Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Prioritizing definitions

< Wiktionary:Votes

Prioritizing definitions edit

Voting on: Moving the Etymology header (and equivalent) below definitions in our entry layout, removing the option to put Alternative forms header above definitions, changing the format for entries with multiple etymologies, and changing the nesting of the headers Alternative forms, Derived terms, Related terms, Descendants, and Translations.
An example of the layout for a longer English page can be found here, and a shorter Spanish entry here.

Proposed order of headings:

  • Pronunciation (or Production)
  • [Part of speech]
  • Usage notes
  • Reconstruction notes
  • Inflection, Declension or Conjugation
  • Mutation
  • Quotations
  • Synonyms
  • Antonyms
  • Hypernyms
  • Hyponyms
  • Meronyms
  • Holonyms
  • Troponyms
  • Coordinate terms
  • Description
  • Glyph origin
  • Etymology
  • Alternative forms
  • Alternative reconstructions
  • Derived terms
  • Related terms
  • Descendants
  • Translations
  • Trivia
  • See also
  • References
  • Further reading
  • Anagrams

The List of headings section at WT:EL will be updated to reflect this order, and the Etymology, Alternative forms, and Description sections will be moved accordingly.

The Alternative forms (and Alternative reconstructions), Derived terms, Related terms, Descendants, and Translations sections will become level 3 headers. In entries with multiple parts of speech, derived terms, descendants, and translations (as well as alternative forms when necessary) should be labeled by part of speech. An example can be seen here.

The Etymology section will also be rewritten.

Current text:

Etymology
Main article: Wiktionary:Etymology

The first header below the language heading is usually the level 3 “Etymology” header. The etymology is given right below the header without indentation. Etymology essentially shows where the word comes from. This may show the forms in other languages that underlie the word. For many modern words it may show who coined the word. If a word is derived from another in the same language by a regular rule, such as formation of an English adverb by adding “ly”, it is not necessary to repeat the complete details of the word’s origin on the page for the derived word.[1]

Sometimes two words with different etymologies belong in the same entry because they are spelled the same (they are homographs). In such a case there will be more than one “Etymology” header, which we number. Hence for a word like lead the basic header skeleton looks like this: 

===Etymology 1===
====Pronunciation====
====Noun====
===Etymology 2===
====Pronunciation====
====Noun====
====Verb====

Note that in the case of multiple etymologies, all subordinate headers need to have their levels increased by 1 in order to comply with the fundamental concept of showing dependence through nesting.

The vote “2007-10/style for mentioned terms” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-08/Minor policy page changes

Proposed text:

Etymology
Main article: Wiktionary:Etymology

The etymology is given below this header without indentation. Etymology essentially shows where the word comes from. This may show the forms in other languages that underlie the word. For many modern words it may show who coined the word. If a word is derived from another in the same language by a regular rule, such as formation of an English adverb by adding “ly”, it is not necessary to repeat the complete details of the word’s origin on the page for the derived word.[1]

Sometimes two words with different etymologies belong in the same entry because they are spelled the same (they are homographs). In such a case there will be more than one “Entry” header, which we number.[2] Hence for a word like lead the basic header skeleton looks like this: 

===Entry 1===
====Pronunciation====
====Noun====
====Etymology====
===Entry 2===
====Pronunciation====
====Noun====
====Verb====
====Etymology====

Note that in the case of multiple etymologies, all subordinate headers need to have their levels increased by 1 in order to comply with the fundamental concept of showing dependence through nesting.

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-08/Minor policy page changes
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Prioritizing definitions

Finally, the following text will be added to the Pronunciation section of EL:

Pronunciation is the first section in entries, and the information in this section will apply to all parts of speech in the entry by default. In pages with multiple Entries (sections with different etymologies) with differing pronunciations, a level 4 “Pronunciation” header belongs after each “Entry N” header. In single-Entry pages with pronunciations varying by part of speech (e.g., combine), the context for each pronunciation is labeled within the “Pronunciation” section.

Rationale:

  • The principal purpose of a dictionary is to define words, but the current entry layout prioritizes etymologies and pronunciations. Our users and readers have complained about this order for years. This proposal continues to group entries by etymology, but moves the information in those sections out of the way of definitions.
  • Pronunciation remains at the top of entries; this is in line with most English-language dictionaries. In longer entries with multiple Etymology sections (renamed Entry sections here), too much scrolling was required to reach pronunciations when they were put after definitions. Discussions on how to further collapse pronunciation sections are ongoing.
  • In entries with multiple etymologies, the level 3 headers ===Etymology N=== will be renamed ===Entry N=== to avoid redundancy and confusion with the new level 4 header ====Etymology====
  • Derived terms, Related terms, Descendants, and Translations no longer follow the Part of speech directly. The Etymology comes before them because it directly relates to the term in question, while these four sections serve to direct the reader away from the term. These sections require new part of speech labels, but the information is more cohesive across the page; see this mockup.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support edit

  1.   Support. Ultimateria (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. actually quite convinced with this and the new order. many etymologies are with {{rfe}} and really, whats the point keeping them above the actually important stuff? even ' entry N' seems quite practical, instead of distinction based on etymology. hence,   Support — Svārtava • 04:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support DTLHS (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support. We've talked about improving this for so many years that we've forgotten that the status quo is bad. Finally, we have a new layout order that's worth the temporary disruption. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. This is a small step for the mankind, but a great step forward for Wiktionary. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support provisionally - It would have been better if the following case is addressed more specifically in the proposal. The case refers to the situation when a headword has multiple etymologies but identical (or nearly identical) pronunciations despite the etymological difference. Example: Sanskrit मान (māna), which is currently not ideal (Pronunciation as L4 under Etymology 1, with Etymology 2 lacking indication that the pronunciation is identical). Should the Pronunciation section be a L3 header that is a sibling to any Entry 1/2/3 headers? --Frigoris (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    yep, see hindi कार as an example — Svārtava • 08:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not what the vote says. At least, I take it that unambiguous text is not overridden by an example that contains clear errors in formatting. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support.--Tibidibi (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support, although this doesn't solve any of the major layout problems we have and doesn't reflect my interests. And I'm not really happy with the "Entry 1" header; why not "LEMMA 1" (march 1 / march 2 etc)? Why not merge the POS header with the head? These unnecessary (and poorly formatted) subdivisions are one of the factors that make our pages (even with tabbed languages) look very clumsy. --Akletos (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Weak support. Wasn’t too sure about this, but the mockup looks remarkably clean and usable. I’m not thrilled about merging derived terms etc. for each ‘entry’ into a single section, nor the extra ‘Entry X’ headers, but those are minor objections and unavoidable for a layout like this. Overall I’d be more inclined toward User:Rua’s earlier proposal to give each part of speech its own etymology and always use level 3 POS headers rather than ‘Entry 1’, ‘Entry 2’, and so forth, but I understand that has its own drawbacks and even less chance of passing.
    More importantly than moving the etymology section (and especially as it doesn’t look like this proposal will pass), I think we ought to have a serious discussion about changing the style of sections, pages, headers, etc. to make pages look like less of a mess, de-emphasize wasted space, and naturally draw the eye to definitions and other information we choose to emphasize. I think a lot of what this proposal is trying to accomplish can be done with less upheaval through carefully considered changes in CSS and the like. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support, we need greater emphasis on definitions. Not sure about Pronunciation, feels like it would still take up too much space in certain entries (see butter, but I'm sure I've seen longer Pronunciation sections still). What fr-wikt have done for their pronunciations could be an option (see fr:vingt), but maybe until a later vote. But ideally this should be a non-issue, maybe we could have an 'official' userscript that displays custom ordering of headers (perhaps even a per-language setting!) for those with JS enabled. Kritixilithos (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Partial support Agree with moving etymology below definitions; dubious about "Entry 1"/"Entry 2" as the wording in the new headers. I would suggest adding a one- or two-word qualifier in parentheses whenever possible, e.g. in the case of lead, it might be "Entry 1 (metal)" and "Entry 2 (guide, precede)". Tetromino (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support However, as it seems that the vote will not be passing, I think it might be time to possibly survey the reader population and see how people who aren't editors feel about the website. Participation will probably be low, but I think it'd be a good start. AG202 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support. I am in broad agreement with the idea of moving etymology and alternative forms below the definitions - where these sections have a lot of content, users have to scroll down to reach the nitty-gritty. Quite where they a placed is another matter - I would group Alternative forms with synonyms (I have been doing this already in simple cases), and Etymology further down still, above References and below Translations. Anagrams, being pretty useless, can stay rock bottom. Quotations is a header I have been trying to eliminate by including quotes with the relative definition (not always easy). DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Ideally it would be customizable, but the default should be etymologies further down. – Jberkel 13:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support I support everything in this proposal except the part about renaming the header Etymology N to Entry N. Etymologies are the most logical grouping of words and while this proposal would implicitly maintain that grouping, it does so by in a roundabout way that makes it easier for editors to introduce errors. I think we could keep the Etymology headers and use CSS to make the etymologies collapsible or move them further down the entry. JeffDoozan (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JeffDoozan: the first sentence of the proposal is "Moving the Etymology header (and equivalent) below definitions in our entry layout [...]". Retaining the etymology header as the main heading doesn't seem consistent with the proposal. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I'd prefer to see a slighly different method, I support the objective. This vote seems doomed to fail, but it's a very well thought out proposal and I think it's possible to achive the some thing without the objectionable change of moving the Etymology header. JeffDoozan (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose So where is the improvement? More fat headers, Anglocentric ordering (pronunciation in front – what, people actually speak languages? 😲). I discern no advantage. Fay Freak (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose, I explain why more thoroughly on the talk page – etymology has always been a clear-cut separator, especially for complex words from multiple sources. Moving it to the end will not only make these entries harder to explain semantically – it's just so outright ugly since we for the most part provide so much more information than your run-of-the-mill online dictionary which usually only provides "From <language> <origin>". Ultimateria's mockup shows exactly what I'm talking about – the etymology of the obsolete definition is so much more verbose than the actual definition (referring to entry 3). It looks bad and I fear we risk losing quite a bit of our appeal by restructuring the layout. In addition to this, dividing pages with "Entry 1, Entry 2, Entry 3" and so on and so forth is an outright nightmare especially if it is to be implemented everywhere on the page (envision how bar would look if this vote passes). As I stated on the talk page, I am however willing to consider placing pronunciation higher up, but that solution comes with a set of other, slightly more surpassable, problems. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like the reorder to work in tandem with collapsible etymologies (or a similar approach) to show the information most important to laypeople. I've seen plenty of support for the idea; now it's just a matter of choosing a design and implementing it. Ultimateria (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just implement collapsible etymologies then? I just don't see why the etymology section needs to move. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly for "prioritizing definitions", I presume. --Frigoris (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Weak oppose: I prefer the way it is now, and think focussing on shortening needlessly long etymologies is much more important than moving the section, but I wouldn't mind the new layout too much. Thadh (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose: Moving the etymology section lower in an entry necessitates creating a new higher-level heading ("Entry 1", "Entry 2", etc.), when this purpose is already served by the etymology heading. If it really bothers users that much, I think it's better to work on a method of collapsing the section. We already have collapsible quotations, conjugation sections and translation sections, and users can decide by clicking the appropriate link in the left column whether they want those elements to be collapsed or expanded. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose Supporters of this proposal seem to be assuming that there’s widespread demand for it, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that a clear majority of regular Wiktionary users (not editors!) want or need this change. A few isolated supporting comments are hardly sufficient to prove anything, given that users who favour the current layout are likely to remain silent out of complacency. Many other projects and organisations have suffered because they unduly prioritised the concerns of those who yell the loudest; why should Wiktionary follow the same ruinous path?
    Similarly, the belief that etymologies are "unimportant" is hardly justified or justifiable; it reflects individuals’ gut feelings rather than a objective evaluation. Others may instead believe that etymologies are highly important because they have different wants and needs. Of course, our entry layout necessarily has to favour the priorities of one set of users over another. It's sensible to default to the current layout given the absence of compelling reasoning for changing it; additionally, there’s other good reasons to prioritise the views of etymology-lovers over definition-lovers:
    • Wiktionary entries are organised by etymology, so relegating etymologies to a secondary status risks making the layout of entries unclear and incomprehensible. This is especially problematic where multiple parts of speech are covered under a single etymology; it is unclear how this would be handled if etymologies were relegated to a level 4 heading.
    • Most Wiktionary etymologies are relatively concise, allowing uninterested users to easily scroll past them. This is not true of definitions, as they are usually much longer.
    • Etymologies almost invariably contain links to related words. While definitions also contain links, these are of more indirect relevance, especially as definitions should ideally eschew the use of words that cannot be understood by the average educated English speaker unless necessary.
    The concept of relegating alternative forms to the bottom of entries is also inherently flawed. For many languages (e.g. Old and Middle English), no one form is predominant, making the choice of main form arbitrary. Positioning the alternative forms at the top provides users with a powerful reminder of the formal variation endemic in these languages; placing them further down entirely obviates this. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose in part for the reasons set out by Robbie and SGconlaw. But more simply, it is just natural that the information about or surrounding a word be placed before the definition, almost as a "preface" to it. Additionally, if we decide to relegate etymology to the bottom, we should apply the equal treatment to pronunciation. If we don't, the entire argument seems to me inconsistent. Let me note, however, that I would support removing alt forms away from the top. Those feel more in the camp of related/derived terms, and it again feels natural to just lump them together. Imetsia (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Weak oppose: While I like how clean the new proposal is, I find the use of "Entry 1", "Entry 2" a bit more confusing than before. By having the etymology de-emphasized, it is not as clear what distinguishes "Entry 1" from "Entry 2" and why they are separate. With the "Etymology N" headings, it is immediately obvious and logical why "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2" are separate. To me, a better solution might be something like a quick one-sentence etymology that can be expanded for more information, as some others have also suggested. Moreover, when I think about what uniquely sets Wiktionary apart from other dictionaries, I immediately think of our glyph origins, etymologies, and dialectical information (as an editor primarily of Chinese entries). And I feel it is good to play towards our strengths: glyph origins and etymologies are often much harder to find elsewhere, for free and explained in English (take 龍 for example). So overall, while I think aesthetically this is a step in the right direction (as a mobile user who often does a lot of scrolling), this proposal feels more like a near-even trade-off. ChromeGames923 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose per Robbie and Hazarasp. I would not oppose wider use of collapsible boxes in Etymology and Pronunciation sections when necessary, nor would I oppose moving Alternative forms further down. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose for the reason that I do prefer the current layout compared to any new, major changes. There can be some restructuring that can be undertaken, obviously, but I believe the status quo is preferable to the proposed idea. I do also feel that it is too long to comfortably fit, even with some parts removed. Masonthelime (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Oppose per Robbie, SGconlaw, Hazarasp, and Masonthelime. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose I’m always interested by the etymology of a word, so I would rather not have to scroll down to find it. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose As User:Vorziblix noted, I'm a proponent of getting rid of etymology from the top of entries, but not in this way. The POS header should be the only level 3 header, followed by definitions for the term, and then zero or more level 4 headers with items pertaining to that particular term. Headers that are currently level 3, like etymology and pronunciation, would become level 4 headers and therefore go after the definitions, which are the most important part of a term. —Rua (mew) 13:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Oppose I agree with Rua that the POS header should be the main organiser, but would allow common elements to be raised to its level. I've just noted that we can get successive L3 headings 'Noun', 'Noun', 'Verb', 'Declension', 'Declension' and 'Conjugation'! Unlike Rua, I accept the idea of 'Entry' as an organising principle - but again with the possibility of raising common elements up a level. I suggest trying again, with more use cases considered. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RichardW57m: just wanted to highlight that using the part of speech as the main header creates its own difficulties. For example, let's say that currently under Etymology 1 there is a noun and a verb, and under Etymology 2 there is a noun. If the two noun senses are now grouped under a Noun heading we would have to have two etymologies there, one for each of the nouns, and under Verb one of the etymologies would need to be repeated. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sgconlaw: The idea (at least following Rua’s previous proposals, if I’m not mistaken) was to still have two separate L3 noun headers in that case rather than grouping them as one. Etymologies would also not be repeated, because separate parts of speech generally have different etymologies, even if one is just ‘Zero-derivation of [the other POS]’ or whatever; we currently just hide this sort of derivation by subsuming them both under a single etymology. Some discussion found here and here. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vorziblix How would you refer back to a POS which another POS derives from? For example, you have Noun1/Noun2/Verb1, and Verb1 derives from Noun1.
    Also, for most isolating languages, it would be very difficult to determine what POS sense came first as the frontiers between PsOS are often very smooth. Sitaron (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Oppose. I have always sympathized with those who don't like having etymology at the top, but I don't agree with them. People nowadays who want definitions just use Google's dictionary that is the first result in a Google search. Wiktionary does something different and attracts those more interested in things like etymology. It's OK to not appeal to the mainstream. I'm also not convinced that putting etymologies first really turns people off. On a computer, it's super easy to find the definitions and they're usually visible at the same time as the etymology. On a phone, which I use a lot, the etymology similarly rarely occupies so much space that it's hard to find the definitions and it's often quite interesting. People naturally gloss over information they aren't interested in, but for those who are interesting in etymology, it's more intuitive to place it where we do. I mostly see Wiktionary referenced by people who are language enthusiasts, and it is often specifically the etymology they reference. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 03:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I like the idea of a new heading ===Entry N===, as such a practice makes it explicitly clear that homographs with different etymologies are really different words. However I have to   oppose this proposal given that 1) definitions are secondary to the etymology: words do not rain from the welkin bearing discrete meanings and senses, they have got an origin; 2) alternative forms generally should be highlighted atop and not be obscured: we cannot show all alternative forms/spellings in the namespace, so these are certainly the most important thing in an entry. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. I may add that the Alternative forms heading should be shown below only in cases where the distinction twixt alternative forms and synonyms is not clear cut. See for example this and this. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Oppose The new entry L3 header is just going to be a less clear and less informative alternative to the current set-up with "Etymology 1, Etymology 2, etc." that will effectively increase the amount of clutter on the page. The proposed placement of etymologies is simply perplexing. There is no reason to put them below semantic relations. This is a solution in search of a problem: the vast majority of non-English etymologies are just one line, very few are over two lines long. Put the cognates in a collapsible box, if they should be in the entry in the first place, and the vertical clutter is gone. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Oppose Exactly for the purpose of multiple etymologies. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Oppose Moving phonemic transcriptions and audio samples up to the top of entries seems to presume that phonemic transcriptions are equally informative and significant in most languages, whereas switching the etymology section to around the margin makes all the entries look like generic English definitions. For comparison, neither Larousse nor Duden lists the etymology below both the glosses and definitions and the declension or conjugation tables, and, interestingly, neither of them has phonemic transcriptions in their entries. Other than that, the example English entries do look cleaner to me than most English entries I can recall. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Oppose I think sufficient reasons have been given above. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Wiktionary's most active Proto-Norse editor ᛭ Ask me anything 21:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Oppose Per Robbie SWE, ChromeGames and Andrew Sheedy. I would not oppose collapsible etymologies or moving alternative forms further down. Llittleserie (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Oppose Would be detrimental to Persian entries. Would support collapsing extended etymological information by default in Persian entries as in many cases it overwhelms the page and detracts from the translation. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Oppose — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Oppose I have misgivings about long etymology explanations appearing so prominently at the top of entries, but I'm afraid I have to oppose this particular proposal if only on the grounds that I do not like "Entry 1", "Entry 2", etc. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Oppose For entries with multiple etymologies. --Numberguy6 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Oppose, at least in the details. While I do generally like the principle of emphasizing definitions (I would also emphasize pronunciation), the proposed order of headings seems like it would produce less, rather than more reader-friendly layout in many cases. The proposed order of headings potentially forces readers to wade through just as much, if not more unwanted information as the current order. Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Oppose Per Robbie SWE and ChromeGames923. --Fytcha (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Oppose I agree with some points, but not all. I think this vote is trying to do a bit too much at once... – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain — Saltmarsh. 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Abstain — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Fails 16-28-3. Ultimateria (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Prioritizing_definitions&oldid=63897479"