Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:Votes/header)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Votes

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

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

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


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2018-04/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-04/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2018-04/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2018-04/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2018-04/User: for bot status}}

Other

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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
Ends Title Status/Votes
Apr 9 Adding labels to PIE entries failed
Apr 13 Allow retronyms failed
Apr 22 Showing romanizations in italics by default decision?
Apr 22 Remove "Formatting" decision?
May 22 Including translation hubs Symbol support vote.svg14 Symbol oppose vote.svg2 Symbol abstain vote.svg2
May 27 CFI and images starts: Apr 28
(=6) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=81)

Adding labels to PIE entries

Voting on: Adding a disclaimer to all Proto-Indo-European pages without Anatolian descendents that states that this is a Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European reconstruction, and add a label in all inflectional tables stating the same thing.

Rationale: There is a general consensus that Anatolian left early, and that many features of traditional reconstructions are really post-PIE innovations. This means that only etymons that are attested in both branches are reconstructible for PIE. As a result, we reconstruct PIE at different stages without knowing it, which makes our reconstructions subject to anachronisms. The morphology described in wiktionary is suitable for PNIE, but not for PIE. This solution allows us give an accurate description of PIE's lexicon and morphology diachronically, without having to remake the infrastructure we have for PIE.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 22:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 00:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I think. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I think, although perhaps not under the name "Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European". Dghmonwiskos (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I oppose labels, but would support collapsed Proto-Indo-Anatolian inflection tables next to PIE tables. --Victar (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose since in this vote and the linked-to discussion there seems to be little agreement (or even interest) from many major PIE editors in this (User:Florian Blaschke even makes a case against it). Also, "Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European" is exceedingly rarely referred to, especially relative to how often "Proto-Indo-European" is referred to, which makes me concerned about how widely accepted the concept could possibly be when even a raw Google web search, when I page through to the end of the results, gets less than 30 hits(!). - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -sche covers it--the apparent rarity of the use of the Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European seems to belie a lack of acceptance or agreement, so it seems that it would be imprudent to move in that direction at this time. There's potential here in the future, I think, but not yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my argument above and the fact that current introductions like Fortson (2009), an excellent overview of the communis opinio, do not make use of "Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European" at all and do not even support the concept. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    I haven't had enough spare time lately, but I'll try to respond this with the following quote by Ringe:
    "Note the implications of this phylogeny for the reconstruction of the PIE verb. The Cowgill–Rix verb is a reasonable reconstruction of the system for Proto-West IE, and can even account for most of the Proto-North IE system; it is only for ‘PIE proper’ that it is clearly inadequate."Ringe, Don (2006) From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, Oxford University Press, page 6
    "Whether this system can be reconstructed for earlier stages of the proto- language (especially PIE proper) is highly doubtful"Ringe, Don (2006) From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, Oxford University Press, page 34
    He's basically telling us that he is not reconstructing "PIE proper", but what he calls "West-IE" (i.e. IE languages excluding Anatolian and Tocharian). Yet our inflectional tables are based solely on his work, ignoring the fact that he regards his own reconstruction as inadequate for PIE. I left quotes supporting the view in the discussion linked above. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 00:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    Concerning your argument. I think that what I cannot understand about it is how can you distinguish between a dialectal continuum that is still mutually intelligible and innovations spread through it to all their speakers, from a single unified language. To me, in every language there will be variation, but unless this distinctions do not spread to all their speakers, you cannot call them a different language. Since this different innovations wouldn't have enough relevance to affect the dialectal development. That is why I don't really understand your point. You hold that there was some kind of divergent post-Anatolian split PIE, that cannot be called one single language, but still evolved like if it were one for some time before splitting definitely. Or that is what I caught at least. I do not see how such a claim contradicts the existence of PNIE. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 01:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per -sche. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 06:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but might support adding the label Indo-Hittite or Indo-Anatolian to Anatolian entries. My reasoning is pragmatic; people generally think of "nuclear" PIE as PIE proper. It's semantic and a bit hair-splitting, but I think Indo-Hittite labelling would be less confusing. Finsternish (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    (also, insert modified Richard Stallman copypasta here) Finsternish (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per all above me. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: I haven't got a clue about this, but I don't want to see any more PIE rubbish in entries. DonnanZ (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don’t know enough to make an informed decision. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don't feel like getting into the subject, especially given the apparently failing vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Failed: 3 support, 4 abstain, 7 oppose. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Allow retronyms

Voting on: amending Criteria for Inclusion to expressly allow retronyms Add the following text to CFI: "Terms that are retronyms may be included even if they are 'sum-of-parts'." Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: John Cross (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support DonnanZ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    I had better qualify my support. Metaknowledge points out that no proviso for common sense is incorporated in the vote, and seems to fear the floodgates will be opened. I sympathise with that. But I feel there should be allowance made for more commonsense retronyms, manual gearbox springs to mind. The problem is, as before, where to draw the line to prevent entries made in good faith and with good intentions ending up in RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think terms such as acoustic guitar are useful to our users. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto: We already have that entry, so this vote wouldn't change anything. Do you think paper book would be useful to our readers? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. I'm going to add it. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think they are useful terms. There may have been a better form of words I could have used for this change but I could not think of one. John Cross (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    That's what happens when you create a vote without prior discussion. --WikiTiki89 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: You did take part in the discussion. DonnanZ (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    That discussion was started after this vote was created. --WikiTiki89 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. "Paper book," if e-books, etc. didn't exist, might be taken to mean a paperback book, or a book made entirely of paper. As with many retronyms, the term would likely have been confusing had it been introduced before other types of books were introduced. For the uneducated, retronyms might seem to refer to be making a distinction that they aren't (e.g. between "books" and "paper books" rather than between "paper books" and "electronic books"), and it could be quite helpful to include them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support, although I do think that the wording could be tightened up a bit. The vote is asking that retronyms are not to be discarded on the basis of being SOP. Very importantly in my view, attestation and the rest of WT:CFI are still required. That seems a reasonable stance to me. From CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." I think it is useful to a reader (especially one that is not a native speaker of English) to be able to cross-refer from an entry like e-book and find the coordinate retronym term that disambiguates the hypernym book. It may seem transparently SOP to an English reader, but knowing which is the generally accepted common term out of examples such as "paper book", "printed book", or "physical book" is not obvious. This is similar to having an entry for the accepted common terms analogue clock/analog clock but not mechanical clock or clockwork clock. -Stelio (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support as long as other CFI are met. Finsternish (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WikiTiki89 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Quite simply, I think that paper book is a useless entry, and I am glad that we don't have it. This is the kind of entry that this vote would allow. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    I seem to remember my very first book was a cloth book, I agree paper book is a bit extreme, but I would like to see allowance made for commonsense entries. DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: It doesn't work like that. This vote would allow all retronyms, and there is no clause about common sense getting in the way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underdiscussed. I don't want to delete all retronyms (Blotto's acoustic guitar is fine) but I don't want to include all either. Equinox 17:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The existing RFD process seems to handle keeping the worthwhile ones and excluding the chaff moderately well. I don't think that all retronyms as a class are inherently entry-worthy; some, like snail mail, are obviously idiomatic, but others, like paper book, are rather useless. (And, as others have pointed out, this vote as it is worded would seem to allow retronyms regardless of attestation.) - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Equinox's explanation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: ditto to above. --Victar (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per -sche, Equinox, Metaknowledge. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the aforestated reasons. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I support better protection for retronyms, but this rule is too broad imo. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeMahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I am not sure how to read the "may" in "Terms that are retronyms may be included even if they are 'sum-of-parts'." If "may" means "may but do not have to", then this is what I would support, that is, take into consideration that a term is a retronym, but keep flexibility/override. An inflexible policy text would use "should" or, formally, even "shall", reserving "should" for mere recommendations. In any case, the use of "may" gives enough lawyering room that I do not have to oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    As to the complaint that there was not enough discussion: created on 22 February 2018‎, started on 14 March 2018. The vote was listed on Wiktionary:Votes/Active via diff on March 6. There was more than enough time to discuss the wording of the vote; the problem is people chose not to post specific reasons for opposing or wording amendment proposals before the vote started. On another note, the vote already achieved a portion of its objective: it collected a feedback from relatively many people on a particular proposal. The votes that have no comment did almost nothing to futher that objective, but that's life. Thank you for the vote. People on the talk page complained how there was not enough discussion, but once the vote was postponed, they did not discuss the vote subject matter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    A bit of discussion for the proposal itself. retronym is "A new word or phrase coined for an old object or concept whose original name has become used for something else or is no longer unique." We have and apparently want acoustic guitar; what prevents the entry from being deleted as a sum of parts, as a matter of policy? We have in acoustic inter alia the following sense: "Naturally producing or produced by an instrument without electrical amplification, as an acoustic guitar or acoustic piano." And here we are, in the land of Talk:free variable, and acoustic guitar can be deleted as sum of parts. It may be protected by the lemming heuristic via Collins[1], yet not via M-W and AHD, it seems. We do not have acoustic piano. We have analogue clock, and so does Collins[2]. We have optical mouse (not a retronym), which is in Collins[3]; its antonym mechanical mouse is now in RFD. magnetic compass is in RFD, and also in Collins[4] and M-W[5]. paper book has been cited as an item undesirably allowed via the proposal, yet the term has a legal sense and will be probably kept thereby. biological mouse was mentioned as another undesirable sneaker. One should not try to sneak in the terms of the form "classical X", I guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain PseudoSkull (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Fails 7–11–2. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Showing romanizations in italics by default

Voting on: Italicizing the display of romanization produced by {{l}}, {{m}} and {{head}} templates by default.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Symbol support vote.svg Support Although there was a consensus on the discussion page. —This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talkcontribs).
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. This is how almost all English dictionaries do it. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Not true. I just searched for "transliterated dictionary" in Google books and checked five, one had italic transliterations, the other four had non-italic transliterations. --WikiTiki89 18:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: "Transliterated dictionary" generally means a dictionary that does not give the original script and only transliterations. I'm not convinced by your sample size without knowing any details of the dictionaries. Every dictionary I've ever used had italicized transliterations. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    All of the dictionaries I checked had the original script. Why don't you try the same experiment? --WikiTiki89 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    I'm five pages in, and I've only gotten four actual dictionaries that I can preview and three have italicized translit. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Click "Tools" and change "Any books" to "Preview available". --WikiTiki89 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the the tip. 6 have translit in italics out of 8 for me, and 1 more has non-italics translit but italicized transcription. So 6.5/9. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    This time I compared the results of "Persian-English dictionary" to those of "Hindi-English dictionary"; out of the ones that had transliterations, the former were overwhelmingly italicized, the latter had more non-italicized. All I'm trying to say is that your claim of "almost all" is not true. --WikiTiki89 18:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Which dictionaries? Platts? Fallon? From two centuries ago? All modern Hindi-English dictionaries (which are not previewable online on Google Books), the paramount one being the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary, uses italicized translit. I can give you a picture of my hard copy. Anyway, I agree that <script> (<translit>) would not be ideal if the translit was always italicized. I'm not making up stuff when I say all the dictionaries I regularly consult use italics. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    Most of them were modern. Actually, it seems older dictionaries are more likely to use italics. You can repeat this search yourself, I looked through about three pages of results. Anyway, I'm not saying you're making things up about the dictionaries you work with. I'm saying that the dictionaries you work with are evidently too small a sample size to extrapolate to "almost all dictionaries". --WikiTiki89 13:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    I would agree with Aryaman that most -- but not all -- dictionaries in the format <native> <romanized>, the romanization is italicized, but when that format is reversed, <romanized> <native>, romanizations are mostly unitalicized, from what I've seen, and I've yet to find a dictionary in the format of <native> (<romanized>) where the romanization is enclosed and also italicized, which is what this vote is advocating for. --Victar (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    Already disproven 12 days ago: diff. Wyang (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=dictionary+%22to+english%22+&tbs=,bkv:p,bkt:b (first 4 pages)
    1. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fg4mHouGfb8C&pg=PA200
    2. https://books.google.com/books?id=oxA9BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    3. https://books.google.com/books?id=15zTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    4. https://books.google.com/books?id=4g_QAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    5. https://books.google.com/books?id=I94bDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    6. https://books.google.com/books?id=1SBFBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    7. https://books.google.com/books?id=50XRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    8. https://books.google.com/books?id=RymzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
    9. https://books.google.com/books?id=5PwI_GuoQusC&pg=PA200
    10. https://books.google.com/books?id=SeQ2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA200
    --Victar (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    Victar, if you are trying to show that you have yet to find a dictionary in the format of <native> (<romanized>), these links are useless. They do not prove your point at all. You have used this argument 12 days ago, and were immediately proven wrong then. I don't know why you are still using this clichéd argument. People inattentive or oblivious to what is being discussed, and would rather vote for the sake of voting, should not be allowed to have their votes counted the same as others. The fact that this vote is a platform where such uninformed viewpoints become translated into valid votes is exactly why this vote should not be happening at all. Wyang (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    Skimming quickly through those links, I note that many of those dictionaries do use some typographical convention to make romanizations distinct from English text: most appear to use bold, several use color, and one of the older and harder-to-visually-read ones seemed like maybe it used a different font face. These samples do thus seem to bolster the argument for making romanizations visually distinct. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Wyang: I have zero interest in getting into this again with you, but I wrote that dictionaries in the format "<romanized> <native>, romanizations are mostly unitalicized". You replied with that being "disproved", and I provided links to the contrary, as well as some links with other formats, also unitalicized. I could probably give you thousands of examples of this, but the first 4 pages of results should suffice to illustrate that point. --Victar (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    Victar, have a read of the reply I posted then: “On a quick glance, there were 10 romanisations in parentheses on the Wehr page I gave before alone.” It disproved that no dictionary had the format <native> (<italic romanized>) ― the very first link of Wehr I included in my initial reply to your point had this format, and I also specifically mentioned that your argument is untrue when you stressed it further in that discussion. I doubt you had read my reply at all. “Having zero interest in getting into this again with you” does not mean you should freely repost your uninformed (and already-disproven) arguments on other pages. Wyang (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: We already distinguish romanizations by enclosing them in parentheses. If the format was simply نزدیک nazdīk, I would 100% agree that the romanization should be indicated somehow, be it italicized, bold, or otherwise. --Victar (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Wiktionary is already typographically overdone, using too much boldface, for instance. One convention that makes sense is that the romanization should be in italics when the roman font for languages that use it is in italics; by that convention, {{m}} should have romanization italicized, while {{l}} and {{head}} not so. This makes sense in so far as {{m }} is used in sentence-like contexts, while {{l}} and {{head}} not so. Another convention would be to avoid italics even for {{m}}, which is fine by me. On legibility, italics is in general less legible, as far as I know, especially on computer screens. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    As for what other dictionaries do: For one thing, we do not necessarily need to follow print dictionaries since for them, the legibility concern will be much lower than for electronic dictionaries. For another thing, Victar above does show us examples of dictionaries that do not italicize romanizations; they may be a minority, but they are there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. --WikiTiki89 02:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    By the way, my reasons are basically the same as Victar's below and Dan Polanksy's above. --WikiTiki89 14:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I see absolutely no benefit to this change. Italics are less legible, especially with diacritical marks, it merges {{l}} and {{m}} for many languages, and nullifies important transcription distinctions in Hittite. --Victar (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose[ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 16:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeMahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, preferring to keep {{m}} and {{l}} distinct. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, for the reasons outlined above. embryomystic (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, for the sake of Hittite transliterations. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 16:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain My initial support was hasty, and I didn't think it through. I feel important points have been raised on both sides, so I don't know. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I think that italics are good and that consistency is good, but I also think that Victar's point about legibility is sensible. (somewhat unrelated, but I think it's funny that we talk about the distinction between {{m}} and {{l}}, then disable italics for scripts like Cyrillic. [I realize that both options have their positives and negatives.]) Perhaps we could make a user gadget for this? —suzukaze (tc) 21:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol abstain vote.svg AbstainΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose having this vote

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose having this vote. This should take place in a discussion, not on a vote page. Wyang (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    The reader will notice that the main difference between this vote page and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/March#Unifying the display of romanisations in links and headwords: italicise romanisations by default is that this vote lands on many more people's radar screens since votes are added to watchlists, and that the vote page is open for a little over 5 weeks in total. The BP thread looks like a low-visibity vote; it shows people casting votes, where most of the supporting votes are mere nods, with no comment, deliberation, analysis or argument in support. The vote page does not prevent discussions; indeed, the English Wiktionary votes are votes-cum-discussions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    As I have said in the Beer Parlour discussion, the fact that this vote page lands on more people's radar screens is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Decision-making should be made by encouraging people's volunteering of opinions and considerations, not by encouraging people to compress their comments into camps in a black-and-white manner. Wyang (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    If the objective of the BP discussion was to encourage people not to compress their comments, it failed miserably as for comments on the supporting side. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    @DP: Please note that if people, including me, just say yes or no and leave no comment, it doesn’t mean that they haven’t given it a thorough consideration, not at all. It applies to both BP and the vote page but even more on BP, since only interested parties took part in the discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    You seem to agree with what I said: the BP thread failed miserably in eliciting reasoning and detail from supporters, except from Wyang. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Struck my initial vote. Oppose this vote. Dan Polansky has successfully derailed this initiative. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    If there is consensus, it will be seen in this vote. If there is not, then there is not. The proposal still has a chance of passing. It may de facto pass even via "oppose this vote" votes as long as it wil be clear from them that they actually support the proposal. Since, votes are not just a cold mechanism; they are a means of finding out what the consensus is, from the posts to the vote pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    I object to your claim that Dan Polansky has derailed this initiative. If the initiative really has as much support as it seemed from the BP discussion, it will still pass. If it doesn't pass, then it's not because of Dan Polansky, but because of everyone that votes oppose. --WikiTiki89 14:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe votes aren't the best way to solve these kinds of issues. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    Bare votes, no. Votes-cum-discussions, why not. This very vote page features people collecting evidence and bringing forward specific reasoning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. I am in general opposed having votes on formatting/stylistic issues (and hence am opposed to having this vote). - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    @-sche: Formatting and stylistic issues are less amenable to factual arguments, those that are unquestionably correct or incorrect, than other issues. How should these be decided, if not via votes or polling? Since these are often matters of taste, whose taste? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    This proposed change could potentially affect all languages all the time. I suspect that's partly why we have a lack of general agreement: editors working in different languages have different perspectives, contexts, and use cases. From my own (evolving) perspective, it seems like this issue might be better addressed by each individual language community coming up with their own approach -- smaller groups may more easily achieve consensus. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't see how the different contexts for different languages yields different preferred treatment. It would yield disunity among languages for no good reason, IMHO. Furthermore, consensus of a small group is an inferior form of consensus as compared to a larger group; a consensus of a group of one is no consensus proper at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. A site-wide issue that is very noticeable is certainly worthy of a vote. I don't see how this is intrinsically different than changing our logo, for example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose having a vote in this manner. No one participated in the discussion earlier, so jumping straight to a vote won't get us anywhere. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @AryamanA, Metaknowledge: It doesn't matter much, but your "support" votes apparently have an opposite meaning to the "support" vote of @Atitarev; it could be confusing. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, no, Aryaman and Atitarev support votes are synonymous, and Metaknowledge is the outsider (I think). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Per utramque cavernam: I am very confused... —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    For the record, the above vote by AryamanA was changed in diff; before the diff, the vote said "Support" and this is what people responded to. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @AryamanA: By the way, I think you did not need to strike out your support at the top of the page. You could have voted support for the proposal and yet vote oppose for having this vote in the first place; that would be perfectly consistent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Fair enough. I also changed my "Support" because its meaning was ambiguous. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Decision


Remove "Formatting"

Voting on: Remove the "Formatting" section from WT:CFI, currently read:

Formatting

Once it is decided that a misspelling is of sufficient importance to merit its own page, the formatting of such a page should not be particularly problematical. The usual language and part of speech headings can be used, followed by a simple definition using the following format:

# {{misspelling of|occurred|lang=en}}

An additional section explaining why the term is a misspelling should be considered optional.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Zcreator alt (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky (talk). Let me support this removal. This does not really belong to CFI. Instead of being removed, it could be abbreviated to state the following (the heading "Formatting" would be removed):
    "Such misspellings as are included should not have full entries, but rather should be mere soft redirects, using {{misspelling of}} or the like on the definition line."
    --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support But, as Dan says, replace it with an abbreviated version out of consideration for the less experienced. The last sentence seems meaningless, since orthography is arbitrary.__Gamren (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg SupportGormflaith (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC) As per above. It's useful info but doesn't fit with the rest of the page; other similar explanations like how to format with {{alternative form of}} and {{inflection of}} aren't included.

Oppose

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I tend to support this, but let's first see what others have to say in favor and against. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: templated formatting seems fine, but I wonder if we should even have misspelling entries. Seems like a can of worms. --Victar (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Victar: The proposal is to remove it from WT:CFI because it doesn't belong there, not because the template is bad. See the the original beer parlor post. —Suzukaze-c 01:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: I don't presume to have the knowledge or experience to comment upon this with any confidence or weight, but my primary impression/reaction is to be uncertain of whether misspelling entries are worthwhile at all, as opposed to redirects. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    Here's Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings. We only keep common misspellings, like decieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, that helps--thanks for pointing me to that. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Decision


Including translation hubs

Voting on: Adding the following paragraph to WT:CFI, after Idiomaticity section on the same heading level:

Translation hubs

A translation hub (translation target) is a common English multi-word term or collocation that is useful for hosting translations. Some attested translation hubs should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. Therefore, the following criteria for inclusion of attested non-idiomatic translation hubs are tentative:

  • The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify.
  • A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is:
    • a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key"; or
    • a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term; or
    • a diminutive: Spanish mecedorcito does not qualify to support the English "small rocking chair"; or
    • an augmentative: Portuguese amigão does not qualify to support the English "good friend"; or
    • a comparative or a superlative; or
    • a phrase in a language that does not use spaces to separate words.
  • At the very least, two qualifying translations must support the English term. Editor judgment can require a higher number, on a case-by-case basis.
  • The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term: the existence of Anglistics, which is rare, does not disqualify English studies.

Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. A rationale is on the talk page. Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support - seems reasonable. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would much, much rather this be in the context of a collocations namespace or heading rather than these existing as actual entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. This makes sense to me, and I think the restrictions are well-chosen. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportVorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support strongly. It's about time this was codified into policy. This, that and the other (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support, and good job! bd2412 T 10:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for co-authoring the proposal on my talk page :). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. BUT add a good example or two of terms that do qualify and a brief explanation of why they do, provided that it doesn't get too wordy – Gormflaith (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
For instance, older sister is included despite it not passing tests of idiomaticity, because many languages have a single word for the term. (or a better wording)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I support the idea of translation hubs / targets in principle, but I find one or two of the restrictions are unacceptable, notably the exclusion of word-for-word closed compounds. I think this is rather arbitrary, and I suspect it will be unworkable in practice. I also think all languages should be included, including those like French where two-word terms are the norm when compared with English two-word terms. DonnanZ (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. My idea of translation hubs was for extremely common things like this way, what number, day after tomorrow (things you need all the time in spoken language). Imo, these criteria are too lenient and are going to reduce the concept to meaninglessness.

    Moreover, since we put all the translations in the same place, it's not clear which ones are qualifying and which ones aren't; nor is it clear who's going to judge whether a translation is qualifying or not. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

    "it's not clear which ones are qualifying and which ones aren't; nor is it clear who's going to judge whether a translation is qualifying or not" – That would be determined in a RFDE discussion by the participants. The single-term and idiomatic multiple-term translations are qualifying, the others aren't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Victar (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. In general most "translation hub" terms are things that I would include, but this is not the way I would choose to describe the rationale. For me, the point is that usually the existence of lots of specific foreign terms for an English construction is a big indicator that the English term is actually idiomatic, however transparent it appears to English speakers. If there were examples of translation targets that I genuinely did not consider to be idiomatic (in the loose sense of being "the natural way we have of referring to this concept in this language"), then I would be against keeping them, though I'm too lazy to sit and think of concrete examples right now. Ƿidsiþ 06:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Decision


CFI and images

Voting on: Adding basic treatment of images to WT:CFI. In particular, inserting a new section after section Names, on the same level:

Images

Lemma entries can contain images. Both English and non-English entries can contain images. As a minimum, to be included, an image has to be relevant to the entry. Of relevant images, some should be included while some should be excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which.

Rationale: on the vote talk page.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: