Wiktionary:Votes

(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 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.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2021-03/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-03/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2021-03/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2021-03/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2021-03/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
Feb 28User:PUC for adminno consensus
Mar 4BigDom for admin 7  0  6
Mar 8Moving Novial entries to the Appendix 16  1  0
Mar 11Moving Interlingue entries to the Appendix 14  1  1
Mar 20Expanding CFI for place names 14  2  2
(=5)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=97)

User:PUC for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate PUC (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. PUC has been a great contributor to our site, and he would make a great administrator. The user also asked that I mention his last vote for adminship and the fact that he created his last alt account six months ago.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Imetsia (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept. As said on my talkpage, I do a bit of vandalism reversion and the admin tools would come in handy in that respect.

  • Languages: fr, en-3, ru-2
  • Timezone: UTC+1
PUC – 23:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nominator. Imetsia (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support Equinox 05:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support he is not as bad as presented, and we know him so long that we are sure about what we get. That somebody is a lecher or bacchant is kind of not a reason for him not to be admin. Fay Freak (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Support, I've never had any issues with PUC and I recall only pleasant interactions. I agree that some issues that have been raised are concerning. However, I believe that people can mature into reliable admins. PUC is undeniably a valuable contributor and we always have the option to remove adminship if it's abused. PUC will have the entire community's eyes on them. @PUC, please don't take our trust for granted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support, though I wish there would have been fewer alt accounts since the last nomination, I think that is a very minor matter and there have been fewer issues with them. So basically support per the previous vote. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support --Vahag (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Supportفين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Support Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support --Droigheann (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  11.   Support It's about time. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 13:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Support User has made a lot of contributions, and has been here for 3 years. Looks good. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  13.   Support Good contributions. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 03:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  14.   Support despite previous behaviour, which isn't so bad. I'm personally not fussed that the username is an initialism of something vulgar, or that they had multiple accounts in the past. Pious Eterino (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  15.   Support Yes, yes, yes! ‑‑Sarri.greek  | 07:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose, as before. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. While I greatly appreciate their work on French and other languages, having looked at the previous discussions, unfortunately I'm inclined to   Oppose:
    • User:In her mouth was created just six months ago, more than a year after the topic of inappropriate/vulgar sock usernames had already been raised in the 2019 RfA. I also find this edit, made under said username, also a bit puzzling.
    • User:Perce-pucelles (French percer, pucelle) was also created after the 2019 RfA.
    • I also find this comment inappropriate (regardless of the circumstances), especially when made under an IP address.
    Other privileges can be given as necessary, but adminship means blocking rights, which IMO requires generally more professional conduct.--Tibidibi (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    Answering your second point: User:Perce-pucelles was created in 2018, before the nom (see [1]). The April 2019 edits were made so as to avoid account usurpation, before I got rid of the account (along with a few others). PUC – 08:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. Last time, PUC requested a link to User talk:PUC/2017-2018#Adminship for full disclosure; he did not make such a request this time. Everyone voting here should read it. I think there is a danger in giving power to those who are deeply, desperately hungry for it. If he really only wanted to fight vandalism more effectively, he would have asked to become a rollbacker — and I would be happy to nominate him for that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to brush that under the carpet, which is why I've asked Imetsia to put a link to the last vote; everything there's to know (not just this issue but the rest too) is there, I think. I of course invite people to read it.
    Regarding you other point, I did use to have the rollback tool. It was originally granted to me on this account, then I switched to another account and asked Chuck Entz to move the rights there. Then I switched back to this account (...), but I didn't want to bother anyone by asking to move the rights again, so I simply make do with the usual revert tool. PUC – 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    I feel obliged to revert vandalism whenever I come across it, both here and occasionally on Wikipedia. I don't need to be an admin for that. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don’t recognize him as having exposed reprehensible hunger. He found himself funny by jibing at the etiquette, that’s it. But it is a consistent phenomenon in nature that fewer are sociable than there try to be. Difficult matter, that’s why on the internet I don’t have humour. Fay Freak (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't understand why something that happened three years ago should have any bearing on the outcome of this vote. Looking at the record for the past 2+ years, I can't find indications that he is hungry for power, much less "deeply, desperately hungry" for it. Imetsia (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Fay Freak, Imetsia: My conclusion is based in part in private correspondence. Out of respect for @PUC, I will not share any of it unless he consents (which is rather unlikely, of course). (And PUC, if this vote fails, please remind me to get you the rollbacker right.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge I am not particularly interested in the content of this private correspondence - I trust your judgment on that - but when did this correspondence take place? Was it 2018, or 2020? That matters a lot to me: I'm inclined to support this nom, simply because my previous reasons to oppose are now so far in the past that I don't feel they're all that relevant anymore. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Mnemosientje: It was years ago, yes. I see evidence that he has better, though still imperfect, control over his compulsions, but I don't see evidence that those compulsions have actually gone away. He mentioned the alt account from six months ago, but he was still editing as an IP as recently as December. I would believe he had changed, if he actually had. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Feel free to share (as long as you don't mention my real name - I don't remember if it was there or not.) I would do it myself but I can't seem to find the email(s?). If I remember correctly, I wrote to you in late 2017/early 2018, a few weeks before the self-nomination. And yes, I was much too eager to become an admin back then, so the self-nom wasn't simply a joke (@Fay Freak). But while I can't say I've become totally indifferent to the prospect, I'm not gagging for it either. PUC – 22:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. I think there is only one sentence that is really germane: "I want the adminship more for the ego-boost it would provide than because I really need the tools (although I do find it annoying not being able to delete blatantly wrong entries and block vandals); and people are wary of people with that kind of motives, as they should be." I am primarily wary for exactly that reason. You're a good editor, and your errors in judgement do not affect your lexicographical work — but sound judgement is central to the non-lexicographical work that admins engage in. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose. This deletionist sockpuppeteer has no business being an admin. Let this illegal-bot-using, request-for-definition entry generator keep doing whatever it is he does. — Dentonius 08:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    Libel. I doubt he has the coding skills to bot; and he deals with difficult idioms therefore creates requests for definition. His sockpuppet usage didn’t transgress the limits of what is permitted and has decreased with age as expected. Plus it’s a contradiction, since if he can keep doing whatever he does then there is nothing to reproach him for. Fay Freak (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    Please choose common sense over your clique. Choosing an admin is an important issue. PUC is the worst candidate I've seen in all the time I've been here. If you want him to be an admin, you might as well ask WF to resume his duties too. — Dentonius 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Dentonius: What is my clique? And why is it that not I use common sense but you? You just moved to nominate the worst candidate of all time, Dan Polansky, who has less understanding of anything than Wonderfool.
    The Germans have direly corrupted you, taught you to follow some rules or schemes instead of common sense. That’s what all newcomers learn foremost in this country: Fill in all forms you see and exhaust all legal means. Therefore of course such nominees flatter you who just follow orders and process forms and have less profile than a beer coaster. Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    I must say that I like many aspects of German culture. They're very direct and they don't mince words. I'm telling you that making PUC an admin is a bad idea. I assure you that I can keep my personal feelings out of the matter. Based on everything that everyone else has said here, how on earth can you even think to support this guy? He's a troublemaker of a different kind! — Dentonius 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Dentonius: This appraisal is everything other than direct. Which trouble? Maybe the right dose of trouble, which shows this guy is genuine and not just a decal of your wishful thinking, composed of the blurred ideas which you have recently made with regard to lexicography and its rules? It’s rather you refusing to draw distinct conclusions. Admins are kind of supposed to make trouble to vandalism. Shouting labels like “troublemaker”, ”debaucher”, “racist” is not substantive, actually they are attracting to the persons so denoted because indicating that somebody has character and potential due to being kind of a freethinker. You would need to specifically show that he has qualities which likely entail his performing the job he is nominated to badly, not vaguely “calling out”. Fay Freak (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    But Fay, many of you have rejected good candidates on the basis of personality alone. Let me start there: PUC is neither nice nor impartial. He routinely makes nasty comments. He tried to con the rest of you into becoming an admin by nominating himself with a fake account. We need to shun people like that. I can already see how much he would abuse his authority. If you want to drive more people away from Wiktionary, make that man an admin. Why do you have a problem with labels? You, Fay, for example keep bringing up right wing talking points here on Wiktionary. For what reason, I don't know. If I called you a far right sympathiser, I would be accurate. PUC is a troublemaker. Call a spade a spade. — Dentonius 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    "[...]I can keep my personal feelings out of the matter", really? That would be a first. Look, this is starting to get ridiculous again. You're fully entitled to believe that PUC is unfit to have admin rights, but you invoked a really bad reason right off the bat – "This deletionist sockpuppeteer has no business being an admin.". Let me do you one better, Dentonius: you, as a disruptive user, with less than 6 months (!) of active participation, have no right nominating users at random to become admins and you definitely disqualify yourself from participating in votes based on your own inflammatory remarks and volatile actions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    Robbie! It's good to hear from you. Yes, you're absolutely correct. I am a disruptive user. But I recognise that I myself would be unfit for the role of administrator and I would never encourage anyone to nominate me to the position. I love this dictionary. It's helped my language development so much. There are things about Wiktionary which I'd love to change and this often leads to friction between the dominant clique here and me. I've been reprimanded for my views and I've changed my approach as best I can to be less disruptive. Now, when I tell you that a user who has raised all these red flags is undeserving, you should believe me. It takes one to know one. I can see that PUC would abuse that authority. This person has conned you, has trouble commiting to an account, is insulting to other users. Why make him an admin with all those red flags? I don't want to be an admin here so I am free to speak the truth. — Dentonius 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Dentonius: after our unpleasant exchanges of last year, I vowed never to interact with you again, and to simply ignore you, as I feel it will be more productive for the both of us and for everyone else too. I mean to keep it that way.
    Let me, however, make one last exception to this, as an attempt to clear the air. As I've apologised to Algrif for calling him an idiot, I apologise to you for calling you a troll and a toxic person. Though I still disagree with your ways and much of what you say, I shouldn't have written what I wrote to you, especially not under the guise of an IP.
    I will also respond to one particular item that you mentioned in your vote: I don't use any bot. As Fay Freak noted, I don't have the coding skills to write one. PUC – 13:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose Given all of the information that I have read about this user in the past couple of days, I do not think that this user would make a good administrator. Reading some of the past comments makes me think about a certain user who used to go by the name Opiaterein whose behavior mirrored some of the behvaior of this user. As such, I cannot support this user becoming an administrator. Please note that I do not wish to discuss my vote any further than I already have. Razorflame 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose Created an alt account within the last 2 years. DAVilla 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose Erratic. Unfit. --{{victar|talk}} 09:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Victar What exactly are the referent and the meaning of "erratic" here? That PUC changes names rather regularly and has or had a habit of using alt accounts is not news, but the use of alt accounts has decreased since the beginning of 2020 ("In her mouth" has been mentioned, and the declared alt "Anus Dei" was used this year). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    See: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-01/User:Per utramque cavernam for admin. --{{victar|talk}} 18:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. I disagree and think that a criterion against potential mental instability (in this case a de facto criterion rather than one that is codified) can have ableist effects, but I won't bother you further with this. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose I do think PUC is a good editor, but there are too many troubling incidents to look past at this time. I hope this vote motivates them to stay on the straight and narrow and doesn't discourage them from editing. Ultimateria (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ditto, and a name change to something that isn't sexist would be a good start (yeah, I don't want to hear "PUC could stand for anything", we all know what it stands for). --{{victar|talk}} 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose Great editor, but his past conduct makes me unwilling to support him. Languageseeker (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  11.   OpposeSaltmarsh. 06:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose --Akletos (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  13.   Oppose, largely because PUC clearly hasn't gained the community's trust, given the number of oppose votes. Sysop votes shouldn't be this controversial. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  14.   Oppose. He’s a good editor, but I do not want a sodomite & a mini-WF to become a sysop. @Barytonesis, if undoing vandalisms and moving pages is what you want, then you can ask for the rights individually for the time being. Switch over to a single, permanent account and have a respectful name, keep the good behaviour for 3-5 years, then I would be willing to   support you the next time you are nominated. -- inqilābī inqilāb·zinda·bād 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Are you merely ignorant of what the word sodomite means, or are you actually stupid enough to think that someone's sexual habits have any bearing on their ability to edit Wiktionary? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I obviously do not personally know any editors, but when someone mentions about sodomy (regardless of whether one actually is a sodomite; and for the record I called him sodomite sarcastically), it becomes a big thing, you know. -- inqilābī inqilāb·zinda·bād 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    I have to side with Metaknowledge on this one. Inqilabi, you chose an especially offensive term to describe this dedicated user, who should be able to edit freely without being subject to harsh words like these. I mean, really, mini-WF? What were you thinking? Oxlade2000 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    You can take “mini-WF” as a euphemism for a sockpuppet, LOL. -- inqilābī inqilāb·zinda·bād 20:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Inqilābī, that outspoken bigoted opinion is going to get you perma-blocked. --{{victar|talk}} 23:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Inqilābī Your comment is utterly reprehensible. Whatever you may think of PUC, you have no right to insult him or use a slur. I wish that I could give you a short ban as a warning so that you realize that such hateful conduct has no place here or anywhere. Languageseeker (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    A branch of nettles + naked buttocks = education a rude person :V Gnosandes (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    I am shocked to see so much ado about nothing. I only gave him a good advice, nothing else. Why this threatning behaviour towards me‽ Peace, folk, please! 🙏 You need not hate me if you must not take kindly to a few words that I utter. And a few of you have also said I deserve getting blocked for this wee matter. Please be not so childish. Your reactions are not beseeming either. -- inqilābī inqilāb·zinda·bād 15:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain Before voting I would ask supporters of admin nominations in general and this one in particular to address (1) the Peter principle, which says that good performance in one role does not justify promotion to the next higher role, (2) the principle of least privilege, which says that privileges should be given out based on need, rather than as rewards. Why does this nomination help Wiktionary? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Vox Sciurorum: Because I trust his judgment, based on the utterances I have observed from him, it’s not just good performance but the prognosis of good performance. I wasn’t ever thinking in such a simple scheme that good performance entails reward or similar. Fay Freak (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    On top of that, I think PUC merits the admin tools because he would use them, not because they are a prize or a symbol of promotion. He does revert vandalism; there are situations where it would be nice to move a page (without redirect), as he is very active in editing French entries; and he contributes to RFD, so the deletion tools also come in handy. These are three separate ways this nomination helps Wiktionary. Imetsia (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    As can be seen here (Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-01/User:Donnanz for admin), Imetsia is one of the less impressive admins. He tends to favour users who make plenty of RFD nominations, and I was criticised for being the reverse. I now have a policy of not supporting any RFD made by PUC; if I don't vote "Keep", I abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Bit on the fence here... The whole juvenile User:In her mouth thing (dude, why?) was embarrassingly recent and makes it difficult to really wholeheartedly support the nom. But I see no other real reason to refrain from supporting this time, pace the naysayers. The debacles that made me oppose last time are too long ago to really count anymore imo, and PUC is a pretty good editor who I think could use the tools. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain great editor, similar objections as above. – Jberkel 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Jberkel: These didn't seem to be concerns to you when you voted in the last admin vote. Why are they now? Especially when everyone seems to think that any worrying behaviors have gotten better with time if not been fully resolved. (This is a genuine question, by the way, even if it may come across as a bit rhetorical). Imetsia (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    I've changed my mind, based on their behaviour. I don't agree things got better. – Jberkel 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain Gnosandes (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Decision

No consensus, 15–14–5. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


BigDom for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate BigDom (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. BigDom is a diligent long-time editor who has worked on several European languages, including a few LDLs.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance:

  • Languages: en-n, pl-1, fr-1, cy-1, is-1, lb-1
  • Timezone: UTC+0.
I gratefully accept the nomination. BigDom 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support. You've been here for 11 years. You're a sysop on English Wikipedia. You're an autopatroller here. I haven't seen any evidence of your being unfair in RFD. Be kind to others. Keep contributing. — Dentonius 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support, of course. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support -- Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support. Experienced user, lots of edits. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support. I am amased to see the low support count, and the unusually high number of abstain votes. You abstainers—who have beshitted this vote page with the useless remarks, forbearing to acknowledge his worth—it is your fault you do not know him or have not interacted with him. -- inqilābī inqilāb·zinda·bād 19:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Could you lighten up? There's no need for that kind of language on an admin vote. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  1.   Abstain I don't know the user. And I can't judge his contributions because I don't speak Polish. Imetsia (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain. I don't really know why admin-ship is necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Somebody has to do the hard (unpaid) work of policing the server; preferably somebody who has lots of free time, who doesn't vote delete all the time in RFD, and who's fair and open to dialogue. It's a hard and thankless job. My respect to those who do it well and still have a normal life off the computer while doing it. — Dentonius 14:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    I meant for this particular user, who I have had no communication with. DonnanZ (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    I think there is a benefit in having good, reliable editors in less covered languages become admins. They can notice and evaluate problems and unattended administrative work more quickly than outsiders and deal with that efficiently. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain The edits are normal, but one does not see him voicing opinions, so I can’t tell what his judgement is. Fay Freak (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain BigDom is a good editor but hasn't reverted a single instance of vandalism in at least two months. @Dentonius this should be your number one factor in deciding who to nominate. Ultimateria (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Says who? If the person in question doesn't have any deal breakers, they'll get my support. A yes to any of these questions is a deal breaker: (1) Is the person unwilling to do the job? (2) Is s/he an asshole? (3) Is s/he a known RFD terrorist (votes delete most of the time)? (4) Is s/he incompetent? (5) Has the person been here for a short period of time? (I won't even consider anybody who has been here for less than a year). Any user can revert an edit and police the content so I don't care about admins doing that. Admins are useful for deleting pages and blocking users. A good user will grow into the role and use the admin tools wisely. I want an admin who knows how to talk to people and defuse situations, not some clown who blocks when his finger itches. — Dentonius 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Rather creative use of words there. I suppose we'll have to update our definitions at terrorist to accommodate whatever meaning of the word you're using. And here again is the ever-shifting "period-of-time requirement", from 5 years to 3 years and now just 1 year. Imetsia (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    "Is s/he a known RFD terrorist?[...]", you're edging ever so close to a lengthy block aren't you Dentonius? In what world is calling people this acceptable, regardless what your RFD agenda is?! I am really at a complete loss for words and I've seen and heard it all. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    The worst day of my life was when I witnessed a terrorist attack from 100 meters away. Chaos broke out and crowds were running in every direction. I didn't know if I would make it home alive. I'd appreciate you not trivializing that event. Ultimateria (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm gonna have to side with Dentonius on this one. Everyone can have their own reasons for supporting or not, Ult. It looks like Dentonius has his (IMHO perfectly reasonable) criteria too. Oxlade2000 (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    Besides point #3 (which is just Dentonius's preference) I agree, but as Dentonius says above "[s]omebody has to do the hard (unpaid) work of policing the server". It stands to reason that someone who never reverts vandalism isn't paying much attention to Recent changes and is unlikely to revert much vandalism or patrol many changes in the future. "A good user will grow into the role" is also true to an extent, but I'm skeptical that BigDom will dive in when they haven't shown any inclination to do so. I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong. And point taken, I should have said "should be an important factor". Ultimateria (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain don't remember interacting with them. – Jberkel 20:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Abstain: I also have no recollection of interacting with them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Decision


Moving Novial entries to the Appendix

Voting on: Moving all Novial entries from mainspace to Appendix space, e.g. chokolate#Novial to Appendix:Novial/chokolate. All Novial translations in mainspace would also be removed, but Novial could still be linked to in other contexts. Novial would also be moved from the “excluded except” list to the “should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace” list at WT:CFI#Constructed languages.

Rationale: Novial was devised by Otto Jespersen in 1928, barely used by anyone beside him, and then ceased to see regular use with his death in 1943. One person using a language for 15 years hardly seems deserving of mainspace inclusion. Furthermore, under the new CFI for appendix-only constructed languages, Novial entries would have a good chance of surviving if they get sent to RFV, whereas they would likely all be deleted under mainspace rules.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 23:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support. There has been at least one other prolific contributor in Novial since then, but that's still not a vibrant speaker community by a long shot. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Supportفين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 08:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   SupportThadh (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support. Ultimateria (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  9.   SupportDentonius 07:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  11.   Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Support --Droigheann (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  13.   Support 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  14.   Support Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  15.   Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  16.   Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I think that entries of all auxlangs that have an ISO 639-3 code should be allowed in Mainspace. Reason: Such auxlangs have the potential to establish their own Wiktionaries (Novial has its Wiktionary on Incubator). Moving the entries to Appendix would affect interwiki links. For example, chokolate would lose the potential to be linked to the potential Novial Wiktionary, on which chokolate is obviously a legitimate Mainspace entry. This would make our site less user friendly. Jonashtand (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    While that complication would indeed occur, Wiktionaries also have criteria for inclusion so that senses are attestable. It does not seem that Novial has very good chances of satisfying the criterion of three durable quotations per meaning. The result would be that many Novial entries would fail in RFV and that there will be very sparse coverage of Novial. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    ISO codes are also not what determines whether a language gets its own Wiktionary or not. Your hypothetical simply doesn't have much to do with how WMF actually works. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Moving Interlingue entries to the Appendix

Voting on: Moving all Interlingue (Occidental) entries from mainspace to Appendix space, e.g. poliedre#Interlingue to Appendix:Interlingue/poliedre. All Interlingue translations in mainspace would also be removed, but Interlingue could still be linked to in other contexts. Interlingue would also be moved from the “excluded except” list to the “should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace” list at WT:CFI#Constructed languages. Note: Interlingue is not to be confused with Interlingua, which is a separate language unaffected by this vote.

Rationale: Interlingue was devised by Edgar de Wahl in 1922, and saw some success (a regular magazine and a few books) in the 1930s, but was derailed by World War Two and supplanted by Interlingua in 1951, leading to a loss of most of its users. A language which flourished only for a couple decades and is now used by a handful of enthusiasts does not seem to merit inclusion in mainspace. Furthermore, under the new CFI for appendix-only constructed languages, Interlingue entries would have a good chance of surviving if they get sent to RFV, whereas they would likely almost all be deleted under mainspace rules.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support. For anyone who's curious, this is the last vote I intend to create on moving constructed languages to the appendix; the remaining languages on the list have my support to stay in mainspace. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support. Ultimateria (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support, but with disagreement with the major premise of the rationale. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Supportفين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Support --Droigheann (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Support Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  11.   SupportDentonius 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  13.   Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  14.   Support -- Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I think that entries of all auxlangs that have an ISO 639-3 code should be allowed in Mainspace. Reason: Such auxlangs have the potential to establish their own Wiktionaries (some already have, including Interlingue). Moving the entries to Appendix would affect interwiki links. For example, poliedre would lose the potential to be linked to the Interlingue Wiktionary, on which poliedre is obviously a legitimate Mainspace entry. This would make our site less user friendly. Jonashtand (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Decision


Expanding CFI for place names

Background: The Place names section of CFI is poorly organized and leaves many place names not explicitly allowed or disallowed. A great number of our entries for place names could be nominated for deletion and would have to be argued individually with little basis in current policy. Clearer criteria of which place names are allowed will allow us to enforce CFI more consistently and facilitate the RFD process.


Current CFI text:

Place names

The following place names should be included as long as they are attested:

  • The names of continents.
  • The names of seas and oceans.
  • The names of countries.
  • The names of areas or regions containing multiple countries (e.g., Middle East, Eurozone).
  • The names of primary administrative divisions (states, provinces, counties, etc).
  • The names of conurbations, cities, towns, villages and hamlets.
  • Districts of towns and cities (e.g., Fulham).
  • The names of inhabited islands and archipelagos.
  • The names of other significant natural geographic features (such as large deserts and major rivers).

The editors have not yet reached a consensus as to whether or not the names of places and geographic features other than those listed above should be included in Wiktionary. There is currently no definition of "significant natural geographic features", but by way of an example, the twenty largest lakes in the world by surface area would each qualify. It is hoped that the editors will develop criteria over time to provide greater clarity and address matters not currently covered (for example the names of streets, buildings, tunnels).[1][2]

References:


Proposed text:

Place names

The following place names shall be included if they fulfill attestation requirements:[1]

  • Land masses: continents, islands, archipelagos, etc.
  • Bodies of water: oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, waterfalls, etc.
  • Geological landforms and regions: mountains, hills, deserts, tectonic plates, etc.
  • Biomes that constitute geographical regions: forests, coral reefs, etc.
  • Cultural and geographical regions and dividing lines
  • Countries and their administrative divisions: states, provinces, counties, etc.
  • Human settlements: cities, towns, villages, etc.
  • Districts and neighborhoods of cities and towns

All place names not listed above shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements. Most manmade structures, including buildings, airports, ports, bridges, canals, dams, tunnels, individual roads and streets, as well as gardens, parks, and beaches may only be attested through figurative use. Figurative use refers to figurative language (e.g., simile, metaphor, metonymy) that makes reference to one or more of the place's characteristics. In the case of simile and metaphor, the definition should note the place's relevant characteristics.

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

References:


Rationale:

  • The allowed place names have been organized by category for clarity and to facilitate any future revisions. Examples are given, but the categories are left open-ended to allow more of our existing entries.
  • The figurative use requirement for other structures acts as a notability standard and ensures that place names not in the explicitly allowed categories will have lexical value.
  • The paragraph explaining unresolved issues is removed. The only unresolved issues that I foresee if the proposed text passes are celestial bodies and objects, which will be the subject of a future vote.
  • All reference to the "significance" of place names is removed. There is no agreed upon standard, and it would be difficult to agree on one in the first place. In practice, rivers, lakes, mountains, hills, etc. are included regardless of size or cultural notability, so I'm inferring that the community's preference is to include them all.
  • LDLs are exempt from the figurative use requirement because most are unlikely to produce even one figurative citation for structures significant to the speakers of these languages. Because of the little documentation available in these languages, there is little risk of anyone adding large numbers of unwanted place names, or place names that wouldn't be allowed in widely-documented languages.
  • The three links to project pages are removed. The first is essentially a personal sandbox page, and the other two are abandoned projects.


Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Ultimateria (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support. Ultimateria (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support. It's absurd that we continue to argue over individual entries at RFD, again and again and again. No policy solution is perfect, but this one matches what we want to include with a robust framework to eliminate the endless wrangling. I only hope that we can one day make the rest of CFI this clear and explicit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support, marked improvement. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Supportفين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 03:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  6.   SupportSGconlaw (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  7.   Support, indeed a great improvement, though I worry that the criteria for bodies of water may be too inclusionist. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Although not specifically mentioned, I hope it includes straits. It should also include gulfs and bays. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Donnanz The way I read the text is that it does include straits, gulfs and bays. I also think those should be included. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: So what do you consider to be "too inclusionist"? DonnanZ (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Donnanz Including small lakes, small waterways can get to a point where its actual utility appears to be low. There are a lot of those over here and I see little value in including very small bodies of water. There is even one large ditch in a neighbouring city that has an official name, it is called "stinking ditch". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Yeah, I tend to draw a line here, leaving out minor lakes, ponds, tarns, old gravel pits full of water, reservoirs, man-made lakes (although I mentioned Virginia Water as a town is named after it); what do you do with the likes of Lake Roxburgh, which is a reservoir for a power station? The Fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, also the Somerset Levels, are well provided with man-made drainage channels (as well as straightened rivers), but I'm in no hurry to include them. DonnanZ (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  8.   Support, although I have some reservations about the classification of figurative use. Editors may have to use their discretion here; named roads and streets, bridges, parks and beaches may lend their names to communities, ports are often a part of a settlement, although I included Teesport as I found a mention in a magazine. DonnanZ (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  9.   Support Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  10.   Support. Great step forward. Although we should still narrow the "countries and their administrative divisions" and "human settlements" some more in a future vote (an issue I raised some nine months ago). Imetsia (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  11.   SupportDentonius 10:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  12.   Support Seems sensible to me. BigDom 21:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  13.   Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  14.   Support -- Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose (weak) - too inclusive, in my opinion. Not clear about all possible multiword variants, inclusion of "the" and qualifiers, such as "river", "bridge", "school", "house", etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. With possible exceptions much stricter than those proposed, I   Oppose listing geographical entities whose definitions contain no non-geographical information. For example, I oppose listing a village in X with the definition "Village in X", or a district of town Y as "District of Y". This is nothing to do with a dictionary, but can be a separate project. Or, I should say, if the desire is to combine a language dictionary with a place-name or geographical dictionary, then why are there ANY restrictions? Mihia (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Entries can always be improved. Basic information can be expanded, including etymology and pronunciation, where not included already, and other links, including maps where available. I have attempted to do this with Woburn Sands. DonnanZ (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    By "non-geographical information", I mean in the definition. Thus, I oppose listing a "village in X" if the word does not mean anything except geographically, irrespective of ancillary information. While such information is of course in itself worthwhile and of interest, the question is whether it belongs in Wiktionary. Traditionally a language dictionary such as Wiktionary will include only very limited geographic entries. While there is no absolute reason why the two cannot be combined, a better solution IMO would be a dedicated geographical or place-name dictionary where there can be proper tailored support, especially map support. And again I ask, if the purpose or intention of Wiktionary is to be a geographical or place-name dictionary, in addition to a language dictionary, then why do we need these restrictions? Why do we not just say that we will allow all geographical names or place names? Mihia (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose as too inclusive. While it's tempting to say that these entries are harmless at worst, I can think of a few ways in which allowing the proliferation of low-value entries could hurt the project. One example is by adding a lot of noise to lists of derived/related terms. Looking at granite#Derived_terms, we currently list Granite County, Granite Falls, and Graniteville. Based on Granite (disambiguation)/Special:PrefixIndex/Granite and following the proposed criteria, that should be expanded to include Granite Island, Granite City, Granite Peak, Granite Bay, Granite Lake, Granite Basin Lake, Granite Belt, Granite Canon, Granite Canyon, Granite Chief, Granite City Township, Granite Creek, Granite Dells, Granite Falls Township, Granite Flat, Granite Harbour, Granite Hill, Granite Hills, Granite Hot Springs, Granite Knolls, Granite Ledge, Granite Mountain, Granite Mountains, Granite Pass, Granite Pillars, Granite Point, Granite Quarry, Granite Range, Granite Rock, Granite Shoals, Granite Springs, Granite Spur, Granite Township, Granite Vale, Granite Village, Granite Wash, Granite Wash Mountains, Granite Wash Pass.
But wait, those are just places that pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is not a necessary condition for us. So we mustn't forget to add Cape Granite, Granite Point, Granite Siding, Red Granite Mountain, Granite Gulch, Granite Quarry Cove, Red Granite Lake, White Granite Lake, Red Granite Point, Granite Brook, Granite Knob, Granite Glacier, Granite Narrows, Granite Pond, Granite Rock Pool, Granite Village Brook, Granite Lake Falls, Granite Run, South Granite Lake, North Granite Lake, Granite Lake Brook.
The latter list is just places from Canada, btw. Granted, I didn't verify that each one is attested, but give me some time and a library card and I'm sure I can find 3 mentions for most of them.
So that's a lot. Are we okay with 80% of the derived terms for an entry like granite being place names? Moreover, is it even correct to say that these are "terms derived from granite" in the same way that graniteware or granolith are? Aren't they more like things that are named after granite?
I think there absolutely is a place for place names here, but we need to consider the reader. CFI begins: A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. Something like Zipangu is a great example of this. It's an old name for Japan that writers and mapmakers centuries ago would have used routinely with the assumption that their readers would know what it referred to. Recording the many names that have been used historically to refer to major geographic entities seems totally on mission for a dictionary. If I wanted to learn more about Zipangu and related terms, I would totally turn to Wiktionary. On the other hand, there's a 0% chance that when I read "Red Granite Lake", I go to Wiktionary to look up the definition. Colin M (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain --DannyS712 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Interesting rewrite. I would like to note that "Bodies of water: oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, waterfalls, etc." seems potentially broader than before- I'm thinking of creeks, streams, ponds, gullies, etc. Also, under this rewrite, any island anywhere of any size or significance is included, right? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
@Geographyinitiative: Yes, as long as it's named. Ultimateria (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I would leave out ponds, as I mentioned above. A gully is a ravine or valley, which can have a watercourse in it. I do wonder about islands in rivers though, like Eel Pie Island, Inch Clutha, etc. I guess they are includable. DonnanZ (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment

  • This doesn't relate directly to the vote, but I am wondering whether we should make it a requirement, or at least encourage, editors to add coordinates (latitude and longitude) for all places for which we have entries. I think this could have the following benefits:
    • It might discourage editors from adding places that they do not know the coordinates of.
    • It would make geographic entries more useful. At the moment, a lot of such entries just say something along the lines of "a village/town/city in X".
    • It would help to improve the verifiability of entries, especially if a template is created that would enable readers to click on the coordinates and be taken to a map. (I believe the Wikimedia Commons already has something like this.)
SGconlaw (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Although not quite the same, I do add Ordnance Survey grid references for places in Great Britain and the Isle of Man. The Ordnance Survey in Ireland and Northern Ireland have a separate grid system, and publish their own series of 1:50,000 maps. I'm not averse to the idea, although I find coordinates cumbersome. DonnanZ (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The OS also publish coordinates, like here for Cambourne. DonnanZ (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Decision


Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: