Wiktionary:Votes

(Redirected from Wiktionary:V)

Wiktionary > Votes

Shortcuts:
WT:VOTE
WT:VOTES
WT:V

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. Once you have created your vote, add it to the list at Wiktionary:Votes/Active.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2021-05/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2021-05/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-05/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2021-05/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2021-05/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2021-05/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

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
EndsTitleStatus/Votes
Apr 20Merging Prakrit lects into onepassed
Apr 23CFI for celestial objectspassed
May 3Polarity of voting proposals and application of supermajority rulefailed
May 28Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+ 12  8  2
(=4)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=72)

Merging Prakrit lects into one

Voting on: Merging the following Middle Indo-Aryan lects as “Prakrit” (pra, currently etymology-only):

Ardhamagadhi Prakrit (pka)
Elu Prakrit (elu-prk)
Khasa Prakrit (inc-kha)
Magadhi Prakrit (inc-mgd)
Maharastri Prakrit (pmh)
Paisaci Prakrit (inc-psc)
Sauraseni Prakrit (psu)

Background: These Middle Indo-Aryan lects were originally considered to differ to such an extent that they were treated as independent languages at Wiktionary. However, as the coverage of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects has grown, it has become apparent that they do not differ from one another as originally thought. Furthermore, much of the academic literature on Middle Indo-Aryan collectively refer to these lects as “Prakrit” without specifying any particular lect, and the attestation of each lect varies considerably. Treating each of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects as independent languages has led to confusion, which has hindered the progress of Wiktionary's coverage of Middle Indo-Aryan. This merger will make it easier for editors to manage these Middle Indo-Aryan lects.

Further details:

  • The seven language codes listed above will be changed to etymology-only languages. These seven etymology-only codes will be used for the etymologies of their descendant entries (as they are used currently).
  • If a “Prakrit” term can be considered to belong to one or more of the seven Middle Indo-Aryan lects listed above, labels such as {{lb|pra|<lect name>}} would be used to automatically categorise the term.
For example:
1. 𑀅𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀇 (akkhaï) is specifically attested as Paisaci Prakrit, so, after the merger, there would be {{lb|pra|Paisaci}} beside its definition, which would link to Paisaci Prakrit and categorise the term into a category such as Category:Paisaci Prakrit. The language-header will be “Prakrit”.
2. 𑀧𑀟𑀤𑀺 (paḍadi) is attested as Sauraseni Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit, so, after the merger, there would be {{lb|pra|Magadhi|Sauraseni}} beside its definition, which would categorise the term into categories such as Category:Magadhi Prakrit and Category:Sauraseni Prakrit. The language-header will be “Prakrit”.
  • There are currently no reconstructed entries in the seven Middle Indo-Aryan lects that are to be merged.
  • Although the following languages are included in the family Category:Prakrit languages, they will not be merged into “Prakrit” (pra):
Ashokan Prakrit (inc-ash)
Gandhari (pgd)
Kamarupi Prakrit (inc-kam)
Pali (pi)
Gandhari and Pali have separate identities. Ashokan Prakrit represents an earlier stage of Middle Indo-Aryan, and Kamarupi Prakrit represents a later stage of Middle Indo-Aryan.

Schedule:

Discussions:

Support

  1.   Support Kutchkutch (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support This would greatly help in the coverage of MIA on Wiktionary. I prompt all Indo-Aryan editors to support. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support Whatever I have to say on the subject matter can be found in the relevant links posted above. I do agree with Metaknowledge that this did not have to be a vote but the others insisted that a vote be created for this purpose so here we are. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 10:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support I have made my arguments very clear in the big discussion and the many many discussions that have taken place before. And yeah, this is pointless bureaucracy. BTW, sorry for my inactivity--swamped at university. I'll be happy to write the script for the merger once it is approved. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    @AryamanA: Great to know, and thanks for supporting! 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Support I remember researching about these languages, and I always thought that these all are basically different dialects of a language called Prakrit. Of course they should be one language. ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support I am pleased to see such a thorough discussion and strong support from the editors. I think this is definitely better than the current situation since it will allow much greater flexibility. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 06:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support unified Prākṛta, as one of the proposers. @SodhakSH & @Kutchkutch, thanks for your hard work of making and building this vote. By the way, Victar is being too overbearing. -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 21:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    All credit to @Kutchkutch for the wording and discussions. I just made a default-like vote with one discussion and little description. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support In general, the community of editors working on a given language or set of languages should be the ones who decide what happens to the language(s). Benwing2 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I'm not going to straight out oppose the vote, but I have a few concerns. Eḷu has several archaisms and is more similar to Pali than to the other Prakrits. It seems strange to include it. "Prakrit" is such a general term for MIA languages. Minus Eḷu and Khasa, these are Dramatic Prakrits. Shouldn't we instead merge these to a Dramatic Prakrits language code? --{{victar|talk}} 06:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    We are merging only the Prakrit descendants (read above, why not in "Further details") of Ashokan Prakrit (analyses of Helu Prakrit suggest that it is descended from speakers of Ashokan Prakrit that migrated from the mainland). Also, we're not excluding Khasa (and Paiśācī) from Prakrit. CAT:Khasa Prakrit lemmas and CAT:Helu lemmas are empty as of now. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    @शब्दशोधक: What analysis suggests Eḷu is descended from Ashokan? Eḷu is also an Apabhraṁśa, and we're not merging the Apabhraṁśas into this code, right? If you're suggesting deleting Khasa, I'm fine with that, but if the language is called "Dramatic Prakrits", it shouldn't be an etym-only alias for it. Can you address my "Prakrits" header concern and my "Dramatic Prakrits" suggestion? --{{victar|talk}} 08:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Definitely no one calls 'Pali' a 'Prakrit'. On DSAL, there is a separate Pali dictionary ({{R:pi:PTS}}) from the Prakrit one ({{R:pra:Sheth}}). Even Turner ({{R:inc:Turner}}) stated 'Prakrit' as Pk. and 'Pali' as Pa. and doesn't include Pali in Prakrit. Elu is not an Apabhraṃśa, it's a Prakrit, which is why it is being included. Pinging @Kutchkutch who can explain "analyses of Helu Prakrit suggest that it is descended from speakers of Ashokan Prakrit that migrated from the mainland". 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 09:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    See also: diff by @Bhagadatta. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Why are we talking about Pali? If you mean to point out that "Prakrit" only applies to the languages being merged, Ashokan is also called a "Prakrit", yet not being included. Re: Eḷu being an Apabhraṁśa, see {{R:bn:ODBL|page=15}} and {{R:hi:Masica:1979|page=53}}. --{{victar|talk}} 10:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    @SodhakSH, Victar The term Elu/Helu can either refer to a Helu Prakrit or Helu Apabhramsha. Helu Apabhramsha is more attested compared to the Helu Prakrit, which is why Elu/Helu is frequently discussed as an Apabhramsha. This proposal only concerns itself with Elu/Helu Prakrit, and the more attested Apabhramsha stage of Elu can be discussed at a later time. Analyses of Helu Prakrit suggest that it is descended from speakers of Ashokan Prakrit that migrated from the mainland refers to:
Müller, Edward (1883). Ancient Inscriptions of Ceylon.
Elu is a language that bears a close connection to the Ashokan Inscriptions […] Assimilation is never expressed by doubling as in Pali.
Kuhn, Ernst (1883). “On the Oldest Aryan Element of the Sinhalese Vocabulary” in Indian Antiquary
Elu has its nearest relations in the dialects used in King Ashoka's inscriptions, while it differs from Pali in very essential points.
WR P. B. F. Wijeratne (1944). Phonology of the Sinhalese Inscriptions up to the end of the 10th Century A.D.
User:Kutchkutch/elu-prk
Helu has unmistakable affinities with the Eastern inscriptions of Ashoka.
Chandralal, Dileep (2010). Sinhala
The first Aryan settlements in Sri Lanka are from two streams of immigration, one from Gujarat and the other from Bengal […] Up to the end of the Eighth Century the Sinhalese had free communication with the North Indians
The rationale for including Paisaci and Helu and in this merger is that they and their descendants pattern as descendants as Ashokan Prakrit. According to the ancient Prakrit grammarians, Paisaci resembles Sauraseni to such an extent that there are descriptions of Paisaci based on Sauraseni. Although Khasa Prakrit appears to be unattested, Pahari languages also pattern as descendants as Ashokan Prakrit. Since Paisaci and Helu are never considered as a Dramatic Prakrit, the merged language cannot be called “Dramatic Prakrit”. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch: Thank you for the quick reply. Regarding Paiśaci, I'm less concerned about it because a) it's poorly attested, and b) some scholars do consider it a Dramatic Prakrit{{R:ine:HCHIEL|428}}. Thanks for the clarification on Eḷu. How are we drawing a line between Eḷu Prakrit (usually called Sinhala) and Eḷu Apabhraṁśa (usually just called Eḷu)? Dictionaries simply either call it Eḷu{{R:iir:IIP|9}} or Sinhala{{R:CDIAL|alaṃkāˊra|693}}, which is problematic in-and-of-itself. Not all scholars support that Eḷu is descended from Ashokan{{R:ine:HCHIEL|440}} (nor Ardhamagadhi for that matter), and Eḷu is usually always listed separately from Prakrits in glossaries, if for no other reason then it being significantly different from most other Prakrits of the period. Regardless, what's the rationale of carte blanche merging all Ashokan derived Prakrits? --{{victar|talk}} 18:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Victar: Considering Paisaci as a Dramatic Prakrit in the following statements from {{R:ine:HCHIEL|428}} is very imaginative.
Paisaci is a Dramatic Prakrit known only from grammarians […] The grammatical rules at work in Paisaci could simply be the reverse application the voicing rules applied to produce other Dramatic Prakrits.
At {{R:ine:HCHIEL|440}} it says
Pali is the literary language that accompanied the first Indic-speaking migrants to Sri Lanka
to explain that the Prakrit that they spoke was not a literary language, so they used Pali as their literary language.
Chronologically, Wijeratne (1944) defines Helu Prakrit as before 2nd century AD, which is close to Wikipedia's until 3rd century CE at Sinhala language. {{R:inc:CGMIA|12}} says that Helu Prakrit, dating between the first century BC and the third century AD, belongs to the Middle Eastern Middle Indo-Aryan group derived from Ashokan Prakrit.
Wijeratne (1944) has ~250 pages of sound changes, so if someone creates an equivalent of User:AryamanA/Prakrit, we'll be able to categorise data as belonging to Helu Prakrit, Helu Apabhramsa or a later stage.
The rationale for carte blanche merging all Ashokan-derived Prakrits is explained in the background section of the proposal. Since the manner in which the academic literature treats these Prakrits is problematic, few editors have been able to contribute towards these Prakrit lects as different languages. If there are specialists in Insular Indo-Aryan, Pahari languages, etc. in the future who can make a case for a different arrangement, then that can be discussed at that time. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch: Caley is certainly not the only one that groups Paiśaci with other Dramatic/Literary Prakrit.{{R:inc:IAL}}{{R:hi:Misra|103}}(Pischel:1965:29) I don't really see the issue with this.
I understand the chronology of Sinhala > Eḷu but what I'm asking is how do we sort terms in glossaries when Sinhala and Eḷu are being used interchangeably when one is the Prakrit and the other the Apabhraṁśa? There may be words that do exhibit certain changes that we can discern in the future, as you say, but that's not always going to be the case. It seems to me that they should be merged together. It's the same issue you're trying to avoid by merging the Prakritic lects, and to point out again, this issue isn't related to Eḷu because Eḷu is listed separately in glossaries, regardless if it's an Ashokan derived Prakrit. --{{victar|talk}} 19:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch, AryamanA, Bhagadatta --{{victar|talk}} 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Victar The first ping didn't work.
Regarding Literary Prakrit versus Dramatic Prakrit:
This is the first time you've used the term Literary Prakrit. A distinction can be made between Dramatic Prakrit and Literary Prakrit. If the Maharastri and Ardhamagadhi lects are excluded, there are no independent works written entirely in Prakrit. Prakrit lects other than Maharastri and Ardhamagadhi are primarily found in Sanskrit plays/dramas to give some of the characters colloquial, regional, gendered, occupational or rustic appearances that Sanskrit wouldn't be able to provide. Paisaci has not been found in Sanskrit plays/dramas, which is why it is not considered as a Dramatic Prakrit. However, there are legends about how Paisaci is a lost literary language with the Brihatkatha being the most famous Paisaci work. So, Paisaci could be considered as a Literary Prakrit.
Regarding Helu/Elu Prakrit:
Earlier you cited Si. lakara ʻ adornment, beauty ʼ from {{R:CDIAL|alaṃkāˊra|693}} and Eḻu lakara from {{R:iir:IIP|9}}. At https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/frontmatter/abbreviations.html it says Si. in {{R:CDIAL}} is an abbreviation for Sinhalese. {{R:CDIAL}} also uses OSi., which presumably stands for Old Sinhalese. lakara can be found in https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/carter/ as Sinhalese ලකර (lakara).
It seems that the entire nomenclature regarding the history of Sinhala/Sinhalese (and even the modern language itself) is inconsistent. This is why (in the absence of any Insular Indo-Aryan specialists) Wiktionary's coverage of the history of Sinhala/Sinhalese would probably need to adopt its own nomenclature such as Helu/Elu Prakrit → Helu/Elu Apabramsha → Old Sinhala/Sinhalese → modern Sinhala/Sinhalese.
The Helu Prakrit terms at User:Kutchkutch/elu-prk do not differ much from their Maharastri Prakrit equivalents other than the lack of aspiration and the preservation of Sanskrit य (ya) as 𑀬 (ya) rather than 𑀚 (ja) for Sanskrit युक्त (yuktá). These terms are very indicative that Helu Prakrit is a lect within a spoken dialect continuum of Prakrit from pre-100 BCE to post-100 CE that succeeded the spoken Ashokan Prakrit dialect continuum. Helu Prakrit differs from the other Prakrits in that it didn't become a Literary Prakrit or a classical language like Maharastri Prakrit.
Merging Helu Prakrit and Helu Apabramsha would be like merging Category:Sauraseni Prakrit language and Category:Sauraseni Apabhramsa language, which no one has proposed since the middle and late stages of Middle Indo-Aryan are currently being treated as separate entities. The phonological progression from Helu Prakrit to Helu Apabramsha as shown in Wijeratne (1944) is certainly not trivial, and there is a possibility that the Category:Dhivehi language could be from Helu Prakrit but not Helu Apabramsha. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain. This shouldn't have been a vote. With rare, high-profile exceptions, the fate of language codes should be decided in discussions by the editors who know those languages best, not in votes where people with no relevant background (like me) get an equal say to subject-matter experts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I agree it shouldn't have been a vote. It was discussed between me, Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Inqilabi and AryamanA, who are certainly aware of the similarities and differences between these lects. We had also agreed to do this without a vote. See Category_talk:Prakrit_languages#Prakrit_entries_(contd.) (the main discussion). But because JohnC5 and Victar said that for such a major change, a vote was required (see diff and diff), this vote had to be created. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 08:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    @JohnC5, Victar, care to explain yourselves here? It's not too late to undo this needless bit of bureaucracy for its own sake. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'm guessing Victar has some concerns about the prospect of reconstructed Prakrit entries in the future and their relationship to CAT:Ashokan Prakrit reconstructed terms. @Victar Such concerns are understandable, and it would help if you could elaborate on those concerns. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Major changes to language codes should 👏 always 👏 be 👏 voted 👏 upon. This isn't a "needless bit of bureaucracy". --{{victar|talk}} 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    This isn't on the level of Chinese or Serbo-Croatian, and no quantity of clapping emojis will change that. In the future, I hope you respect the wishes of the editors who actually work on a language rather than imposing votes on something it seems nobody even opposes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: And what about the other example votes? Do any of them meet your arbitrary level of what you think warrants a vote or not? I opined that this should go to vote, SodhakSH obliged, and I still think it was a good idea for several reasons: 1. it gives more eyeballs to the issue, informing people that may have missed the discussions 2. it distilled the proposal that spanned dozens of discussions to a single page, 3. it gives us an easy link in the future for people who want to know when and where this decision was made. --{{victar|talk}} 23:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    The only one of those votes that was inappropriate was the one you created. This vote is a waste of time, but I will try not to waste any more of my time discussing it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Victar: I'm actually convinced with your explanation. Why didn't you vote, though? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with Victar for all the reasons he stated. This is a major change. The right thing to do is make it a community vote. The fact that only a few people are in a position to say what the right move is doesn't matter. Like he said, we also have a record in one place of when, where, and how this decision was taken. Excellent. — Dentonius 13:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain I have no clue. I trust those editors and hope that others without relevant background knowledge refrain from putting in their say likewise. Otherwise if someone without clue oppose I should perhaps support because the people who should know support. What Metaknowledge says is kind of right, because such votes could only invite people that should not be invited, if without a vote already everyone with recognizable interest has been proposed to. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain, as above. Imetsia (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain — Dentonius 14:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain --Droigheann (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Abstain — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 12:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Abstain I'm not knowledgeable enough about Prakrits to vote yea or nay. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Decision

CFI for celestial objects

Background: There are no standards for celestial objects, leading to the existence of entries like HD 188753 (of which thousands more could potentially be made). Suggestions to fix this date back to at least 2007, but have never achieved consensus.

Proposed text (to be placed at the bottom of WT:CFI#Names):

Celestial objects

The following names of celestial objects shall be included if they fulfill attestation requirements:[1]

  • Constellations and asterisms
  • Proper names of stars, galaxies, quasars, nebulae, and black holes
  • Proper names of planets, minor planets, and moons (excluding associated numbers)
  • Clouds, belts, clusters, voids, and other named regions of space
  • Meteor showers

All systematic names of celestial objects, as well as celestial objects not listed above (including comets and manmade objects in space) shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements, in the same manner as place names above. Geographic features on celestial objects are covered by the policy on place names.

The figurative use requirement for celestial objects not listed above does not apply to limited documentation languages. All names of celestial objects in these languages shall be included if they fulfill attestation requirements.

References:

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/CFI for celestial objects


Rationale:

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support as creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support. On the whole, our CFI for place names, celestial objects, scientific phenomena, medical conditions, etc. should be more restrictive. Because this vote takes us one step closer to that, I support it. The other categories can be addressed in subsequent votes. Imetsia (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Support, there is always some astronomical database waiting for your visit out there... It does not have to be Wiktionary. ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 20:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support. Ultimateria (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Support MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Support - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  11.   Support. Seems reasonable. — Dentonius 20:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Support —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 07:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  13.   Support — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 12:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  14.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  15.   Support -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 23:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  16.   Support Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  17.   Support Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I know this is a whole new part of Wiktionary's rules, so I want to help it get off to the right start. An object is "a thing that has physical existence". A void is "an extended region of space containing no galaxies". The word 'object' does not include 'void'. "Outer space, or just space, is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including Earth."[1] Humans are not looking up at a "void object", but rather we are looking up through a void at objects. Alternative titles beside 'celestial objects' could include 'celestial terminology', 'celestial phenomena' or something similar. This is the first time I have voted against something so I am afraid of the backlash- my opinion stands as is and I do not plan to participate in any further discussion. Forgive me if my understanding of 'object' or 'void' is not scientifically valid. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose This would create far more permissive criteria for the names of celestial objects than are applied to names of other sorts of specific entities. I fail to see how this helps readers. e.g. why should we have an entry for Einstein Cross but not Albert Einstein, Einstein on the Beach, Albert Einstein Medal, Baby Einstein, Einstein Bros. Bagels, etc.? I raised this question on the talk page before voting started, but haven't received any responses - I'm genuinely interested to understand the rationale for special-casing this class of named entities. Colin M (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Colin M: Actually, the criteria are already vastly more permissive. This vote creates far more restrictive criteria than previously existed. It doesn't really have much bearing on our general philosophical approach of avoiding content that is purely encyclopaedic; I didn't respond to you there, because it seemed that you wanted to raise much broader issues that have little to do with this vote in particular, and the Beer parlour would be the best venue for that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain: I have no interest in this particular topic. DonnanZ (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • I do not get a vote here, I understand this. It's just some advice against rule creep. (over-legalisation) normal Notability guidelines should be enough to decide what should stay and what goes. If a named object is notable, it gets entries in about each and every language, which is usually many entries. If it does not even deserve an article on ranked-4-wikipedia, what good is it to search up the named object on WT? Especially when many celestial objects are just given serial numbers.

How about thinking from another angle. Obiter dictum. Should the entry Shakespeare meet RFI for Wiktionary? 119.56.98.200 06:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia; we don't have notability guidelines. Your suggestion of just copying the inclusion criteria of an arbitrary subset of Wikipedias seems like a recipe for disaster. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
does RfI count as a form of a inclusion guideline? Then, do we have a guideline that says which Proper Nouns, which are uniquely-named objects, are important enough to be listed in the dictionary? Like, we generally can agree that named Proper nouns like England, English, France are important enough. Do you see the difference between noteworthy and unnoticed?
This is not going to be an issue that only will affect celestial objects. Proper nouns have to be carefully considered if they deserve to be listed. This is compared to common nouns.119.56.103.124 15:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Decision

Passes 17–2–1. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Polarity of voting proposals and application of supermajority rule

Voting on: Polarity of voting proposals and application of supermajority rule: proposed additional wording.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Mihia (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining_a_supermajority_for_passing_votes

Discussion:

Existing wording of supermajority rule

A vote passes if the ratio of supports to the sum of supports and opposes reaches 2/3 or more. A vote where that ratio does not reach 50% should be closed as "failed"; a vote that has at least 50% but less than 2/3 should be closed as "no consensus". Abstentions, votes by ineligible users, and votes cast after closure do not count toward these ratios. This concerns votes proper and does not apply to straw polls, RFD and RFV discussions, and anything not on a vote page.

Proposed additional wording

Voting proposals must be worded so that a "support" vote is a vote to change the status quo, while an "oppose" vote is a vote to leave things unchanged. The nature of the status quo will often be obvious, but if editors cannot agree on this, then, as a last resort, an uninvolved administrator may determine it. Editors may also agree, or as a last resort an administrator may determine, that there is no clear or viable status quo, in which case the supermajority rule will not apply and a vote will be carried by a simple 50%+ majority. This must be decided and stated before the vote starts.

Support

  1.   Support Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support, it closes some obvious if hypothetical loopholes. Admins are trusted users who have been granted special administrative powers by the community, not jackbooted skinheads out to break as many things as possible. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support emphatically. There's a lot to like about the proposal. But, for me, its most appealing aspect is quickening the passage of new policy in cases where there is no "clear or viable status quo." Imetsia (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support this disproportionately ostracised vote. In the best-case scenario we fill an actual loophole in our policy, in the worst-case scenario nothing actually happens. We are not surreptitiously granting admins excessive powers they don't already have or deserve having, and saying otherwise only goes to show how polarised we've become. With that said I can, however, see how a solution as presented by Colin M might work, but it's still too premature to my taste. With further elaboration, it might've been worth debating but Mihia has earned my support in this question. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This gives too much power to administrators and utilizes too much vague language that makes the interpretations unclear. The supermajority rule exists for a reason. Languageseeker (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose per Languageseeker's comment; and the current system is fine and no changes are needed. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 07:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose The vote's name was changed a few times (which worries me about whether there is clarity in the aim). The wording is fuzzy. It empowers some at the expense of others. The problem is speculative at best. In all the years that Wiktionary has been around, this has never been a problem. The one instance when it could have become a potential problem, it was spotted, flagged, and removed by the community. This vote is unnecessary and creates more problems than it solves. — Dentonius 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose I think Mihia has identified a legitimate potential issue, but I disagree with the proposed solution (particularly the part where the 2/3 support threshold is weakened to 1/2 in certain less-than-rigorously defined situations). As I mentioned on the talk page, I think the hypothetical problematic scenarios identified by Mihia could be avoided by a one-line addition like: A vote closed as "failed" or "no consensus" has no effect. Colin M (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose, unnecessary rule creep. Plus, in the case there is no “clear or viable status quo”, this should remain so until there is a 2/3 majority to introduce a clear and viable status quo. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose I would, of course, support adding the first sentence of the proposal. But: A vote to change the status quo either changes an existing codified rule or introduces a new rule; in the first case it has to state explicitly which rule is about to be changed, the second case should in itself be obvious. If there's no consensus about the status quo in question the wording of the proposed vote should be changed; no admin action needed. --Akletos (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose per above --DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment

  • A vote with insufficient backing is not consensus, regardless of status quo. DAVilla 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain: It's doomed to failure. DonnanZ (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Decision

Fails 4-7-1 Yellow is the colour (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+

Voting on: The creation of the following new templates, {{inherited+}} ({{inh+}}) and {{borrowed+}} ({{bor+}}), which would generate the full etymological statement: ‘Inherited / Borrowed from’ before the term, in keeping with other etymology templates ({{lbor}}, {{slbor}}, {{ubor}}, {{psm}}, {{clq}}, {{sl}}, {{obor}}, {{blend}}, {{translit}}, {{dbt}}, {{univ}}) that generate a full statement.

Rationale: Once upon a time, {{bor}} generated the text ‘Borrowing from […] ’ until that was changed by a vote, for it to be in line with {{inh}} and {{der}}. Back then most of the other aforesaid templates (that generate a full etymological statement) were not well known to editors, but now that these have seen a rise in their usage in etymologies, it is high time that all etymology templates (but {{der}} for obvious reasons) generated the full text, not only for the sake of consistency, but also on grounds of a proper and logical display of the etymology: a reader should be able to read what the exact mode of derivation of a word is instead of having to see the wikitext or check the categories.

Further details: The templates {{inh}} and {{bor}} would still function as it does now; the distinction without a difference being that, {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} should generally be used at the beginning of the etymology, unless the editor uses some other formatting style, as this. Also, the new templates would have |nocap= as a parameter.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: -⸘- dictātor·mundī 00:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support; this would make things very clear. It would be nice to just type a + sign to make the full text appear instead of |withtext= or something like that. Even the flexibility won't be taken away from the already existing templates. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support as creator, though the original proposer is User:Brutal Russian. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 02:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support for being a splendid idea :3 I think such quasi-aliases are in principle better than multiplying parameters for the same reasons we aren't adding categories to {{etyl}} using parameters (or even manually). Brutal Russian (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    To clarify my position and respond somewhat to the opposition, I'm lukewarm on the inh+ template and would prefer it not included. However, I don't think it does much harm to have the extra template; and the addition of the bor+ template outweighs my slight dislike of inh+. Imetsia (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Support I like reading the Etymology section and I believe it would look better with these templates. Birdofadozentides (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support I think that the largest problem with Wiktionary is that it's very inconsistent in terms of entry layout; take for instance whether definitions should be sentences or individual words, or whether synonyms should be listed with the syn template or with a specific header. I hope this might at least help somewhat fix this problem. Mårtensås (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Support Not so keen on {{inh+}} but for borrowings, a template that produces text is a real convenience. I remember {{bor}} doing so in 2017 and that's how I'm not used to manually entering "Borrowed from". If the text "Borrowed from" is to be considered as important in etymologies of borrowed terms, then it is only logical to make it more convenient for the editor to include that text. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Support beacuse I always need to check the source to see if inh or der (or a forgotten etyl). Especially for latin-french, latin-italian, the relationship is not clear to me. Also, for inh relationships understood to be evident: they are not so evident to the general public. It might be an internal borrowing, or simply der. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ | 05:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support because {{bor+}} without {{inh+}} will be confusing, and plain {{bor}} and {{inh}} have their uses. RichardW57 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  11.   Support --Akletos (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Support. To those below saying that our users don't care about this and that it will confuse them, I almost always see Wiktionary referenced by people who have a special interest in language and linguistics. I think we're already filling a certain niche, whether we like it or not, and I doubt the linguistically inclined users will be at all bothered by this change. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose. This seems like templatisation creep; we can and do write it in full when it might be ambiguous, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't. A word that travels directly from Arabic to English must be borrowed, and one indirectly must be, well, indirectly derived. We don't need to write that out, because it's obvious. The templates serve the needs of specific categorisation, but that doesn't mean that readers need to see it written out in most cases. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Note to all opposers: this proposal means 2 more templates, but is no way going to change the current templates and one can continue to use the current ones instead of the new ones. This is, imho, no way worth opposing because this doesn't change anything already existing; just adds something. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's very naïve; this vote will enable mass bot replacement, and it'll probably become standard if it passes. And if it does become standard, I'll use it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    What I meant was that one would still be able to use other words like first attested as, via, etc. for implying inherited/borrowed since the already existing templates won't change. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Though it is true that giving the first ancestor language makes the relation unambiguous in the majority of cases, this is absolutely not something that is obvious to all readers. Plenty of native speakers of English are unclear about the ancestors of English or about the grouping of nearby Indo-European languages; for many non-native speakers the situation is worse. Making clear whether the first 'transfer' is a borrowing or not adds a lot of clarity for laypeople. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    I for one started out as a reader here. Reading WT helped me learn about language diversity, if not anything beyond. When I started editing here, even then I knew virtually nothing about linguistics; and my edits during that time were limited to pure lexicographical things. If the presentation of the etymologies had been consistent, it would have steaded me a lot. I living example am I ! -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: There’s much reason to distinguish between inheritances, loanwords (and others like learned loans, etc.). Many of our etymologies use {{der}} (either because the editor genuinely did not know about the precise etymology—which is acceptable—, or owing to that infamous botter’s indiscriminate and wilful mass replacement of the deprecated etyl with der), that is why we cannot do without the proposed distinction, lest misguided etymologies be presented. And readers need to see them, all amateur linguists (who make a majority of our readers) would like to have them; those who are uninterested are not even bothered about the topic etymology, and are even more likely to never visit this project again after they accidentally slipped here once ! And what’s more, categorization and presentation are equally important. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose per Metaknowledge's reasoning. I don't think the templates will help the readers but will certainly (unnecessarily) affect editors. By the way, although this vote's purpose was bringing homogeneity to the etymology sections, if anything, the templates will probably do the opposite, making sure that some etymology sections use "Inherited from", some "From", some "<"; the reader will get confused as to what means what and new editors will have to choose between five templates, rather than three. Thadh (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    There'll be a bot operation to replace 'from's with the new templates. As it is, I've never encountered '<' in an etymology. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    My understanding is that using "<" is already strongly discouraged. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    The only way it will affect editors in is by making it possible to add the relevant text with one button press instead of typing it out. Editors already have to type it out if they don't want to confuse readers, and I don't see how automating this can be seen as unnecessary. The wordings in etymology sections are already inconsistent and the reader is already being misguided, it literally can't be made any more sure than it already is. The aforementioned bot job will make it consistent; the template is to make sure it stays that way. New editors will choose between adding a plus when they need the full wording and not adding it when they don't - not exactly likely to induce existential anxiety in them. Brutal Russian (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Thadh: Your saying about readers / new editors getting confused is wholly absurd. New editors are expected to edit coherently here. Maybe you are recalling the struggles of your early days here as a new user; but as someone who is also not an old user like you, I also (naturally) made some mistakes in the beginning that that I corrected later. And readers who supposedly get confused by the templets would also get confused by etymologies (or any other technical stuff, as the IPA)!! I can bet most of our readers are amateur linguists, who would be happy to see a clear presentation of our etymologies. You are being too stubborn on this, much to the detriment of the wholesomeness of this project. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Inheritance is always assumed; an {{inh+}} template would be pointless. I'm more on the fence about {{bor+}}, as, unlike Meta, I always write out borrowed when applicable, even in the middle of a chain. You'd be surprised how many people don't even know English isn't descended from Latin. I am however wary of this trend for {{template+}}, but regardless, since this vote is for the creation of both templates, I have to vote oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Countless entries use 'from' to imply a loan. For example, Hindi सभापति (sabhāpti) uses 'from {{bor|hi|sa|सभापति}}'. We take Sanskrit as an ancestor of Hindi, and so do so many readers - they can assume that this term is inherited. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Using that without the wording "Borrowed from" is simply bad practice, and you should've fixed that as soon as you saw it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, but literally a lot of entries use it! It is a widespread bad-practice why can confuse readers, and this proposal will solve that. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Here's my counter-proposal for solving it: fix the entries already! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    A bot operation like this would be okay, but I can't see why can't {{bor}} and {{inh}} have text like {{lbor}}, {{cal}}, etc. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    There are cases where the source of a loan is unknown - "{{bor+|th|pi}} or {{bor|th|sa}}" is going to be quite common. RichardW57m (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Change that to “{{lbor|th|pi}} or {{lbor|th|sa|notext=1}}”. But yes, there are such instances for natural loans also… -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see a reason to assume that that's what a lay reader assumes; no less importantly I don't see why an editor should assume this either. To assume inheritance one has to know the relationship between the languages, which is problematic enough for English speakers as regards to Latin or Russian speakers with regards to OCS, forget about it everywhere else. In the original discussion I assumed that borrowing, not inheritance requires no explanation - which I recognise now was also an unreasonable assumption. The current practice makes it impossible even for me as an informed editor to tell what the editors' assumption was - expecting this from a lay reader is mistaken. I'm sure some people fix this when they see it; others don't; the templates are in order to help the editors fix this themselves. This propsal is in line with the website's "Wiktionary is not paper" policy and one of eschewing gratuitous obfuscation and arbitrary unwritten rules when clarification is elementary. Why would one insist on constantly manually fixing the results of introducing arbitrary, unintuitive and most importantly unwritten (or stashed away) rules and the editors not following them? Brutal Russian (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose: It is far more important to have the correct etymology in the first place. I have come across a number of careless errors recently in older entries, with links to the wrong languages, so I urge all editors to double-check their submissions. This is more important than fussing with the wording of {{bor}} and {{inh}} - {{der}} is a satisfactory replacement for {{etyl}} for most users. DonnanZ (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: Agree that the correct etymology is the most important, but I don't see why it should have anything to do with this proposal. And, we're not fussing with the wording of {{bor}} and {{inh}}, we're just proposing to make two new templates for the complete wording - simple by a +. Also, Inqilābī said quite right, 'from' can be confusing as it is used for inherited and borrowed many times. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    A big reason for this proposal is that the way you are messing with etymologies is making it sore difficult to undertake etymology cleanup. Your bot work has caused a huge concern about der-cleanup. There’s nothing wrong with the existence of etyl, it should be cleaned up by editors who are knowledgeable about the linguistic history of the language, it’s not a children’s game! You have not stopped your irksome, uncalled-for bot work despite concerns raised by four editors on your talk page. Lastly, it is actually not permissible (see last 3 messages). By the way your allegations are unfounded. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have a bot to carry out bot work with, you're mistaken there. DonnanZ (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    I was wondering when you would say that. Manual drudge is but an ancient form of bot edits. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not authorised to run a bot, and don't want a bot, and I can pick up more errors by manual editing. Bots don't "fix" all necessary {{etyl}} cleanups, there is usually some mopping up to do. DonnanZ (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Inqilābī From the perspective of "How to Win Friends and Influence People", your conduct towards Donnanz (and to a lesser degree towards Thadh) is less than ideal. Right now you need three more support votes to get the proposal to pass, getting one oppose voter to cross the floor would kill two birds with one stone. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: I don't know how many user names that user has, but I don't believe in DICTATORship. I won't be changing my vote. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo, Donnanz: I harbour no personal enmity against anyone here. I was only replying to MK where I told how {{der}} has got so proliferated in our etymologies thanks to the disruptive edits of our honourable Mr. Don’s (with all respect to him). -⸘- dictātor·mundī 06:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    I will gloss over and dismiss the assertion that I make "disruptive edits", but I find his deprecation of {{der}} difficult to understand. After all, every use of {{bor}} and {{inh}} also generates an entry in a "derived from" category, e.g. for deprecate. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose: This vote should have been split into two options. I am with creating {{bor+}} but {{inh+}} is really unnecessary. — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 20:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose both on procedural issue (would have been better to propose them separately) and unconvinced that they are needed rather than just writing it out. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Fenakhay, DannyS712: It is undesirable to create separate votes for this inasmuch as we are going to uniformise most etymology templets through this vote. I think you have not understood the scope of this vote.
    @DannyS712: Those who deal a lot with etymologies will benefit from these new templets— you will get full etymological statements with just an extra ‘+’ sign!— instead of having to write that part manually. Bear in mind that {{inh}} & {{bor}} are the only major etymology templets that do not display the full text. Nothing will change if this vote pass, a bot operation will implement the proposal. You may yet be not convinced, but do you really think you need to oppose the vote when the proposal would not interfere with your editing? -⸘- dictātor·mundī 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose I don’t believe the source codes will be more readable with these templates, but I do expect them to be a source of confusion for newbs and oldfags alike. Now the only thing the etymology templates do is categorize, this is easy to convey, but introduction of the plus templates is a step towards mingling dictionary content and technical execution. Hence it was right to even remove formulation options in the form of parameters. Manaman should little be influenced by templates on how he word etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    No worries please, a bot operation will implement this (User:Benwing2 would do that in all likelihood). -⸘- dictātor·mundī 13:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose per my comments in the BP and per Metaknowledge above. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @-sche: This proposal is different from the one that was originally proposed by me. There would be no |notext=, only using {{inh+}} / {{bor+}} would generate the text. In cases of partial inheritance & partial borrowing, you would have to use the parameter |nocap= only once in the etymology section (with either of the two templets). Please tell exactly where your problems lie. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 08:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Not particularly inclined for or against the proposal. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Kutchkutch: A bit unexpected vote, since I've seen you use the full text manually many times. Don't you think this would make it easier? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I am also taken aback at Kutchkutch’s not supporting this vote. After all, he was an early user to have used ‘Inherited from […] ’… Seems like he’s not properly considered the vote. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Inqilābī, SodhakSH: I remember when MewBot added withtext=1 in November 2017 and WingerBot removed withtext= from {{bor}}/{{borrowed}}/{{borrowing}} in June 2018, and I was aware of the linked discussions as they were happening. Of course, the proposal would make it much easier to display the etymological text by simply adding +. However, having the etymological text written out it is more meaningful than a shortcut, and as Fay Freak said I don’t believe the source codes will be more readable with these templates. Regardless of outcome, your efforts are much appreciated. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

@Inqilābī: There are many who are supporting {{bor+}} but opposing/are not-so keen for {{inh+}}. Sad, but seeing the current votes, it seems unlikely that this vote will pass. Do you plan on creating another vote only for {{bor+}}? Also @Metaknowledge if this vote doesn't pass, would it still be okay to use the full text manually for {{inherited}} as currently on many entries? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Writing out the full text is always encouraged where it removes confusion. As you pointed out, many Hindi entries have failed to do this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: It is too tiresome to write the etymological text, and hence this vote (among other reasons). I hope you understand this simple language. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
For Hindi, you can use {{lbor}} anyway. Also people like to write something is “a tatsama” rather than “borrowed”, or even in addition to it, as on तजना (tajnā) which is “borrowed from” and then “a semi-tatsama“. I didn’t want editors to be influenced on wording etymology by these plus templates. Whereas {{lbor}} and {{slbor}} exists because of perhaps explaining less known processes by linking, while to link the terms “borrowed” or “borrowing” would be overkill—it wasn’t but about tiresomeness. Fay Freak (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I have now fixed Hindi तजना (tajnā). I was the first Indo-Aryan editor to have systematically begun using {{lbor}} & {{slbor}}; and upon my urging, others have also started using them. It will take some time for the nonstandard terminologies to go away. But {{bor}} is used a lot for adstrate words; {{lbor}} and {{slbor}} are reserved for superstrate words. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@SodhakSH: I am not keen on having only either of the two proposed templets. It makes no sense to me to make a compromise: I do not believe {{inh+}} should be left out. Let there be no consideration for those people who crave {{bor+}} alone and have drowned the whole proposal owing to {{inh+}}. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe what makes sense to you is not what's best for the dictionary. If a supermajority supports a certain outcome, then we should probably find a way to make it happen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I still can't understand the point of this vote. It's much more wiki-style to just create a damn template, use it, and hope you don't screw things up. Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Indian subcontinent: I don't understand what you mean (and perhaps you don't know much about votes); for such a change which is opposed by many a vote is needed. Whatever, go ahead and consider supporting this vote for the reasons above — and would 2 extra templates do any harm? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    Even as the 5th most prolific Wiktionarian ever, I'm not allowed to vote, sadly. There was never a formal vote banning me from voting, though, which I could use as a strong argument one day. You know, sometimes I want to start a vote "Permit Wonderfool to vote", mostly just to take the piss...Indian subcontinent (talk)
    Bloody hell, I should've checked who were you. Never thought a user called "Indian subcontinent" could be WF. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:14, 14 May 2021 (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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes&oldid=62172272"