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/2018-01/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-01/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-01/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2018-01/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2018-01/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2018-01/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)
Ends Title Status/Votes
Dec 28 Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace 2 failed
Jan 8 User:Nloveladyallen for admin failed
Jan 20 Restricting Thesaurus to English  0  14  1
Jan 21 User:Vorziblix for admin  20  0  0
Jan 29 Conrad.Irwin for desysoppage  5  3  0
(=5) [Wiktionary:Table of votes] (=100)

Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace 2

Voting on: Templatizing the markup for topical categories in the mainspace with one of two particular templates, {{cat}} or {{c}}. Thus, giving a full go ahead to all automatic and semiautomatic edits that replace the likes of "[[Category:nl:Mammals]]" with "{{cat|nl|Mammals}}" or "{{c|nl|Mammals}}". Note that the templates support multiple parameters, such as {{c|nl|Mammals|Zoology}}. Note that, currently, {{c}} is a redirect to {{topics}}. This proposal is about using templates for this purpose in general, and also about the particular template names to appear in wikitext in the mainspace.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    Extended: 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    Extended: 23:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Support for cat

  1.   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I like {{cat}}, like the alias "Cat" for categories. Typing {{cat|en|dogs}} seems similar to typing [[Cat:en:Dogs]]. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Support, same reasons as in the previous vote. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  4.   Support Ƿidsiþ 12:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  5.   Support, the main reason being sortkeys. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  6.   Support; this is consistent with the Chinese specific template {{zh-cat}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  7.   Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  8.   Support – Because (as @Daniel Carrero says above) {{cat|en|Languages}} is similar to [[CAT:en:Languages]], I think it makes sense as a name for the template that generates language code–prefixed categories. — Eru·tuon 18:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  9.   Support. Better than {{c}}, worse than {{topics}}, much better than [[Category:]]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV If you want {{topics}}, you should vote oppose like I did. —Rua (mew) 15:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    I’d rather settle for a smaller improvement than insisting on one that is not likely to pass. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, {{topics}} had only one support in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace, and 6 opposes. I find {{topics}} a fine name, but it is unlikely to gain 2/3-supermajority. {{cat}} seems to be an okay name, especially since its functions can be expanded to handle non-topical categories as well, as indicated on the talk page of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  10. Conditional   Support if an admin volunteers to fork a local version of HotCat to support the new template. It's not particularly hard to do, just requires careful testing; the code is doing simple regexp replacements - see the logic for HotCat.category_canonical and HotCat.category_regexp in Tetromino (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  11.   Support As long as {{c}}, {{cat}}, and {{topics}} all work, I really don't care which one is the primary name. I definitely support letting bots get rid of bare links though. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  12.   Support I don’t care either about which is chosen, but I support getting rid of the vulgar syntax categories because they are ugly and take multiple lines with long names while the {{C}}, {{c}} and {{cat}} templates look fair. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 17:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  13.   Support, though I would prefer "category" as the default. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  14.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for cat

  1.   Oppose DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    @DonnanZ: Could you please clarify why you oppose this? Is it because you consider it too long? (You seem not to oppose {{c}} and {{C}}.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    I am all in favour of shorter template names, which is why I support {{c}} rather than {{cat}}. But if {{c}} causes problems for some users I have no objection to {{cat}} being used by them. I trust that {{c}} and {{cat}} are intended to be options chosen by the user, and it's not an either/or situation, where one of them wins. But I don't want to use {{cat}} myself. And I don't use HotCat. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    @DonnanZ: The proposal of the vote is to give a go ahead to certain replacements; it is not to force users to use a particular template name. If this particular proposal passes (very uncertain), you should still be able to use {{c}} but someone else may feel free to change that to {{cat}}. If {{c}} gets deprecated (not part of the proposal as written), that's going to be a different story. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. Not at all indicative of function. Yes, it categorises, but it's specifically for topical categories. Thus, {{topics}} makes more sense. Compare {{categorize}}, which is a general categorizing template. {{cat}} should redirect to {{categorize}}. —CodeCat 20:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. It will mess up MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.jsInternoob 01:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Wouldn't that already be messed up with the use of {{topics}} or am I missing something? -Xbony2 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, any categories added through templates are not editable through HotCat. I mainly disagree with the go-ahead for all automatic and semi-automatic edits that replace [[Category:]] with {{cat}}, because that only takes away my ability to edit those with HotCat. —Internoob 00:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose per internoob.Dixtosa (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose This is not, by any means, what templates were meant for. I may be late to the party (and I may also be a lone dissenter in this respect) but this is really getting kind of ridiculous. At least things like {{label}} has the """justification""" of CSS customization, but there is no purpose for this but to save.... let me count... five characters. Five. Or seven if you prefer {{c}}, which is even worse since it's not obvious at all what "c" stands for. Because apparently WP:PAPER doesn't apply to Wiktionary. Who knew? ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 17:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    @ObsequiousNewt: In addition to saving five characters, the templates also add the correct sortkeys using the makeSortKey function in Module:languages. That is not very important for English, because sortkeys are regularly identical to page names, but it is for Ancient Greek and quite a few other languages. — Eru·tuon 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Erutuon: This boils down to normalization, which strikes me as the kind of thing that should be done on the MediaWiki end rather than here. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    @ObsequiousNewt: Certainly, but until an appropriate MediaWiki extension comes out, we have to do sortkey generation ourselves. (What sortkey generation involves depends on the language: see Module:vi-sortkey, Module:zh-sortkey, and Module:cop-sortkey for some odder examples.) — Eru·tuon 02:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Erutuon: I don't think sortkey generation is really worth the trouble. I especially don't think it's worth the trouble of replacing all category links. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 02:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    @ObsequiousNewt: Well, I disagree, and I (and maybe others) have already been templatizing Ancient Greek categories. Without sortkeys, the sort order would be strange, and categories would be difficult to use. There would be headings for accented letters from the Greek and Coptic or Greek Extended blocks along with the unaccented letters. ἀνήρ would be alphabetized after the heading for ω, because ω is in the Greek and Coptic block and in the Greek Extended block. ἄλλος would follow ἀνήρ, because (U+1F04) has a codepoint greater than (U+1F00). ἆθλον would come last. (That's the opposite of the expected order, ἆθλον < ἄλλος < ἀνήρ < ω.) That seems intolerable to me, so I am willing to always add categories using templates. — Eru·tuon 04:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    I think that first sentence should be immortalized. I think it should be put in a box and displayed as the heading of the Votes page. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 06:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    @ObsequiousNewt: Yes, the vote description doesn't clearly describe the current state of affairs and what would change (if that's what you mean). Practically, what the vote would do is to make official one shortcut, {{c}} or {{cat}}, for {{catlangcode}}, and to allow bots to substitute bare category links with templates. Right now, people can use any shortcut for the template, and bots can only templatize categories by request of the editors of a particular language (as was done with many or all Vietnamese category links). — Eru·tuon 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    I feel this is not what the Newt meant/is concerned with... --Rerum scriptor (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, I should have asked. — Eru·tuon 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose - TheDaveRoss 16:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose, not worth it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose Per Rua (name of the template), Internoob (HotCat) and ObsequiousNewt. I've done some replacements of plain cats to {{c}} myself, but I shouldn't have. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain for cat

  1.   Abstain Prefer to keep as is. --Victar (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Victar: In Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace, you said "Would support {{cat}}". Have you changed your mind? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Support for c

  1.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Support, same reasons as in the previous vote. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Support - better than {{cat}} and much better than {{topics}}. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  4.   Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5.   Support As long as {{c}}, {{cat}}, and {{topics}} all work, I really don't care which one is the primary name. I definitely support letting bots get rid of bare links though. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  6.   Support I don’t care either about which is chosen, but I support getting rid of the vulgar syntax categories because they are ugly and take multiple lines with long names while the {{C}}, {{c}} and {{cat}} templates look fair. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 17:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for c

  1.   Oppose. Same as above, except worse. —CodeCat 20:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. It will mess up MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.jsInternoob 01:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. Same as above. Also opposed to case-sensitive templates. --Victar (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose - TheDaveRoss 16:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose, still not worth it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose Per Rua (name of the template), Internoob (HotCat) and ObsequiousNewt. I've done some replacements of plain cats to {{c}} myself, but I shouldn't have. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain for c

  Abstain for the present. What's wrong with {{C}}? DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@DonnanZ: {{C}}, in contrast to {{c}}, is capitalized for no obvious reason. We have {{m}}, {{lb}}, {{l}}, {{ux}}, etc., not {{M}}, etc.
Furthermore, {{C}} in capital did not make it in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace; I opposed there on account of the wrong capitalization. {{c}} in lowercase still has a chance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
What you really mean is "no consensus", it didn't fail. I am now supporting {{c}}. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  1.   AbstainAryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain – I've used {{c}} and {{C}}, but I don't know if they really are intuitive names, or if the names are best used in this way. — Eru·tuon 18:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


  • Previous votes on this subject had more participants, so I would like to extend the vote. I know there is some opposition to extensions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    I extended it to November 28, 2017, per your request, if no one minds. To be extra clear: I, personally, support extending the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    I extended it further to 28 December 2017. The result is tight (9:4), the last oppose was on 25 November 2017, and having the vote end on 28 Nov would expose the original extension to the accusation of being done to fish for the desired outcome. I propose to use the following extension mechanism on this vote: "If at least one new vote was cast to the vote in the last extension period, extend further by one more month, unless 6 months have already passed". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    I support extending the vote further this time, but unfortunately I'm not a fan of that specific extension mechanism for this or any other votes. Although it wasn't tested in practice yet, this is my first impression: If that's the only allowed extension mechanism, it's too bad that it does not tell us when to start extending a vote. For votes that were never extended, there's no "last extension period", so that rule would result in 0 votes being extended. But if there's any other secondary rule allowing the first vote extension, it seems trivial to wait for more people to cast at least 1 vote each month (especially if we ask at the BP like I did here), so it's likely that many or most extended votes would end up lasting exactly 6 months.
    I would prefer having a extension mechanism close to this: "If the current support results are between 40% to 70% (or between 60% and 70% if that's too much), invariably extend by 1 month, unless 6 months have already passed." Reason: It's to avoid "no consensus" rulings, when a few more votes could more easily tip the balance into clear support or clear oppose. As you said, right now the result for the result is tight (9:4 = 69.23%; 4:3 = 57.14%). That's why I support extending this vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    The advantage of the mechanism I proposed is that it has no bias toward pass or fail, and therefore, it cannot be accused of having built-in fishing for a pass. As for "it's likely that many or most extended votes would end up lasting exactly 6 months", that would have to be borne out by experience. The algorithm is there only for votes that were extended at least once, and it leaves it unspecified under which conditions the first extension can take place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    I acknowledge that advantage you mentioned as correct: "it has no bias toward pass or fail, and therefore, it cannot be accused of having built-in fishing for a pass".
    I understand that it leaves it unspecified under which conditions the first extension can take place. It does not have to be a bad thing at all. I also understand you proposed this extension mechanism for this specific vote, where the first extension already happened and thus the question "When the first extension can take place?" does not apply. It's just something that in my opinion is a good idea to say explicitly: for future votes, it would be nice to answer that question in some way if possible.
    If there's no first-extension rule, then votes are extended and non-extended with some degree of randomness. The accusation of "fishing for votes" can be rewritten as this obviously bad extension mechanism: "Whenever the vote does not have the result I like, extend." I hope someday we can agree on an actual extension mechanism consistently applied to all votes to counter this. In all or many extended votes where I supported extension, what sold it to me was that the result was unclear prior to the extension. Which lead me to my idea above. (to repeat: when a few more votes could more easily tip the balance into clear support or clear oppose)
    As for "it's likely that many or most extended votes would end up lasting exactly 6 months", there is some experience: whenever I ask at the BP for people to vote to break a tie or to increase the turnout, people vote. Current results are 100% (that is, at least 1 people voted after I asked that). But that's from memory and I didn't get actual links and vote examples. Some exception could have happened which I forgot. My point is, I or other people can probably cause a vote to be extended whenever we want by asking people to vote (up to some reasonable limit).
    Consider game theory: That mechanism ("if 1 vote was cast last month, then extend") has a bias towards "no consensus". It works like this: if I did not vote yet, and I want to support the vote, but nobody voted this month and the vote already has a majority of support, I can't vote "support", lest I risk extending the vote and allowing other people to vote oppose next month. In other words: Waiting, not voting, is optimal if I agree with the current result. Voting, not waiting, is optimal is I disagree with the current result. This is true until someone votes this month, but we will invariably have to wait for a whole month (until six months have passed) where nobody voted and for that period this will be true again. Hence there's some bias towards changing whatever is the current result and drifting toward "no consensus". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see any bias towards no consensus in the proposed mechanism. I think the reasoning presented is incorrect. That speculative waiter you posit would have as the best strategy to wait until, say, one day before the current end of the vote to see whether other people have already ensured extension, and then vote accordingly. I find such speculative waiters unlikely, but even if they turned out to be real, their existence would not swing the vote toward no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Cat" has no consensus 14–9–1 (61%). "C" fails 6–7–3 (46%). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion {{c}} also has no consensus. DonnanZ (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps you don't understand. We use the terminology of "no consensus" only in cases where there is more support than opposition, but not enough for something to pass. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    I think that has been interpreted differently in other votes. The vote for {{c}} was actually 6-7-3. DonnanZ (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    I've corrected my tally to include your vote change. Just so you realise, abstentions don't count toward any of this, and no, it has not been interpreted differently in other votes for many, many years. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nloveladyallen for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Nloveladyallen (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Won WT:FUN and hasn't pissed anyone off.


  • Vote starts: 13:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Gente como tú (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Acceptance: The current belief seems to be that I'm WF. I promise I'm not, not that anyone will/should take my word for it. There are better reasons to not admin me, like that I've only been editing in earnest for a few months. But what the hell, I'll accept and see what happens.

  • Languages: en, es-2
  • Timezone: UTC-5/4 (EST/EDT)
Nloveladyallen (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


  Support User seems trustworthy, and we're in sore need of admins. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
But such easy admining shall not generalize. This is gambling – we shall not just lay bets but be positively certain that someone is not Wonderfool. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Switched my vote to abstain. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  1.   Support DTLHS (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose - I have always assumed that he is the latest WF incarnation. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    Really? I can understand why someone would think that. But this guy does Greek and edits on a mobile, both very un-Wonderfoolish behaviours --Gente como tú (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose both look like Wonderfool. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose I am not willing to throw this person under the WF bus, however they should get more experience before becoming an admin. - TheDaveRoss 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose. Not enough edits. For that matter, why should one take seriously a nomination by a newcomer (Gente como tú) editing only since last month and without very many edits. One doesn't need to resolve identity issues in this case. DCDuring (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    @DCDuring: That's not a newcomer, it's WF. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    I was referring to a username that does not explicitly succeed a previous user name. Why bother with the WF question? DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose. Obviously an unknown quantity, and it's a very cheeky nomination. DonnanZ (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose Less than 200 edits. Of course it's nothing against the user him/herself, but when I look at an admin nomination and have never seen this username before until now, that's definitely not a good sign. @User:Gente como tú, you can't just nominate people for adminship based on some kind of dare or winning some game or something, as you suggested on the user's talk page. The user has to have extensive experience, good standing in the community, and undoubtful trust. Like I said, I don't really know the user that well, but the grounds for this nomination are weaker than any I've ever seen here. With this few edits a user really should not be an admin. To conclude, adminship IMO should come to users who've been here for a long enough time to say they're experienced, edited quite a lot in that time frame, and most importantly have good and trustworthy stands in the community. The votes above don't indicate that this user can be trusted so well, at least yet. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    As far as whether or not I think it's Wonderfool, I don't have an opinion. However, this is all-the-more reason to edit here longer. A few people used to think I might be WF, but after editing here longer that's not something I hear anymore. The differences between a user who creates sockpuppets regularly and a different editor entirely are easier to establish over a longer period of time. And I'm saying this assuming the nominated user is not WF, which I'm not even trying to say with any confirmation. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose. Per TheDaveRoss, DCDuring and PseudoSkull; too few edits, though the quality is promising. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose. I have made far more contributions than this user, yet I don't think it's enough (frequency-wise) for me to be an admin. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Apparently I have made more than 100,000 edits, but I'm not admin material. DonnanZ (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose because it's too early. User seems good and I can imagine supporting this at some future time when they have more work under their belt. Equinox 00:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose – I had no idea that WT:Christmas Competition 2017 was about adminship... 😉 — Eru·tuon 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose mellohi! (僕の乖離) 16:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  13.   Oppose --Victar (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Too late, mate. The vote has finished. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain Obviously not WF, he can't keep an account for three years. But there's no real reason for the user to be adminned. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
     @AryamanA what is so obvious about it? He is nominated by Wonderfool, has mainly done Spanish edits, and now he answers on this page like he knows who “WF” is, which is much archive reading for so few edits, and he revisits his old entries as in diff which he has back in 2006 or so nominated for the Word of the Day. That is Wonderfool. Don’t you expect some new guises? Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    I haven't trolled through any archives to find out who Wonderfool is. He was mentioned to me in a thread in the Christmas competition. As for my edit on fuck, that's hardly an obscure enough word to make a connection IMO. Nloveladyallen (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Nloveladyallen: Here ya go. He's a very prolific editor who deleted the main page a while ago and has been switching accounts every few months since. WF has a history of self-nominations (indeed, the nominator and the one supporter seem to both be WF), but he also nominates other users from time to time. I don't think you're WF but I still think adminship can wait. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    You mean he likes to nominate people who seem to look like him but aren’t (which he knows as he is not them)? That of course is also a point. If one shall be admin, it is imperative to look different from him, I infer – however unpleasant it is to have someone else as a yardstick. About Rerum scriptor, I mostly tend to think that he is one of those weird French people. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 00:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain A bit soon. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain Just not familiar enough with this user to make a comprehensive determination Leasnam (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


Fails 1–12–3. This was stupidly pointless, and if I had been online when it happened, I would've blocked WF before we had to waste our time on it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Restricting Thesaurus to English

Voting on: Restricting Wiktionary:Thesaurus to English, moving current content of non-English thesaurus entries to the mainspace and then deleting the non-English entries.

Rationale: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-11/Restricting Thesaurus to English#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)



  1.   Support as long as there won't be a proper infrastructure for handling several languages;   Oppose if/once that condition is met. I think I've been convinced 1) that this endeavour shouldn't be too redundant with the efforts of other Wiktionaries, and 2) that it's indeed a good thing to have everything in a single place. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose. My reasons are in (talk page)#Oppose. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose per Daniel's arguments. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also, pages in other languages with many meronyms/hyponyms can function as highly useful themed pages of vocabulary for people learning another language. For instance, příbuzný for Czech could be highly useful to someone trying to build basic vocabulary in that language. In its current state, the Thesaurus isn't overly useful, but if used this way for FL's, it could have many benefits. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose. My reasoning is laid down in (talk page)#Oppose. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose mellohi! (僕の乖離) 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose --WikiTiki89 17:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose PseudoSkull (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  9.   OpposeAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 14:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  10.   OpposeMatthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose. I think that an organisational system is needed, but this vote (which never had any real community support) is not the proper way to bring it about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose Jberkel 11:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  13.   Oppose Tijmen Wil (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain The advantages of the restriction are considerable, as noted on the talk page; it would simplify a lot of things, including use {{ws|term}} vs., for Spanish, {{ws|es|term}}, language indication in thesaurus page name (largely no lang indication yet; examples could be Thesaurus:Hindi/water, Thesaurus:pt:autêntico, Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca), having search function automatically restrained to English entries, etc. However, overall, the English Wiktionary is designed to be multilingual in all its facets, including topical categories and rhymes, and keeping the thesaurus multilingual fits better into this. Moreover, thesauri in other Wiktionaries may take a slightly different approach (French one does) and therefore, a language like French can get a kind of treatment in the English Wiktionary Thesaurus that it does not get in the French Wiktionary Thesaurus and vice versa; there surely are redundancies between the thesauri in different Wiktionaries but also complementarities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    About {{ws|term}} vs., for Spanish, {{ws|es|term}}: even if we keep the Thesaurus in all languages, I have reason to believe there's no need to add the langcode to that template until proved otherwise. If the page is named like Thesaurus:Hindi/water, Thesaurus:pt:autêntico or Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca, then {{ws}} can automatically get the language name from the page title.
    Obviously, automatically getting the language from the page title is impossible if the page is named like this: Thesaurus:autêntico. But the template can still use Lua to transcribe the whole current page and look for the first L2, which is ==Portuguese==, so even still {{ws}} does not need to have a langcode.
    I support keeping {{ws}} without a langcode and use some template tricks as described above to get the code automatically. If that's proved to be impossible or if cross-language links are needed, then I completely change my mind and support making the langcode required in {{ws}}. Having the langcode would not be a disaster. We are used to having langcodes everywhere, like {{en-noun}}. (Simple Wiktionary uses {{noun}})
    Furthermore, I support eventually having some consistent Thesaurus page title with the language somewhere in the title. It works fine for Rhymes. We have Rhymes:English/ʌm, so we could have Thesaurus:English/good (replacing the current Thesaurus:good). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    Elsewhere, I have explained that Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca (or Thesaurus:pl:złoczyńca) is preferable to Thesaurus:Polish:villain: it enables the automatic linking of further thesaurus pages via {{ws}}, like in Thesaurus:bird. I accept that {{ws}} could pick the lang code from the page title; still, I remember that on some pages even the current {{ws}} started choking because of the number of items calling it, so making {{ws}} make more things can make these problems worse. In any case, the general point that multiple languages complicate things stands. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


User:Vorziblix for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Vorziblix (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. This user's work ethic, accuracy, and research ability has been exemplary. I have always been impressed with their responsiveness to requests and the speed with which they fulfill them. Vorziblix is often renaming pages to conform with our now-extensive Egyptian policies, and the ability to delete incorrect pages would truly aid this user's indefatigable efforts. I'm hoping this user will expand to become a great Afro-Asiatic editor. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


  • Vote starts: 06:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


  • Languages: sh-N, en-N, egy-2, cu-2, enm-2, ru-2, de-2, sl-1, cmn-1, jbo-1, la-1
  • Timezone: usually UTC-6 or UTC-5, now and then UTC+1
I accept. Thank you, — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 06:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Support*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Support Equinox 10:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Support Wyang (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  6.   SupportAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 15:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  7.   SupportUngoliant (falai) 16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  8.   SupportSemperBlotto (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  9.   SupportPalaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  10.   SupportEru·tuon 00:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  11.   Support, of course. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  12.   Support, naturally. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  13.   Support - TheDaveRoss 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  14.   Support: much needed area. --Victar (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  15.   SupportSGconlaw (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  16.   Support --Vahag (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  17.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  18.   Support --Calak (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  19.   Support PseudoSkull (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  20.   Support Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)




Conrad.Irwin for desysoppage

Voting on: Removing admin powers from Conrad.Irwin (talkcontribs). One of the politest and most helpful Wiktionarians ever. No edits since 2014.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Gente como tú (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Support I'm always confusing him with User:Connel MacKenzie and User:Yair rand. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yair still pops up now and again (hell, now that you've pinged him, he might even vote). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    I don't like voting in desysop votes... It always feels way too final. Needs to be done though, I suppose. --Yair rand (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Support - can always be reinstated without a vote if he turns up SemperBlotto (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  3.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Support, per SemperBlotto. I notice that some of Conrad's scripts in his userspace (including some listed in PREFS) are protected and some are unprotected (thereby subject to the default rules of being only editable by the owner of the userspace and admins). Should they all be unprotected so that he can still edit them, or maybe all protected for security reasons? --Yair rand (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Support. I was going to make a comment on the pointlessness of the Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity vote, then I realised it's about something else. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Comment moved to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/January#Desysopping_for_inactivity --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose I hoped that Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity would end these desysop-for-inactivity votes, but alas. Anyway, I see no reason to depart from the principles of that vote (that that policy goes unenforced is beside the point). Conrad.Irwin's last admin action was in August 2014, so that would suggest desysopping can go ahead after about 3.5 years. That period is too short, in my opinion. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose We have an established policy for this process, and there are no extenuating circumstances that lead me to believe we should deviate from it. - TheDaveRoss 13:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  3.   OpposeAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 14:22, 17 January 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: