Wiktionary

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/2023-11/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2023-11/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-11/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2023-11/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2023-11/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2023-11/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

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
EndsTitleStatus/Votes
Dec 10User:Ioaxxere for admin 4  4  1
Dec 11Word of the Year38 (23 people)
Dec 19Ordering of etymologies within an entry 16  2  0
(=3)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=65)

User:Ioaxxere for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Ioaxxere (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

Acceptance: Ioaxxere (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support

  1.   Support This user has created numerous interesting and useful modern slang entries and has generally done a good job of closing requests - such good housekeeping is vital to declutter the community pages. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support I like Template:R:Urban Dictionary (only a bona fide descriptivist would make this) and other work. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support, since no substantial arguments against have been presented. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Support कालमैत्री (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

  1.   Oppose. For similar reasons in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-02/User:Ioaxxere for admin. I don't feel that much has really changed since then. Some past interactions, especially over Discord, also concern me. The nominator has also only been here for less than a year. AG202 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @AG202 My first edit was over 16 months ago... Ioaxxere (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ioaxxere? I know. I said the nominator (कालमैत्री) has only been here for less than a year. Please read what I say carefully. AG202 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, you're right. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @AG202 Sure i am really lacking in many regards. But this argument is without any connection to why nominee should be supported or not. An unneeded remark, so to speak. कालमैत्री (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @कालमैत्री: The nominator definitely matters as well as seen by comments on the last vote. A nominator who hasn't even been here since the last vote for Ioaxxere to be admin started shows to me that they haven't been here long enough to really know how the project works. What even is the rationale? What has changed since the last admin vote? Why should they specifically be given admin rights? An active user who makes good edits and templates does not automatically make an admin. That's part of why I myself rejected a nomination last year.
    We tend to hand admin rights to just any active editor and that leads to some of the issues that we've had recently. And then, after one has become an admin, it becomes much harder to actually take any action against them if something goes wrong (ex: an admin making homophobic and racist comments, nothing came out of it). Thus, I've become much more cautious about admin votes, and I believe that others should be as well. AG202 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Oppose I find AG202's reasoning persuasive. Like the last time I voted, I don't rule out a support vote in the future, but I'm not there right now. Megathonic (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Oppose Wiktionary:Votes/2023-07/Unblocking Wonderfool. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Oppose I see no reason they would need admin tools. --{{victar|talk}} 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

  1.   Abstain for the same reasons as last time. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision

Word of the Year

Voting on: Whether to choose a Word of the Year, a word that represents the events of the last year. The word of the year will be displayed somewhere on the main page for a few weeks in December and January. Anyone can nominate new words, and the word that garners the most votes will be selected. You can support multiple words.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Ioaxxere (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion:

Support generative (nominated by User:Ioaxxere)

  1.   Support. Also, I'll take this time to comment that most of the nominations here don't really "represent" 2023. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ioaxxere if I understand the intent here correctly, it might be better to nominate generative artificial intelligence. generative by itself doesn't even list that sense today. Chernorizets (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chernorizets the relevant sense of generative is "having the power of generating, propagating, originating, or producing." Ioaxxere (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Support either generative or generative artificial intelligence, with a preference for the latter as it's clearer how it represents 2023. (Also, it would help if the nominators of other nominated terms indicate how they represent 2023. I'm scratching my head over transmedicalist and rizz, for example.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.   Support, but obviously the entry would need some work. This, that and the other (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6.   Support as a well-written article that's relevant to modern-day developments. MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support AI (nominated by User:Koavf)

Rationale: discussion of artificial intelligence. See (e.g.) https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=61238
  1.   Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Strong oppose. Too broad, too simple. Why is "AI" being nominated and not "artificial intelligence"? I'd have weakly supported that. MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because "AI" is a more common term than "artificial intelligence". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course it is more common; it can stand for thirty hundred different things after all. MedK1 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We have 11 possibilities. Not sure how many instances are "articulatory index" or "air integration", but generally the point of a Word of the Year is to have a word that's popular. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.   Support "AI" qua affix potentially the cyber- of 2023. Desirable in tech corp/product names. TLD registrations of .ai grew significantly this year. –Vuccala (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support shrinkflation (nominated by User:Nosferattus)

  1.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Weak support as it's the first time I hear of this term. MedK1 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support transmedicalist (nominated by User:Whoop whoop pull up)

Rationale: ties into the rising tide of transphobia over the past year or so in the form of increasingly-strict restrictions on access to gender-affirming care.
  1.   Support Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Strong oppose. This article doesn't have a single reference to it, not a single quotation, nothing. I feel it's not well-written enough to represent Wiktionary for this year. Maybe next year. MedK1 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Oops, I misread this as a nomination of "transmedicalism"; my bad. MedK1 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MedK1 The state of the page shouldn't have any bearing on your vote- it can always be expanded if necessary. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support existential risk (nominated by User:Jberkel)

  1.   Support Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Weak support - since 2023 was the hottest year on record, I'd be in favor of nominating any word or expression that became more prominent because of that. I don't recall whether existential risk is one of those, though. Chernorizets (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chernorizets: climate emergency? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sgconlaw actually, yes! I think I'm seeing this term used more frequently now in news reporting and other forms of discourse on the subject. Chernorizets (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chernorizets I nominated it because it is used in an AI context as well as a climate-related one (see the citations). It's currently more associated with AI-related risks, though. Jberkel 09:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Weak oppose MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support quiet quit (nominated by User:Chernorizets)

  1.   Weak support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support - as nominator, and in reference to the waves of layoffs late last year and early this year that have affected workers' mindsets in several industries. Chernorizets (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support [1] @12:15 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oh hey, I've seen this pop up as a relevant word for 2023 specifically in other websites. I'm not sure if this factoid makes me want to oppose or support this term, so I'm   Abstaining. MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support protest (nominated by User:CitationsFreak)

  1.   Strong oppose Nothing about this makes me think it's pertinent to 2023 specifically. MedK1 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rizz (nominated by User:Lattermint)

Rationale: peaked in popularity in 2023.
  1.   Weak support Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support, especially if the announcement is written in slang popular in 2023. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Strong support. MedK1 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Weak support This feels more late-2022 to me. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support enshittification (nominated by User:Ioaxxere)

  1.   Support @Nardog, Guitarmankev1 If you want an "empirically chosen" WOTY, this is the one. Coined in late 2022 and one of our most popular pages. This wasn't my first choice, but I'm going to nominate it in case you two would like to reconsider your votes. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Strong support My god, this is perfect for describing 2023. MedK1 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support for above reasons. CitationsFreak (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Support. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 01:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.   Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6.   Oppose Seems to have been engineered precisely to generate the kind of attention we'd be giving by picking it as the WotY rather than organically spread. Neither the idea ("platform decay") nor the form (attested earlier, just not in this sense) are new. Nardog (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for clearly identifying what it is that I dislike about this WOTY idea. Equinox ◑ 10:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Words of the year in dictionaries are not always new words. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose (do not choose any WOTY)

  1.   Oppose Jewle V (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Oppose (for clarity, I mean I am opposing the WOTY idea, not opposing this Opposition section...) Equinox ◑ 13:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Oppose कालमैत्री (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Oppose — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.   Oppose Nardog (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Prefer something that is more empirically based (spiked in pageviews, recently attested, etc.) and highlights the strengths of Wiktionary, in that it's descriptive, up-to-date, comprehensive, and international—not just a buzzword but something that differentiates us from the boring pile of commercial entities. There might be a way for this idea but self-selected nomination is not it. Nardog (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Do you have a proposal for what that term may be? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'd nominate it if I did. There doesn't seem to be a handy way to extract pageview spikes or recent attestations among English lemmas (perhaps something for the Grease pit). That said, this suggests rizz might be a pretty good candidate.
      My point of comparison is -‍ussy, the American Dialect Society's choice last year. That was something out of left field that corporations would never choose, and it was chosen not because of some notable real-life event ("special military operation" was a runner-up) but because it was an interesting development from linguists' point of view. Collins has already chosen "AI" for this year. That's just predictable and boring. It wouldn't be a good advertisement for us if it weren't something commercial dictionaries wouldn't name the WotY (or even include). We wouldn't stand out if we just picked something everyone's heard a lot. Nardog (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Something everyone's has heard a lot => more pageviews.
      It sounds like there are various conflicting ideas of what a desirable WOTY should be: linguistically novel, unexpected, non-corporate, (non-)zeitgeisty, (non-)buzzwordy, etc, which are difficult to reduce to one single choice. Maybe that's why we won't have a WOTY in the end. Jberkel 09:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I agree that linguistic developments are really great candidates for WOTY. "-ussy" would be grand, but its article actually got deleted :(. MedK1 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It would be good to try do some data analysis of the pageviews for 2023, maybe it'll surface something interesting, but I doubt it. Jberkel 08:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6.   Oppose Theknightwho (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7.   Oppose. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8.   Oppose per Equinox. 0DF (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9.   Oppose — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 12:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10.   Oppose along the same lines as Nardog, that if a WOTY is chosen then it should be by linguistic interest, rather than popular vote. Even though I roll my eyes when I hear -ussy, it is certainly a more interesting development linguistically than something like AI. A popularity contest means people could vote for uninteresting words solely based on their personal connection to them (e.g. Red Sox, Yankees) which also invites drama and all sorts of stuff like that. Let's stay an unbiased dictionary. – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, honestly we're missing out by not having a proper entry for -ussy. AG202 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11.   Oppose We provide enough content. This should be marketing by itself. A word of the year could give the impression that we aren’t up to providing top-notch linguistic information, esteemed across years, at any day. Fay Freak (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12.   Weak oppose: (I was originally going to vote abstain, but in typing this I realized that it aligns more with an oppose vote.) I like the concept of WOTY, but I'm really not feeling these words at all; as I've stated before, relying on page views and choosing words that are flashy instead of linguistically interesting feels like we're aiming more for a press release for the entry creator instead of showing that we're a serious source of linguistic information. Nominating unfinished entries also adds to that sentiment, as even in our already-existing WOTD guidelines, we have more strict rules than we have here for WOTY (such as avoiding offensive/vulgar words if possible). (rizz, -ussy, & quiet quit would be my likely contenders if I had to choose) I also feel that the vote is a bit rushed and haphazardly made. Nonetheless, with more time and proper planning, I feel like this could be an amazing idea, but at its current state, I must oppose it. AG202 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13.   Oppose. Svartava (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14.   Oppose I like the idea (and even nominated something), but it seems all a bit half-baked. Let's try again in 2024. – Jberkel 12:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

  1.   Abstain @Ioaxxere well, what if we had a words of the year instead? Like, I do not dislike WOTY as a concept, but I feel like lots of publications that do it just always have the worst possible entries. Many have words which are obviously influenced by, or directly reference, a particular event—like the American Dialect Society's World Wide Web (1995), 9/11 (2001) and insurrection (2021). Like, I suppose these are technically "words", but that makes their list look more like Events of the Year. Even the word that I would support (and actually like) for WOTY, generative, I must admit I feel like it is kinda 'obvious' or bland to me; as in, the word itself is linguistically uninteresting and most readers will not care about its etymology, different senses, pronunciation etc. Admittedly, it is much better than AI (which I partly dislike for my previous point regarding events). Another thing we seem to nominate a lot are those slang TikTok tabloid teenmag-esque sector (err, not sure how to describe these, they are not exclusively 'young person slang' per se anymore) words like rizz, body count, goblin mode and -ussy—though for some reason I have never heard of that last one. Actually, this makes sense to me from the perspective that these might enter common vocabulary in the future, like LOL and 😂 has (both of which were numerous dictionaries' WOTY). But my problem with these are: what if it becomes more popular next year, or what if it dies and is forgotten as most slang is? In five years when we say "rizz", will anyone immediately think of 2023 specifically? So, I was thinking: instead of word of the year what if we did word*s* of the year? For instance, there could be categories like "verb of the year", "proper noun of the year" (for those event-based nominations I mentioned), "new word of the year" (for specifically newly-coined/emerged terms like rizz or body count), "most interesting word of the year" etc. Additionally, stuff like "prefix/suffix of the year" could probably allow us to describe the linguistic trends of a particular year regarding word formation, like the weird stuff that 4chan does or -ussy (still not sure what that is but it seems prominent). This way we can also have those linguistically boring but prominent entries (like generative) mixed in with really linguistically fascinating or unique entries as well as humorous ones. I low-key think this could clear up a lot of the problems that editors and I currently have with a WOTY.
My overall motivation for this is because I really love the idea and concept of doing something on Wiktionary to commemorate the linguistics of every year. I think it can genuinely be of interest to readers if we do it right, and it would suck to miss this opportunity. Admittedly, I think we began this proposal for WOTY a bit too late into the year as well. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decision

Ordering of etymologies within an entry

Voting on: adding text to Wiktionary:Entry layout#Etymology to provide recommendations to editors on how multiple etymology sections within an entry should be ordered. In particular, we propose that the following text be added at the end of the section:

When multiple etymologies are present, we recommend that - whenever possible - they are ordered by descending commonness in the language, so that the most common etymology is at the top. This may differ from the order given in a native monolingual dictionary. We recognize that editors won't always have sufficient information or context to order etymologies that way, so we encourage the application of this guidance on a best-effort basis.
We also recommend that etymologies for lemmas precede etymologies for non-lemma forms. Languages on Wiktionary include non-lemma forms to varying degrees (if at all); however, it's a universal goal to increase the coverage of lemmas. In narrow cases, non-lemma etymologies can precede lemma etymologies, such as when a very common non-lemma form happens to have a rare or obsolete lemma homograph. Additionally, a lemma derived from a non-lemma form can follow that non-lemma form. Further deviations from this recommendation are allowable subject to editor consensus, reached on an entry's talk page, Beer parlour or another forum.

Note: ordering of POS sub-sections within the same etymology section is out of scope for this vote. This vote is strictly about the ordering of multiple etymology sections relative to each other.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Chernorizets (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support. Makes definitions look tidier. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Support, as proposer. Chernorizets (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3.   Support: looks good, no objections from me. This way makes a lot of sense and will look much nicer overall. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.   Support: Surprised this is not already a thing honestly. AG202 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.   Support in general though I think the wording could be a little tighter (e.g. "should normally" rather than "we recommend"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Al-Muqanna I chose the "we recommend" wording for a few reasons:
    • with over 4,300 languages on Wiktionary, I didn't want to assume that what made sense for some languages (e.g. those discussed in the BP thread) would necessarily make sense for all languages. I don't have examples OTOH of languages where my proposed ordering would be unnatural or otherwise problematic, but then again I'm only really familiar with a handful of languages.
    • many of those 4,300 languages are worked on by a single editor, who is often not a native speaker, and who may simply not have the resources available to make judgments like which etymology is more common. I don't want those editors to feel like their entries are non-compliant with WT:EL through no fault of their own and despite doing their best.
    • since my proposal requires human judgment, it's not bot-enforceable. Since, anecdotally, many entries have etymologies ordered by some other principle (e.g. etydate), it is likely not practically human-enforceable either. I hesitated to imply that all existing entries whose etymologies are not in most-common-first order would be non-compliant, per my first two points, and because I don't have numbers.
    If you feel like those concerns aren't at odds with a tighter wording, I'd be happy to get your thoughts. Chernorizets (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chernorizets: Those concerns make sense, but I think the problem with "we recommend" is that it's vague enough to just be ignored in practice. A wording like "normally" allows some room for flexibility while still making clear that there should be good reasons, or a consensus within the relevant community, to depart from the norm. I support this in any case though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also agree, especially as, as we've seen many times, people will take any loose wording to purposefully disregard the policy entirely. AG202 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @AG202 @Al-Muqanna would you mind proposing an alternative wording, perhaps on the Talk page, keeping the issues we've collectively raised in mind? Also, I'm not sure when it is appropriate to change the wording given that people have already voted on the current wording. What's our usual practice? Chernorizets (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6.   Support. I concur with @Al-Muqanna. I also think we should do the same for the order of definitions and the order of POS headers. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7.   Support. However, I suggest replacing "commonness" with "recognizability" (which is not exactly the same thing). Ioaxxere (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8.   Support. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9.   Support. ―Svartava (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10.   Support. --Saranamd (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11.   Support. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 01:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12.   Support as long as it keeps the wording reflecting that these are general rules of thumb, not strict and inflexible obligations. are#Etymology 1 is a nonlemma form and are#Etymology 2 is a lemma, but they should not switch places. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13.   Support Theknightwho (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14.   Support Vininn126 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15.   Support Anarhistička Maca (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16.   Support lattermint (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

  1.   I oppose this proposal as it is currently written. I agree with the recommendation that "etymologies for lemmas precede etymologies for non-lemma forms" (as exemplified by Bulgarian косту́ра (kostúra)p.l. and English Chishan,p.l. Nankang,p.l. Qishan,p.l. and Xingjiangp.l.). I also agree with the recommendation that "a lemma derived from a non-lemma form can follow that non-lemma form" (as exemplified by ча́сом (čásom),p.l. both Russian and Ukrainian). I disagree with the recommendation that "non-lemma etymologies can precede lemma etymologies […] when a very common non-lemma form happens to have a rare or obsolete lemma homograph" (as exemplified by Arabic أنفاق‎ (ʔ-n-f-ˉ-q)p.l. listing the non-lemma أَنْفَاق (ʔanfāq) before the lemma أُنْفَاق (ʔunfāq)). I disagree with the entire first paragraph of the proposal. I believe that etymology sections should be listed in order of historical development; however, listing non-lemma sections after lemma sections is a reasonable exception to that principle, which I support. 0DF (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @0DF heh, Bulgarian костура (kostura) was actually the entry which generated the offline discussion that I eventually brought over to Beer Parlour. To me, it's the opposite of what I recommend in paragraph 2 of the proposal, since the lemma in this case is archaic and dialectal, whereas the non-lemma form is current and common, and therefore a likelier target for a user doing a Wiktionary lookup.
    The lemma костур (kostur) for the non-lemma form goes back to the proto-language, so it's not obvious which etymology came first historically. However, it's still the case that even as an educated native speaker, I'd never heard of костура (kostura) as a type of knife, and I immediately thought of the fish. More generally, I think having to do work in order to get to the most common thing is not a user-friendly experience for an online dictionary. Research in other areas of online life tends to show that people want to be in and out quickly when using something that's supposed to be a tool or convenience. I think an etymology order based around commonness is a better match for that. I'd still be interested in finding out why you think a more chronological order might be better. Chernorizets (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chernorizets Of course, the Bulgarian skeleton/perch form preserves user-unfriendliness by requiring a second click to actually get a hint of the meaning.
    @ODF: Ordering etymology sections by etymological development only makes sense when the etymology sections are being abused, e.g. to separate cognate words with the same spelling but different pronunciations, as with read. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.   Oppose weakly. Overall I don't object to the proposal, but I feel it should be made clearer that the order of precedence should be as follows:
    1. Etymologies for lemmas should precede etymologies for non-lemma forms.
    2. Among etymologies for lemmas, they should be arranged by commonness of the terms in the language. (Not entirely sure how this is to be determined, but I suppose terms in common use should precede terms which are only dialectal or obsolete.)
    3. However, this should be subject to the principle that etymologies should be arranged by historical development, as @0DF has pointed out above. What I mean is that if, for example, if a noun is derived from a verb, it seems logical to give the etymology for the verb first—even if the verb is now obsolete—followed by the etymology for the noun (which should then refer to the earlier etymology and need not repeat common portions of it).
    — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would advocate confining everything related to historical development to the etymology section itself. Order the headers by commonness and mention in the etymology, if it isn't already obvious, which sense derived from which. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

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.

Forthcoming votes:

Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Review of Gheg Albanian circumflexes
Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Excluding trivial present participal adjectives
Wiktionary:Votes/2023-11/Ordering of descendants in mainspace entries
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Streamlining the approval process of online sources
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-07/Stubifying alternative forms
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-11/Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes&oldid=76100842"