Open main menu

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/2019-11/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-11/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-11/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2019-11/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2019-11/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2019-11/User: for bot status}}

Other

Admins, please periodically check for orphan votes at Wiktionary:Votes/

Look for votes and voting templates, including templates for creation of new votes:

Main sections of this page: #Current and new votes and #Proposed votes. See also /Timeline.

Current and new votes

Application of idiomaticity rules to hyphenated compounds

Voting on: Clarifying the application of CFI idiomaticity rules to hyphenated compounds.

Please vote separately on Option 1 and Option 2 in the respective sections below. Please vote on either or both. In the presumably unlikely event that both options pass, neither will be automatically implemented.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Mihia (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Option 1

Insert the following words into the "Idiomaticity" section of the CFI:

Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases. For example, wine-lover, green-haired, harsh-sounding and ex-teacher are all excluded as they mean no more than the sum of their parts, while green-fingered and good-looking are included as idiomatic.

Support

  1.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Support  --Lambiam 07:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Support Stelio (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Support. Canonicalization (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Support Equinox 00:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  6.   SupportSGconlaw (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weakly   Oppose- too strict a standard to document the natural state of the English language in a dictionary? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose At the very least, wording about how WT:COALMINE applies to hyphenated phrases too should be added to the proposal. However, I think that hyphenation, at least in English orthography, can often show that collocations have came to be perceived as unitary phrases to a sufficient degree that their inclusion is justified. Of course, this doesn't stop ad-hoc hyphenations from slipping in, but this may be able to be handled (e.g. by having higher attestation requirements for hyphenated phrases) and doesn't necessarily justify reducing hyphenated collocations from being reduced to the same status as unhyphenated ones. --Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Not a full rebuttal of your point, but a remark: the OED stopped distinguishing hyphens versus spaces in compound terms some years ago, IIRC. If there was consistent usage once, there isn't now. Equinox 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain for now as proposer. Good examples, including any noun-noun examples, of what you think might be lost by implementing this are welcomed from opposers. Mihia (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain FYI Some words have hyphens even they are not compounds nor idiomatic such as สุไหงโก-ลก and น้ำเป-ล่า, these are for reading aid. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue of whether this proposal applies in the same way to all languages is one that did actually occur to me, but specifically mentioning "English or English-like languages" seemed to me to be too obtrusive in a section that seems throughout to assume an English-like concept of words, word separation, and orthography generally. General clarification of the way in which various CFI rules should or should not apply to non-English-like languages seems to me to be a separate exercise. Mihia (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It would've gone a long way to exclude hyphens when they're solely used as reading aids. In Finnish for example, if the former component of a compound word ends in a vowel and the latter component begins with that same vowel, a hyphen is placed between them (like linja + auto > linja-auto). — surjection?〉 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Is your point that linja-auto would be excluded by the proposed wording, but it should not be excluded? Mihia (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I doubt linja-auto itself would be, but some other compounds that would pass without a hyphen (if they just had different sounds) might. The question of whether such compounds should be actually included willy-nilly just because they're one word is still an open matter, though. I've personally created those that I've either found in dictionaries, or are fairly common and at least somewhat opaque in meaning. — surjection?〉 06:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Decision

Option 2

Insert the following words into the "Idiomaticity" section of the CFI:

Hyphenated compounds are not subject to idiomaticity rules, and are included even if they mean no more than the sum of their parts. For example, wine-lover, green-haired, harsh-sounding and ex-teacher are all eligible for inclusion.

Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose, quite strongly. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose, although with the understanding that this entire vote would only concern English or languages where the hyphenation in compounds works similarly, which isn't the case for all languages. — surjection?〉 09:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. Canonicalization (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose. Mihia (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose. Imagine what Wonderfool would do with this. Equinox 00:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose.  --Lambiam 07:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose Stelio (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose with the proviso mentioned above by surjection. (For instance, in Scottish Gaelic "sgian-arain" is a breadknife but "sgian arain" would mean a knife made out of bread; "taigh beag" is simply an SOP meaning "little house", but "taigh-beag" means "water closet" &c&c.) -- Droigheann (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  10.   OpposeSGconlaw (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Qualifiers after terms in translation section

Voting on: Changing the use of {{qualifier}} in translation sections to always come after a term. This prevents the use of qualifiers to span multiple terms by affixing a ":" and helps keeping a common parsable format of the translation sections for external tools (e.g. Bilingual Dictionaries for Offline Use by Matthias).

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    I have rescheduled the vote from the original Oct 3 - Nov 1. — surjection?〉 08:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: So9q (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support: I'm all for having consistent standards, and the added clarity of avoiding multi-term spanning looks like good design. Literal translations also (rightly) come after the term; which comes first? Stelio (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, term first, then transliteration, then literal translation, then qualifier. You correctly assumed that anything spanning multiple terms is something I want to get rid of because it is very hard to parse.--So9q (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Support: This seems eminently sensible to me; at least off the top of my head, I can't devise any reasonable objections to this proposal. --Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Support. Perhaps {{t}} and related templates could also be updated along the lines of {{synonyms}} to allow for built-in qualifier parameters (|q1=, |q2=, etc.). — SGconlaw (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Support per above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Too simplistic. A single solution doesn't fit all situations. --{{victar|talk}} 06:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


CFI policy for foreign given names and surnames

Voting on: Whether the following section should be added under WT:CFI#Given and family names, after the section starting "For most given names and family names":

Foreign given names and surnames, as in given names and surnames that originate from other languages, are only considered attestable if either use as a given name or surname by native speakers (as passed onto their descendants) or immigrants undergoing language shift and keeping their given names or surnames in their original forms is attestable per the usual criteria for attestability in that given language, or if the name has a consistently used pronunciation or spelling (not including transliterations) that is markedly different from the source language.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: — surjection?〉 14:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support As proposer. — surjection?〉 07:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  2.   SupportSGconlaw (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Support--Makaokalani (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Support Stelio (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  6.   Support. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


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: