Wiktionary:V
Get Wiktionary:V essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wiktionary:V discussion. Add Wiktionary:V to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wiktionary:V

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/2020-11/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-11/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-11/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2020-11/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2020-11/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2020-11/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

Removing Old English entries with wynns

Voting on: Except for the entries for the character wynn itself (?, ?), all Old English entries spelled with wynn shall be

  • deleted, with users automatically redirected to the corresponding entries with w using the software (Option 1), or
  • converted to hard redirects (using #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]) (Option 2).
If option 1 passes, the software will convert searches with wynn to w automatically (as is done with long s), and the linking templates will convert wynn to w as well.
If both options pass, the option with a greater support:oppose ratio will be implemented.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 10:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support option 1 (Delete and automatically redirect)

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Having separate wynn pages basically doubles the amount of maintenance that needs to be done (e.g. if vowel length on a OE word needs to be rectified). There's not any benefit to having them either, given that, as far as I'm aware, very few current editions of OE texts feature wynns. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --{{victar|talk}} 07:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. HeliosX (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Benwing2 (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svgSupport PUC - 18:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svgSupport J3133 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 1 (Delete and automatically redirect)

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose As per support for Op2 below. - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. May be I should have abstained, but the wynn spellings that are attested in manuscripts should not be deleted.. Delete only the unattested. Not a good vote anyway. -- inqil?b? [ inqil?b zindab?d ] 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. I'm worried that deleting the pages will mean we lose information in cases where there's content on pages with wynn that isn't on the pages without wynn. See my comment in support of option 2. --Globins (yo) 04:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Globins This won't happen. If this option passes, I'll probably be the one implementing it, and I will make sure no information is lost, e.g. by checking the contents of each page before deleting it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Abstain option 1 (Delete and automatically redirect)

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain Automatic redirects aren't reliable enough for me, but I do want Module:languages/data3/a and Module:languages/data3/e to be edited to convert in ang and enm links to ?w?. --Mah?gaja · talk 07:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Erutuon, is it possible to remove the js redirect timeout in special cases? --{{victar|talk}} 21:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Victar: Yeah, I could mark the wynn links differently in MediaWiki:Noarticletext and have the JS use a shorter timeout for them specifically. It won't be instant, but it can redirect as soon as the page content and JavaScript loads. -- Eru·tuon 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Erutuon: Oh, nice. I'd be really interested to see how that looks. --{{victar|talk}} 22:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Victar: Fast redirects are in force now. I can also implement a redirect from the edit page of wynn titles. Normally the JavaScript redirect doesn't work on the edit page, but if we decide not to have wynn entries, we will want the edit page to redirect because redlinks go to the edit page. -- Eru·tuon 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Comment. I'm not knowledgeable about this, but surely our entries should reflect how these words were actually written in Old English, where this is known, not modern transliterations thereof. Modern transliterations or reconstructions can be included and noted as such, but the main entry(ies) should be at the spelling(s) found in actual OE manuscripts. Mihia (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    FWIW, I don't know that that's "surely" the case: we currently do the opposite with e.g. Old Norse (where normalized spellings are the lemmas, and manuscript spellings have only relatively recently and incompletely been included as "form of"s, since normalized spellings are what many modern editions of the texts and reference works use), and indeed modern English to some extent, where we don't include forms using long s at all even if that's the only spelling a word is attested in. (The logic here is similarly that almost all modern editions and reference works use w, and the replacement, as with long s, is 1-to-1 and applies in all cases.) - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, long s is a variant written form of the same letter, while wynn is a different character altogether. By the same token, "normal s" is a character in modern English, so having modern English entries use it in place of the older variant is less problematic than having OE entries use w, which, and someone correct me if I am wrong, did not actually exist at that time. If OE is to be treated as a distinct language, then characters that did not exist within it should not be used in the canonical dictionary forms, IMO. Mihia (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. Comment. No strong opinion. One of the best-known texts is Beowulf and most scholarly editions of that text use W/w. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Support option 2 (Hard redirect)

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport To my knowledge, there's no meaningful distinction between this and option 1. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, there is (see below), but I don't think this is sufficiently better to justify rescinding my support of option 1, at least for now. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Most reliable option. --Mah?gaja · talk 07:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja: How so? --{{victar|talk}} 07:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Automatic redirects don't work if you click on a red link, do they? If I click on snow I get taken to a creatable page which suggests both snow and Snow, but I don't get taken automatically to either of them. And if I put http://www.popflock.com/dictionary?s=snow directly into the URL bar, after a few moments I get taken to Snow, not snow. So I just really prefer hard redirects using the #REDIRECT command. --Mah?gaja · talk 11:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja, why would anyone ever click on such a redlink, though? Bare links like that shouldn't exist for Old English terms, and those in linking templates will be automatically converted as part of this solution. --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 18:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    I like the reliability of a redundant system: both hard redirects and character conversion in links. As the Germans say, doppelt hält besser. --Mah?gaja · talk 19:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja: Option #1 is also redundant -- ?orld automatically redirects to world without the need of an entry, albeit, slower. --{{victar|talk}} 05:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Having full entry pages for every Old English word with wynn replacing W doesn't seem to add much value. However, since these forms were used and did exist, I think that pages of hard redirects is a good amount of acknowledgement of their use. So when a user searches for "?esan" and lands on the page for "wesan", but they don't understand that ? and W are functionally equivalent, the little "**redirected from ?esan**" will reassure them of the validity of the "?esan" alternative spelling. - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Guitarmankev1: When someone searches for wynn form, it already returns a w-form. Try searching for ?orld. --{{victar|talk}} 05:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Victar: Right, when using a wynn but no page exists with the wynn form, the software will automatically read the wynn as a W and direct to that page instead if there is one, even if that word would have never used the wynn form. Try searching for "be?ilderment" and you'll see this is the case. The difference with hard redirects is that a (Redirected from "xxx") notification will pop up at the top of the page, which may show that the searched form might have some validity. This way, you'll get the redirected notice when you search for a valid term like ?esten, but not when you search for an invalid form like be?ilderment. - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport ? (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svgSupport (though I, too, would prefer option 1, and the preferences of users who've said they prefer one option or another should probably be taken into account so people don't have to try to strategically switch votes at the last minute) - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    Sounds like we need to enact a ranked voting system. --{{victar|talk}} 04:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    support vote struck Benwing2 (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Benwing2: If so, you should oppose option #2. --{{victar|talk}} 05:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Benwing2: Last chance to downvote option #2 for option #1 to win out. --{{victar|talk}} 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. I don't know what the plan is for how this will work, but I'm worried about there being cases where pages with wynns have more information on the word than pages without wynns. If this is done manually, it'll decrease the chances of losing information. --Globins (yo) 04:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svgSupport I agree with some of the previous comments. I think it would be quite helpful for users copy-and-pasting terms with wynns to be able to see that they had been redirected from their search input. I'm not knowledgeable about this terminology, but that seems to me to be the case here Hk5183 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svgSupport opposed this initially out of a slight preference for option #1, but would rather see this pass than both fail. -- Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. In addition to aforesaid arguments, some languages have romanized entries in spite of being attested with other writing system(s) (like Tocharian A and B). Thus, W-written forms are not that "shocking". We need one entry for one word, and wynn-using forms being put as alternative forms (only "redirected from" isn't enough) provided that it is attested (with a reference to make it reliable). With W-forms only, we ensure not to display actually unattested wynn-forms. All others little but useful features are already propounded above, like for instance the information-loss avoidance, W-forms proposed when typing in search bar, no unnecessary pages (whence unification of the data on a single page and a gain of place, since one generally doesn't type the wynn character), and so on. Malku H?n?rés (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 2 (Hard redirect)

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. The aforesaid. -- inqil?b? [ inqil?b zindab?d ] 17:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose Hard-redirecting is already automatically done through javascript on the 404 page. --{{victar|talk}} 05:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. I have to join this in order to avoid innecessary pages. HeliosX (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    oppose vote struck -- Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Victar, HeliosX, Mnemosientje as things stand, both options are set to fail (with each one having less than 2/3s support), leaving us with the status quo of nearly-complete entries with language and part-of-speech headers and sometimes differentiated etymology or pronunciation headers for wynn entries, as at ?esan. If any one of you switched to also supporting this option (and not just option 1), we could at least reduce that level of duplication down to hard redirects, even if that's not quite your preferred option of no entries at all. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @-sche: I'd rather it fail in no-consensus and start a second vote than vote for option #2. --{{victar|talk}} 03:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    What option would you propose in a second vote? - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @-sche: Option #1 or bust. We'll see how this vote pans out. --{{victar|talk}} 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. I am not a fan of redirects at all, as presently implemented (albeit I may have been guilty of creating one or two myself in the past), as it may not be clear to the user why they are being given something different from what they typed, or what the connection between the two is. Contrary perhaps to some opinions above, I personally don't think that the "redirected from ~" notice is enough (even if people notice it). I know sometimes at popflock.com resource I type in a term that I don't know the meaning of, and I am redirected to an article with a different title, and sometimes the term I typed in is not even mentioned anywhere in that article, so then I am just confused. Are the two things exact synonyms? Just related in some way? Related how? Mihia (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose If the software redirects automatically then creating these redirects is unneeded. J3133 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose I prefer option #1. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Abstain option 2 (Hard redirect)

Decision

  • Option 1: passes 9-4 (69%).
  • Option 2: no consensus 10-7 (59%). --Mah?gaja · talk 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Misspellings and alternative spellings

Background: The Spellings section of CFI is cluttered and imprecise. It does not link to our policy page for alternative forms. Specifically regarding misspellings, it allows common ones, but does not establish criteria for what constitutes a common or rare misspelling. Misspellings are frequently challenged and sent to RFD where they are individually debated based on users' personal criteria. These are sometimes lengthy and contentious debates pointing to the lack of specific policy.

Current CFI text:

Spellings

Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings:[1] Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included.[2] There is no simple hard and fast rule, particularly in English, for determining whether a particular spelling is "correct". Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard, as can statistics concerning the prevalence of various forms.

Most simple typos are much rarer than the most frequent spellings. Some words, however, are frequently misspelled. For example, occurred is often spelled with only one c or only one r, but only occurred is considered correct.

It is important to remember that most languages, including English, do not have an academy to establish rules of usage, and thus may be prone to uncertain spellings. This problem is less frequent, though not unknown, in languages such as Spanish where spelling may have legal support in some countries.

Regional or historical variations are not misspellings. For example, there are well-known differences between British and American spelling. A spelling considered incorrect in one region may not occur at all in another, and may even dominate in yet another.

Combining characters (like this) should exist as main-namespace redirects to their non-combining forms (like this) if the latter exist.[3]

References:

Proposed text:

Spellings

Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included.[1] A misspelling is an erroneous spelling resulting from cognitive error (i.e., not knowing how to spell a word), but not from input error (e.g., typos). Editors have not yet reached a consensus as to whether typos should be included alongside misspellings. A misspelling is considered common if it appears at a ratio of 1 misspelling to 5000 accepted correct spellings in Google Books search results, and rare if it occurs less often.[2] The ratio should be determined by an Advanced search specifying the language of the term. For languages without Advanced search support, challenges should be considered individually at RFD. For formatting of misspelling entries, see Wiktionary:Misspellings.

Misspellings are not to be confused with alternative forms and spellings, which are considered correct spellings in different regions, or have been considered correct in the past. For policy regarding alternative forms, see Wiktionary:Forms and spellings.

Combining characters (like this) should exist as main-namespace redirects to their non-combining forms (like this) if the latter exist.[3]

References:

Rationale:

  • Establishing which misspellings are common and which are rare will expedite the RFD process, saving time and energy currently spent debating the merits of many individual misspellings.
  • The 1:5000 ratio allows many common spelling errors, such as ei-ie transpositions.
  • Google Books is the largest freely searchable collection of published material for many languages, so it gives us the best indicator of a term's frequency.
  • The sentence establishing the scope of the section and the vote determining its name is removed as irrelevant.
  • The paragraph about typos and the paragraph about language academies are removed as uninformative and irrelevant to the criteria regarding spellings and misspellings.
  • The paragraph about alternative spellings is simplified and directs to a more in-depth policy page.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Ultimateria (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. Ultimateria (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. Imetsia (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport ? (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Eventually we will include any frequent spelling, ie. the right one(s) (according to the norm but that's implicit), the common misspellings and the spelling variations, in other words everything but rare misspellings, and in that sense I strongly agree excepted for the two following things. A rate of 1/5000 is too low in common writings (if one has seen 5000 times the word occurred, the number of common misspelling will be far higher than 1) and thus some very seldom spellings may pass this rule. As for Google books, we like on Wiktionary to rely (when possible) on recent publications, and the recently-published books are always verified for orthography and written people who generally have a very good orthography, therefore on Google Books, misspellings are never found (or at a rate lower than 1/5000) for recent books which is a useless search. As a conclusion this rate should be higher and applied on a broader scale, while searching misspellings on Google Books recent publications is irrelevant. Malku H?n?rés (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Malku H?n?rés: Based on your comments I think you meant to vote "oppose". Ultimateria (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Ultimateria: Actually I agree on the basis that we should include this form but not that form, which is the principal idea, but even if it represents most of the comment, these are two minor disagreements upon a way among others to make this distinction. Malku H?n?rés (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Seems an improvement overall. A minor quibble: "input error (i.e., typos)" should say "e.g." not "i.e." (since typos are just one form of input error, along with scannos and voice recognition errors). I hope we will not exclude common deliberate sensational spellings like kewl. Equinox ? 14:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    Fixed e.g. (surely that's not controversial). I believe those spellings are sufficiently covered as not "resulting in cognitive error". Ultimateria (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -K (talk) (edits) 17:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Jberkel 15:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose While a better process for determining whether misspellings are "common" or "rare" may have its advantages (though I don't think it's a good idea to have a firm, unappealable qualitative cutoff), this proposal is seriously vitiated as it currently stands: Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Google Books is hardly comprehensive or complete. We may end up in a position of having to reject misspellings that are clearly prevalent.
    • We would be putting ourselves at the mercy of Google Books' OCR (optical character recognition), which is far from consistently reliable. For example, within Shakespeare's First Folio, the OCR is so useless that passages cannot be meaningfully searched for at all. The chance of it running into serious problems increases as texts get older, meaning that we would in effect be hardwiring a recency bias into Wiktionary's processes.
    • Additionally, Google Books is not static; books can be and are added or removed from it, and there is a good chance that its OCR algorithm gets modified on a regular basis. This means that any decision made at WT:RFV for misspellings would lack finality. While this is already a problem, by implementing this proposal, we would be magnifying it and baking it into the system.
    • As written, the proposal allows for any and all typos to be included within Wiktionary (as long as one can gather three attestations for them). This is clearly undesirable; ideally, there should be a process for excluding rare typos as there is for misspellings. This is especially ill-advised given that it is impossible to reliably distinguish typos from misspellings.
    Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing how "the proposal allows for any and all typos to be included within Wiktionary (as long as one can gather three attestations for them)": in fact it explicitly states there is no consensus about whether to include typos at all. An earlier draft of this proposal, discussed on talk, did change existing practice regarding typos to be more inclusive, by including ones which were as common as common misspellings, but I've seen no draft of this proposal (including the current one) which allows typos with only three attestations. - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    A careful reading of the proposal turns up no mentions of any attestation requirements for typos, and none exist elsewhere within WT:CFI. Therefore, if this proposal is adopted, typos will default to the basic WT:CFI attestation requirements (three attestations within a year etc.). The attestation requirements for misspellings can't be considered to cover typos, given that misspellings are defined as to exclude typos ("A misspelling is an erroneous spelling resulting from cognitive error... ...not from input error (i.e., typos)"), The bit you mentioned about the lack of consensus wrt. typos is irrelevant. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    "Therefore, if this proposal is adopted, typos will default to...": how so? This proposal doesn't change how typos are treated, so unless typos are already allowed with only three citations... - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    It does (probably unintentionally), since our current treatment of typos is governed by portions of WT:CFI that would be be superceded by this proposal if it was adopted. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose I support most of the changes (removing excess and unneeded bits, simplifying the rest), and as I said on talk, would support a version of this proposal which mad only those changes (dropping the sentences from "A misspelling is considered [...]" to "[...] considered individually at RFD"). But I'm not sure 1:5000 is a good threshold for commonness, and I am inclined to agree with the editors who've said codifying reliance on a specific Google Advanced Search product into CFI is a bad idea. - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    @-sche, HeliosX: No ratio is perfect, as any choice is arbitrary. Do you have a better suggestion? --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 07:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose It has stayed contradictory, and it still kowtows to Google. Fay Freak (talk)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. The ratio for determining is not very comprehensible or convincing, as it seems to me, and Google Books are quite limited too. HeliosX (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose Dentonius (my politics | talk) 03:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose I like that the proposal removes the stuff about language academies, because I am not sure that linguists should consider these bodies authoritative. But I agree with Hazarasp about Google Books. Actually I think that Google search results can be different depending on your location. —Internoob 23:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose the fixed criterion "A misspelling is considered common if it appears at a ratio of 1 misspelling to 5000 accepted correct spellings in Google Books search results, and rare if it occurs less often." While this data can be taken into account, we should not be beholden to such a test. (For some tangential discussion about Google numbers, see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/September#Scalding_hot_vs_scolding_hot.) Mihia (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose, but I would support if the text identified by -sche was removed and the comma before "or" in the second paragraph was deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose because of the reference to Google, which is not reliable for these purposes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  11. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose I object to giving Google books the power to dictate Wiktionary. Second, not all words have even been used 5000 times. Third, the importance of a text can mean that a rarer alternative spelling can be significant. For example, Zola spells goyau as goyot. The current proposal would cause goyot to be deleted. However, more people have read Germinal than a textbook on constructing a coal-mine in French from the nineteenth century. I'd much rather have glosses that explain the rationale for inclusion than banning significant alternative spellings that do not meet an arbitrary criteria. Languageseeker (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Languageseeker: Your example is an alternative spelling, not a misspelling, so it would not be affected by this policy. --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 16:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose Per Andrew Sheedy; I would have supported the proposal otherwise. Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  13. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose per Internoob. --Droigheann (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Decision

  • Failed 8-13. --Mah?gaja · talk 07:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Install Citoid

  • Voting on: Installing Citoid on Wiktionary.
    The Citoid extension enables semi-automating the boring aspects of adding citations: retrieval of metadata (ISBN, author, year etc.) and the transformation of this data into template code ready to be inserted into a page. This will help both experienced and new editors on Wiktionary, and has the potential to improve our overall data quality and consistency. It's an additional, optional tool; this vote does not change any existing policy regarding citations.
  • Implementation
    In case of a successful vote, the extension will be installed and we will create mappings for some commonly used templates. This should not be very time-consuming, mappings for {{quote-book}}, {{quote-web}}, {{quote-journal}} will probably cover 90% of use cases. See this list of mappings currently active on Wikipedia.
  • Limitations/Risks
    The extraction of metadata might not always work as expected, especially for older sources, books without ISBN etc. Editors are advised to check and adapt the output. The underlying extraction service is extensible and we should be able to improve it over time and adapt it to our needs.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 09:50, 4 October 2020? (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 09:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Jberkel 08:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport - Jberkel 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport This generally seems like a zero-loss decision that has the possibility for great benefit, though it will require some work. For some users who currently don't use or don't like using templates for quotations, the modified version of Quiet Quentin discussed at the bottom of this page might be of interest in the while Citoid is being set up (assuming this vote passes). —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • An additional fact that might be of interest to users don't use/like using templates, the TemplateWizard extension is installed on English Wiktionary. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      Oh wow, they're "porting" features from VE to the normal editor? - Jberkel 07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      Maybe, I'm fairly new to this wiki and don't know what its history looks like. The TemplateWizard extension seems to have been created in March 2018 and the VisualEditor project seems to have been started in 2011, though I don't know how far in development it was in 2018. The 2017 wikitext editor also exists and has a style like that of ported VisualEditor features combined with the usual editor. The 2017 wikitext editor is not available on English Wiktionary though because VisualEditor is not installed. This reply is a little more delayed than usual as I seem to have missed your message in my changes feed. Best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
      @The Editor's Apprentice: The visual editor is available here, but it's hardly being used. - Jberkel 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport - seems worth trying. -- SGconlaw (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --Ultimateria (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. Imetsia (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. Tie-in with QQ would be great too. --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 06:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svgSupport, worth a shot. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- inqil?b? [ inqil?b zindab?d ] 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svgSupport ? (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  13. Is this the "cite" dropdown in the toolbar on Wikipedia? Symbol support vote.svgSupport, it's very useful. - Nixinova [‌T|C] 02:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svgsupport Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svgSupport --Globins (yo) 06:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain Looks like one of those JavaScript thingies I don't use. As long as it doesn't break my workflow I don't care. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain What Vox said. - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Decision

Next steps

The extension is installed, but needs additional configuration:

  1. add template data blocks with citoid mappings to our citation templates Yes check.svg Done
  2. fix VisualEditor+QuoteToggling (pending)
  3. create MediaWiki:Visualeditor-cite-tool-definition.json Yes check.svg Done
  4. create MediaWiki:Citoid-template-type-map.json Yes check.svg Done
  5. move cite button to toolbar (phabricator:T267504) Yes check.svg Done
  6. profit

I'll start working on 1) and once that's done an admin will have to create the JSON page in 2). According to the documentation, the "cite" dropdown will then show up automatically. - Jberkel 12:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, 2) isn't quite done yet but I don't think anyone is using the VisualEditor here anyway. @Metaknowledge, Ultimateria Could one of you please copy the contents of MediaWiki_talk:Citoid-template-type-map.json to MediaWiki:Citoid-template-type-map.json? That should enable this thing. - Jberkel 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jberkel: I hit "publish changes" and the page appears to refresh. I'm not sure what I'm missing. Ultimateria (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: Only the portion inside the pre tags (the actual JSON) needs to be copied, maybe it's that? - Jberkel 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ultimateria There's another step I forgot, I added the content to MediaWiki talk:Visualeditor-cite-tool-definition.json. - Jberkel 11:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jberkel: Yes check.svg Done Ultimateria (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: great, can you do 3) as well? - Jberkel 16:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ultimateria the content is different for this one, you can find it on: MediaWiki talk:Visualeditor-cite-tool-definition.json. - Jberkel 17:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Citoid is now enabled, and although the "Cite" button is not in the toolbar (phabricator:T267504), it's accessible via "Insert > More > Citation" (shortcut/Alt+?+K). For some sources you might get the error "The first parameter (language code) is missing.". This means that the language is not available or was not extracted by the Citoid service. However, you can still insert the template and add it manually. The other small annoyance is that the generated template code is inside <ref> tags-these have to be deleted manually. - Jberkel 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Would the fulfillment of phabricator:T267504 also make Citoid available when using the source editor or will it always be relegated to the visual editor? Edit: Never mind, I figured out that the answer is "no". English popflock.com resource uses separate scripts which compose RefToolbar 2.0. I guess my question now is if it can be added as an opt-in option here as well or if I should start another vote. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@The Editor's Apprentice: The editor situation is a bit confusing, at the moment there are 3 different editors: the old wikitext editor, the visual editor, and what is called the 2017 wikitext editor, which is technically a mode of the visual editor. The 2017 editor behaves mostly like the old editor, you edit the wikitext of a page directly, but it has access to some features designed for the visual editor, like Citoid. The phab ticket is only about making the feature more visible, it's already activated. To use the 2017 editor you have to enable it in your preferences (select "New wikitext mode"). - Jberkel 19:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jberkel: Alright, thank you much. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Imetsia for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Imetsia (talk o contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. User hasn't annoyed anyone yet, and is active in RFD discussions. Candle-holding servant (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Candle-holding servant (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Acceptance:

  • Languages: it, en-4, de-2
  • Timezone: UTC-6
I accept. Imetsia (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. Sorry, I'm weak -- I don't have the heart to spoil WF's fun. Anyway, Imetsia's a fantastic editor and will make a fantastic admin. Ultimateria (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport. Imetsia's a good editor, we could use an admin who's active in Italian and I'd hate to scupper Imetsia's admin vote just to disincentivise Wonderfool. If this vote fails only because most opposers want to send a signal to WF, it is unlikely that Imetsia will be immediately renominated. (Also the ending date is way too late.) Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    30 days is quite normal for an admin vote. Am I missing something? --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 16:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge, you're apparently right. Though since about 2016/2017 2 weeks has been more or less the norm in practice. (Apart from a few joke nominations by the usual suspect.) I don't think that inconsistency is really desirable, but nevermind for now. Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport He's only been around for 14 months, but why not? - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport, we shouldn't shoot the messenger if they come with good suggestions ;-) I second Ultimateria. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport per Robbie SWE --DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svgSupport so that they can delete Angelucci's SOP entries on sight. PUC - 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hear, hear! --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Don't egg 'em on to go rogue on the first day! Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Equinox ? 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Contributions look great. TBH I think being nommed by WF is actually a plus point. --AryamanA ( ? o ) 22:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @AryamanA: Why "a plus point" (just curious)? -- inqil?b? [ inqil?b zindab?d ] 14:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svgSupport and see no reason to object to this particular Wonderfoolery. -- Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. Nothing against Imetsia, but I oppose all WF nominations as a way to disincentivise him from being annoying. --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. As above (sorry). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose. I've been familiarising myself with the person who nominated Imetsia. I can't in good conscience support Imetsia for an administrator role at this point in time. You've been here since 29 January, 2019. That's not much time at all. The real risk and danger that a mistake represents is too significant and so I'd rather err on the side of caution. I will declare today that I will oppose anyone for admin who has not been contributing for at least five years three years. The person who nominated you is no joke. He's nothing to laugh at. The danger represented by the person who nominated you is that he is competent enough to escape our notice before he begins his campaign of destruction. He likes to leave glaring clues as to who he is and what he's doing (cf. Dangherous). In the aftermath, I don't want to be one of those who looks back and says I should have known better. I would encourage @Ultimateria, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Guitarmankev1, Robbie SWE, DannyS712, PUC, Equinox, AryamanA, Vorziblix: to heed my words and reconsider supporting Imetsia for this position at this time. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Dentonius, your five-year standard is silly. We would run out of active admins if we insisted on that. And WF most certainly is something to laugh at -- you don't seem to understand the situation at all. --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 00:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Metaknowledge, what's a reasonable minimum period? What's the attrition rate like? Please, educate me. Even an autopatroller here can do a significant amount of damage. If you trust the wrong person, that person can corrupt the dictionary in ways which are hard to detect. @Metaknowledge, before you came here, the person took over this place and blocked just about most of the admins and bureaucrats here for fun. That seems pretty serious to me. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know. I became an admin four months after I arrived. That's probably too early, but I haven't managed to destroy the wiki yet, so I guess it worked out. WF has not tried to be sneaky at all for almost a decade, by the way, so your fearmongering comes off as a bit clueless. --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Five years is a long time. But, certainly, three years must be a reasonable time to learn the ropes here, gain experience, and prove commitment to this project? When you call him Wonderfool, by the way, you're making the threat out to be something cartoonish. It's a reason why I don't refer to this particular threat in that way. We're dealing with a clearly skilled tech-savvy user whose intention is to get promoted as far up the chain as possible without being detected. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    I am aware that Imetsia is not a long-time user, but I don't think that it is too soon for adminship. By the way, the ping did not get through. Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Dentonius For pings to work, they and your signature have to be added in the same edit: they will not work if there is not, or is already, a signature. You can also remove your signature then re-add it with pings in the next edit. J3133 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Dentonius: I find Wonderfool generally good-intentioned and competent, so I don't see a problem in his nominations. I think a hard time requirement for admin is unnecessary. We don't really ever have enough admins, so better to take it up on a case-by-case basis. --AryamanA ( ? o ) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain: I don't know this user. BTW, Metaknowledge blocked the nominator immediately, not for the first time. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I believe the reason given for the block this time was recorded as "Unacceptable username". - Guitarmankev1 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    That's a common excuse; do you need to have a dirty mind and suspect innuendo? DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    It's a stock reason that's sometimes given when Wonderfool is banned. Don't read too much into it. Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Common excuse = stock reason. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    It's more of a joke. We don't actively block WF for abusing multiple accounts, so why bother ticking that box? --?knowledgediscuss/deeds 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain: Don't know the user. Re: WF votes, I wholeheartedly support heavier restrictions on who can create a vote, especially nominations. --{{victar|talk}} 19:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    I've never understood why it should make a difference. Could you explain what restrictions you'd want, and why? PUC - 21:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    Whatever works best to stop socks. I understand why you would wouldn't understand. =P --{{victar|talk}} 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Victar: "Whatever works best to stop socks." -- The best way is to ban this sockpuppeteer forever, right? Also, if you be of the opinion that users like WF should be barred from (nomination) votes, then it is better to start a vote regarding it, so that to-be-sysops not lose potential votes because of Wonderfoolery! -- inqil?b? [ inqil?b zindab?d ] 16:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain ? (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain Jberkel 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Decision


Use of "pronunciation spelling" label

Voting on: Use of the "pronunciation spelling" label. Here, the term "label" refers to labelling via the {{pronunciation spelling of}} template, which is presently the usual method, as well as via the {{lb}} template. For a list of terms presently categorised as English pronunciation spellings, see Category:English pronunciation spellings.

This vote follows on from Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-04/Use of "eye dialect" label, where it was decided that the "eye dialect" label should be restricted to nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations but are intended to imply that the speaker generally uses a nonstandard dialect, such as sed for said or lissen for listen.

Please vote separately on options 1, 2 and 3 below. These options are additive, not exclusive; so for example if all three pass then all three will be implemented. No other existing or potential uses of the label have been identified during a review period.

If you oppose option 1 or 2, but wish to see another label used instead for the case, e.g. "non-standard spelling of ~", please mention this for subsequent reference.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 17:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Mihia (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Option 1

Use the "pronunciation spelling" label for deliberate non-standard spellings that are intended to represent non-standard pronunciations, such as borrowin' for borrowing and fink for think. The great majority of the existing uses of the label are in this category.

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Urszag (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC) I'd be open to another name for the category, but I think this category should exist, so I support continuing to use "pronunciation spelling" for it unless a better replacement label is proposed.
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- How else would we label these words? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose 'Non-standard spellings that are intended to represent non-standard pronunciations' - aren't these just nonstandard alternative forms, then? What makes them a separate category from other alt-forms? -- Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose DAVilla 13:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose --{{victar|talk}} 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain. Re: " All three options failing would amount to a vote to abolish the label" I consider this vote invalid. It requires us to defend the status quo through explicit support. If nobody participates, the proposed abolition of the label succeeds? This is unfair and unacceptable. If you want to abolish something, create a vote with that as an explicit option and we'll vote on that. This is being discussed here: Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2020-10/Use_of_"pronunciation_spelling"_label -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 07:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
[subsequent discussion of this moved to talk page]

Option 2

Use the "pronunciation spelling" label for deliberate non-standard phonetic spellings, such as lite, tonite and donut, that do not represent non-standard pronunciations, and are not intended to imply that a speaker generally uses a non-standard dialect.

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Urszag (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC) I think this is closest to the way that the term is usually used.
  3. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- -- Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- DAVilla 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svgSupport -- Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svgSupport Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose --{{victar|talk}} 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain. Re: " All three options failing would amount to a vote to abolish the label" I consider this vote invalid. It requires us to defend the status quo through explicit support. If nobody participates, the proposed abolition of the label succeeds? This is unfair and unacceptable. If you want to abolish something, create a vote with that as an explicit option and we'll vote on that. This is being discussed here: Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2020-10/Use_of_"pronunciation_spelling"_label -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 07:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 3

Use the "pronunciation spelling" label in addition to the "eye dialect" label for nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations but are intended to imply that the speaker generally uses a nonstandard dialect, such as sed for said or lissen for listen.

Support

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose -- Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose --{{victar|talk}} 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose -- Eru·tuon 22:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svgOppose -- Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain. Re: " All three options failing would amount to a vote to abolish the label" I consider this vote invalid. It requires us to defend the status quo through explicit support. If nobody participates, the proposed abolition of the label succeeds? This is unfair and unacceptable. If you want to abolish something, create a vote with that as an explicit option and we'll vote on that. This is being discussed here: Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2020-10/Use_of_"pronunciation_spelling"_label -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 07:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain Urszag (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svgAbstain Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision


Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, in cases where the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or where 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:


  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Wiktionary:V
 



 



 
Music Scenes