI and EL without a vote, when the edit simply links a term to a section in the policy. This does not change the regulations in any way. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support and, for the record, I don't think this kind of change requires a vote. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support and add my voice to saying that this type of non-substantive change should not require a vote. This, that and the other (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support per my rationale linked above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


User:OctraBot for bot status

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:OctraBot for the following purposes:
    1. Interwiki cleanup using pywikibot. It has been run on many Wiktionaries for some time.
    2. Content cleanup implementing Wiki.java. This task is generic purpose; it will be manually run in required situation such as template replacement, format cleanup. It has ever been run on Thai Wikipedia, Thai Wiktionary and few other projects. Some tasks in this scope may need to vote in the future.
    Octahedron80 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote starts: 00:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I said Octahedron80 could use OctraBot to do a very small test run if the owner wanted. Apparently the test run is going well. Hence support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Definitions — introduction

Voting on: Editing the first paragraph of WT:EL#Definitions.

Current text:

The definitions are the most fundamental piece of dictionary information but do not have their own header. They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#). Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop. The key terms of a definition should be wikified.

Proposed text:

The definitions are in the POS section, below the headword line. The definitions are organized as a numbered list. The numbers are generated by adding the number sign (#) at the start of each definition in the wikitext. The key terms of a definition should be linked to the respective entries.

Note:

  • This is a follow-up to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions. It failed in February 2016. The previous vote proposed editing the whole "Definitions" section. The current vote proposes editing only the first paragraph.

Rationale:

  • Removing the whole sentence "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop." It seems to be a controversial statement. For details, see comments in the previous vote and these two 2015 polls: "Poll 2" (15 participants) and "Poll 8" (9 participants).
  • Removing "The definitions are the most fundamental piece of dictionary information". It is a comment rather than a rule.
  • Removing "[definitions] do not have their own header". Apparently, this means that we don't have a "Definitions" header. Arguably, there's no need to mention what we don't do in this case. Adding the text "The definitions are in the POS section, below the headword line." — this is the actual placement of the definitions.
  • Replacing "They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#)." by "The definitions are organized as a numbered list. The numbers are generated by adding the number sign (#) at the start of each definition in the wikitext." The proposed text is intended to sound more professional and explain the numbered list better than the previous text. Furthermore, the previous text mentions a "big block"; this excludes entries with only one or a couple definitions, that don't make a "big block" by any standard.
  • Replacing "The key terms of a definition should be wikified." by "The key terms of a definition should be linked to the respective entries." The term "link" is more widely used than "wikify"; the latter is more of a wiki jargon.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support SemperBlotto (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Editing "Flexibility"

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#Flexibility. (diff)

Current text:

Flexibility
While the information below may represent some kind of “standard” form, it is not a set of rigid rules. You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them. Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that. Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct. Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas.

Proposed text:

Flexibility

The information below is not a set of rigid rules. You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct.

Removed sentences:

  • "may represent some kind of “standard” form"
  • "They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them."
  • "If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that."
  • "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas."

Rationale:

  • In Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility", it was proposed removing the Flexibility section entirely, but the vote ended as "no consensus" (6-4-1), with some voters supporting the existence of a flexibility section.
  • Shortening the text. Removing explanations and leaving only the actual regulations about the flexibility of WT:EL.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Extended: 23:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Enosh (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. A more honest assessment of how we approach this aspect of Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support - DonnanZ (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Philmonte101 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I miss this: "Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that." It makes it express that he who deviates has to be able to explain the benefits or rationale of their deviation. This might seem implied in "Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct", but is not really there; the sentence only speaks of existence of a good reason, not of the deviator's ability to articulate that reason. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I support removing the following statement: "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think that's implied and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Dan observes, the new text lacks any mention of discussion. To me, it sounds like "if established editors don't like your changes, they'll be reverted, and that's the end of the story". The text needs to acknowledge the critical role of discussion on a wiki like this one. This, that and the other (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per This, that and the other. --Droigheann (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like flexibility because most designs are likely to be faulty, given the amateur nature of the project. Among other things we lack data on existing practices to inform the design decisions. Many important design decisions are made without meaningful discussion in advance of the design. The lack of pre-design discussion risks having developers be overcommitted to their ideas and unable to see or take seriously other points of view. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky, et al. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision

  • I propose to extend this vote by one month to yield a more unequivocal result. Note that I am an opposing party, and that currently, this is a no consensus by a narrow margin where it could be a pass if more people arrive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    I would support that. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Extended. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    For the record, when Dan Polansky proposed the vote extension, the results were: 7–4–1 (63.63%–36.36%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    For the record, I support the vote extension. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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}}.

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support MackyBlue11 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Ineligible to vote. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support no more ambiguous links please… Jberkel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support unless something better like the {{def}} template proposed on the talk page can be implemented. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg Support AtalinaDove (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as it seems like too much bother and mess for too little reward. I'm intrigued by {{def}}, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mr. Granger. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I would prefer using {{def}} instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, mistook the meaning of the vote. —CodeCat 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Carrero and Mr. Granger. —suzukaze (tc) 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of convincing rationale by vote creator and supporters. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Annoying! Equinox 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not needed. That's definition in English just like the language of project. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg 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


User:Dan Polansky for admin

  • Nomination:

I hereby nominate Dan Polansky (talkcontribs) 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:

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. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg 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). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Angr and Equinox —suzukaze (tc) 05:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
    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. Symbol support vote.svg 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. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 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. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 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. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 18:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeCodeCat 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/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. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: diff. Wyang (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Octahedron80 (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain This is the most votes I've seen in two days :P -Xbony2 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I'm unsure. --WikiTiki89 11:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision


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)

Support

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

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol abstain vote.svg 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 (tc) 14:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Support for non-Latin-script languages

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

Oppose for non-Latin-script languages

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain for non-Latin-script languages

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstainsuzukaze (tc) 14:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg 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)

Decision


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)

Support

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Abstain

Decision


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]].}}

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg 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)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose More overhead to support techno fantasies. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 00:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Makes entries more difficult to edit, with only minor benefits for most readers. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like {{l}} \o/ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no rationale can justify the proposal.--Dixtosa (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Abstain

Decision


Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations

  • Voting on: Editing Wiktionary infrastructure including relevant modules and templates, which might include Module:links, to enable the following:

    Let it be possible that, for a given language, a different kind of romanization appears in different locations such as translations ({{t}}) vs. etymologies ({{m}}, etc.). The opposite of this is having the same kinds of romanizations in each location, whether one kind per location or multiple kinds per location, where one possible formatting of multiple romanizations is "romanization1[romanization2]".

  • Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Description

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

Status quo:

Many entries of symbols have a visual description (usually the Unicode codepoint description) as the first (or only) definition. This is frowned upon according to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/January#Is documenting all Unicode characters within the scope of Wiktionary?. They still seem to be numerous, but apparently these senses and entries tend to be deleted in RFV/RFD discussions. Definitions are supposed to provide actual uses, actual semantics of the symbol, not its shape. Other entries have a visual description in the Etymology section. (🔇, , 🗕, 🔗, 💡, , etc.) If this vote passes, we will be able to move visual descriptions from definitions and Etymology into the Description section, when the entry is able to have attestable, actual definitions. (or delete the sense or entry if it's not attestable) 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.

Example, concerning the character 🔇 ("SPEAKER WITH CANCELLATION STROKE"):

==Translingual==

===Description===
A speaker with a stroke. Sometimes, shown as a speaker with a prohibition sign (🚫).

===Symbol===
{{head|mul|symbol}}

# [[mute]]

Other examples:

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.

Rationale and notes:

  • A description is a repeated piece of information that could in principle apply to all symbols (or many symbols, if we decide that some characters don't merit a Description section). 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.
  • People might be tempted to use the Etymology section for descriptions of symbols. However, a description does not fit the Etymology section: descriptions are not etymologies. Similarly, a description does not fit the Usage notes section: descriptions are not information about usage.
  • If we don't describe the symbol, people are probably going to rely on the Unicode description, which is a short text like "SPEAKER WITH CANCELLATION STROKE" that does not always tell the whole story. It's useful to mention common varieties from separate fonts, such as the fact that the aforementioned character (🔇) is sometimes drawn with a stroke, and sometimes with a prohibition symbol (🚫).
  • Hopefully, allowing Description sections would serve as a way to avoid symbol entries that merely define them with their Unicode codepoint descriptions, without attestation. If someone created 🔇, with a single definition: "# speaker with cancellation stroke", one could argue that this definition is not about attestable semantics, actual usage of the symbol. If someone reverts that edit, deletes the entry or opens an RFD/RFV about it, they would be able to say: "We don't describe symbols in definitions. Use the Description section for that."

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, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


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)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support again. —CodeCat 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg Support - DonnanZ (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mulder1982 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Totally pointless AFAIAC. Also per vote creator's comment elsewhere. --Droigheann (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, since proper redirection can be done using JS.--Dixtosa (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Abstain

Decision


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. Replacing "needing attention" and "to be checked" by "review". 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)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    A message for other people: if you like the proposal but disagree with one or more categories, feel free to vote "I support all except this category and this category". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. (weak) Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Abstain

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

Decision


Recently ended votes

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

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: