万维词典

主题:Votes

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 to the "active" list 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.

Before clicking the "Start a new vote!" button below, change "Title of vote" in the field just above the button to a short descriptive title.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2020-03/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-03/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-03/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2020-03/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2020-03/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2020-03/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

Make Frankish an etymology-only variant of Proto-West Germanic

Voting on: Making Frankish an etymology-only variant of Proto-West Germanic. --{{victar|talk}} 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: {{victar|talk}} 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC){{victar|talk}} 19:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support: I have no issue with this but I motion that Frankish entries be moved to Proto-West Germanic, not deleted as @Rua has been doing, in order to preserve the edit history of those entries. I'd like to also see this remedied retroactively. --{{victar|talk}} 22:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know enough to support, but I agree with the above. Rua does a lot of great work around here, but it would be nice to see her working a little less unilaterally. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Rua, I ask that you desist in creating PWG entries that are duplicates of Frankish entries before this vote is out. @Andrew Sheedy, Fay Freak: --{{victar|talk}} 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    That seems a bit extra (adj. sense 3). I get where you're coming from, but given the circumstances it's imo better to just say: in the unlikely case this vote fails, please undo all recent edits that are affected by this vote - no need to hinder the good work she's doing right now, surely. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Mnemosientje: I only ask that because she's now intentionally targeting Frankish entries. I find that quite a disturbing reply (retaliation?) to this vote. --{{victar|talk}} 19:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    We're taking issue with her approach regardless of the outcome of the vote. It would be better to move pages she has been deleting and recreating, in order, as Victar pointed out, to preserve the edit history. She seems to have stopped now though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    She's still specifically targeting Frankish entries for duplication. If anything is extra, it's that. --{{victar|talk}} 18:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Not seen what she has been doing but if so then same. Fay Freak (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMahāgaja · talk 08:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportMnemosientje (t · c) 09:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. HeliosX (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnosandes (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support and keep Frankish entries as they are until after vote. There's tons of deleted Frankish entries whose subsequent redlinks have messed up etymologies; i.e. readers have no way to get to the further PGmc/PWG root (see guipure). It'll be fixed when the vote (probably) passes but still. Julia 00:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Gnosandes (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. Don't know enough about it, although from what I've seen, I would support this if I knew more. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don't see anything obviously wrong with the proposal, and I do not feel like getting deeper into the subject. Thank you for creating the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Decision

Passes (8-0-2). — surjection?〉 10:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Deprecating {{topN}}

Voting on: Deprecating all columnating templates, such as {{top3}}, forbidding their use under entry sub-sections, i.e. Descendants, of Proto-Slavic, Proto-West-Germanic, etc. --{{victar|talk}} 19:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: {{victar|talk}} 19:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support for descendants, otherwise abstain. —Rua (mew) 17:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Columns improve legibility and are particularly pleasant looking when delineating language families in descendants lists, as seen in Proto-Slavic. There used to be an issue with auto-balancing in some browsers, but that's since been fixed. --{{victar|talk}} 08:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Do not see a single reason. I see only possibilities to better presentation that we should not cut off. Fay Freak (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, see no practical reason for deprecating it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree that legibility is usually improved by columns, as long as the descendants lists split properly across them. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. These particular templates are useful if you don't want to hide the content. DonnanZ (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Fay Freak. The implementation could be modernized to something more responsive if need be. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 13:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Victar. Latin descendant sections also greatly benefit from the columns given that they're in the main namespace; readers don't have to scroll forever to get to through one language entry. Julia 00:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I don't understand what this is all about. What is the rationale for the deprecation of columnating templates? Since, e.g. derived terms and related terms are usually formatted as columns. Who wants to deprecate the templates? Was this vote created because someone wants to abandon the use of columnating templates specifically for descendants? Or is this about orphaning the technique that, instead of column autobalancing, relies on the middle section templates (e.g. {{mid3}}) to indicate where the middle is? I wonder whether this vote was created to prevent yet another batch of non-consensual volume editing or non-consensual use of admin tools, in which case I thank you for the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Decision

  • 1-9-1, fails. — surjection?〉 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority

The status quo: De-sysop votes require a supermajority to remove an admin's powers. This means that if 50% of voters had opposed me gaining admin powers back in 2012, I wouldn't have received them, but if 50% of voters were to oppose me keeping those powers in 2020, I would still get to keep them.

The proposal: All votes require a 2/3 supermajority to pass (source), except for de-sysop votes, which shall only require 50%+1 (a simple majority) to pass. For instance, a de-sysop vote with 11 supports, 10 opposes and 20 abstains shall be closed as passed, while a de-sysop vote with 10 supports, 10 opposes and 20 abstains shall be closed failed.

The rationale: Admins should not be given carte blanche, and this vote would increase accountability. With a more effective voting policy, we could rely less on bureaucrats to keep order and have the community pass judgement instead.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per the last vote. --{{victar|talk}} 05:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support again — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support - TheDaveRoss 13:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support. If most people think someone shouldn't be a sysop, they shouldn't be a sysop. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportVorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support — Imetsia (talk · contribs) 18:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg SupportNativeNames (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support – Although I preferred the previous attempt at this vote. Too bad the unfortunate wording stood in the way. – Tom 144 (????????????????) 04:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    If the only problem were the "wording" and the "confirmation", the proposal addressing that would be as follows:
    "All votes require a 2/3 supermajority to pass (source), except for de-sysop votes, which shall only require 1/3+1 to pass."
    It is very uncertain that the above proposal would pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    Well, I liked it better. As I said in the previous vote, I think that if de-sysopping were easier, then there would be much less opposition to new admins. I've seen too many good editors failing their nominations, and I think that's because most people feel like electing someone is irreversible. – Tom 144 (????????????????) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    I missed it when I first read Dan's comment, but he's bringing up a wholly different proposal (to use 1/3 as the cutoff), which I would oppose. It seems like a complete non sequitur when Tom is talking about my previous vote, which employed the same cutoff as this one but differed in wording. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    The wording posted by me above achieves the same behavior as Wiktionary:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes, without using the "confirmation" wording. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, my mistake. Yes, if people voted logically that would be the case. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg SupportInternoob 04:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg SupportLeasnam (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a significant check on power and a welcome improvement over the status quo. I prefer the following, but it is very uncertain to pass:
    "All votes require a 2/3 supermajority to pass (source), except for de-sysop votes, which shall only require 1/3+1 to pass."
    On the upside of the current proposal, using the plain majority threshold removes the power from superminorities, whether the power to keep sysop or the power to remove sysop, which has some charm. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 20:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


CFI for chemical formulae

The status quo: There is no standard for what chemical formulae are acceptable in Wiktionary. Entries get debated individually at RFD, which is a waste of time and generally fails to create clear precedent.

The proposal: All chemical formulae are Translingual. To be included, chemical formulae must be attested in publications that (1) are not written for a scientific or technical audience; (2) don't make clear that they're formulae by e.g. explicitly discussing chemical formulae or by listing their component parts; and (3) do not otherwise explain the meaning of the formula. So, a textbook saying "AsH₃ is made up of an As and three H atoms" wouldn't support AsH₃, but a murder mystery saying "the air in his scuba tank had been replaced with CO2" could support CO₂.

Rationale: This is similar to our current policy WT:BRAND, which is effective at allowing commonly used brand names, without opening up the floodgates to everything. Similarly, although many dictionaries cover at least some chemical formulae, no general-interest reference work would cover the millions that exist. The idea is that the rule will still allow the inclusion of chemical formulae that are in common use in publications written for a general audience.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imetsia (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support (as per my comment on the talk page) -Stelio (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Seems sensible. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support  --Lambiam 15:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Equinox 17:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I weakly supported the last time, but I have decided to oppose since I have seen no convincing (to me) arguments against the alternative policy to include formulas attested in use that have CFI-meeting names, which I like better. A discussion is at Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2020-02/CFI for chemical formulae#Include formulas attested in use that have CFI-meeting names; for instance, the argument that this policy would exclude CO₂ is utterly unconvincing, as I argued there, and similarly, I have seen no evidence to support the notion that very long formulas are attested in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    As for "no general-interest reference work would cover the millions that exist": and no general-interest reference work would cover the huge counts of attested chemical names and names of biological taxons. Wiktionary is not the kind of general-interest reference work that carefully limits its scope. Furthermore, the alternative policy mentioned by me above addressed the concern with the number of included items since it ensures that the number no more than doubles, and counting other languages apart from English, not even that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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.


本页面最后更新于2020-03-08 05:08,点击更新本页

本站的所有资料包括但不限于文字、图片等全部转载于维基词典(wiktionary.org),遵循 维基百科:CC BY-SA 3.0协议

万维词典为维基百科爱好者建立的公益网站,旨在为中国大陆网民提供优质内容,您还可以直接访问维基词典官方网站


顶部