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. Once you have created your vote, add it to the list at Wiktionary:Votes/Active.


{{Wiktionary:Votes/2022-07/Title of vote}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-07/Title of vote}}


Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2022-07/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2022-07/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2022-07/User: for checkuser}}


{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2022-07/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
Jun 9FaCIAbook validationno consensus
Jun 10elfism validationpassed
Jun 11melanoheliophobia validationpassed
Jun 11sin flattening validationno consensus
Jun 11troid validationfailed
Jun 25creeper validationno consensus
Jul 19Attestation criteria for derogatory terms 14  13  1
Jul 20Disallowing typos as misspelling entries 17  2  1
Jul 28Updating CFI for names of organizations 2  13  0
(=9)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=139)

FaCIAbook

Voting on: Do we accept the provided citations for the term FaCIAbook?

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support We are supposed to be descriptionist, not prescriptionist. This is clearly in use. Kiwima (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support per Kiwima. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 02:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support This is a word that's clearly in use. Nothing more needs to be said. Binarystep (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support Clearly in widespread use. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support, but I agree with Sarilho and Vininn on that it could be resolved better on discussion pages. —Svārtava (t/u) • 13:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Support but only because I added archive URLs to the three independent cites using the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters. Archiving of websites is important, as sites fall off the web more quickly than you might think. At Wikipedia, where web sources are widely used, the archive links that are provided prove their worth time after time. While it's possible for content to disappear from the Wayback Machine too, it provides some measure of greater assurance that the citations won't all have disappeared after five years. I'm inclined to oppose these votes in future if no attempt is made to archive the online-only citations, although I'm open to discussion. This, that and the other (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Support, although this vote and its sibling votes are, in principle, wrongly created. We shouldn't have full-scale votes to gauge the verifiability of every single entry whose legitimacy is in question; this is an awful abuse of forum. (I'm bound by our prior vote and therefore can't oppose the concept of this type of voting in full, but I do think that the votes should at least be held elsewhere). Imetsia (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose - if the citations need a vote they are not good enough in my book. - TheDaveRoss 13:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose, the citations (sites) provided are too low-quality. I do find it funny to see the list of active votes ballooning into a list of active RFVs... well, I did say it'd be better to have actual policies like "reputable news sites are allowed" and not "vote on each word!"... - -sche (discuss) 15:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose, NOTICE: I have added four more Internet Archive cites. What should Wiktionary be? I think of it as a crowd-sourced version of mainline dictionaries, extended beyond their scope to rarer terms, with translations. But how far is too far; how open is too open?
    From a holistic standpoint, I think it just helps the credibility of Wiktionary as a mainstream dictionary to stick with the permanently recorded media (OCLC, DOI, & c.) for the coming decade at minimum unless there's some really valuable and legitimate term that just barely misses the mark or something. For instance, the loathsome and vile term "nigfant" has already met the basic numerical requirement for Usenet/OCLC, so it seems okay. But I don't need this "FaCIAbook" 'word'. The old rules were good and I don't have to accept just anything that can be cited via Internet Archive captures- that's the point of the 2 week discussion: you can choose not to accept. It's not about descriptivism versus prescriptivism, it's about maintaining a legitimate dictionary in the eyes of the readers. Any dictionary that includes this type of ephemeral slang word is likely not reputable to a normal person. This 'word' falls solidly into a class I would refer to as 'crazy shit' and is uncitable by the old standard; it would not be too much to speculate that the few six or ten conspiracy theorists that have used the 'word' are probable mental cases. Shall Wiktionary cite the walls of the asylum next, if they be captured into Internet Archive?
    Let me show you how crazy you are Wiktionary: a word like Citations:Gezlik, which is the official name of a minor populated place in Central Asia, fails because it was only used in one English langauge article ever (so far). That's a legitimate English language term, my friends, but it was kicked. Yet this sludge is going to pass? I have to believe, from a holistic standpoint, that this is not the behavior of a credible organization. I mean, I would take a one-citation article about a word backed up by a normative system of translation any day before I would take an entry for an unpronounceable joke-term. Humbug, I tell you; humbug! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)
  4.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain This should have been raised in a fora or a discussion page of the relevant pages. Pointless vote. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Do we really have to have votes regarding specific entries? I feel like this can and should be settled in a RFV. Furthermore, it's not even clear to me what are the consequences of this vote. Shall it superseded the discussion in RFV if voted for or down? To me, it looks like we are setting an unnecessary conflict in procedures. (This is the same message I left in Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/elfism validation). - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain This is a job for RFV. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

  • Vote fails. It was a dumb vote, anyway. Zumbacool (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    This should actually be a no consensus result. AG202 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I am in favor of descriptivism. I am in favor of the three cite rule. I am warming up to the two week discussion policy. But a conspiracy theory joke word that can't come close ("meet me halfway") to the hard durably-archived threshold is not yet appropriate for Wiktionary. If Internet Archive were to go under, Wiktionary would thereby become a junkyard of unverifiable dubious trash. If/when there are higher quality cites, or if/when Wiktionary is stronger as whole, this might be worthwhile. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The Internet Archive has been around longer than we have. It's not going to randomly disappear one day, and if it does, that's probably because the internet itself no longer exists. Even our "durably archived" sources won't necessarily be around forever. What happens if Google shuts down its Usenet archive, for example? They've already taken down several newsgroups (including alt.2600, alt.drugs, and alt.suicide.holiday).
That's not even getting into the number of rare books I could cite without any objection, even though they may be impossible to verify unless you personally own a copy. I have a book that's never been digitized, and whose title only returns 3 ghits. Right now, there is only one copy for sale online, and it appears to be a different edition that might not be identical to the one I have. Despite all of that, it'd still be an acceptable source according to our current policies. How is an obscure book more "durably archived" than the largest digital library ever created?
We can't guarantee anything will be permanently verifiable, so at some point, readers are gonna have to just trust that we did our research. The internet is no more temporary than anything else, and for the sake of our coverage, it's time we stop pretending otherwise. Binarystep (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC) {edited}

elfism validation

Voting on: Do we accept the provided citations as sufficient validation for the term elfism?

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Binarystep (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support, all senses clearly demonstrated to be in use. This, that and the other (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support I consider all 3 senses to be properly verified and archived but senses 1 and 3 unambiguously so. I support verifying sense 2 as well though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Elf (2003), Benson (2011), Epps (2013), and possibly VIPSEEN (2016) are durably archived. 70.172.194.25 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Qehath Which sense do you think is insufficiently cited? 70.172.194.25 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain Do we really have to have votes regarding specific entries? I feel like this can and should be settled in a RFV. Furthermore, it's not even clear to me what are the consequences of this vote. Shall it superseded the discussion in RFV if voted for or down? To me, it looks like we are setting an unnecessary conflict in procedures. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    These votes are in response to the second dot point at WT:CFI#Attestation: "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks". If you're unsure what this is all about, take a look at the FaCIAbook vote – a much clearer-cut case where no conventional durably-archived citations have been found. In that case it's unambiguous that if the vote were to not reach consensus, the RFV would fail and the entry would be deleted (unless another set of online-only sources were found and voted on, I suppose). Likewise, if that vote passes, the RFV will pass. The intention of using the "vote" system appears to be to gain wider input than is possible at WT:RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain per Sarilho. This should have been raised in a fora or a discussion page of the relevant pages. Pointless vote. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain per above. Seems weird to have votes like this... Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain Belongs in RFV, per Sarilhol. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Abstain AFAICT there are enough citations under each sense that meet the longstanding CFI that we don't even need to consider whether the internet sources meet the new addition to CFI: assuming the variation in the spelling of the movie citation is not an issue since it's spoken, there are 3+ books and magazines under senses 1 and 3, and there's a movie, journal and magazine under sense 2, so other than affirming "yep, books continue to count", I'm not sure what this vote accomplishes. - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

Passes 4-1-7 (80%). This, that and the other (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


melanoheliophobia validation

Voting on: Acceptance of quotes in support of the term melanoheliophobia

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support I think there is enough support, even though most of it is on Reddit or twitter. We do have two permanently archived quotes (Killers of the Cosmos and Omnidoxy), although the Omnidoxy quote is a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support. —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support. Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support there’s enough evidence for this word to scrape through from the archived tweets and Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/YouTube imo. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support. AG202 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain This vote is unconstitutional (I wanted to use this word really badly). Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Another unnecessary vote that is destroying the established procedures of RfV. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain This discussion should take place at RFV. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain some of those quotes (e.g. the Samsung phone ads, the "holes anywhere" person) are talking about trypophobia but I suppose theyre not all wrong and we can still get three cites out of this. Soap 18:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

Passes 5-1-5 (83%). This, that and the other (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


sin flattening validation

Voting on: Do we accept the citations for sin flattening as providing sufficient validation for this term as a hotword?

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support I support the support for sin flattening. These are fairly well-established blogs, for the most part. Kiwima (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose cheugy is an example of a former hot word (only passed the year-mark a month back) that is so spicy hot it has twenty-five cites, without lifting a finger. I don't get into hot words very often, but I would not use the proposed basis as the rationale for keeping this entry. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. Only the third quote is an actual use; the other quotes have the word followed by its definition. Apart from that I agree with the abstainers that votes are not the way to hold these discussions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain Another unnecessary vote that is destroying the established procedures of RfV. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain This discussion should take place at RFV. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

No consensus 3-3-3 (50%). This, that and the other (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


troid validation

Voting on: Do we accept the provided citations as sufficient support for the term troid?

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support We are supposed to be descriptionist, not prescriptionist. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Binarystep (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose for as long as:
    • the citation templates have not been filled out with enough bibliographic information, such as the subreddit and post title;
    • no |archiveurl= for the Wayback Machine or similar service has been included (see my vote comment at the "FaCIAbook" vote);
    • there is not enough context in the given quotes to demonstrate that they support the sense at hand.
    Yes I know I can fix these things myself, but I feel like I should make some noise and be a little bit annoying now, so I don't end up being the one on whose shoulders it falls to tidy these up for all eternity. Happy to support if these issues are addressed. This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose, per my statements on talk. - -sche (discuss) 14:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose, per This, that and the other. AG202 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain Another unnecessary vote that is destroying the established procedures of RfV. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain This discussion should take place at RFV. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

Fails 2-4-3 (33%). This, that and the other (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


creeper validation

Voting on: Do we want to accept the twitter citations in support of the definition "something that explodes violently and unexpectedly" for creeper?

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwima, Whoop whoop pull up I am restarting the time on this vote, as it was never listed on WT:V. This, that and the other (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Should we update the timestamps on our votes to accord with the updated start date? (Also, did you remember to update the end date to account for the change in the start date?) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Whoop whoop pull up I did update the end date; these votes run for 2 weeks. Up to you as to whether you want to update the timestamp. This, that and the other (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I've just updated mine; no idea what Kiwima wants to do with theirs. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 23:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support Uses are all on Twitter, but there is a very large number of them. Kiwima (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    As I noted on the talk page of this vote, none of the citations are actually using the word "creeper" to refer to "something that explodes violently and unexpectedly" (other than the actual enemy). They are just comparing those things to the enemies using similes ("like a creeper"). You can also find results on Twitter for "green like a creeper", but I don't think that justifies adding a subsense "something green". 70.172.194.25 22:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Extensive, clearly contextualised use on Twitter is demonstrated over a period of several years. What more could we want? This, that and the other (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support AG202 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support: widespread use. --Svartava (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support Of course this term only appears in metaphors or similes as there aren’t any things I know of IRL that are black, white and green and that chase you before they explode! Clearly attested though. Will the detractors only be happy accepting this as a word if it takes on a different but related meaning? For example a bomb, pursuer or angry person? Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Overlordnat1 Read the OP carefully. This vote is not for sense 17: "A mottled black, white and green enemy in the video game Minecraft, which attacks the player by chasing them and exploding.". I have no issue with that. It is rather for sense 17.1: "Something that explodes violently and unexpectedly."
    None of the existing quotes support sense 17.1, i.e. that the word "creeper" is used for something that explodes other than the Minecraft enemy.
    As another example, if I found a quotation of someone saying "the scarf was as fluffy as a rabbit", that does not support adding a new definition to rabbit of "something fluffy". Because it's clearly just comparing the scarf to a rabbit in the sense of the animal, which happens to be fluffy.
    An example of a hypothetical sentence that would constitute support for sense 17.1 as distinct from sense 17: "After inserting Mentos, the bottle of soda was a total creeper!" But that's not how the word is actually used. 70.172.194.25 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    @70.172.194.25 It basically says at the top of this voting page that we’re voting on sense 17.1, which I oppose, but the tagged sense is the valid sense 17 (which I support) and I’m voting on that basis. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Support Binarystep (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose, and Kiwima should be banned from starting votes. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 03:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I don't doubt this could be a real sense that's in use, but none of the cites demonstrate it. Similes can be created using any term; this doesn't mean we should have a sense for every characteristic of an item being used for comparison. All of those cites are for sense 17, not 17.1. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 20:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose - TheDaveRoss 16:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose per 70's well-articulated objections to sense 17.1. Sense 17 is clearly attested by the cites, but the wording of this vote contradicts the placement of the RFV. This kind of thing is why RFV decisions should not be made through votes: if this passess, which sense has passed RFV? Winthrop23 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Kiwima are you able to clarify here? This, that and the other (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    The RFV applies to both 17 and 17.1. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, I see the problem:
    • the cites on Citations:creeper are all under a heading claiming that they support sense 17.1, and
    • the top of this vote says "something that explodes violently and unexpectedly", which is the wording of sense 17.1, but...
    • sense 17 has the RFV tag, so we should be voting on 17, even though it doesn't have any citations!
    I bear some of the responsibility for this confusion, as I (re)started the vote without checking it over first... This, that and the other (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: Another problem with these votes is that it seems the entry is kept even if the validation has failed (see FaCIAbook, RFV-passed after the vote ended). Did I misunderstand the point of validation (i.e., whether the entry is kept)? J3133 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    It looks like an oversight, but I didn't have anything to do with that one. This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose Mainly because “Twitter”⁇ ‑‑Kai Burghardt (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain This discussion should be taking place at RFV, not here. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 23:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain Stop making votes for this. Resolve it in RFV. This is a gross misuse of the format. Vininn126 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain Cnilep (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

No consensus 6-5-5 (56%). This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


Attestation criteria for derogatory terms

Voting on: Updating WT:ATTEST regarding the attestation criteria for derogatory terms.

It is proposed that WT:ATTEST be updated by adding one of the following options as a new subsection 1.2.5. The text in option 2 that differs from option 1 is underlined.

Option 1

If a term is derogatory to an individual, group of persons, or geographical location, it must have at least three quotations satisfying these requirements added to it within:

  • two weeks of the term being created, or if this period has passed,
  • two weeks of the term being nominated for deletion or verification.

Otherwise, it may be speedily deleted after that period.

A term is considered derogatory if it is apparently intended to:

  • denigrate a named individual in any way; or
  • denigrate an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or with the use of a demeaning or obscene term.

The speedy deletion of a term is without prejudice to its re-creation if the attestation requirements can be satisfied as described above.

Option 2

If a term is derogatory to an individual, group of persons, or geographical location, it must have at least three quotations satisfying these requirements added to it within:

  • two weeks of the term being created, or if this period has passed,
  • two weeks of the term being nominated for deletion or verification.

Otherwise, it may be speedily deleted after that period.

In addition, the quotations must be from two or more different sources. For this purpose, a particular website (for example, Reddit, Twitter, or Usenet) is considered as one source.

A term is considered derogatory if it is apparently intended to:

  • denigrate a named individual in any way; or
  • denigrate an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or with the use of a demeaning or obscene term.

The speedy deletion of a term is without prejudice to its re-creation if the attestation requirements can be satisfied as described above.

Rationale for the proposal

From time to time, large numbers of derogatory terms are created, usually by anonymous editors. Recent examples of such derogatory terms include Apefrican, Buttswana, criminigger, cumskinned, faggotface, jaboon, koala fucker, Mexicunt, negro fatigue, nigdar, Norgay, piss drinker, Porntugal, San Fransicko, suspook, teenaper, Turd World, Vladimir Pootin, and West Undies. These terms create the following problems:

  • It is hard to tell whether such terms are genuine or hoaxes.
  • The editors who create such terms are essentially pushing the task of verifying these terms to other editors. We are not the Urban Dictionary. The proposal discourages editors from adding derogatory terms unless they are willing to put in the effort of ensuring the terms are attested.
  • Due to the dubious nature of these terms, they are rightly challenged at RFD or RFV. However, this clutters up these fora, and uses up the time and effort of editors in discussing and verifying the entries which could be used more productively.
  • Arguably, the reputation of the project as a whole is lowered by the presence of such terms. There is no particular benefit in having many unattested derogatory terms; only those which are properly attested within a short period of time deserve to remain.

Please note the following:

  • The proposal does not seek to ban derogatory terms from the Dictionary. Terms which are properly attested will remain in the Dictionary.
  • The proposal applies only to derogatory terms as defined above. It does not seek to require all terms to be attested by at least three quotations within two weeks of creation or nomination at RFD or RFV.
  • Option 2 is stricter than option 1, because it requires the quotations in an entry to be from two or more different sources. Since for this purpose each website (for example, Reddit, Twitter, or Usenet) is considered as one source, a term would be insufficiently attested by, say, three quotations from Usenet; at least one quotation would have to originate from another source.

Instructions for editors

  • If supporting the proposal, it is suggested that you vote either for option 1 or option 2, not both. However, if you do not mind either option you may vote for both of them. The rules below will apply to the result of the vote.
  • If opposing the proposal, editors can oppose both options.
  • If there is sufficient consensus for both options, the option with, in the first place, more “support” votes and, if there is a tie, fewer “oppose” votes, succeeds.
  • If both options have sufficient consensus and have been supported and opposed by exactly the same number of votes each, option 2 succeeds.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussions:

Option 1

Support

  1.   Support as the proposer. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support. I agree that we should cut down on the amount of slurs being added by anonymous trolls, but deleting valid entries isn't the solution. Binarystep (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support Actori incumbit onus probandi, and in our case to the adder. I furthermore support extending this policy to any class of entries clogging up RfV (as happened with certain constructed languages before they were banned to the appendix). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    ...your rationale being? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Support Reasonable move, and also don't mind if this makes creation of a certain group of terms stricter (as also this won't really have much bearing on their inclusion criteria anyway). —Svārtava (talk) • 11:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Support I was considering option 2 before, but now I feel like the extra requirement of that is not something I want tbh. I agree with the reasoning in a discussion below "Wiktionary's job is to document language, not to control it. [] you're proposing that we remove CFI-compliant terms solely because of their offensiveness, which would be a major overstep on our part." User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  8.   Support Benwing2 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  9.   Support. Not that I think derogatory terms are special, I just think that speedy-deleting junk is a good idea. Thadh (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose We already have a mechanism for dealing with this. It's called RfV. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Yes, and there is little point to be that butthurt about someone collecting words on the internet that one would have to tighten the rules—hey, is this denigrating something? I don’t know, shan’t care, have already outlined in the linked discussions that there is an infinite number of edge cases which you will have to quibble about. Instead of collecting lists of that which conforms the science but not your taste, the editors should quit bikeshedding and look at the regular words which are ill-defined. We are reminded of those people complaining about powerlifters performing not pretty enough in spite of following the sport by the letter – finish your sets, bro! Plus it has been left utterly unaddressed why this has to apply to other languages than English where there is yet a lot (of common slurs) to add and there isn’t the same community of anger-makers on the internet, in spite of me mentioning this. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose The argument of reducing unnecessary labour is tempting but not tempting enough to go against our descriptivist principle. Some things are worth labouring for. brittletheories (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain As the vote continues on, my opinion may change, but I don't feel like this does enough. All of the terms in question did end up being cited within two weeks because they were nominated at RFV and ended up being found anywhere on Usenet, even though they were added by people who joined just to add offensive terms. There will always be editors here who will focus on citing these terms no matter who adds them or where they're found. So this proposal wouldn't have done anything to prevent them being kept, hence why I suggested the multiple source addendum. However, for now, it's better than nothing, which is why I'm not opposing it. AG202 (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

Support

  1.   Support as the proposer. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Take a look at the terms that went through RFV and the cites for them. They are by and large nonce offensive words created in one place to denigrate people that never spread out anywhere else except in those vile spaces. Should we really be giving them a platform to grow even more? I would hope not. Whether we like it or not, Wiktionary has had effects on the world around us, whether small or large, and just like other major dictionaries, we have our own standards that we can update as we see fit, and as such, this should be a welcome change to make sure that the quality of our entries and the effect that we have do not go on a negative path. And thus, as the one that came up with that portion of the proposal, I strongly support requiring that those terms be cited on more than one source so that we make sure that we're aligning with offensive terms that actually have currency. We obviously won't "end racism" with the more aggressive verification of these terms, but we can be more aware of the real-life negative effects that this project can have. I will also paste part of my comment in Beer Parlour: "[…] This is the sixth conversation, at the very least, about this issue, and I've listened and talked with so many people and changed my proposal and approach so many times, but [not much] seems to be changing, which is really unfortunate. There was a conversation that I read from two years ago about the image that we want to give our users and fellow editors, and I think that it's something that really needs to be taken into consideration. We have so so so so many policies about which words can and cannot be included at WT:CFI, but when it comes to offensive nonce terms that were made in the pits of the most vile, white supremacist places, but did not make it out of them, we're all of a sudden hesitant to require that they be cited a bit more aggressively, and honestly it hasn't sent the best message. It's truly sad and disappointing to me that there's more energy and time and resources being spent on preserving and debating words like Apefrican and Darky Cuntinent than getting words from actual African languages on here. Our coverage on them is so paltry, though I've been able to get more Yorùbá editors on here and increase coverage significantly, and I wish that instead of lengthy RFD, RFV, and Beer Parlour discussions on preserving words that were only used a few times in the most racist spaces, we could actually spend time on preserving some of our most impacted and endangered languages, which is why I joined this community in the first place. However, the longer I've been here, the less welcome I've felt." This statement still rings true now, unfortunately, as in related discussions I've had my own and others' experiences belittled and pushed aside in favor of preserving these terms, most of which are used to target our own community, even when I've tried to make compromises, which is truly evident of why we desperately need a change now. AG202 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    Wiktionary's job is to document language, not to control it. As I said in BP, you're proposing that we remove CFI-compliant terms solely because of their offensiveness, which would be a major overstep on our part. Some of your comments also seem to suggest that these terms are being protected for the sake of defending racism, which is a gross mischaracterization of the issue at hand. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but your last sentence especially seems to imply that these slurs are being endorsed by Wiktionary editors, something which I don't believe to be the case (with the exception of IPs who exclusively add slurs).
    We have so so so so many policies about which words can and cannot be included at WT:CFI, but when it comes to offensive nonce terms that were made in the pits of the most vile, white supremacist places, but did not make it out of them, we're all of a sudden hesitant to require that they be cited a bit more aggressively, and honestly it hasn't sent the best message.
    As I pointed out before, what you're suggesting would be a drastic change to how our CFI works. Yes, we discriminate against certain words, but we do so for linguistic reasons (unattestability, SOP-ness, lack of use outside fiction), not because the words themselves are morally objectionable. What you're proposing is censorship, something which is explicitly forbidden by WT:NOT. Wiktionary's mission statement is to include all words in all languages, and while that goal has been harmed by our policies in the past, that's no reason to make the situation even worse. I believe we should strive to be the most accurate dictionary possible, and that means documenting all aspects of a given language, including the parts we'd be better off without. As for your point about endangered languages, I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion. Our decision to include offensive words in English has no bearing on whether other languages are well-documented. There's no reason why we can't document Yoruba while still acknowledging the harmful words that exist in English.
    Regarding your comments about Wiktionary's impact, I still have yet to see any evidence that these obscure slurs have gained widespread popularity due to our coverage of them. In my experience, racists are more likely to just call me the N-word outright than dig through Category:English ethnic slurs until they stumble upon our entry for rockfish. And to be honest, even if those terms did somehow increase in popularity, I don't see how it changes much. Regardless of whether someone uses an obscure slur or a well-known one, the underlying racist attack still exists. Being called a dindu nuffin doesn't feel any better than being called a gutter ape. Additionally, and most importantly, acknowledging that a word exists isn't the same thing as advocating for its usage. I'm aware that some racists may interpret our coverage as endorsement and feel good about themselves as a result, but that's their fault for failing to understand what a dictionary is. Binarystep (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    Binarystep, unfortunately, I'm not looking at continuing this again. I don't have the energy or capacity to go through another fruitless discussion, and I had hoped you'd realized that based on the last one. And yes, we have had the issue of editors endorsing slurs and purposefully adding links to Neo-Nazi websites. That's all I will be responding to here. For anyone else, you can go read the very very very long Beer Parlour discussion. AG202 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    You still have yet to address most of the points I brought up, including my most recent one, which is that your proposal directly contradicts WT:NOT's claim that Wiktionary isn't censored. If we have a problem with racist editors using Wiktionary as a means of promoting neo-Nazi propaganda, the solution is to ban the editors in question. Our job as a dictionary is to provide factual information, which should never be censored under any circumstances. What you're suggesting would be equivalent to Wikipedia deleting its articles for notable racist movements/websites/pundits out of fear that simply mentioning them will cause them to grow in popularity.
    Additionally, though I know this wasn't your goal, your proposal paves the way for future prescriptivist policy changes. Who's to say someone won't make a good case for banning obscure vulgarities or sexual slang? After all, one could argue that, much like the Usenet-exclusive slurs you wish to censor, such terms worsen our public image and make us more like Urban Dictionary. I also refer you to the various attempts to ban fandom slang, which have failed primarily because our CFI allows us to document any word as long as it's used in "durably archived" sources. Once we start making exceptions and allowing entries to be deleted for non-linguistic reasons, it becomes much easier to justify removing terms for being "too niche". Binarystep (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    What part of "I don't want to continue this" do you not understand?! I wish that you'd at least respect that, since we're not going to convince one another, hence why I mostly left your oppose vote alone. I'll also copy-paste what I said in Beer Parlour here, "I've already addressed the other points to my satisfaction multiple times, and unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever be able to explain myself to your own satisfaction", which still rings very true. No amount of explanations on my part will ever convince you, and that's fine, and that's why I'm fine with you voting oppose. And I'll direct other folks to what @WordyAndNerdy said as well about censorship in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/June. And I was the one who's brought up attempts to ban fandom slang at the RFD everypony and TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS ALREADY, so I am well aware of it. I truly do not want this to flood and obscure this page like we did with Beer Parlour, and if you reply again in an attempt to get me to reply to certain points on the proposal, I will collapse it or make it small text. I'm tired. AG202 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    If you seriously don't want to continue the conversation, then just ignore it. It's quite rude to demand someone doesn't answer you just because you don't want to counteract the arguments that are being made. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    My point was that I already had replied to the arguments made, you can go look at the very, very long Beer Parlour discussion for that, it went in circles and circles and flooded the space. And if we want to get into rudeness, we can certainly get into that some more elsewhere, as I'm not a fan of certain behaviors that have been expressed to me in crafting this proposal over the past few months. It bothers me to ignore it, because it makes it seem like I haven't responded to certain points or that I've ignored their points, when in fact I entertained them for so long already, hence why I keep directing folks to Beer Parlour. AG202 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support I see this as comparable to the heightened scrutiny for biographies of living people on WP: like BLP, these are a magnate for trolls and vandals, and so IMO it's reasonable to make sure we're dealing with legit terms. If it takes 6 mos to delete a spurious synonym for toothpaste, little harm is done, but these hoaxes are intended to cause harm. I think an exemption should be made for old slurs, but we can deal with that if it ever becomes a problem. kwami (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   SupportTibidibi (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   SupportFish bowl (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Support Benwing2 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose We shouldn't hold certain words to a higher standard than the rest. If a word exists, we should document it, and that includes offensive terms. The fact that a word is morally objectionable doesn't justify our pretending it doesn't exist. Whether we like it or not, these are real words that people have used, and pretending otherwise isn't going to make the world or Wiktionary any better. Our decision to include these terms doesn't mean that we're endorsing their usage or declaring our support of racist ideology. Our job as a descriptivist dictionary is to document language as it is, not as it should be. The fact that these terms are abhorrent is ultimately irrelevant to our stated purpose of documenting "all words in all languages", as such a goal necessitates the inclusion of offensive and reprehensible terms. According to WT:NOT, Wiktionary is not censored, and it should stay that way. Binarystep (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC) (edited)
    (vote hasn't started yet) AG202 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, didn't notice that. My bad. Binarystep (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    On its face, I agree with this view and I will likely vote this way. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    Note the following statement under “Rationale for this proposal”: “The proposal does not seek to ban derogatory terms from the Dictionary. Terms which are properly attested will remain in the Dictionary.” — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone's claiming that this proposal aims to ban all derogatory terms. Option 2 would, however, ban certain derogatory terms despite them being properly attested, for the explicit purpose of censoring the dictionary. Binarystep (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    For other folks reading this vote, see the conversation at Beer Parlour for more on the "censoring" point. AG202 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose The same set of attestation criteria should apply to every inclusion-worthy term in a language. I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of treating entire websites as a single source for the purposes of WT:ATTEST, but I think that, if introduced, this rule should apply equally to all terms. From a lexicographical point of view, there is no particular difference between a derogatory term that was only ever used on Usenet by 3 people and a non-derogatory term that was only ever used on Usenet by 3 people. This, that and the other (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other I actually had considered that, but then I heard the points about fandom terms from folks like @Whoop whoop pull up & @WordyAndNerdy, and I wouldn't feel comfortable deleting harmless fandom words that are only documented on Usenet. AG202 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @AG202 Out of curiosity, when did I talk about that? That's not a topic I recall having made points on. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Whoop whoop pull up I think I may have accidentally mixed you up with someone else, apologies. @Lingo Bingo Dingo is whom I meant to tag. AG202 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @AG202 No harm done. :-P Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose as a confluence of the following arguments:
    • Having different attestation requirements for different words based on their semantic content is a non-starter. If we find exactly three Usenet posts saying "This person is a friendly simbyona." and another three saying "This person is a dirty kursayto." (with the context elucidating the meaning in each case) then the first one is, in the eyes of Wiktionary, supposed to be a word whereas the second one is not? There is absolutely no ontological difference between the terms.
    • The reputation of the project is hurt more if we impose stricter attestation requirements based on derogatoriness. Granted, we probably include more derogatory words than most serious dictionaries. Further granted, this does hurt our reputation in the eyes of the average person somewhat (not saying this is how it should be, but it descriptively is). However, being known for implementing inconsistent inclusion criteria based on words' derogatoriness is a worse reputation than having too many derogatory words, not least because for a dictionary, it is generally worse to have too few words than it is to have too many.
    • Nonceness is of no relevance. I personally have no doubt that some of the rare racial slur blends have been independently invented by separate users (i.e. the users have not heard nor read the term prior to using it) but I would take the same position regarding rare -ly, un-, re-, -er, -ness etc. constructions (e.g. intouchedness). This is of no concern because our mission is to document usage and to provide a reference with which to understand and analyze used language, not to venture into purely speculative inquiries into what may or may not belong to the lexical corpus of a language.
    • The proposal asks that derogatory terms be cited on at least two different websites. The issue is that currently no internet forum apart from Usenet is permitted as a source. The way I read it, even if a derogatory term can be found on Usenet, Reddit, and Twitter, it still would fail RFV because only the Usenet citations would count per WT:ATTEST. In essence, derogatory terms that can only be found on the internet will all be excluded, except if in the future the community comes to an agreement about how and which internet sources to allow. Even so, accepting the current proposal requires blind faith that we eventually fix WT:ATTEST in the forseeable future; however, this faith is misplaced.
    I have two more arguments but I decided to end it here because this has already gotten too long. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Fytcha To your last point, it's not just websites, it's sources in general. For example n*ggerness was cited in print, so it'd be kept regardless. And to your Reddit/Twitter point, that's still being figured out and there've been terms kept post-that change, see melanoheliophobia, that were primarily cited on Twitter & Reddit. And I could definitely see Wiktionary as a whole voting to keep these offensive terms if they were solely cited on Usenet, Twitter, and Reddit anyways. And so, as one of the people who fought for that change to WT:ATTEST, it's just a bit frustrating to see that mentioned here. This hasn't been blind nor misplaced faith if we have direct examples of the opposite of what you've mentioned happening. AG202 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    @AG202: Yes, that last point was not worded well, apologies. For derogatory internet-only terms it is two websites, which currently means having to pass a (RFV) vote. This is a strong counter-argument not only considering that some seem to oppose non-durably archived sources no matter what (which would cause these terms to fail even if they have three durably archived Usenet quotations) but also because it will be very hard for such votes to be held neutrally and fairly (we are essentially talking about the most offensive words possible). For some, it is understandably an emotional topic, whereas others don't want to have wrong conclusions being drawn from their support to keep such words. I would be shocked if this vote passing won't lead to most of the derogatory internet-only terms being deleted in the long run, no matter how frequently they're being used outside Usenet. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    Considering how Darky C*ntinent passed RFD and some of the rhetoric I've received in going through these proposals, I'd actually be surprised if they struck down offensive terms like that, but I do see your concern. Personally, I still am very iffy on some Usenet quotes in general since some are from 2021, but that's another conversation for another time. AG202 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose per Binarystep, This, that and the other, and Fytcha. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose per all of the above. We should not hold terms to different attestation standards based on their subjective classification as "derogatory" or "not derogatory." Imetsia (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose as I wrote below the other option. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose as this would prevent offensive words that have wide use on only one platform being able to be included. This would reduce the usefulness of Wiktionary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose I don't think there should be stricter attestation criteria for derogatory and/or offensive entries. -- 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose Anyone can find anything derogatory and I don’t think such terms should be held to a higher standard anyway. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose This goes against our principle of descriptivism and, along with it, our main goals. Attestability alone should decide. brittletheories (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose I think site-specific slang, however offensive, still counts as part of "all words in all languages". Thadh (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Comment: was leaning towards supporting initially, but it's true this would cause a bit of inconsistency as the opposers point out. I don't oppose it if we set the requirement to disallow all Usenet-only words and requiring another independent source other than Usenet for citing such terms. —Svārtava (talk) • 11:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Svartava2 I've considered this, see: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/February § Increasing the number of citations required for Usenet and updating CFI; however, it got considerable opposition there and I agree that it would limit fandom slang which is harmless. And so, I thought that this would be the compromise and was told to put this to a vote since it'd have "enough" support (surprisingly they haven't voted yet), but it seems like we were a bit too naïve to think that anything significant would change on this front for this website, though I can't say I'm surprised considering the environment. AG202 (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Decision

  • Option 1:
  • Option 2:

Disallowing typos as misspelling entries

Voting on: Changing WT:CFI#Spellings as follows:

Current text:

Spellings

Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings:[1] Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included.[2] There is no simple hard and fast rule, particularly in English, for determining whether a particular spelling is “correct”. Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard, as can statistics concerning the prevalence of various forms.

Most simple typos are much rarer than the most frequent spellings. Some words, however, are frequently misspelled. For example, occurred is often spelled with only one c or only one r, but only occurred is considered correct.

It is important to remember that most languages, including English, do not have an academy to establish rules of usage, and thus may be prone to uncertain spellings. This problem is less frequent, though not unknown, in languages such as Spanish where spelling may have legal support in some countries.

Regional or historical variations are not misspellings. For example, there are well-known differences between British and American spelling. A spelling considered incorrect in one region may not occur at all in another, and may even dominate in yet another.

Combining characters (like this) should exist as main-namespace redirects to their non-combining forms (like this) if the latter exist.[3]

Proposed text:

Spellings

All attested spellings except for some misspellings (see below for more) should be included on Wiktionary. There is no simple hard and fast rule, particularly in English, for determining which category (correct spellings, misspellings, variant spellings) a specific spelling belongs to. Published dictionaries, grammars, style guides, and statistics can be useful guides in this regard but they are not necessarily binding.

Misspellings

Only common misspellings should be included.[1] For example, occurence with one r is a common misspelling of occurrence. This also applies to intentional misspellings.

Typos are words whose spelling comes about by an accident of typing or type-setting, without the intention of the writer. Typos should not be included, not even if they are relatively frequent. When a misspelling only differs from a correct spelling by one character, especially if the alternate characters are adjacent on the keyboard layout that the writer has likely used, this is a good indication that the misspelling may be a typo. Typos can often also be recognized as such by the fact that the term also occurs in the correct spelling in the same work. Conversely, when an author consistently uses a misspelled form, it is a sign that the misspelling is not merely a typo.

Variant spellings

Regional or historical variations are not misspellings. For example, in English, there are well-known differences between British and American spelling, such as color (US) versus colour (UK). Both should be included. And musick, now archaic, was once the most common way to spell music. A spelling considered incorrect in one region may not occur at all in another, and may even dominate in yet another.

Combining characters

Combining characters (like the combining acute accent) should exist as main-namespace redirects to their non-combining forms (like the plain acute accent) if the latter exist.[2]

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support as the proposer. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support  --Lambiam 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support sounds like a good idea, and that some typo entries will be axed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Strong support - I like establishing the precedent that it is the intention of the writer that matters. The one part that I don't agree with is the section on how to deal with combining characters, but it is the same as the status quo so I won't take issue with it here. Theknightwho (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  6.   SupportSgconlaw (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Support Equinox 16:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  8.   SupportGranger (talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  9.   Support Numberguy6 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  10.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  11.   Support In practice, they mostly don't survive RFD. —Svārtava (talk) • 04:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  12.   Support. PUC – 12:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  13.   Support. Pablussky (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  14.   Support. There are an open-ended number of typos. Not beneficial IMO to try to include them. BTW, in the talk leading up to this vote, about "scannos", scanned docs may be copy-pasted into new documents, with the scannos retained. (I just fixed a bunch on WS.) Hopefully we either won't use such docs, or will exclude the scannos as typos.
    And yes, the sectioning makes this guideline much easier to follow. kwami (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  15.   Support Benwing2 (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  16.   Support, and would like all misspellings out of the main namespace. Thank you ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 09:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Deliberate misspellings and very common errors should be kept, I think. Theknightwho (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  17.   Support brittletheories (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  18.   SupportFenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose One, the main reason we include entries for misspellings at all is to help people search for the correct spelling (as reflected by the guidance in WT:Misspellings); this is as useful for frequent typos as it is for the ordinary sort of misspelling. Two, although the author of a typo may well know what they intended to type, this does not necessarily hold true for the reader, especially for shorter words or non-native speakers (the latter may well not be able to recognize that [typo] is a typo of [non-typo] rather than a correct spelling and typing of a slightly-different word, even if [non-typo] occurs frequently in the same passage as [typo]); when this is the case, including entries for frequent typos allows the reader to know what word the author meant to type (and potentially even that the author meant to type something different from what they actually typed). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 18:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Whoop whoop pull up: If you search for "ciaplatin" on Wiktionary and then click on either of the search engines names where it says Or, try searching the site using Google, DuckDuckGo, it will show the desired entry as the first result. I don't think it is realistic to posit that, in the case of somebody looking up a typo on Wiktionary to no avail, the thought of using a search engine will at no point cross their mind. And further, while I acknowledge that we are hereby relying on third parties, the solution is to finally fix the horrible MediaWiki search function to allow for this kind of fuzziness, not to include and maintain an unbounded number of non-words. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    Fuzziness is possible in MediaWiki searches. Searching [word]~n will give results with up to n changed characters. Theknightwho (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
    The template {{misspelling}} has been created specifically for this purpose. For example, if a user searches for naxalone, they will see the result naloxone with the clarification “Sometimes misspelled naxalone”. This allows us to enable searching also for less frequent misspellings (or frequent typos) without turning them into an entry.  --Lambiam 22:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    That isn’t the kind of misspelling we are looking to exclude. In fact, that is precisely the kind of misspelling we want to include. Theknightwho (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose per User:Whoop whoop pull up. Old Man Consequences (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

  1.   Abstain for now. Apologies for not bringing this up earlier, but "not even if they are relatively frequent." confuses me a bit as wouldn't common/frequent typos become general misspellings? Maybe I'm lost on that part. AG202 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    @AG202: No, frequency is not relevant when discriminating between typos and non-typo misspellings. What matter is whether the typist's intention aligns with what is found in the work: if they intended to write complete but by an accident the work then contained cojplete, that is a typo; if they intended to write occurence and then the work also contained that, that is a misspelling. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    If it can be shown that these common uses are no longer typos – such as by the fact that several writers use them consistently – they have become common misspellings. But misspellings that arise by accident, such as fat finger errors, remain typos. A good example is the very frequent misspelling errror.[1] There is no way the authors meant to type this, and it just survived the proof reading, so this is clearly a typographical terrror not worthy of inclusion.  --Lambiam 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment I am not sure how to vote. If a misspelling occurs with significant abundance before 1873 and QWERTY, would that be a disproof of typo status? See Citations:aqcuire where I am assembling a few cites, including one (so far) from 1795. I will look for more from before 1873. Also, on the basis of the cites I found, I took the liberty of making aqcuire a redirect page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: Typos have also occurred in typeset texts but the nature of the typo is generally different (typeset has relatively more missing letters, typewriter has relatively more transpositions). I want to point out however that at least the Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the Century citation that you've provided is almost certainly a typo as the typist used the incorrect qc form only once whereas they used the correct cq form over 5 times. I also want to add Talk:aqcuire was deleted mainly because it doesn't appear to be a common misspelling, a clause that will be left untouched by this vote. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    The same holds for the other citations. The book by Rollin has eight occurrences of acquire next to a single one of aqcuire. The railroad article has Acquire in the title, and many occurrences of acquisition. The typo in the Kokoschka letter was almost certainly introduced by the typesetter; compare the text on p. 15 here. Even if mistyped by the artist himself, the letter has two occurrences of acquainted.  --Lambiam 09:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I oppose disallowing typos (see my vote above for why), I do support subsectioning and reformatting the current version of the misspelling CFI in a manner similar to that in the proposal. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 18:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm a bit late to the party, but how should one determine what the intent of an author was when a language's corpus is relatively small? I currently work with a language that has a complete corpus of approximately 30 books, most of which are re-written in a newer orthography (so, the actual number of original texts is around 16), and that's a pretty large corpus when compared to languages worldwide. Seems like intent would be quite difficult to define in such circumstances... Thadh (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Decision


Updating CFI for names of organizations

Voting on: Banning the creation of most full names of organizations[nb 1][nb 2] by updating WT:CFI.

Proposed text:

Organization names

Shortcut:
WT:ORG

Full names of organizations are mostly not included as entries. However, there are a few exceptions:

  1. The following lexicalized terms are specially exempted from deletion:
    1. The following full international organization names: United Nations (along with its synonym United Nations Organization/United Nations Organisation) and League of Nations, as well as their translations in all languages.
    2. Names of political parties that are generic names for multiple political parties. Examples include Conservative Party, Labour Party, Labor Party, Liberal Party, Ba'ath Party, Left Front, and their translations in other languages. However, if the translations of these political parties are deemed nonlexicalized, they can be nominated for deletion at WT:RFDN on a case-by-case basis.
  2. Figurative senses of full organization names can still be included if they meet the attestation requirement.

On the other hand, the following categories of terms are allowed as entries:

  1. All shortenings (abbreviations, acronyms, clippings, initialisms, pseudo-acronyms, etc.) of full organization names, as well as any other nicknames or metonymic synonyms of organization names.
  2. Jocular or pejorative variants of full organization names.

Rationale:

  1. Full/official names of organizations (e.g., Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Order of Friars Minor, Ku Klux Klan, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, Nation of Islam, צבא הגנה לישראל, European Union, Greenpeace, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Commonwealth of Independent States) are not supposed to be dictionary material given their zero lexicographical worth; and as such they belong in our sister encyclopedia project, Wikipedia.
  2. As a dictionary, we already have entries for shortenings such as abbreviations (Antifa, Nazi), acronyms (NORDEFCO, AFRICOM), clippings (Arab League, Friars Minor), initialisms (WTO, AITUC), etc. of any names of organizations, because they are lexicalized; these entries not only contain the full organization name in their definition or etymology, but also have a link to the Wikipedia article.
  3. Moreover, because such entries are properly categorized, any duplication caused by the existence of the nonlexicographical proper nouns is redundant and undesirable, as well as problematic due to erroneous or creative translations.

Further reading:

1965, Philip B. Gove, The Nonlexical and the Encyclopedic, page 110:
Names of organizations, social, fraternal, religious, academic, etc., will be omitted (Phi Beta Kappa, Boy Scouts of America, Ku Klux Klan, Carnegie Foundation, Federal Farm Loan Board, Royal Academy)

Notes:

  1. ^ Applies to all languages.
  2. ^ The following types of terms are not considered organization names and thus are beyond the scope of this vote:
    1. Names of tribal/ethnic confederations (Ekiti-Parapọ), or confederations of historical polities (Assuwa).
    2. Company and brand names.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 29 June, 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 04:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

  1.   Support. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support, though I feel there should be some criteria for determining why United Nations and League of Nations are exempted from the rule, as this may then be applied to other organizations. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    I exempted the United Nations and the League of Nations from deletion because they are/were (the only) international organizations representing the whole world, in contrast to the countless number of smaller regional orgs. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    How does that change the lexicographical worth of those terms? - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    They’re way more significant, so better to include them. And if you want me to define ‘significance’, you can consider the fact that there are pro-EU and Euroskeptic countries (the latter can choose to quit the EU), while the same isn’t true of the United Nations. There’s hardly anything special about ‘European Union’ that it should merit a dictionary entry. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    That's not a argument for inclusion nor is your definition of 'significance' relevant. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose. See my comments at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2022-06/Updating_CFI_for_names_of_organizations. While I appreciate the update to include Èkìtì-Parapọ̀ and similar groups, the proposal is still vague and confusing, as for example Republican Party failed RFD, but yet parties are able to be created here? We have a ton of flexibility with place names at WT:CFI, but yet European Union, African Union, and Commonwealth of Independent States would be deleted under this new policy? I can get wanting to limit entries like British Broadcasting Corporation or Soviet Armed Forces that are much more limited in scope, but deleting the entry of a union that almost acts like its own country (it has its own legislature) and has its own pseudo-geographical borders while wanting to keep general party names does not feel right, especially with our current place name guidance. AG202 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    As you said, these international organizations have pseudo-geographical borders: they do not even have all states as member, either because of the unwillingness to join/admit, or due to suspension. They are not placenames, they are organizations. Keeping full names of them is unbecoming of a dictionary, and we already have our sister encyclopedia project for them. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    Schengen Area is a geographical area and looking at WT:CFI again, it does seem like this conflicts with this line: "Cultural and geographical regions and dividing lines", but yeah, there are a lot of things that we include that'd be "unbecoming of a dictionary", like I don't think any other major dictionary includes fandom names or almost every place name imaginable (neighborhoods of any city or village that you can think of!), let alone the whole offensive term debacle. While I agree that some of these are more encyclopedic than others, I don't think that deleting things like European Union is the hill to die on when the website is so freeing in many many other areas. AG202 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think fandom names are not lexicographical material; all toponyms on the planet are dictionary material (and we already have a policy on placenames!); any offensive terms are certainly lexicalized (whether editors or readers want to have them or not is a different issue). But those have no bearing on the current discussion about organizations. Yes, Schengen Area / Schengenland are entry-worthy, but certainly not the organization that it’s associated with. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    I was quoting the CFI policy on place names to show how freeing it is. It would be very strange to delete European Union while keeping any neighborhood possible. AG202 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. I feel like this proposal is unclear or redundant and it doesn't establish a proper policy on how to evaluate terms. Furthermore, it uses vague terms like "zero lexicographical worth", that just open a Pandora box of different interpretations. The special exceptions are particularly confusing, since it's not even clear why United Nations is lexicalized, but say European Union is not. The discussion in the talk page didn't clarify these points either, so I can only imagine that this will devolve in a WT:RFD debate over if the terms constitute WT:SOP. I don't get what is the rationale to keep names of political parties, seems just another arbitrary exception. Finally, as a side note, I believe there is a strong argument to delete political organizations that don't denote place names like United States of America, Russian Federation, French Republic, etc., if this proposal passes with the current wording. I'm personally fine with that, but I feel like this point should be taken into account before casting a vote. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    It should be noted that the official/formal names of countries such as Qing Empire, Republic of China, People's Republic of China are synonyms of a placename (China), and aren’t organizations. Similarly, United States of America is a country name, and Russian Federation is the official name of modern Russia. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree with that note. They aren't synonymous with place names. The place names are the ones that also hold the sense of a political organization, thus by this definition they should be deleted and only the geographical sense should be kept. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Wrong. A pure geographical sense is generally rare, and placenames that are substantially big (barring names of continents) denote names of random territories and polities. China, India, Egypt, etc. has had various definitions throughout history, and today they are synonymous with the polity ruling these lands (parts thereof, or beyond). (And remember, there are two Chinas at present! — the ROC and the PRC.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if pure geographical senses are rare or not. The point is that the senses that should be kept, in accordance with WT:CFI's PLACENAME are the geographical senses. The formal names that point to the political organization that controls the territory ought to be removed. The fact that this proposal doesn't address that is very disappointing. It just sets half of the policy (and with many unreasonable exceptions) and I believe that to be more harmful than setting no policy at all. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    Well, we can decide about formal names of countries later. This vote has already been criticized for being too broad. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    I would add my own note, namely, that the text "zero lexicographical worth" is part of the rationale. We only vote on the proposed policy text; the rationale is merely there to try and convince us. This, that and the other (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. Policies should contain administrable, principled standards. Rather than saying that particular individual entries are expressly exempted, it is better to derive a principle as to why we permit them. (Sgconlaw and Sarilho1 make similar points above). In this case, we should permit organization names if they act as discrete lexical units. That's an actual principle that can be applied and interpreted in future RFD discussions. Substituting arbitrary judgments for actual legislation is a bad idea, as the "non-permanently-archived" vote illustrates. Imetsia (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    The exceptions are well-defined, and not arbitrary. Nevertheless, do you want me to elaborate further? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    The exceptions are well-defined, but the reasons for the exceptions are not. - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    We already keep generic names for political parties that contain the relevant senses. The 2 US political parties were RFD-deleted coz they were stub entries. And keeping the only 2 true international organizations doesn’t make any difference. The main objective of this vote is obvious, and there is no need to oppose it because you happen to have one or two minor objections (minor things can always be amended in the future if the community wishes: so no need to thwart this proposal). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose per my arguments on talk. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 04:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose as already expressed by others. Imetsia captures the downside quite well. I think CFI needs a section on organisations, but I would only vote for it if it were not so prescriptive. This, that and the other (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    So what kind of section on organizations would you prefer? Opposing a vote for some (allegedly) minor issues doesn’t help to improve the project. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    I was quite favourable towards the text that was proposed at the very beginning - namely, that organisation names are generally not included, but exceptions may be made case-by-case at RFD. I didn't think a lot more needed to be said. After the discussions on the talk page, I can now see value in a certain level of additional guidance, but writing into CFI that specific terms are explicitly allowed or disallowed is a step too far for me. This, that and the other (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    You were opposed to the proposal right from the beginning. At first the proposal was criticized for not being specific, and now it’s the opposite. I’m clueless. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose expressed by me at the discussion page. Inqilābī has attempted and failed to present a reasonable rule distilled from the inconsistent past voting behaviour of editors, and a bad rule can be worse than whim. Fay Freak (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    This is merely your misguided opinion. I’ve added an additional reading (“The Nonlexical and the Encyclopedic”) so that you can have a better understanding on what a dictionary is supposed to be. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose The relevant points have mostly been brought up. Terms like British Broadcasting Corporation should go while ones like European Union should stay. Until better differential diagnostic procedures are proposed, I will oppose. Further, I plain like the translation hubs on some of the entries. brittletheories (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose Numberguy6 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose Disastrously formulated. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose didn't read the text but got unwelcome canvassing via email. idk why? oh well —Fish bowl (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, I invited you to participate in the vote. I don’t understand why it is ‘canvassing’. This isn’t the first time I asked you to participate, anyways. Sorry for bothering you. However, thanks for voting! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose Just more stupid rules about proper nouns which should all be deleted. DTLHS (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose I'm sorry that, having solicited my input, its creator will find I'm not supportive, but while I appreciate the attempt to implement some rules here... as others have said, this isn't a good formulation, e.g. keeping League of Nations and United Nations Organization but not European Union, keeping political parties even though they are no more lexicographically interesting than companies (there must also be company names which have applied to more than one company, especially if they're generic like Standard Steel, yet I see no reason to keep that or something as transparent as "Labour Party") and they have accordingly often been deleted at RFD (so this would undelete a bunch of previously deleted organization names?). Perhaps in discussion we might come up with some better guidelines, or perhaps inability to decide on any means we'll just continue to let RFD sort it out til someone gets troll-y / POINT-y [like the people creating lots of slurs] and creates a ton of these... - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  13.   OpposeFenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Proposed votes

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

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

Forthcoming votes:

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: