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/2017-12/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-12/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-12/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2017-12/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-12/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2017-12/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
Dec 11 Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua Failed
Dec 18 Placing Wikidata ID in sense ID of proper nouns Symbol support vote.svg7 Symbol oppose vote.svg6 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
Dec 28 Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace 2 27 (16 people)
Jan 20 Restricting Thesaurus to English Symbol support vote.svg0 Symbol oppose vote.svg12 Symbol abstain vote.svg1
(=4) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=86)

Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua

Let us remove admin rights from Rua (talkcontribs), formerly known as CodeCat.

Rationale: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2017-11/Desysopping CodeCat aka Rua#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support per my rationale on the talk page. Let me emphasize that it should be reasonably easy to let the nominee edit templates and modules by lowering their protection or by adding the nominee to the template editor group. During the approximately last year during which the nomineed was temporarily desysopped, they were able to request lowering of protection for particular templates or modules, from what I remember. Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Note: My rationale does not include "incivility" or "cold persona". Issues I raise include repeated non-consensual volume changes, use of admin tools to gain an upper hand in a dispute, high-rate wheel warring showing lack of self-control, and a dictatorial position taken in a discussion about re-sysopping. Details are on the vote talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Ignorant, yet disdainful and imperious. Just have a read of the conversations on her talkpage and her posts in various discussions (e.g. search for 'Rua' on Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/August) ― there is no warmth whatsoever, only the exhibition of a rather cold persona. Wyang (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Warmth comes when warmth is offered. If I appear cold, it's because all the hassle and coldness people have given me has destroyed whatever warmth was inside me. Wiktionary is a cold and harsh place, if I open up emotionally I'll just get hurt more. Case in point: this very vote. —Rua (mew) 12:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I do not agree that Wiktionary is a cold and harsh place; if it were true, most people would have turned similarly apathetic via this devolution. If anything, warmth in interpersonal interactions is highly infectious, and being on the receiving end of reciprocated warmth (and consequently feeling respected as a person) is arguably the most fulfilling and addictive outcome of it. This vote exists because some people, me included, felt you were unempathetic, and that you had not respected them as equal human beings with opinions worth paying attention to. It's an unfortunate outcome. You sound discontented, dejected, and burnt out. It may be worthwhile to take a break. Wyang (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's how I perceive Wiktionary to be. It's not a matter of fact. I'm definitely burnt out, but I also feel better when I can do the Wiktionary work I enjoy, without having to endure social interactions. So it's a double-edged sword for me. Wiktionary drives me insane at times, but I also need it for sanity. —Rua (mew) 16:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Nice quote, CC! I'm gonna use it in my autobiography. --Lirafafrod (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry! I forgot I'm not allowed to talk on Vote pages. I struck it out --Lirafafrod (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support if includes template editor access Callous, condescending, and spiteful -- her woefully poor interpersonal skills require mediation between herself and other users, arbitration she is able to skirt as an admin by locking and deleting entries without discussion. A new wheel war between another admin is all but inevitable, because to her, being right is more important than the project, which she blatantly illustrates in this discussion. I really and truly appreciate the exceptional work she does and value her knowledgeable opinions, but CodeCat needs to be desysopped to save her from herself. --Victar (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Consistently exhibits the kind of behavior I don't like to see an admin. Chiefly incivility and coding without consensus. Purplebackpack89 23:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Weak support if includes template editor access I don't like the way the discussion is playing out here at all, but I have been convinced. I think future readminship should be allowed though. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that Rua needs to work on her civility and consensus-building skills, but at this point I don't think desysopping is a necessary step. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Angr, what do you see as a next step in correcting a behavioral issue? --Victar (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Angr. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this vote is the way forward, and I echo Angr's feelings, particularly re consensus-building. She does a number of daft things which get up my nose, most recently adding USA to States in the USA (the only one I agree with is Georgia), clogging up Category:Candidates for speedy deletion in the process, and changing "Municipalities in" to "Municipalities of", I'm not sure what the logic behind that was. Another thing: if DP can vote for the proposal, surely Rua can vote against it. Fair's fair. DonnanZ (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    "USA" → WT:RFM#Categories about country subdivisions to include the country name
    "of" → WT:RFM#Standardising "of" vs "in" in place-name categories
    --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I missed the first discussion, more time should have been allowed, and took part in the second although I was late on the scene. Municipalities shouldn't be treated any differently from cities in my opinion. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Almost 1 month passed in the first discussion, with no oppose votes. That is, 100% support. How much time did you want? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    On principle, I'm pretty sure I agree with you that municipalities shouldn't be treated any differently from cities. But nobody has said otherwise, did they? Let me know if you found any proposal to treat them differently. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I have been busy doing etyl clean-ups, something else I didn't vote for or on. But OK, I should make time to read the more obscure discussions. DonnanZ (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Really, how much time did you want? Give a number and that probably can be arranged. The intro of WT:RFM does not mention any time limit. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm, a difficult question. There was only one vote in support (yours) on one of them, so I think more time should have been given. On the other hand, I pushed Category:Toiletries through pretty quickly. I don't want to be accused of using double standards. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    It can be pretty frustrating when you're waiting for support and nobody cares enough to post anything, in support or in opposition. The current BP post for adopting the new revised/improved WT:ACCEL suffers from the same problem, nobody has responded to it at all yet. —Rua (mew) 20:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Is there some reason why they weren't made into votes? That certainly given it more eyes, and potentially more votes. Would that have been an incorrect use of the voting system, or is it an issue of unwieldiness? --Victar (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Just to note, the reason that the speedy deletion category is so full is because a bot can't move pages without leaving a redirect, unless it has admin rights. So I did the next best thing and programmed it to place {{delete}} on the leftover redirects. I'm not sure how to actually delete them. —Rua (mew) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    You can always rerun your bot and revert them (wish, wish). DonnanZ (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Turn them back into redirects? Why? We don't want those redirects... What we really need is someone who can run a bot to delete them all. —Rua (mew) 18:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    It could have been done, I was able to cancel a redirect I did last night. But it's too late now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DTLHS (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm grateful to Rua for cleaning up some of our otherwise random mess of categories. If she weren't an admin already, I'd nominate her. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Becoming an admin isn't just some award you get after x amount of edits -- it's a job you're entrusted with and if you can't do your job responsibly, that job is taken away from you. --Victar (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with Victar. This is why we have rollbacker and template editor privileges now, and if this vote were to pass, Rua could do fine with those. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I also edit JavaScript, though not very often. —Rua (mew) 21:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Becoming an admin is, partially, some award you get after x amount of edits. No one gets to be an admin without doing x amount of edits. It is also a job you're entrusted with, yes. The criteria for becoming an admin may be subjective, but the 100% approval in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-03/User:CodeCat for admin indicates that she does some of that subjective stuff right. If the current vote fails, it will confirm that it is still the case. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    That's absolutely not true. There are probably thousands of basic users with more edits than the admins on this page, and conversely plenty of admins with low edit counts. And to argue that she has 100% approval from 8 people 7 years ago is also completely irrelevant. That's like arguing "I was hired 7 years ago with no issues, why am I being fired now"? Also, I think it needs to be made clear, we're not voting to ban CodeCat -- I would not vote yes on such a ballot -- we're voting desysop her, which had been working out fine for that past year, and if she need some extra tools here and there, why can try and provide them. --Victar (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    To repeat, becoming an admin is, partially, some award you get after x amount of edits. x may be the low. No one gets to be an admin after only 0 edits. I said "partially" because there are other factors involved, like quality of the edits. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    And what I'm saying is having high edit counts is a causality, not a causation. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Note: You broke my message in pieces. I'm OK with that, I'm not complaining at all. I added my signature in all pieces now.
    I guess I kinda understand what you mean, but you know I was already disagreeing with you in the first place and you didn't explain it much better now. Your last message is cryptic. I could try and explain your point, but to do that I would almost have try to read your mind. It's your job to make your point (if you are interested, of course) and I couldn't guarantee I'd do it well for you. Let's put it this way: everything is a causality and a causation to something. What is your point? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    This is what I'm trying to say: w:Correlation does not imply causation. If edit counts were the basis of adminship, it would be automatically granted, sans voting, which it is not. --Victar (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    OK. One more time, I agree with everything you are saying now. Nice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    This can be fact-checked, and shown not to be the case: "There are probably thousands of basic users with more edits than the admins on this page". Currently the admin in this page with most mainspace edits is Saltmarsh with 108,177 as per the most recent report.[1] Almost all the 11 other non-bots with more edits than him/her are admins too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    No, what I said was there are non-admins with higher edit counts that admins on this page, not higher than the admin with the highest edit count. You have not disproven that. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Fair enough: There are non-admins with higher edit counts than admins on this page. I completely agree with you. That can be fact-checked and proved to be true. This is different than your previous claim ("There are probably thousands of basic users with more edits than the admins on this page"). We can write it off as, maybe that's what you were thinking the whole time and now you made yourself clearer -- if that's fine with you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    You're right, my mistake for not explaining my point clearly at first. --Victar (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Rua's first edit was in 2007 and she became an admin in 2010. That is, her work was known for 3 years before she became an admin. In my experience, apparently people often get hired in the real world without their work necessarily being known to all the other employees for 3 years. That's why in real life, apparently you often wouldn't be able to check for work issues before hiring someone.
    The 2010 admin vote has no bearing over whether the current vote passes or fails. You said "And to argue that she has 100% approval from 8 people 7 years ago is also completely irrelevant", but what do you think I'm arguing? I merely pointed out that if the current vote fails, it will confirm the 2010 decision that it's OK to let her be an admin. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I beg to differ. We have degrees, CVs, references, accolades for citing previous work. Also, just because you're a good employee 3 years in, doesn't mean you still are 7 years in, so my anecdote still stands. A decision fire some presently does not made a decision 7 years earlier to hire them wrong. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with everything you are saying now. Still, I merely pointed out that if the current vote fails, it will confirm the 2010 decision that it's OK to let her be an admin. I mean, confirm as of 2017. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Let us bask in the rare occasion that we both agree on something. Thanks for working through it with me. --Victar (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Alright, thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Angr and Donnanz. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. — Kleio (t · c) 23:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSaltmarsh. 07:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) I was asked to add a justification. Rua can be curt, but I don't see anything worse than that. Ƿidsiþ 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A difficult person for sure, but also an immensely valuable editor. Crom daba (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Crom daba I think it's certainly possible to still be a valuable and productive editor while not being an admin. In fact, I think most of CodeCat's value lies within the boundary of those tasks. --Victar (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I admit I do not understand clearly what privileges admins are granted, but I thought they were needed for most technical jobs where Rua contributes a lot. Crom daba (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Only template editorship is needed to edit most modules and templates, but adminship is needed to edit JavaScript gadgets and other things in the MediaWiki namespace. — Eru·tuon 20:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeJohnC5 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Way too severe a sanction. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    @JohnC5, Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, Xbony2 Can you provide your thoughts behind your votes, and perhaps recommend an alternative solution to the issue? --Victar (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    Perhaps this drama is enough to force her to be careful about her future actions. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Xbony2: I wish I could say might be the case, but even after a year of being desysopped and a stern warning from Chuck to keep her nose clean, she isn't altered her behavior in the slightest. --Victar (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    Perhaps I believe in second chances and you are cynical, or perhaps you are right and I am naïve. But I suppose we'll find out. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Xbony2: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... --Victar (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeIsomorphyc (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PseudoSkull (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose difficult but valuable contributor.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. —RuakhTALK 06:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain On one hand, contributes a lot of good stuff, especially in modules. On the other hand, does so without proper consensus. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Honestly, I don't really want Rua to lose her admin bit, because it comes in handy now and again. But the issues are real, and the unfortunate flip side of not having an overbearing bureaucracy like 'pedia means that we don't really have any punishments to hand out besides desysopping. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge, I don't think it should be really framed as a "punishment", but rather limiting someone's privileges to deter future conflicts. --Victar (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Isn't that the definition of a punishment? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Is enforcing a no-fly-zone for commercial planes a punishment to airline companies? --Victar (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I see definite issues on both sides of this argument -- Rua has been prone to unilateral moves to reworking infrastructure that we all depend on, without doing enough consensus-building. And she has also been instrumental in a number of significant improvements.
    I'm on the fence here. If I lean either way, it's slightly towards not sysop: much of what she's done can be implemented by an editor without the sysop bit, and others have noted that her not being a sysop could help avoid certain kinds of conflict in future.
    I see several users who have voted without listing any reasons. Request: @DTLHS, Kleio, Saltmarsh, Widsith, would you be willing to add a rationale to your vote?
    Also, for @Rua herself, would you be willing to explain what you do that would require sysop privileges? Even a simple bulleted list would help.
    ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    I voted against more or less per Angr. There are some things she could improve, but her behavior to me does not warrant sysopping at this time and I think she could do her work better with admin privileges. — Kleio (t · c) 01:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Some people seem to have said quite enough already :) — Saltmarsh. 07:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Equinox 22:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I have no horse in this race but I am surprised that I don't see much serious discussion of de-sysopping + Template Editor privileges. Either way, I am grateful for Rua's contributions and I dislike the off-putting atmosphere here (By "here" I mean at en.wikt in general, not on this particular discussion). —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    "I dislike the off-putting atmosphere here" -- I feel you. The anonymity of the internet can make people respond quite harshly and cynically to even minor mistakes made in good faith by otherwise valuable editors. It's unfortunate. — Kleio (t · c) 01:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain As I am finally in long-winded enough mood to answer this vote, I drop what I think on the matter: I have mostly not been around when the contested “uncivilities” took place to perceive them to their full extent, but I am quite confident that the litigant people make mountains out of molehills. I do not see substantial evidence to back up a withdrawal of administrative rights, even if older corpus delicti is admissible I would suggest dismissal of the case in application of the de minimis rule, and it is rather striking how people rely on sentiments like “unemphaticness” and “disdainfulness” and “imperiousness”, all accidentialia. That seem to be real old-school typical qualities of a genial scientist, and the tact in applying the intellect is always more valuable than the amenity of the features of the behavior that expresses the intellect’s conclusions (this is not a matrimonial proceeding and you are not on a date with Rua to partake in her warmth). Such way the behavior of Rua fulfills the highest requirements of predictability – she is a handsome personality of one piece that services the claims brought upon her. I am more worried by what Wyang may commit in the future than by what Rua could commit. It is disgusting how much he sticks to trifles and courtesies like when I superficially appeared to side with Rua (which wasn’t even a trap) or he is “pissed” when a user obviously only very objectively referring to the objects of his address spoke of a stupid idea executed by Wyang and simply said “Stop.”. Some people, all of us sometimes, make mistakes by the attention not being sharpened, but Wyang indulges in being superficial. As seen in that long post where I appeared to side with Rua: Who has not treated the other as equal human being with opinions worth paying attention to? He leaves the ship when it burns instead of confronting the discontent. Granted, I would disprefer either as judge, but as for the standards needed for this project, Rua exceeds them fairly well, while Wyang should invest a bit more willpower to satisfy the expectations. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    diff. I definitely agree. Wyang (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    This comment by Wyang only confirms the observation that Wyang acts completely arbitrarily and disregards arguments independently of how much reason there is in them. Also Stephen is a candidate for the same judgment as he abuses words for his pure comfort and calls texts nonsense that aren’t such. Or does he lack words to point out the lacunae in my argumentation strains because he is a child (it cannot be true biologically, considering the date he has already worked for Wiktionary)? There is no essential difference between children and adults in what relates to arguments, and it is obviously impossible that I am a child, just considering the times I write here in my approximate altitude, or the count of languages I know, or the style which is never seen on childs (you might argue on insanes, but that is also nothing in rem and not even necessarily bad in effect). What’s true is that how I talk has nothing to do with how they chatter on the streets, and elsewhere these days, but that is the worse for the current language and those who think they should speak modern, as dead languages like literary English are advantageous by being free of the recent prejudices of the unenlightened majority.
    Obviously Wyang cannot think how I do, for in that case memorizing all those Chinese tones &c. were not so much bearable. But this capacity is begotten by the very same trait which I have poked. The reluctance to do anything than to repeat what other people have recited, the expectation that everything can be cut into atoms of ideas conveyed instead of being a twisted hypotaxis, which is why in that post where I appeared to side with Rua he does nothing than to repeat the things which I and others already have said instead of treating the truth behind the words. A useful quality to pass school, eminence in being a normie, but of course completely dishonest.
    Alas, what do I talk so much? How can someone not be dishonest that posts a diff of an argumentless rant and “agrees”? That is below 4channers. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Palaestrator, the more you write, the more naïve you look. If you are unable to express yourself clearly and concisely, the consequence is simply that your posts will be ignored. Not everyone has time for your ridiculously long passages. It just comes across as pretentious. Wyang (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    This is honestly disappointing to read. I really shouldn't have bothered. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    If you're trying to say civility and cordiality are irrelevant to one's role as an admin, I completely disagree. This project is built upon community and cooperation -- building on the foundation of others. I also want to stress that this vote should not be made into a Wyang v. CodeCat issue, because it is not. --Victar (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's "Wyang". "Wang" is something rather different... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Victar, are you implying that Wyang is a d*ck? If yes, I disagree, I find him very nice. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:20C7:30E9:F585:19D6 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Looks to be an honest (but unfortunate) typo to me. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oh no, I rather point out the weighting. Civility and cordiality are nice to have. But I imagine community and cooperation in a cold way, i.e. cold reason, which is hard to fit into the crude manners of the everyday language. It reminds me of that post of Linus Torvalds from July 15th, 2013. Better be a bit more pretentious, i.e. have pretensions, than simplifying all indiscriminately by the superficiality of being “clear and concise”. Possibly I am going a bit into the other extreme (opposite to posting votes without explanations). But sadly Wyang is habitually neither cordial nor intellectual. That’s why I say he should invest more willpower, and why I find it comparatively displaced to reprove Rua who tries hard to expound her solutions rather than trying to swim below the radar. There is nothing naïve in exerting oneself. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 14:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    I believe some of us are trying to say that CodeCat doesn't need her admin status to continue her work, particularly if you give her template editor access. That would prevent her from deleting and locking articles, and require her to use consensus gathering and communication, something she otherwise tries to avoid, from my experience. It's worked out well the past year, in my opinion. --Victar (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Leasnam (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Dghmonwiskos (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Having to dodge emotionally-charged bullets here already... people getting triggered to literal "did you just assume my gender?" levels sealed my deal. I'm out. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 04:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --WikiTiki89 17:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Decision

  • Failed.
    Vote count: 5-18-9 (22%) —Stephen (Talk) 00:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Placing Wikidata ID in sense ID of proper nouns

Voting on: Placing Wikidata ID (e.g. Q174193) in sense ID of proper nouns. For example, changing

# A [[kingdom]] and [[sovereign]] [[state]] in [[Western Europe]] comprising the four countries of [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]] in the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] in the island of [[Ireland]]. Since 1922.
# {{lb|en|historical}} The [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] (1801–1922)
# {{lb|en|historical|informal}} The [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (1707-1801)

to

# {{senseid|en|Q145}}A [[kingdom]] and [[sovereign]] [[state]] in [[Western Europe]] comprising the four countries of [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]] in the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] in the island of [[Ireland]]. Since 1922.
# {{senseid|en|Q174193}}{{lb|en|historical}} The [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] (1801–1922)
# {{senseid|en|Q161885}}{{lb|en|historical|informal}} The [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (1707-1801)

The template used is {{senseid}}.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

Symbol support vote.svg Support I can see this being very useful for a variety of NLP tasks, plus it makes Wiktionary more machine-readable. Thomas Foster (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Struck as ineligible to vote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support. My opinion is as follows. Basically, any ID is fine. The sense "Paris, France" could be "parisfrance" or "paris1" or "propernoun_francecapital" or whatever. But Wikidata already has a database with a consistent ID format, linking each place to additional information and wiki links so we might as well use the Wikidata ID. So Q90 would be the sense ID for "Paris, France" and Q830149 the sense ID for "Paris, Texas". I like that the same ID can be used for all languages, so Dutch Parijs can use "Q90" too.--Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Hopefully I won't regret this. Semantic info is definitely useful but I am also keen that wiki markup remains human-editable. Equinox 07:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Polyglot (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as I don’t have to use it. I don’t buy the argument “Can look intimidating to new contributors who would have to figure out what Wikidata is to understand what these numerical identifiers are.” You look into the documentation to find out what it is. Else one already has to study rules and documentations when starting to edit any wiki without high risk of reprimand, and one is not necessarily distracted by it, {{lb}} and quotes and usage examples of all kinds everywhere already inhibit the readability. And there is syntax highlighting, though it is in beta state. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 21:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    I think it would look intimidating to me if I were a new editor. I would not want to read all sorts of documentation and "rules" like I am expected to in some cultures; I would love to start by following the model of example entries that I find. I would not probably even read the doc of {{lb}}; I would see {{lb|cs|informal}} in the markup, and say, hey, that's how they mark up Czech informal. The argument of the form "we have some elements that decrease readibility => let's indiscriminatedly add more such elements" is obviously flawed; each further decrease of readability should be based on some informal cost-benefit analysis. It's like saying, we already pollute environment => any additional pollution is fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    But how many entries have glosses that aren’t too vague to include Wikidata IDs? The entries that can have Wikidata IDs are regularly boring entries that are created and edited by regular editors. Country names, plant names, decade names. They work on soup names, or can these have Wikidata too? … Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 14:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    I don't have a number, but it seems a significant portion of specific entities can have a Wikidata ID. Apart from country names that you mention, place names alone include names of cities, towns, villages, rivers, lakes, mountains, you name it; there are astronomical specific entities, etc. I don't see why new contributors should not want to work on these kinds of specific entities; 91.61.108.243, which you above picked, is hardly representative of new editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRua (mew) 15:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Makes the wikitext harder to read and skim for very little benefit to Wiktionary readers and editors. Can look intimidating to new contributors who would have to figure out what Wikidata is to understand what these numerical identifier are. Let this be first tried by Wiktionaries of cultures that love numerical identifiers and ridig structures, and let's first see how well it works for them, and experience the benefits (if any) there first. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ew. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 03:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WikiTiki89 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm all for making Wiktionary more machine-readable, but not at the expense of human-readability. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wyang (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, unless we're going to express the labels in Solresol. (This is my way of expressing that trying to enumerate senses in a fixed manner is both inherently non-bijective and also completely incomprehensible for someone who doesn't already know the language. Because yes, this proposal is so offensive that I'm actually voting on it.) ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Is there no other place to put these identifiers? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Struck as ineligible to vote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
They have to be tied to individual senses (which are of course editable and rearrangeable by users), so I don't see where else we could safely store them. Equinox 19:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I have a feeling that this is likely to cause problems down the road, since dictionary definitions don't seem like they'll match up perfectly with Wikidata items. I can't identify any particular reason why this would cause problems—it's just an intuitive feeling, which is why I'm abstaining rather than opposing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral It seems to me that "{{senseid|en|Q161885}}" is far more human readable and even logical than "{{lb|en|historical|informal}}". I feel it would be unsupportable to accept the local templatification and reject the senseid on that basis. That said, these suggested 'sense identification numbers' are not to a shared definition, but to the node equivalent of a Wikipedia article - a disorganized and therefore often inaccurate collation of data. E.g. the citizens of the island of Ireland were certainly not using the demonym "British" during the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is like using the Dewey Decimal system to create unique sense ids; extremely unuseful. Since Wikidata is already replicating Wiktionary's glosses, these should link to a proper noun gloss, and only that. - Amgine/ t·e 16:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Decision


Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace 2

Voting on: Templatizing the markup for topical categories in the mainspace with one of two particular templates, {{cat}} or {{c}}. Thus, giving a full go ahead to all automatic and semiautomatic edits that replace the likes of "[[Category:nl:Mammals]]" with "{{cat|nl|Mammals}}" or "{{c|nl|Mammals}}". Note that the templates support multiple parameters, such as {{c|nl|Mammals|Zoology}}. Note that, currently, {{c}} is a redirect to {{topics}}. This proposal is about using templates for this purpose in general, and also about the particular template names to appear in wikitext in the mainspace.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    Extended: 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    Extended: 23:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support for cat

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I like {{cat}}, like the alias "Cat" for categories. Typing {{cat|en|dogs}} seems similar to typing [[Cat:en:Dogs]]. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support, same reasons as in the previous vote. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ƿidsiþ 12:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support, the main reason being sortkeys. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support; this is consistent with the Chinese specific template {{zh-cat}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support – Because (as @Daniel Carrero says above) {{cat|en|Languages}} is similar to [[CAT:en:Languages]], I think it makes sense as a name for the template that generates language code–prefixed categories. — Eru·tuon 18:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Better than {{c}}, worse than {{topics}}, much better than [[Category:]]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV If you want {{topics}}, you should vote oppose like I did. —Rua (mew) 15:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    I’d rather settle for a smaller improvement than insisting on one that is not likely to pass. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, {{topics}} had only one support in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace, and 6 opposes. I find {{topics}} a fine name, but it is unlikely to gain 2/3-supermajority. {{cat}} seems to be an okay name, especially since its functions can be expanded to handle non-topical categories as well, as indicated on the talk page of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  10. Conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support if an admin volunteers to fork a local version of HotCat to support the new template. It's not particularly hard to do, just requires careful testing; the code is doing simple regexp replacements - see the logic for HotCat.category_canonical and HotCat.category_regexp in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js Tetromino (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for cat

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    @DonnanZ: Could you please clarify why you oppose this? Is it because you consider it too long? (You seem not to oppose {{c}} and {{C}}.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    I am all in favour of shorter template names, which is why I support {{c}} rather than {{cat}}. But if {{c}} causes problems for some users I have no objection to {{cat}} being used by them. I trust that {{c}} and {{cat}} are intended to be options chosen by the user, and it's not an either/or situation, where one of them wins. But I don't want to use {{cat}} myself. And I don't use HotCat. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    @DonnanZ: The proposal of the vote is to give a go ahead to certain replacements; it is not to force users to use a particular template name. If this particular proposal passes (very uncertain), you should still be able to use {{c}} but someone else may feel free to change that to {{cat}}. If {{c}} gets deprecated (not part of the proposal as written), that's going to be a different story. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not at all indicative of function. Yes, it categorises, but it's specifically for topical categories. Thus, {{topics}} makes more sense. Compare {{categorize}}, which is a general categorizing template. {{cat}} should redirect to {{categorize}}. —CodeCat 20:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It will mess up MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.jsInternoob 01:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Wouldn't that already be messed up with the use of {{topics}} or am I missing something? -Xbony2 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, any categories added through templates are not editable through HotCat. I mainly disagree with the go-ahead for all automatic and semi-automatic edits that replace [[Category:]] with {{cat}}, because that only takes away my ability to edit those with HotCat. —Internoob 00:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per internoob.Dixtosa (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not, by any means, what templates were meant for. I may be late to the party (and I may also be a lone dissenter in this respect) but this is really getting kind of ridiculous. At least things like {{label}} has the """justification""" of CSS customization, but there is no purpose for this but to save.... let me count... five characters. Five. Or seven if you prefer {{c}}, which is even worse since it's not obvious at all what "c" stands for. Because apparently WP:PAPER doesn't apply to Wiktionary. Who knew? ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 17:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain for cat

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Prefer to keep as is. --Victar (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Victar: In Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace, you said "Would support {{cat}}". Have you changed your mind? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Support for c

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support, same reasons as in the previous vote. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support - better than {{cat}} and much better than {{topics}}. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for c

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Same as above, except worse. —CodeCat 20:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It will mess up MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.jsInternoob 01:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Same as above. Also opposed to case-sensitive templates. --Victar (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Abstain for c

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for the present. What's wrong with {{C}}? DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    @DonnanZ: {{C}}, in contrast to {{c}}, is capitalized for no obvious reason. We have {{m}}, {{lb}}, {{l}}, {{ux}}, etc., not {{M}}, etc.
    Furthermore, {{C}} in capital did not make it in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace; I opposed there on account of the wrong capitalization. {{c}} in lowercase still has a chance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    What you really mean is "no consensus", it didn't fail. I am now supporting {{c}}. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg AbstainAryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain – I've used {{c}} and {{C}}, but I don't know if they really are intuitive names, or if the names are best used in this way. — Eru·tuon 18:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Decision

  • Previous votes on this subject had more participants, so I would like to extend the vote. I know there is some opposition to extensions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    I extended it to November 28, 2017, per your request, if no one minds. To be extra clear: I, personally, support extending the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    I extended it further to 28 December 2017. The result is tight (9:4), the last oppose was on 25 November 2017, and having the vote end on 28 Nov would expose the original extension to the accusation of being done to fish for the desired outcome. I propose to use the following extension mechanism on this vote: "If at least one new vote was cast to the vote in the last extension period, extend further by one more month, unless 6 months have already passed". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    I support extending the vote further this time, but unfortunately I'm not a fan of that specific extension mechanism for this or any other votes. Although it wasn't tested in practice yet, this is my first impression: If that's the only allowed extension mechanism, it's too bad that it does not tell us when to start extending a vote. For votes that were never extended, there's no "last extension period", so that rule would result in 0 votes being extended. But if there's any other secondary rule allowing the first vote extension, it seems trivial to wait for more people to cast at least 1 vote each month (especially if we ask at the BP like I did here), so it's likely that many or most extended votes would end up lasting exactly 6 months.
    I would prefer having a extension mechanism close to this: "If the current support results are between 40% to 70% (or between 60% and 70% if that's too much), invariably extend by 1 month, unless 6 months have already passed." Reason: It's to avoid "no consensus" rulings, when a few more votes could more easily tip the balance into clear support or clear oppose. As you said, right now the result for the result is tight (9:4 = 69.23%; 4:3 = 57.14%). That's why I support extending this vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    The advantage of the mechanism I proposed is that it has no bias toward pass or fail, and therefore, it cannot be accused of having built-in fishing for a pass. As for "it's likely that many or most extended votes would end up lasting exactly 6 months", that would have to be borne out by experience. The algorithm is there only for votes that were extended at least once, and it leaves it unspecified under which conditions the first extension can take place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    I acknowledge that advantage you mentioned as correct: "it has no bias toward pass or fail, and therefore, it cannot be accused of having built-in fishing for a pass".
    I understand that it leaves it unspecified under which conditions the first extension can take place. It does not have to be a bad thing at all. I also understand you proposed this extension mechanism for this specific vote, where the first extension already happened and thus the question "When the first extension can take place?" does not apply. It's just something that in my opinion is a good idea to say explicitly: for future votes, it would be nice to answer that question in some way if possible.
    If there's no first-extension rule, then votes are extended and non-extended with some degree of randomness. The accusation of "fishing for votes" can be rewritten as this obviously bad extension mechanism: "Whenever the vote does not have the result I like, extend." I hope someday we can agree on an actual extension mechanism consistently applied to all votes to counter this. In all or many extended votes where I supported extension, what sold it to me was that the result was unclear prior to the extension. Which lead me to my idea above. (to repeat: when a few more votes could more easily tip the balance into clear support or clear oppose)
    As for "it's likely that many or most extended votes would end up lasting exactly 6 months", there is some experience: whenever I ask at the BP for people to vote to break a tie or to increase the turnout, people vote. Current results are 100% (that is, at least 1 people voted after I asked that). But that's from memory and I didn't get actual links and vote examples. Some exception could have happened which I forgot. My point is, I or other people can probably cause a vote to be extended whenever we want by asking people to vote (up to some reasonable limit).
    Consider game theory: That mechanism ("if 1 vote was cast last month, then extend") has a bias towards "no consensus". It works like this: if I did not vote yet, and I want to support the vote, but nobody voted this month and the vote already has a majority of support, I can't vote "support", lest I risk extending the vote and allowing other people to vote oppose next month. In other words: Waiting, not voting, is optimal if I agree with the current result. Voting, not waiting, is optimal is I disagree with the current result. This is true until someone votes this month, but we will invariably have to wait for a whole month (until six months have passed) where nobody voted and for that period this will be true again. Hence there's some bias towards changing whatever is the current result and drifting toward "no consensus". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see any bias towards no consensus in the proposed mechanism. I think the reasoning presented is incorrect. That speculative waiter you posit would have as the best strategy to wait until, say, one day before the current end of the vote to see whether other people have already ensured extension, and then vote accordingly. I find such speculative waiters unlikely, but even if they turned out to be real, their existence would not swing the vote toward no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Restricting Thesaurus to English

Voting on: Restricting Wiktionary:Thesaurus to English, moving current content of non-English thesaurus entries to the mainspace and then deleting the non-English entries.

Rationale: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-11/Restricting Thesaurus to English#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as long as there won't be a proper infrastructure for handling several languages; Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if/once that condition is met. I think I've been convinced 1) that this endeavour shouldn't be too redundant with the efforts of other Wiktionaries, and 2) that it's indeed a good thing to have everything in a single place. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. My reasons are in (talk page)#Oppose. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel's arguments. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also, pages in other languages with many meronyms/hyponyms can function as highly useful themed pages of vocabulary for people learning another language. For instance, příbuzný for Czech could be highly useful to someone trying to build basic vocabulary in that language. In its current state, the Thesaurus isn't overly useful, but if used this way for FL's, it could have many benefits. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. My reasoning is laid down in (talk page)#Oppose. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mellohi! (僕の乖離) 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WikiTiki89 17:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PseudoSkull (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 14:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeMatthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I think that an organisational system is needed, but this vote (which never had any real community support) is not the proper way to bring it about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The advantages of the restriction are considerable, as noted on the talk page; it would simplify a lot of things, including use {{ws|term}} vs., for Spanish, {{ws|es|term}}, language indication in thesaurus page name (largely no lang indication yet; examples could be Thesaurus:Hindi/water, Thesaurus:pt:autêntico, Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca), having search function automatically restrained to English entries, etc. However, overall, the English Wiktionary is designed to be multilingual in all its facets, including topical categories and rhymes, and keeping the thesaurus multilingual fits better into this. Moreover, thesauri in other Wiktionaries may take a slightly different approach (French one does) and therefore, a language like French can get a kind of treatment in the English Wiktionary Thesaurus that it does not get in the French Wiktionary Thesaurus and vice versa; there surely are redundancies between the thesauri in different Wiktionaries but also complementarities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    About {{ws|term}} vs., for Spanish, {{ws|es|term}}: even if we keep the Thesaurus in all languages, I have reason to believe there's no need to add the langcode to that template until proved otherwise. If the page is named like Thesaurus:Hindi/water, Thesaurus:pt:autêntico or Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca, then {{ws}} can automatically get the language name from the page title.
    Obviously, automatically getting the language from the page title is impossible if the page is named like this: Thesaurus:autêntico. But the template can still use Lua to transcribe the whole current page and look for the first L2, which is ==Portuguese==, so even still {{ws}} does not need to have a langcode.
    I support keeping {{ws}} without a langcode and use some template tricks as described above to get the code automatically. If that's proved to be impossible or if cross-language links are needed, then I completely change my mind and support making the langcode required in {{ws}}. Having the langcode would not be a disaster. We are used to having langcodes everywhere, like {{en-noun}}. (Simple Wiktionary uses {{noun}})
    Furthermore, I support eventually having some consistent Thesaurus page title with the language somewhere in the title. It works fine for Rhymes. We have Rhymes:English/ʌm, so we could have Thesaurus:English/good (replacing the current Thesaurus:good). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    Elsewhere, I have explained that Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca (or Thesaurus:pl:złoczyńca) is preferable to Thesaurus:Polish:villain: it enables the automatic linking of further thesaurus pages via {{ws}}, like in Thesaurus:bird. I accept that {{ws}} could pick the lang code from the page title; still, I remember that on some pages even the current {{ws}} started choking because of the number of items calling it, so making {{ws}} make more things can make these problems worse. In any case, the general point that multiple languages complicate things stands. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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: