Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-12/Making simplified Chinese soft-redirect to traditional Chinese

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Outcome[edit]

11:6:02 is not a pass per our long standing practice. 11:6 is 64.7% support. The least threshold that I have seen mentioned and actually supported is 2/3.

I acknowledge that extending a passing vote with plenty of votes would be an unnecessary delay. But this vote is not passing, so extending it is giving it a chance to pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than 50% no? Isn't that how democracy works? Besides, only one of the opposing vote has any knowledge of Chinese (zh-1), so if we weight it the impact factor is like 99:1. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 64.7% (=11/11+6) is not a pass. I ask the reader to check past votes to see how we close votes. Ivan Štambuk has been long enough around to know how we close the votes; his suggestion that 50% is the threshold for a pass (diff) is just outrageous. I encourage voters to continue posting their votes, and to consider Ivan Štambuk's premature termination of the vote invalid. The knowledge of Chinese on the voter's part is immaterial; the matter and the issues at hand can be judged by those don't know Chinese. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We haven’t yet officially decided upon a passing percentage, but I think we generally agree it’s somewhere between 60 and 80. Customarily it is the person who closes the vote that decides if the percentage is enough to pass. As to the time allowed for the vote, two weeks is usual for most votes, and one month is the longest. It has now been a month and three quarters, and the percentage is virtually 2/3 in support. Ivan closed the vote after a month and a half had passed, and he determined that it passes. Reasonable. It’s time to put an end to this matter, everyone has had an abundance of time to consider the matter and record a vote. —Stephen (Talk) 13:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: "we generally agree it’s somewhere between 60 and 80": We don't. I have never seen even a mere majority agree that 60% is enough. The lowest number that I saw proposed and gain some support is 2/3 (66.6%), e.g. in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2010/June#Vote_Closure_Rubric, where I see no-one opposing the 2/3 threshold. There are almost no votes closed as passing with less than 66.6% support; please check. In the other direction, I know of no vote that failed with having over 70% support. From what I know, the threshold as evidenced by actual votes is between 2/3 (66.6%) and 70%. Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories is an example of a vote that passed with less than 75%.
      • Re: "Customarily it is the person who closes the vote that decides if the percentage is enough to pass.": Not true. The closer is not free to decide closing percentage anywhere in the rage of 60-80% as they see fit; that is procedurally outrageous. I know you did it once, and it shed bad light on that vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy. Because it was a constitution-like changing vote, closing it with 63% as passed was very questionable.
      • Re: "two weeks is usual for most votes, and one month is the longest": This is untrue for policy votes, as anyone can check. Policy votes almost never get only two weeks; it is such insignificant votes as adminiships and bot votes that get two weeks or less. I wagger there are almost no policy votes running shorter than a month. Furthermore, one month is not the longest; there is a tradition of extending votes where deemed apppropriate, e.g. in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2.
      • ---Dan Polansky (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Given the almost all of the opposing votes are clueless in Chinese, I'd see that the ratio is pretty much sufficient. We can't let outsiders dictate the policy for languages in which they don't edit. Furthermore, even if this vote fails, it doesn't prohibit making the redirects which is the now the de facto consensus for Chinese editors. Unless there is a specific policy on exactly what figure is the threshold for a vote to pass, 64.7% remains sufficient. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, Dan, you pooh-pooh every case and precedent that goes against your opinion. If it goes against your wishes, it must be "outrageous." See Current Voting Policy Vote.
        • The voting period for this vote was one month (sufficient time), and Ivan waited a month and a half before closing it. It should have been closed two weeks earlier, but it would not have made any difference in the outcome. You don’t want to accept the results, so you declare everything "outrageous" or "not true", and you want to extend the vote again and again unilaterally until, as the months go by, possibly you can garner enough votes against to get it to turn your way. —Stephen (Talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am presenting verifiable claims and evidence; you are presenting falsities and zero evidence. I extended the vote to make it possible for it to pass; otherwise, I would have closed it immediately after it expired as "no consensus" as per verifiable common practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised. Who gives an opinion is not important, and should not be taken into account. The important thing is the analysis of arguments provided. If some proposal has only pros and no cons, it should be adopted, even with 99% of votes against it. When there are pros and cons, it's more difficult, but the idea should be the same. And arguments based on general principles defined by the Foundation, such as the NPOV principle, should be given a much higher weight. Lmaltier (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of does matter. Each language editing community in theory should be self-governing, and outsiders shouldn't affect its consensus unless it's some really important issue (e.g. suppose three and the only editors of some language decide to drop the usual orthography and embrace some obscure spelling standard). These votes are set up not to vote for or against points in each proposal (I would also agree with that format), but to accept or not everything in package. Even if a "bad" proposal passes it can always be undone in the future, nothing is fixed and permanent. Back-redirecting the properly formatted traditional spellings to simplified could probably even be done by bots. I can tell you that the only reason I voted was to counterbalance the against votes by guys (nomina sunt odiosa) that I'm pretty certain have zero interest in editing or viewing Chinese entries here. It just feels wrong to see that. But anyway, this discussion is getting too meta. This is not the proper venue to discuss the general issue of closing votes. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Improperly closed vote is a fine venue to discuss the general issue of closing votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was originally on the vote page itself. Moving it to the talk page by Stephen G. Brown (diff) is a rogue move, IMHO. The closing of this vote is illegitimate, and the fact that the manner of closure was questioned should be apparent to anyone reading the main vote page. Stephen G. Brown further abused his admin power by locking the vote page, so that non-admins such as me can no longer edit the page. Wow. I request that the steps by Stephen G. Brown be undone, and that the vote page itself shows traces of disagreement about the manner of closure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're the only one complaining pretty much proves that the closing was legitimate. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reader will realize that if everything were fine, there would be no reason for Stephen G. Brown to remove the discussion from the vote page. Most votes in which a discussion about closure developed do not have the discussion removed from the vote page. The discussion contains some damning evidence against Mr. Ivan Štambuk (e.g. diff) and Stephen G. Brown, so is conveniently removed by Stephen G. Brown from the sight of those who would read the vote later. More damning evidence against Mr. Ivan Štambuk is at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2010/May#Current_Voting_Policy_Vote, in the paragraph starting with "I also wholeheartedly endorse the proposed crackdown measures". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter Polansky, even if the vote failed the outcome is the same as if it passed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New poll after four years[edit]

I propose take a new ballot, for four years have elapsed and still the redirect issue has not been solved; furthermore, online users are really volatile --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2014-12/Making_simplified_Chinese_soft-redirect_to_traditional_Chinese&oldid=51117868"