Open main menu

Wiktionary β


(Redirected from Wiktionary:VOTE)

Wiktionary > Votes

Votes formalize and document the consensus-building process and the decisions that the community makes. This page displays the full contents of recent, current and planned votes. Edit Wiktionary:Votes/Active to add new votes 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.

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2018-07/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-07/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-07/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2018-07/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2018-07/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2018-07/User: for bot status}}


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)
May 30Stock market indices 9  4  0
Jun 5Disallowing appendix-only languages 3  14  1
Jul 3Unifying on Inflection headingfailed
Aug 12Restructure comparative and superlative categories 5  1  0
(=4)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=68)

Stock market indices

Voting on establishing the following policy with respect to dictionary entries for stock market indices and stock market index series:

  • Include terms that are the series names for stock market indices (e.g. FTSE, CAC).
    • Use stock market index names as examples of usage for the series names (e.g. "FTSE 100", "CAC 40").
  • Include initialisms of specific stock market indices, where they form a single term that does not include the parent word (e.g. DJIA, DJTA).
  • Hard Redirect most common stock market indices to the series name (e.g. FTSE 100, CAC 40).
  • Exclude names of specific stock market indices (e.g. FTSE MID 250, CAC Next 20).

Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Stock market indices#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Stelio (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)



  1.   Support, as proposer. -Stelio (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Support as a sane policy to handle these terms. If this passes, we could make a shortcut to it as WT:STOCK to make it easily linkable in discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Support - TheDaveRoss 17:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Support I think. Can't see a problem with it. Equinox 21:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Support This is good. I also like the WT:STOCK idea. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  6.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  7.   Support Useful. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  8.   Support PseudoSkull (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  9.   Support, as the proposal offers protection of series names that I consider desirable and also allows the removal of cruft that I really do not want. . ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose for political reasons — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 20:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose a blanket decision, since I know from the languages that I'm familiar with that referring to the "FTSE" tout court is fairly normal, whereas referring to the "CAC" is not: you always say the "CAC 40". These should be judged case-by-case. Ƿidsiþ 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Widsith, would you want entries for all of the stock market indices that I mentioned in the "Do not include" column here? -Stelio (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Stelio Not necessarily. Most of them probably not. I just know that in French "CAC 40" is an appropriate entry in a way that, in English, "Dow Jones Transportation Index" is not. To put it another way, in English people talk about "what the FTSE's doing", or how "the FTSE's recovered" or whatever, and in French this casual shorthand takes the form of "CAC 40"; no one talks about the "CAC". Ƿidsiþ 08:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should explicitly note: if the vote passes then my intention is to add a new sense to CAC (in addition to the existing one) along the lines of, "The stock market series code for the French stock market, the Paris Bourse," using CAC 40 as the primary usage example. I certainly do not intend that the existing CAC entry is in itself sufficient to capture the sense as it relates to "CAC 40". -Stelio (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose per Widsith: WT:RFDN#CAC 40 does not show consensus for deletion, and the user may well be better off with CAC 40 being a full entry rather than a redirect. That is not so say that all items proposed for exclusion by the policy are to be included; indeed, the policy is probably almost right. Rather, there may be a couple of items as regards of which the policy may be overexclusive. On another note, what has bothered me is that a policy is proposed for a very specific case of names of specific entities; that does not seem good. If this is to be an inclusion-exclusion policy, it belongs to WT:CFI, but then, some people do not want it in CFI per Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Stock market indices#Policy at CFI. The complaint on the talk page is that it "bloats" CFI, but not placing it to CFI does not solve the problem: it will no longer bloat CFI but it will bloat the total body of policies and make it harder to find relevant items of policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    It only needs to be referenced on rare occasion at RFD, and I haven't seen anyone complain about referencing WT:COALMINE or WT:REPEATING there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    In fact, both COALMINE and REPEATING are in CFI. The shortcuts do not point to CFI, but the policy texts are present in CFI nonetheless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. On the lack of consensus for deletion of CAC 40: that's why I raised it to the Beer Parlour for wider discussion. And following no engagement, that's why I've pushed it to a vote. The prior lack of consensus is not in itself grounds for opposing. Rather, one should consider one's personal stance and vote accordingly. The entire reason for having a vote is that there was no consensus (if we had generally agreed to either include or exclude stock market indices, there would have been no need to call a vote).
    2. That there is no proposed wording for CFI is not an argument for opposition in itself, as (if the stance is accepted) CFI can be updated following a successful vote. Indeed, if the vote passes, a single bullet under "Names of specific entities" pointing to the vote result would be sufficient.
    3. As to why I think "CAC" is fine and "CAC 40" is not, I see it as entirely analogous with makes and models of car. We include "Ford" but not "Ford Escort". In practice people talk about Ford Escorts, but we don't make an entry for them or the dozens of other Ford models. Similarly, I see it as useful to have content relating to stock market indices but not in listing every single possible index, and I believe the best balance is in listing just the index code (a clear and easily enforceable policy).
    4. A middle ground decision of "not just the codes, but not all index names" is ambiguous. "FTSE 100" would be a definite inclusion, in that case. But would "FTSE 250" be in or out? How about "FTSE 350"? "FTSE techMark"? Where do you draw the line, given that any traded stock market index can pass attestation?
    -Stelio (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Having this vote is fine; I merely oppose its proposal. My point was that it may actually be good to have CAC 40 as a full entry. Vote-haters are a minority, but a vocal and, lately, incredibility aggressive and rude one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose. Too specific of a rule. If you think about it properly, you realize the general case covers this pretty well. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think I agree. Which bit of CFI do you think covers stock indices? They're all proper nouns, so should come under "Names". "Brand names"? We can find 3+ independent citations for pretty much every stock index listed on the talk page. But then the index series code could be considered to be a reference to the distributor, in which case all stock indices should be rejected. "Names of specific entities"? Again, they can all be attested. I couldn't work out a clean reading of CFI that would help me decide why I should, for example, include "FTSE 100" but not "FTSEurofirst 300". -Stelio (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


  Abstain. Looks good, but it also looks like the sort of thing that doesn't belong in CFI. This can be worked out in RFD discussions by the few people who care, and we could even link to this vote if it passes (like we do with WT:COALMINE), but why bloat the CFI with these specifics? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stelio, since there are no other supporters yet, you could still change the wording of the vote if you would support not adding this to CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. @Stelio: Hello. Sorry for not replying to any of your pings; I didn't really have anything to contribute. Metaknowledge has just put into words the inkling I had: it seems a bit too specific to appear in the CFI. That said, I think I agree with what you're suggesting, so maybe Weak support. I'm still not sure deleting CAC 40 is the right move though. --Per utramque cavernam 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  Abstain. I second Metaknowledge--I like the idea of this, but specifically as something that can be referenced as a precedent like WT:COALMINE. If it were so, I'd support it.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion topic relating to the above comments on the talk page. -Stelio (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Passes 9–4–0 (69.2%). -Stelio (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally admins close votes, but yes, I agree that this passes the usual 2/3 support:oppose criterion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disallowing appendix-only languages

Voting on: Deleting Category:Appendix-only constructed languages and all its contents, by which I mean its subcategories, their subcategories and so on along with all pages in all these categories. The question of whether to let any of the affected languages into mainspace is not voted on here. Rationale: see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/April#Disallowing Appendix-only constructed languages.__Gamren (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

From WT:CFI, the following will be removed.

However, the following ones should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace: Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish.[1][2]

__Gamren (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Gamren (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)



  1.   Support As vote-starter.__Gamren (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Support --Vahag (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Support It's an arbitrary symbolic but not practical exclusion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose The wholesale removal of entire languages with communities of speakers is, in my opinion, antithetical to the basic vision of Wiktionary. Given practically all the material under consideration is verifiable, and most of it is readily attestable in use in texts and corpora, I also do not see what useful purpose mass deletion would serve. (Lojban has a corpus in which its words can be checked for attestation and usage; Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and likely others have published texts in which the same can be done.) Furthermore, such deletion would leave us lacking entries for etyma of attested terms in natural languages that were borrowed from these constructed languages. Overall, the rationale that the information is ‘unverifiable’, and that the only sources available are prescriptive, is demonstrably false for the biggest languages affected by this proposal.
    On a different note, the proposal doesn’t specify how the text of WT:CFI is to be amended to conform to it. As it currently stands, it would apparently delete all the material in the appendix but still allow the subsequent re-creation of much of it, following CFI.Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Vorziblix I amended the proposal, is this acceptable?__Gamren (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, that resolves that part of my objection. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. A proposal that is really against the aims of Wiktionary, and which would make our entries less useful. I recently started a vote to move Lojban into the appendix so that I could save our content, which couldn't survive in mainspace. The idea that someone would want to simply delete all that content wholesale is exceedingly distasteful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge The results of a small experiment by Vorziblix told of here would seem to show that most of our Lojban entries would survive just fine in mainspace.__Gamren (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Gamren, you seem to have given the wrong link. Also, your reasoning is absurd: you seem to support making them LDLs, and you want to achieve that by deleting them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    I meant to link here, sorry. And I don't see the absurdity of my position. I support keeping and adding words that are verifiably in use. I oppose keeping and adding words that are not. As far as I can tell, these appendices are not required to satisfy any criteria for inclusion whatsoever', so User:Gamren/Appendix:Lojban/æ'µobli is fine, yes?__Gamren (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    such a word ( æ'µobli ) would properly be deleted as it does not fit the criteria for a Lojban word, as it would be deleted as an English word. It may not be deleted quickly, as it may not come to the attention of Lojban maintainers. Perhaps that points to the need for tools such as Recent Changes to a particular Appendix. I certainly would monitor such a recent changes page (if it existed) to verify that the Lojban appendix (or Lojban in mainspace) were accurate. Jawitkien (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Jawitkien Here you go.__Gamren (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you greatly :) Jawitkien (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    Re: "[...] to move Lojban into the appendix so that I could save our content, which couldn't survive in mainspace": Not really. The content could have survived in mainspace just fine, as long as relaxed verification criteria were provided. And relaxed verification criteria will have to be provided anyway, regardless of the location. No one has explained to my satisfaction why appendix space is better than mainspace with a badge of shame and different inclusion criteria. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. Maybe I would support moving them all to the mainspace. This would mean technically disallowing appendix-only languages. But don't delete them altogether. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    The sad thing (to me) is that the move to an appendix (which has already happened) from mainspace deleted some content already (especially some phrases with embedded blanks). To truly put Lojban back into mainspace like it was, will require looking at the backup the bot made prior to deleting entries. Not impossible, and if not done, just more work for the Lojbanistas at wiktionary. Jawitkien (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose. Seems contrary to the mission of the site, as stated above. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    @SanctMinimalicen Could you elaborate on what you feel our mission is, and how this proposal is contrary to it?__Gamren (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    There isn't much to say that either Vorziblix and Metaknowledge hasn't said. But, to be somewhat platitudinous, the goal here, it seems to me, is to document credible, verifiable language to the best of our ability. There should be space for constructed languages on here somwhere. I won't try to rehash the debate and complications about conlangs, but in any case we voted previously to move Lobjan from the mainspace with the others listed, so to disallow them from the Appendix at this juncture would mean deletion of the language(s, potentially), which doesn't uphold the goal I mentioned. Whether the Appendix is ideal for this purpose, I'm not sure. Maybe something radical (like a conlang namespace or something) would be better, if possible. But as this are, I'd rather keep the languages in the Appendix than delete them altogether, which seems needless. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose I like having notable constructed languages listed on Wiktionary. And I like having them out of the main namespace. So an appendix seems like the appropriate place to keep them. The vote at the moment calls simply for their deletion from the appendices without proposing a new place to store them, so I am against it. -Stelio (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    Then perhaps I should have handled this differently.__Gamren (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose. LDL languages are included based on a mere single mention per entry. Similarly, it does no harm when e.g. Sindarin is included on a similar weak verification basis. Moving them all to the mainspace with a badge of shame is an alternative. I do support that verification criteria be applied to these languages, even if relaxed verification criteria. These languages are marginal lexicography but still lexicography. I do not support inclusion of any and all constructed languages, but rather only a selected set based perhaps on notability or having ISO code. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky If we do reinclude them in mainspace, should we (as in, the Lojban editors) not first check them all for compliance with whatever criteria we (hopefully) choose?__Gamren (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Gamren (Please include # in your posts so that the numbering does not break. Thanks!) That's an if; the vote that passed makes it unlikely. What we should do in any case, I think, is this: 1) Agree on inclusion criteria for Lojban, 2) send suspect Lojban items to RFV even if they are outside of the mainspace, and require in RFV that the agreed criteria be substantiated via quotations of use or other sources under the pain of RFV-deletion. Absent agreement: 3) For Lojban items that can be verified neither in a non-archived corpus nor in a single mention, send them to RFV; there must be some verification. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    (Thanks for the pointer.) Several voters there expressed concern that most lemmas would fail the CFI for WDL, which does not actually seem to be the case, so a new vote might fall differently. There does seem to be opposition against conlang LDLs.__Gamren (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    In fact, let's ask them. @Mx. Granger, This, that and the other and let's say @Internoob too: reading the latest thing Vorziblix wrote in BP, would you vote to return Lojban to its WDL, mainspace status? Currently, Lojban lemmata are not subject to any criteria for inclusion.__Gamren (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    Is the website Vorziblix liked to drawn from durably archived works? If so, then the amount of durably archived Lojban material is greater than I thought, probably enough to attest all important cmavo (structure words), a good number of gismu (basic content words), and some lujvo (compound words) under CFI. If it isn't drawn from durably archived works, then not much has changed: we already knew there was lots of non-durably-archived Lojban online. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's mainly drawn from mailing lists, IRC chats, and other non-durably archived sources. We would need to significantly change what sources we accept for attestation for this to be useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    Forgive my ignorance, but if the texts are durably archived at, what does it matter whether the sources are? Wouldn't it remain there when the original source was deleted?__Gamren (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    What if gets deleted? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    Internet Archive can be considered somewhat reliable and may be used.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    The Internet Archive has been discussed before and is not considered durably archived. And besides, can't be usefully saved with the Internet Archive as far as I can tell—when I search for "muvdu" at , it doesn't show me any results. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose since I was invited here. I'm not really sure if this should be in CFI as written; perhaps a free license to add well-sourced and at least somewhat well-documented constructed languages in the Appendix namespace would be more to my taste. (Basically wording that allows "established" constructed languages but disallows ones that people made up in a day.) This, that and the other (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 01:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose per above. This is one of the things I love best about Wiktionary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose Jeuvke (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose The Lojban entries specifically are what drew me to wiktionary. I was actively working to cross-link and improve them last year. I had family issues, when I came back, to my surprise, they were gone. Reading around, I found they have been moved to an Appendix. Some of the markup I have made using standard templates (ux, etc) no longer works. Needless to say, this is frustrating. If there were no people interested in a language, I could see abolishing it, but Lojban specifically has been actively used by a language community. Unfortunately, there are more Lojban speakers than some dying natural languages Jawitkien (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Jawitkien But then you agree that it would be better to have them in the mainspace than in Appendix, yes?__Gamren (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    of course I think they should be in mainspace. I have tried to do the best I can with them in the Appendix, but things that used to work like "ux" don't work in an Appendix (they wrap too many "{l|" wrappers around the words. My only surmisal was that someone wanted immediate movement on the Lojban issue rather than moving slowly and carefully Jawitkien (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    We've been discussing this since 2016, and discussion on what to do about the problems with attestation of Lojban entries has been going on since at least 2011. That's far from "immediate movement". —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    That's fair. I'm sure as a newbie, I didn't know where the discussion was happening, and I was focused on working the entries more than I was on where things were progressing. I'm sorry to accuse unjustly. Jawitkien (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's a good point that it can be hard to tell that a discussion is going on. In retrospect, maybe it would have been good to leave a note at Wiktionary talk:About Lojban to say that some of the discussions were happening. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  13.   Oppose ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  14.   Oppose Finsternish (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  1.   Oppose I don't like conlangs but "all words in all languages". – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Oops, I thought it was still open. I'm not seeing a decision on the Wiktionary:Votes/Active thing, even though the source seems like it should say "failed". – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 11:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Julia: This edit fixed it. Per utramque cavernam 11:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain. I don't care. Appendix languages are essentially a garbage dump anyway. --WikiTiki89 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    so you don't care if a language is constructed or not? That's an interesting perspective. Once it is out of mainspace and in the Appendix part of wiktionary, do you see any path for it to be moved back into mainspace ? Jawitkien (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


Fails 3–14–1 (18% support from non-abstaining voters). Hopefully we can avoid further such votes that clearly have no support from the community and have not been sufficiently discussed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that I may have gotten my time zones confused and closed this a bit too early; the result is extremely unlikely to change, but if any more votes are cast in the remaining time, we can still count them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Unifying on Inflection heading

Voting on: Abandoning Declension and Conjugation headings in favor of an Inflection heading. Editing WT:EL accordingly, and giving a go-ahead for large-volume replacements of Declension and Conjugation headings with the Inflection heading.

Alternative proposal: Use Declension and Conjugation headings whenever such distinction is applicable. Thus, for instance, switch all Latin verb inflection headings to Conjugation.

Rationale: see the talk page.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to: 23:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


Support unifying on Inflection

  1.   Support I see elegance in having only one type of heading for the purpose. The talk page of the vote has Ngram searches suggesting, while not proving, that the Inflection heading should not cause problems to users. Even for those who would be puzzled at first, scrolling to an Inflection section and seeing a table of inflected forms will quickly disclose what it is; and for many languages, the collapsible bar of the inflection table says Declension or Conjugation anyway. The term inflection is no less accurate than declension or conjugation; it is less specific, to no detriment that I can see. I saw people talk of what is "appropriate" on the talk page, and I don't know what it means in this context; I understand "accurate" and "having benefits and drawbacks". In the English Wiktionary, Latin and Ancient Greek seem to have quite a few entries with Inflection heading (not all of them), and I don't remember anyone complaining; I also saw PIE verb entries with Inflection heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    I originally thought I was proposing to go for one heading type instead of having two heading types. But if it is true that some people's plan is to aim towards all three heading titles for some languages (Irish is mentioned below on the page), then there is even more elegance in the proposal than I thought: the reduction of the number is greater, and a Wiktionary reader is going to have to eventually learn what "inflection" is anyway since it will be used at least to a limited extent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Support __Gamren (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Support - DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Support I don't think the word inflection is really that uncommon compared to conjugation and declension. Particularly I think inflection is probably significantly more common a word in English than declension, which is a term I first learned when starting a course in Latin. The provided statistics are ambiguous and open to interpretation, so if more definitive statistics emerged to the contrary then I would be willing to change my vote. By definitive I mean demonstrating a much more common understanding of the term "declension" than "inflection" or "declined" than "inflected" among native English speakers. Finsternish (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Support I keep forgetting there's different terms for this singular concept anyway. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  6.   Support [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unifying on Inflection

  1.   Oppose. "Conjugation" and "declension" are far more commonly used than "inflection". Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    No comments allowed, thank you. This is a vote, not a discussion. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    This is a vote and discussion in one, per long-standing English Wiktionary practice. Comment are generally welcome. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    The above statement seems untrue as formulated; it depends on who uses the terms. Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Unifying on Inflection heading#Inflection vs. Conjugation and Declension has some Ngram searches; one that is in my favor is inflected forms, declined forms, conjugated forms at Google Ngram Viewer, while one that is less so is conjugated, inflected at Google Ngram Viewer, but even here, inflected is not losing that bad. An interested reader my prefer to read the referenced section to get more detail and more balanced presentation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    As Wikitiki89 pointed out on the talk page, people don't usually say "conjugated forms". Searching for X + "forms" is likely to bias your results towards specialist works and leave out most language learning materials and works written by laypeople. Moreover, specialist works are probably overrepresented on Google Books already, because it's counting unique works, not copies. For instance, a textbook used by millions of students gets the same weight as a journal article that is only ever read by a handful of academics—each work counts as one hit. Ngram searches are useful for answering many questions, but I don't think they're a good tool for figuring out which of these terms is more understandable to the general public. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'll grant you that limitation of the searches. They may be a bit biased toward specialist works. But then it does not seem generally true that '"Conjugation" and "declension" are far more commonly used than "inflection"'; they may be more commonly used in publications for lay learners, but not in general, since in general involves both specialist and lay publications. The thing is, I don't underestimate the general public in their ability to pick a new term that they immediately see visually exemplified in the mainspace. And for Irish, they will have to pick that term anyway, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   OpposeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose per talk page. -Stelio (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose. At least for languages I'm familiar with, such as Spanish and Latin, the terms used in language learning materials are "conjugation" and "declension". I think many (maybe most) English-speaking language learners would assume that an "Inflection" header in a dictionary would be about intonation, not conjugation or declension. "Conjugation" and "declension" are clearer and more standard terms to use, at least for many languages. (I'm not basing these claims on Google Books results, which are likely to be biased towards specialist works, but rather on my own judgment as a native English speaker.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    That assumption about intonation, if real, will be dispelled real fast; in Inflection section, a new user will see a table of forms of which they think of as "declension" or "conjugation". The new user will learn the professional linguists's terminology, and there will be simplicity of information structure design. Or they would, if this proposal passed, which seems unlikely. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose. --WikiTiki89 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose DTLHS (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose --Panda10 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain as for unifying on Inflection

  1.   Abstain I see merit on both sides. On the other hand, simplifying headings is usually a good idea but "declension" and "conjugation" give the reader more information (that the word being inflected is a noun or verb respectively). Obviously when they read on, they will find out if the word is a noun or verb anyway so it's not a big deal. Perhaps it should depend on the language in question although that would create more inconsistency overall. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Support unifying on Declension and Conjugation as far as possible

  1.   Support per talk page. -Stelio (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Support. --WikiTiki89 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Support Ƿidsiþ 07:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose unifying on Declension and Conjugation as far as possible

  1.   Oppose. "Whenever such distinction is applicable" is an unacceptably vague rule. (e.g. Korean adjectives are traditionally "conjugated", not "declined".) Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    No comments allowed, thank you. This is a vote, not a discussion. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    This is a vote and discussion in one, per long-standing English Wiktionary practice. Now to the objection: The vote does not say whether Declension or Conjugation should be used for Korean adjectives, and that's fine. The vote does not try to set up principles for a hard to overview variety of languages, and cover various corner cases, and I don't see why it should. It would require more expertise than the authors of the vote could possibly summon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. Just too poorly worded, and I don't like the idea of telling people what to do when it comes to languages from Africa and Asia that don't traditionally use this rather European linguistic terminology, or adapt it (as in the case of Korean). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose I originally wanted to abstain so that this proposal can pass if it has significantly more supporters than the main proposal. However, the main proposal is currently 5:6 support:oppose so there are not significantly more editors who want declension/conjugation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose DTLHS (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose --Panda10 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain as for unifying on Declension and Conjugation as far as possible

  1.   Abstain. I support this for Latin, but different languages have different needs, and this vote is too poorly written to account for that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Μετάknowledge: What do you think of PIE? Do you have an example of language that is poorly covered by the proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    I see that Mahagaja brought up the excellent example of Irish on the talk page. Perhaps you should have looked there first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    About Irish, Mahagaja says "[...] I personally tend to use all three: Declension for nouns and adjectives, Conjugation for verbs, and Inflection for prepositions in languages like Irish that inflect their prepositions". I do not see how the vote creates a problem for Irish since the vote says "Use Declension and Conjugation headings whenever such distinction is applicable. [...]" If neither Declension nor Conjugation applies to Irish prepositions, then Inflection can be used, consistent with the vote text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    The other thing is the lack of elegance in information structure design that resorts to three different titles for what is essentially one type of section, within a single language, Irish. In my view, my proposal is elegant and ultimately user-friendly, possibly causing a minor inconvenience for some users at the beginning. It abolishes a low-added value differentiation; a set of rules for differentiation that is not so straightforward to overview and specify in general across languages is dropped, in favor of simplicity while retaining accuracy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    The issue here is your ignorance of Irish. You are willing to take Mahagaja's word for it as a result. Now let me tell you that articles are often considered to decline in Irish, but we have chosen to use 'Inflection' for them instead of 'Declension' to differentiate from how nouns decline. This proposal would not permit that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Huh? When did we decide that? The table at an says "Declension", and has ever since I added the section almost six years ago. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    I mean preposition, but got the whole thing muddled. It seems that my ignorance of Irish has gotten in the way as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    Let's discuss the proposal and not me ("you should", "your ignorance of Irish"); I am not the subject of this vote. Let's collect information relevant to the proposal, including such information that can lead to a better proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think we need a better proposal; I think that the status quo is adequate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    The status quo is inconsistence even within individual languages: some Latin and Ancient Greek verbs carry Inflection heading, some Conjugation heading. It is acceptable, yet suboptimal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain for now. I'm inclined to think it would be better to deal with this on a language-by-language basis, because there might be some languages for which "inflection" is the standard term. I certainly support doing this for Latin, Spanish, and Catalan, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
      Abstain at this point. I definitely am in support of this for the languages I'm familiar with that use both conjugation and declension. Like some of the others, I'm concerned about wording, and I'd like to leave room for languages to opt out of this if it doesn't suit them. If we were to have a vote for this for the Romantic languages, for example, I'd be all for it. Or a separate vote with a well-worded version of this alternate proposal. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain -Xbony2 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  4.   AbstainSuzukaze-c 06:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


I extended the vote by one month in the hope we get more input. I know there is the charge that this is a fishing for the result that I want. My response is, the vote is now 6:6, and it can turn in both directions, the direction that I like and the direction that I dislike. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I extended further. Extension mechanism: if there were new votes added in the previous extension period, extend by one more month unless 6 months were already reached. The mechanism has no bias toward passing or failure; the only bias is in the first decision to extend. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good practice. The first extension was fishing for the result you want (yes, it can turn in both directions, but the vote would have failed if you hadn't extended it the first time, so there was a possible gain but no possible loss to you from extending). The second extension is just needlessly lengthening the vote and adding to the bureaucracy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The first extension could be seen as fishing for the result that I want; the obvious benefit is that it enabled collection of more input. There could be a loss: if I did not extend for the first time, there would be indeterminacy, which would give hope for my proposal to prevail in future, whereas with the extension, there was the risk that there will be so many opposes to the main proposal that it provides evidence of consensus for the other direction, regardless of the nuances of the formulation. The second extension is not really any addition of "bureaucracy": the page already exists, everything's in place, and the extension just makes it possible to collect more input. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I also disagree with the second extension; one was enough. It is unreasonable to claim that not enough votes have been cast. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Granger and Metaknowledge. No need for another extension. --WikiTiki89 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I am in a minority, obviously, but let me note that I do not claim that "not enough votes have been cast" but rather than an extension is 1) beneficial, and 2) would follow a mechanism showing no bias either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to the above discussion, I am closing the vote. Both proposals fail, the first one 6–9–1, and the second one 3–7–3. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Restructure comparative and superlative categories

Voting on: Restructuring the comparative and superlative categories.

Currently, categories for comparative and superlative forms of adjectives take two forms, which for comparatives are

LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms has no associated category for inflected forms. LANGUAGE comparative adjectives uses LANGUAGE comparative-adjective forms for its inflected forms, or incorrectly uses LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms for that purpose.

The proposal is to supplant these with a unified category tree. The following section shows this new structure, with Finnish used as the example language and adjectives used as the example part of speech. The categories marked in italic already exist, while the categories in bold are new:

  • Category:Finnish non-lemma forms
    • Category:Finnish adjective forms
      • Category:Finnish comparative adjectives (contains the comparative forms themselves)
        • Category:Finnish comparative adjective forms (contains the inflected forms of comparatives)
      • Category:Finnish superlative adjectives (contains the superlative forms themselves)
        • Category:Finnish superlative adjective forms (contains the inflected forms of superlatives)

This change would apply for all applicable languages and parts of speech, not just adjectives (indeclinable words, such as adverbs (at least in most languages), would simply have no category for inflected forms).

This means that the two existing category types, "LANGUAGE adjective comparative forms" (containing comparatives) would be merged into "LANGUAGE comparative adjectives", which would be moved under adjective forms (and therefore stop being lemmata), while a new category for inflected forms of those comparatives would be created. The same change would apply to superlatives as well.

  • Rationales:
    • The category tree is based on how participles currently work; see Category:Finnish verb forms, Category:Finnish participles and Category:Finnish participle forms.
    • The current format, where some languages may have two different comparative/superlative categories, one of which have their entries marked as lemmata but the other one does not, is wildly inconsistent.
    • It also does not have a way to distinguish between comparatives/superlatives and the inflected forms of such, despite the fact that in many languages comparatives/superlatives can actually be inflected.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 22:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)



  1.   Support as nom. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 00:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    For anyone voting, please also read the clarification on the vote talk page. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Support. -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Support. -- This would be useful for German, where comparatives are often identical to inflected base forms. Mofvanes (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Support. PerfectlyOutOfSync (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Support.  --Lambiam 14:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose It isn't made clear whether this applies to all languages, or only to those where it is considered necessary. You can do what you like with Finnish or German, but I don't think it is necessary for Norwegian for example, where indefinite and definite superlatives are already dealt with. It doesn't apply to comparatives, and mer/meir and mest (like English more and most) are also used. DonnanZ (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    It would apply to all languages. For Bokmål, indefinite and definite (adjective) superlatives would probably both be under Category:Norwegian Bokmål superlative adjectives. Since they seem to have no inflected forms, Category:Norwegian Bokmål superlative adjective forms would probably simply not exist. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Category:Norwegian Bokmål adjective superlative forms has existed for years. DonnanZ (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Those seem like superlatives, not inflected forms of superlatives. Further goes to show how this current system is confusing. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    All superlatives, just two forms, indefinite and definite, are in the one category, and I don't see the need to break them down further. Comparatives have only one form, and aren't inflected any further. DonnanZ (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think they should be broken down further, so Bokmål would, as I said above, have Category:Norwegian Bokmål comparative adjectives and Category:Norwegian Bokmål superlative adjectives, but no categories for the inflected forms of such. In effect, the existing categories would be renamed to a new scheme that would better accommodate other languages. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    The same applies to Nynorsk, Danish, and possibly Swedish. DonnanZ (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I would like to make a point though: the categories here are somewhat loosely defined, so the more exact decisions would be made on a per-language basis. For the North Germanic languages, the categories for inflected forms of comparatives and superlatives will likely not be used at all and therefore do not need to exist, but the scheme applies in general and considerably accommodates languages better in general. It is also more consistent in the way that we have Category:LANGUAGE participles, not *Category:LANGUAGE participle forms for the participles themselves (as opposed to inflected forms of participles). SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I think the current category titles are more accurate than what you are proposing, as they are derived from (and forms of) the basic adjective. There are one or two superlatives and comparatives which aren't, but I don't think there is enough of them to warrant special treatment. DonnanZ (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    But so are participles, they are derived from verbs and are technically verb forms, but since in many languages they themselves can be inflected and therefore a separate participle forms category is needed, the category for participles themselves does not contain the form word in any way. You could also argue the same for many adverbs, as they are regularly inflected (read: derived) from adjectives. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    I avoid categories for participles, but any that are used as adjectives in Norwegian would use mer/meir and mest for comparatives and superlatives. DonnanZ (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)



Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, such that the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or such that the vote appears to require substantial revision. If you have not created a passing vote yet, it is recommended that you use this section and actively solicit feedback by linking to your proposal in discussion; your vote may have a better chance of passing if it is first reviewed.

Votes may linger here indefinitely. If changes in policy make a proposal irrelevant, the voting page will be requested for deletion. On the other hand, you do not have to be the creator to initiate one of the votes below. Place any votes with a live start date in the section above at least a few days before that start date arrives.

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-04/Fictional languages
  • ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Simplifying CFI about constructed languages