Wiktionary talk:Votes

STOP! You may have gotten here accidentally. This is the discussion page for all voting procedures on en.wiktionary.org, not the discussion page for an individual vote. Did you mean to navigate to Wiktionary:Votes?

Documentation

For the documentation of the voting process, see the Wiktionary:Votes and the parts that are hidden and collapsed in the violet box at the top of the page. The violet box is located at Wiktionary:Votes/header.

The violet box consists of three collapsed sections:

• Voting policy
• Voting procedure
• Starting a new vote on this page

Archived votes can be seen at Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline.

Categories for votes are rooted in Category:Wiktionary votes.

Recent changes in the currently running votes: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Votes that have not been closed.

Templates used in votes: {{vote-generic}}, {{vote-sysop}}, {{vote-bureaucrat}}, {{vote-checkuser}}, {{vote-bot}}; {{support}}, {{oppose}}, {{abstain}}; and Category:Voting templates.

Discussion

NOEDITSECTION

In the current version of MW, the noeditsection directive (at the very, very top of the page) simply prevents the section edit links from appearing. Section editing, of course, is still enabled. The direct edit of section one is where the new vote sub-page transclusion lines get dropped in. This page depends on this behavior not changing. If it does...well, then we'll have to remove the NOEDITSECTION line, and hide the links on this one page via JavaScript. --Connel MacKenzie 08:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed for now. People need section links to be able to edit a particular vote. I suppose I could add such links on the preloaded page...hmmm. Seems like too much trouble for no gain though. --Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Single vote discussion

The link for discussion of a particular vote is lost visibly on the page once voting starts and large colorful buttons take over for the eye. The discussion link needs some sort of little icon of its own either at the beginning or end of the line to make it stand out more. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

how about this guy? - TheDaveRoss 01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean our new logo? </sarcasm> DAVilla 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think most people have ignored the recommendation, and instead commented in-line. Perhaps we should just change the instructions to permit this behavior (it does seem rather helpful and convenient, after all.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Resizing the page

That big ugly purple box is the culprit, I'm guessing. DAVilla 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the show/hide thing could be used for 75% of that purple box, including new nominations? --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or simpler, would you consider moving the instructions for starting a new vote? DAVilla 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Right now, the buttons and stuff are conveniently relative to the current page position. But I suppose spelling out the full reference wouldn't hurt...and probably simplify a few other things along the way. --Connel MacKenzie 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow. Okay, so you've added those supposedly infallible collapsible sections. Man do they screw up on my machine! Open one and the text appears below the next one. Only the last one works properly, or combinations such as all of them unhidden. DAVilla 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, some feedback! Horray! Thank you. What browser is that? --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.2180 running on Windows XP Home Edition. I'd tell you more but everything's in Chinese and I can't understand it. DAVilla 06:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please turn on Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, (UNCHECK) Disable script debugging and restart IE, then tell me what line number it is complaining about? --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, it works flawlessly in IE7, but I'm unable to degrade to 6.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. I don't know which option is "Disable script debugging" as they're all in Chinese. Anyways, it might not be complaining about anything, it could just not be rendering properly. On the other hand, you finally got some feedback, right? Heh. DAVilla 07:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that when opening one section, the bar right below does not move along: rather it places itself on top of the first line of the text of the opened section. The second bar does move, though. (As in opening the first section, the second bar remains and covers a line of text, while the third moves downwards.) Similar behaviour when closing, but exact behaviour then depends on the order in which the sections were opened (if multiple). \Mike 06:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What browser still behaves incorrectly, any? Works-for-me. --Connel MacKenzie 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The collapsible boxes work fine in Firefox 2.0.0.4 and Konqueror 3.5.5 on Linux (Ubuntu/KDE). On the former the contents of the third box do extend about 1 inch off the right of the page (1024x768, 15inch LCD, monobook skin). This does not happen in Konq.

I will test Firefox 2.0.0.6 and IE6 on Windows XP Home tomorrow if you want (have to use my laptop, which is currently on charge in a different room). Thryduulf 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Having these three boxes inside another might be part of the problem. Of course ideally it should work regardless, but I'm guessing that's complicating things. DAVilla 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived votes getting long now

Perhaps everything except the last 5 votes (or last month?) should be on a subpage now? --Connel MacKenzie 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. It doesn't seem that long a list to me, but I also don't see much use in listing all the old votes on the active page. --EncycloPetey 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could use one of those nifty collapsible boxes that seem to be popping up all over the place. But yes, a subpage would prevent long load times for those on slow links. --Jeffqyzt 15:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Withdrawn" votes

Do we archive them the same way, or just remove them from the vote page? --Connel MacKenzie 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there may be links from other discussions, I'd say we archive them the same way and note that it was "Withdrawn" or "Pended" (depending on which descriptor is more appropriate). --EncycloPetey 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:AN

Please remember to announce successful votes on Wiktionary:Announcements! --Connel MacKenzie 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ak! :~ DAVilla 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes v. nominees

What do people think of splitting this page into votes (policy etc.) and nominations, the latter replacing our duplicated efforts at WT:A et al.? First moving this page there and back will add it to everyone's watchlist. Or we could branch off WT:A and leave all other votes here, branching them off in the future as needed. We can of course link one to the other, and have a common page for starting new votes. DAVilla 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If we had a larger number of votes running simultaneously, I'd say something along those lines was a good idea. However, given the small number of votes we have running at any one time, I'd rather see all the votes listed on a single page for now. --EncycloPetey 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote policy?

Is there a page with vote policy? Like, what things are we allowed to vote for, and what votes are forbidden? Language Lover 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What policy we have is located at the top of WT:VOTE. Voting is primarily for determining support for user permissions (bot, sysop, 'crat, checkuser), and cementing policy and procedure. We don't vote on the contents of individual pages. - [The]DaveRoss 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that "policy". Basically, it gives any admin an unchecked veto, cuz any admin can arbitrarily decide any vote they dislike "isn't a valid vote". We HAVE voted on individual pages before, I even started one (on template:request for verification) which passed. Furthermore, if a vote is removed, you shouldn't delete the vote page itself. At most, remove the link from WT:Votes, there's no reason to delete valid discussion on the subpages. If noone can point out any policy page I'll make one myself and put THAT up for vote. Language Lover 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the top of WT:VOTE. It clearly says ""Votes should not be called for on this page. They should be the result of prior discussion located elsewhere (the Beer Parlor.)"" The vote you created wasn't called for elsewhere, and was deleted because you did not follow the procedure outlined on WT:VOTE. Conrad.Irwin 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What Dave and Conrad have said is correct. See the statment of purpose at the top of the Vote page: "This page is to consolidate all policy and procedural votes which take place on Wiktionary, and to formalize and document the consensus building and voting policy." We don't vote on content of individual pages here. That usually happens in the Beer Parlour, Tea Room, RFV, or RFD. The procedure for that is that someone raises a concern or asks a question, and opinion is then added by various users. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote start times.

Does anyone mind if I modify the vote-creation templates to start votes at the beginning of the first date of voting, rather than at the end of the previous date? For example, the recently added [[Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-10/User:Gauss for admin]] would start at 25 October 2008 00:00 UTC instead of at 24 October 2008 23:59 UTC. (Actually, it should probably start at 24 October 2008 00:00 UTC — no need to wait 39 hours for a sysop vote to start — but that's a slightly separate issue.)

Also, I was thinking it might make sense to create a template that uses parser-functions to display different text depending on whether the start-date and/or end-date have yet been reached. (To be honest, I don't see the point in being so regimented in having votes start and end at specific minutes, but since we already are, we might as well make it easy for potential voters to see what the current state is. Not all of us have our watches set to UTC.)

Any thoughts?

—Ruakh_TALK 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Start a new vote button is broken

I'm trying to start a vote with the text in the field “Wiktionary:Votes/2009-08/Rename Category:US Category:American English.” When I click the happy button (why is there an exclamation mark?), it goes to Bad title.24.79.85.41

This occurs because the text of that field becomes part of the pagename, and [ and ] aren't allowed in pagenames. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a non-JS way to fix it, or even to present an error-message that explains what actually went wrong. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 01:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Something else is broken. "Edit in a new tab this page" goes to the wrong section, and I'm not entirely certain where to insert the vote I want to start. Equinox ◑ 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Conrad.Irwin 12:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closure

What is the etiquette for closing votes? Any random passerby? Is it poor form to close a vote in which one has participated? This hasn't normally been an issue AFAIK, but in a discussion as heated as the current one on voting policy, I'm curious what the protocol would be. -- Visviva 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can close. The smarter users among us (myself included) usually tally up and state if it's passed. For the very thorny votes, I'd leave it to a 'crat to pass or fail it. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Caching

When not logged in, I just saw a version of the WT:V page that is several days old. I'm working on a computer that I hadn't been on this year, literally wiping the dust off of the keyboard, so it is absolutely not a local cache issue. Also I viewed the page from my usual machine on the home network yesterday specifically because I had a similar problem, and reloading the page after logging out worked fine, so I don't see how it could be an internet cache. There's something really funny going on. DAVilla 05:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the level of detail you are able to provide, it might be worth submitting a bug about this. Just to be clear, while logged in if you hit ctrl+f5 (or whatever cache clearing reload command is specific to your browser) do you still get a stale page? Please also try loading the target page (as opposed to the redirect page) directly, and see if it still happens. If not it is probably a squid caching issue which has been known to happen. - [The]DaveRoss 11:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This has happened on a couple of other occasions, on computers not my own, and would appear to be the last issue you mention with redirects. DAVilla 08:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pinyin glosses

I get that there was already a pretty lopsided vote to remove most information from pinyin pages such as yánlì (provided during the vote as a model example). For the life of me, I can't understand how it is an improvement to have a page of Chinese characters with no English guidance whatsoever on which one is which, forcing users to click through the entries one by one.

I would suggest permission of one or two word glosses such as that left at yàngzi by User:Mglovesfun when correcting a full definition placed there by User:Ddpy.

Since you guys are mostly the same people and the vote was lopsided, could I get some feedback over whether there is any support for that? or is everyone so anxious to avoid full definitions in the pinyin entries that no glosses are to be permitted at all? (cf. Atit's understanding of the current policy at my talk page.) — LlywelynII 08:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is an inevitable duplication of effort. If yánlì has a gloss for the meaning of 嚴厲, and the latter is updated, then we also have to change yánlì to correspond to this. bd2412 T 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Starting a new vote instructions

Could someone such as @Daniel Carrero please update the instructions in the "Starting a new vote on this page" collapsible box on this page? I don't presently want to start a vote, but if I did, I'm not sure if I would be certain of following all the steps correctly. This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@This, that and the other:  Done. I edited Wiktionary:Votes/header to update the instructions. Looks better now? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, looks better. I gave it a quick copyedit. This, that and the other (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, thanks for fixing my typos. I added a 7th point to finish the list of instructions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Quick question. What do abstains count as? Half a vote? (I hope) Philmonte101 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

They count as nothing, as in all electoral systems I have encountered. See W:Abstention. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's good too. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, casting abstain votes is better than ignoring the vote altogether, because it shows participation from more people. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like when someone says "abstain" and then literally nothing else. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You were probably being sarcastic. Your edit summary was: "why votes are terrible, part 12". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone abstains and says nothing else, it still shows that they saw and considered the vote. --WikiTiki89 21:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course he was being sarcastic. But even saying "abstain" and then literally nothing else is better than not participating at all, because people still know you were aware of the vote and chose to abstain, rather than simply not knowing about it. If a vote was held in which 3 people voted "support" and 4 people voted "oppose", there might be some concern that the vote was not publicized well enough. If a vote was held in which 3 people voted "support", 4 people voted "oppose", and 20 people explicitly abstained, there would be no such concern. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the university faculties I have worked in, a vote is a vote, whether it is an abstain, supportive, or oppose. Thus it is counted as a part of the tally total. - Amgine/ ^t·e 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

10:0:20 (support:oppose:abstain) is a 100% pass. It cannot be anything else, as a moment's deliberation shows. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't remove votes immediately when they are finished

It makes it difficult to keep track of finished votes -- particularly as the timeline is no longer on the votes page itself. This, that and the other (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All right. I think it would also help if the vote box linked to WT:VTIME somehow. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone please undo this edit

Someone who can edit this page please undo this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3AVotes&type=revision&diff=59723573&oldid=59696748

It is COMPLETELY UNOBVIOUS to anyone trying to create a vote for the first time that the field above the button is editable, or that one is supposed to edit it. Naturally one simply clicks "Start a new vote" and then gets into a mess. Mihia (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have also been confused by the need to edit the field before pressing the "Start a new vote". I myself have previously acted in the way described above. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, creating votes is really confusing even when sober. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise you even remembered what being sober is like. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's like trying to tie your shoelaces with both hands. Equinox ◑ 00:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Went to a pub last Friday for the first time since March, and the indoors was closed and they had a Sanitation Station™ at the garden entrance, and a thing where you scan a QR code and say you've been there, in case there is an outbreak. My friend couldn't get the "app"(?) working and I don't own a phone by choice, so we stealthed past it. It was a good sunny pub visit. Wiktionary is my blog. Equinox ◑ 00:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, it is probably a good thing that votes are confusing to create. Otherwise we'd be making votes all the time, about stuff like curly brackets. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Page locked

The Votes page has been locked, and I would like to vote on an open vote. How can I do this? AnotherEditor144 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnotherEditor144:: Under "Current and new votes", there's a box on the right that says "Planned, running and recent votes". If you click on the name of the issue you want to vote on, it will take you to the appropriate subpage where you can vote. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Thank you. AnotherEditor144 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Add a contents box

The Votes project page is hard to skim. I suggest adding a contents box (just like the kind of thing at the top of this Discussion/Talk page). —DIV (1.145.107.150 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC))