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/2020-07/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-07/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-07/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2020-07/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2020-07/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2020-07/User: for bot status}}


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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
Jul 9Citation formatting guidelines 16  11  3
Jul 12User:Surjection for bureaucrat 23  0  1
Jul 13User:Aryamanbot for bot status 8  0  0
Jul 26Changes to usage of Template:also 1  9  0
Jul 27Sign language entry names22 (10 people)
Jul 31Use of "eye dialect" label29 (11 people)
(=6)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=104)

Citation formatting guidelines

Voting on: Adding the following guidelines to Wiktionary:Citations#How to format quotations:

  1. Cite book titles without their subtitles.
    • Persuasion, not Persuasion: A Novel
    • Psudodoxia Epidemica, not Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents, and Commonly Presumed Truths
  2. Do not cite chapter titles.
    • "Partition II, Section II, chapter 3", not "‘Ayre Rectified. With a Digression of the Ayre.’, Partition II, Section II, chapter 3"
  3. Although the citation year should show the earliest known date of the citation (typically the year of the first edition), other publication details should only reflect the edition actually being cited.
    • i.e. do not record a separate title, publisher etc. of the first edition unless you're quoting from it.
  4. Printing location, publisher and publication date should be given, but not their addresses or connecting prose such as "printed for".
    • "London: J. Johnson 1791", not "Printed for Joseph Johnson, 72 St Paul's Churchyard"
  5. Date of cited edition should be given, but not other descriptive details.
    • There is no need to say that something is a "Newly enlarged and corrected edition".

(Slightly adapted from the Beer Parlour discussion – point 2 was removed as it didn't seem to have consensus.)

Some examples of the kind of thing the vote is trying to reduce:

    • 1646, Thomas Browne, “Of Some Others”, in Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents, and Commonly Presumed Truths, London: Printed for Tho. Harper for Edvvard Dod, OCLC 838860010; Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents, and Commonly Presumed Truths. [], 2nd corrected and much enlarged edition, London: Printed by A. Miller, for Edw[ard] Dod and Nath. Ekins, [], 1650, OCLC 152706203, (please specify |book=1 to 7), page 152:
      Much wonder is made of the Boramez, that ſtrange plant-animall or vegetable Lamb of Tartary, which Wolves delight to feed on....
    • 1577, Socrates Scholasticus [i.e., Socrates of Constantinople], “Constantinus the Emperour Summoneth the Nicene Councell, it was Held at Nicæa a Citie of Bythnia for the Debatinge of the Controuersie about the Feast of Easter, and the Rootinge out of the Heresie of Arius”, in Eusebius Pamphilus; Socrates Scholasticus; Evagrius Scholasticus; Dorotheus; Meredith Hanmer, transl., The Avncient Ecclesiasticall Histories of the First Six Hundred Yeares after Christ, Wrytten in the Greeke Tongue by Three Learned Historiographers, Eusebius, Socrates, and Euagrius. [...], book I (The First Booke of the Ecclesiasticall Historye of Socrates Scholasticvs), imprinted at London: By Thomas Vautroullier dwelling in the Blackefriers by Ludgate, OCLC 55193813, page 225:
      [VV]e are able with playne demonſtration to proue, and vvith reaſon to perſvvade that in tymes paſt our fayth vvas alike, that then vve preached thinges correſpondent vnto the forme of faith already published of vs, ſo that none in this behalfe can repyne or gaynesay vs.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Ƿidsiþ 11:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)



  1.   Support as proposer. Ƿidsiþ 05:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support My responses: — SGconlaw (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Support point 1 in part: long subtitles can be hidden using {{nb...}}, but I think it is acceptable to provide fairly short subtitles in full.
    • Support point 3 if I am correct in understanding that it does not call for the 1st edition's publication date to be stated if it cannot be ascertained whether the text quoted from a later edition appears in the 1st edition.
    • Support point 4 in part: I generally agree; additional information can be hidden using {{nb...}}. However, if the publisher is not known and only the printer's name is available, I think it is bibliographic practice to indicate that the name given is that of a printer rather than the publisher (e.g., "Printed by [...]" or "[...], printer", depending on the actual imprint statement).
    • Support point 5.
    @Sgconlaw: I don't think it makes any sense to support a point "in part"; without knowing whether other people support your emendation to that point, you are effectively not voting on the same thing as everyone else is. If I close this vote, I will count all points with {{support}} as being supported, regardless of whether they are claimed to be in part or not. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I see. In that case it looks like I have to change all the qualified "supports" to "opposes". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  4.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support points 1 and 3-5. As for point 2, I mostly support it, except in cases where there is no chapter number, where chapter numbers exist only in some editions of the book, or where inclusion of the chapter name would aid in finding the quotation (such as if the chapters were only numbered within the text and not in the table of contents). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: I think you mean point 2? — SGconlaw (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed. I've corrected it...thanks for catching that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Support point 1. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support points 1, 3 & 4. I'm in agreement with Andrew Sheedy on point 2, which I support with his provisos. --Uisleach (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Support points 3, 4 and 5. – Einstein2 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Support points 1, 2, 3 and 5 and thank you very much for the vote. The Sgconlaw style of citations is something that frustrates me to no end. The citation identification has to be subordinate to lexicographical purpose and therefore minimized; the quoted passage itself must play the prime role. I know of no dictionary that uses the Sgconlaw style of citations, nor do I know of any other type of source that uses that style of citation. I further submit that the Sgconlaw style of citations does not represent a long-term practice used by multiple editors and is not status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Support points 2, 3, 4, and 5 NativeNames (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  12.   Support all points SemperBlotto (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  13.   Support wholesale. I'm not sure what the current state of the wikicite project is, and they seem to be mostly focussed on scientific publishing, but something to keep in mind, it could be a place to keep hyperdetailed information about editions etc. – Jberkel 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  14.   Support 1, 2, 3, and 5. Note that I also support 4 but only as a reduction of excess information that is currently present (as it drops "addresses or connecting prose"); I often omit and would not mandate adding things like "printing location [and] publisher". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    (Yes, that's actually what I had in mind. But fair enough, the wording wasn't the best. Ƿidsiþ 07:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC))
  15.   Support as long as it is guidelines that can be deviated from if necessary. (F.ex. if chapters are not numbered and only named, chapter names rather than numbers should obviously be allowed.) MuDavid (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  16.   Support points 3 and 4. The information is little more than clutter.​—msh210 (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose My responses: — SGconlaw (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose point 1 in part: I think it is acceptable to provide fairly short subtitles in full. Long subtitles can be hidden using {{nb...}}.
    • Oppose point 2.
    • Oppose point 3 because it tries to provide a blanket rule which is difficult to apply. In some cases, a later edition of a work is essentially a reproduction of the 1st edition with no change in the text (e.g., a paperback version of an earlier hardcover, which is common for modern novels). In this case, I think it's fine to indicate the date of the 1st edition and the date of the actual edition being cited. However, in other cases the later edition differs substantially from the 1st edition. In that case, I think the 1st edition date should not be given at all, unless it is known for certain that the passage quoted is identical in both works. For older works, when the 1st edition is not readily available, this may be difficult to ascertain.
    • Oppose point 4 in part: Additional information can be hidden using {{nb...}}. However, if the publisher is not known and only the printer's name is available, I think it is bibliographic practice to indicate that the name given is that of a printer rather than the publisher (e.g., "Printed by [...]" or "[...], printer", depending on the actual imprint statement).
    @Sgconlaw I don't think that's what the vote is trying to accomplish. In fact, I think the wording as it stands is tailored to address your concerns. Hence, the "earliest known date of the citation" is "typically the year of the first edition" but not always. The earliest known date might be the later edition that the editor is using. So there is no need for the 1st edition to be readily available. I'm not sure what concerns you about this particular point. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy: OK, I see. I'll amend my vote on this point. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Sgconlaw As for "I think it is bibliographic practice to indicate that the name given is that of a printer rather than the publisher", can you please provide some resources that use that bibliographic practice? And do you know of a dictionary that uses that bibliographic practice for their quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose all except point 4. To point 2: Did the author even think that a chapter may be easier to find by title and chapter numberings may differ (or be unnumbered)? To point 5: Maybe there is need and it is informative, depends on the descriptive details; the example is a strawman. To point 3: For more obscure works publication details of the first edition may be helpful. While I do not generally use any of them I do not generally agree to ban all. And this still does not adress the formatting of translations quoted. I affirm that the amount of information given in the Alastair quote at stier is good. Fay Freak (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose point 2. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose point 5. Extra information is a widecast net and it seems hasty to ban it totally. --Uisleach (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose points 1 and 2. – Einstein2 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose point 1 in part per User:Sgconlaw. For a long title followed by a long subtitle, fine; but for a short and likely ambiguous title with a short subtitle, keep both parts. bd2412 T 19:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    @BD2412: Would not any ambiguity of title be resolved by the provided year and the author? That is, could there be two publications in the same year by the same author with the same title, differing only in subtitle? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    While that is not unheard of (particularly with volumes of a series), perhaps the thing that really does it for me is that for titles like Persuasion versus Persuasion: A Novel, the shorter one just sounds less complete. Perhaps we could impose a distinction based on the number of words in the title and the subtitle (e.g., a three word main title with a four or five word subtitle is okay, but a four word main title gets no subtitle, or a two word main title with an eight word subtitle gets cut off at the main title). bd2412 T 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @BD2412: Thank you. I don't think "Emma" by Jane Austen is incomplete; I don't think it has to be "Emma: A Novel. In Three Volumes." or "Emma: A Novel." And I don't think there is the slightest chance of misidentification if we only say "Emma", provided we state the author and the year. Do you know of any sources, whether dictionaries or other kinds of sources, that use these kinds of subtitles to refer to works? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    I have never been impressed with the implication that we should impose the kinds of limitations on ourselves that other dictionaries have carried over from the time when they were limited to printing on paper. bd2412 T 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose point 4, "Printing location, publisher and publication date should be given, [...]", since I do not think that information should be given but rather I think it can be omitted when other information suffices for identification, and it is preferable to omit location and publisher. In general, the year, the author and the title suffice for work identification. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose point 1 Subtitle is still part of the title. NativeNames (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    @NativeNames: Do we need "Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents, and Commonly Presumed Truth" rather than "Pseudodoxia Epidemica" and why? Do you know of a dictionary that uses this kind of quotation identification? Or, on a similar note, should we use "On the Origin of Species" or "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: The point of an encyclopedia is to compile knowledge. As such it matters to be accurate. There are only so many words in the English language too, I worry for the time where, even if one-in-a-million, titles without an ISBN overlap due to this hypothetical reform. Not to mention, we have {{nb...}} for this exact reason. NativeNames (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @NativeNames: This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It compiles knowledge about words, not about quotations. Providing subtitle is not a matter of accuracy. Since each quotation has a year number and usually an author, overlap of titles is not a problem, and furthermore, this vote does not propose to forbid ISBN. As for {{nb...}}, it can be used for a varienty of different purposes so its exact reason is not to allow hiding of long subtitles. Do you know of a dictionary that uses this kind of quotation identification? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Dan Polanksy You misunderstand what I meant. I'm not saying ISBN is meant to be dissolved with this vote. My vote still stands and I still believe a subtitle should be included. NativeNames (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    The point is that the post to which I responded contains incorrect arguments, viz. this is not an encyclopedia, etc. I do not understand what is meant by "I worry for the time where, even if one-in-a-million, titles without an ISBN overlap due to this hypothetical reform" in so far as that is supposed to be an argument in support of anything; an elucidation would be welcome. Maybe someone who understands your argument (which I am not) could try to rephrase it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose points 1, 2, and 5. I can imagine circumstances in which this info can be needed to pin down which publication is meant. I especially strongly oppose point 2 because there are unnumbered chapters in many works.​—msh210 (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose point 1. Many books have identical or similar titles, and subtitles can be useful for disambiguation. Subtitles can also communicate helpful contextual information about a term or its usage. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose points 1 and 2. Per WordyAndNerdy's rationale for point 1 and Msh210 's rationale for point 2. If exceptions exist, particularly for point 2, they should be more clearly designated and stated.
      Comment I hold a view similar to DTLHS overall. Specifically, I believe that this vote's results should be tabled for future reference and another vote should be created after this one closes that discusses what the technical implementation looks like, whether that is how templates should be change or if something like using {{nb...}} should be used. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain points 3-5. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Does not address any actual structural concerns with entries or templates. I think this information should be retained. I also think it probably should not be shown in entries but rather on the template documentation page, or displayed optionally with some other technical solution. Therefore I feel this vote is misguided. DTLHS (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain. I don't think I am falling foul of any of the above points, but some of the examples given probably include more detail than is really necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


User:Surjection for bureaucrat

Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Surjection as a local English Wiktionary Bureaucrat.

Rationale on why we need a new bureaucrat: We have 7 bureaucrats, but only 2 are consistently active, and they sometimes ignore pings; in the case of Chuck Entz, he is also a checkuser and thus has an extra demand on his editing time. Recently, a bot vote went 15 days without action after being closed, despite those 2 active bureaucrats being pinged.

Rationale on why Surjection is a good choice: He is a trustworthy, careful, and conscientious admin. He monitors votes, frequently patrols recent changes, and relevant to the issues raised above, is very active and responsive.


  • Vote starts: 18:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Acceptance: — surjection??〉 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


  1.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support SemperBlotto (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support Equinox 23:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 21:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Support Very needed. --{{victar|talk}} 21:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  11.   Support Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  12.   Support bd2412 T 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  13.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  14.   Support PseudoSkull (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  15.   Support J3133 (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  16.   SupportSGconlaw (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  17.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  18.   SupportMnemosientje (t · c) 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  19.   Support - Hölderlin2019 (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  20.   SupportEru·tuon 06:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  21.   Support --Ultimateria (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  22.   SupportAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 03:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  23.   Support PUC – 09:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)



  1.   Abstain - DonnanZ (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


User:Aryamanbot for bot status

Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:Aryamanbot for the following purposes:

Basic (so far) maintenance of South Asian language entries and other simple tasks. In the future this would include entry normalization (so mostly formatting fixes), automatically adding references to online databases and updating inflection tables, that kind of thing. I am interested in some semi-automated entry additions but that would be from my main account.
Currently hoping to move/edit all the inc-oas pages to reflect the name change from "Old Assamese" to "Early Assamese".
See the vast collection (just kidding, it's a few page moves) of all of my edits at Special:Contributions/Aryamanbot.




  1.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support PUC – 09:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support SemperBlotto (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)




Changes to usage of Template:also

  • Proposal: Always use
    Appendix:Variation of "[word]"
    as the argument of Template:also, as opposed to only using it when there are many variations.
  • Rationale: This will make it easier for editors to add variations, as instead of having to go around all the pages adding the variations, there will simply be one obvious page that can be linked to. To add a new variation, it must only be added on that page, as opposed to all the pages. There will also be more consistency regarding the order of the variations.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Numberguy6 (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)



  1.   Support Numberguy6 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. Terrible idea with no prior discussion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose First, it would be Appendix:Variations of "[word]". Second, it would require someone to write a bunch of variations appendices that don't exist yet. Third, it would be absurd to write such appendices with only two or three entries, such as Appendix:Variations of "dictionary" that would contain only dictionary and Dictionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Per Mahāgaja and Μετάknowledge. I may have approved of some formal regulation around this template however—especially regarding upper limits of terms and specific ordering. Prior discussion is very important. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 13:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose. I can see the use of trying to simplify and/or standardize the variations of words and the process by which they are added, but I don't think this will help. --Uisleach (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose per all of the above. Imetsia (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose ummm. new phone, who dis? --{{victar|talk}} 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose. A bad idea where there are only two or three variants. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose. To be fair, Template:also forms can be annoying to constantly update every time you create a new entry. What we need is constant updating of every page on the wiki with an active bot, as is done with the anagrams. Not sure of the status of that right now, but I think there was a user working on botting this a couple years back. The proposed method for dealing with this though is not good (and as mentioned on the vote talk page, this vote is premature). Not only are the points made above by the other users correct as far as editing concerns, but this will also be bad for readers, especially ones with slow Internet connections, as they will have to navigate to an entirely new page just to navigate to what entry they want. The variations in appendix pages are necessary when there will be too much clutter on individual mainspace pages, but having one for dictionary and Dictionary for example would be absurd, from an editor's and reader's perspective. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    If I find that a pre-existing page prevents me from creating a new page I have no hesitation in using {{also}} so that I can create the new page. DonnanZ (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose per PseudoSkull's point about usability and convenience, as well as support for a bot. --Uisleach (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the agreement there, but I had to strike that as you can't vote oppose twice. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull Oops--sorry about that, somehow had overlooked that I already voted--that was totally unintentional. --Uisleach (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)



Sign language entry names

Voting on: what system to use to transcribe sign languages.

  • Option 1: Use the notation described in Appendix:Sign language entry names for all sign languages, with no soft redirects from other transcription systems. (This is nominally/de jure the existing policy.)
  • Option 2: Use the notation described in Appendix:Sign language entry names as the default for all sign languages, with soft redirects from other transcription systems.
  • Option 3: For each sign language, use the system that is most commonly used outside Wiktionary to transcribe it, or another system as agreed upon by the community of editors, with soft redirects allowed from other major transcription systems that are used. (This is closer to actual/de facto existing practice.)
  • Option 4: Use Sutton SignWriting as the default transcription system for all sign languages. (Indicate whether you support allowing soft redirects from other transcription systems.)


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


Support option 1

Oppose option 1

  1.   OpposeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose; I don't see why we wouldn't have soft redirects from other common transcription systems, somewhat like instances of languages having multiple scripts like Serbo-Croatian. --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose -- 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Abstain on option 1

  1.   Abstain Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Support option 2

  1.   Support Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 2

Abstain on option 2

  1.   Abstain --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support option 3

  1.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support, as long as we're consistent within a given sign language as to which transcription system has precedence; if we weren't that would end up being pretty chaotic. --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support (and I agree with Uisleach). - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support (though I prefer option 2). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support. Imetsia (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Support - seems the most sensible SemperBlotto (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support, as long as the sign is described accordingly in the entry. CAVALO^LISTRA has neither an annotation nor image to describe how it's supposed to be signed, and therefore is an utterly pointless entry as far as I see it. Alves9 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Support -- 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 3

  1.   Oppose Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Abstain on option 3

  1.   Abstain Why don't we simply include what is attested in use? Do we have an example sign language entry with attesting quotations? Sign languages are produced by hand motions and what can be entered into Wiktionary are transcriptions (sequences of Unicode points) of these hand motions; is there anything like a corpus containing sentences marked up using these transcriptions? Or is there anything else acting as a corpus of actual usage? Well, to answer myself, '[...] and the "usage in permanently recorded media" condition includes any video media that has been widely distributed, including DVDs, broadcast television, and sign language dictionaries.' per Wiktionary:About sign languages. Then, what is an example attestation of a sign language entry using the video media? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: The practice of writing in sign is relatively new (as is the standardisation of sign languages in general). Most languages don't have have a well established transcription system yet, let alone a rich corpus to attest it. The Sutton SignWriting system seems to be the more up-and-coming one (both ASL and the British and Brazilian Sign Languages broadly employ it), but, as mentioned, it has some issues and might still take some time before it's viable on Wiktionary. I'd love to see it implemented, however. —Alves9 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Support option 4

  1.   Support, though my support for this is contingent upon the usability of the signwriting within wiki coding, which I don't have the expertise for; here I'm assuming it's usable. --Uisleach (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose option 4

Abstain on option 4

  1.   Abstain Numberguy6 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


Use of "eye dialect" label

Voting on: Use of "eye dialect" label.

Please note that this vote was originally intended to cover the use of the "eye dialect" and "pronunciation spelling" labels together, but in the light of comments arising I have decided to limit it to the former in order to reduce permutations/complexity, and the voting options have changed from its original incarnation. The "pronunciation spelling" label can be dealt with at a later stage.

Please vote separately on the three options below. In the event that more than one option passes, none will automatically be implemented.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 23:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Mihia (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Time stamps updated. PUC – 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Time stamps updated again. The vote starts today. PUC – 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


Option 1

Use the "eye dialect" label both for nonstandard spellings representing nonstandard pronunciations (e.g. borrowin' for borrowing and anyfink for anything), as well as for certain* nonstandard spellings representing standard pronunciations (e.g. sed for said or wimmin for women).

* I have been unable to ascertain precisely which types of word in this category supporters of this option would like to include.

Note: In the case of nonstandard spellings representing nonstandard pronunciations, especially, there is presently no clear distinction between "eye dialect" and "pronunciation spelling", with some entries, such as borrowin' and anyfink, labelled "eye dialect", and others, such as fixin' and fink (for think), labelled "pronunciation spelling", for no apparent reason. The implication of this option passing would be that the latter would become eligible for conversion from "pronunciation spelling" to "eye dialect".

  1.   Oppose. PUC – 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   OpposeMahāgaja · talk 19:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 19:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose; see below. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose – our labels should aim to use words with their standard meanings to best facilitate reader comprehension. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose. Correctitude is important. --Uisleach (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose. do not use labels in non-standard senses.  --Lambiam 15:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose Does not seem accurate. Equinox 20:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose Not only does not seem accurate, but I don't think the term itself is extremely well-known, so we end up intentionally popularizing an esoteric term with the wrong meaning, thus diminishing its meaning. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose RichardW57 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 2

Abolish the "eye dialect" label. Where agreed/appropriate, use the "pronunciation spelling" label instead, but the exact scope of "pronunciation spelling" to be decided at a later stage, once "eye dialect" is resolved.

  1.   Support as second choice to Option 3 (i.e. only if Option 3 fails). Eye dialect spellings are a specific type (and proper subset) of pronunciation spellings. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support This proposal aligns best with my steadfast view that that trying to maintain a distinction between "pronunciation spelling" and "eye dialect" is misguided and futile, because:
    • The average user (or even the average editor) will not understand what is meant by such a distinction; the fact that a debate is being held about it shows that its nature is far from obvious or universally agreed upon. The opacity of the distinction also means that it's likely to be inaccurate or misleading.
    • Deciding what terms are "eye dialect" and what terms are "pronunciation spellings" is additional work, taking time away from tasks which are more productive and of more apparent benefit to the average user. Additionally, determining what terms fit in each category is far from trivial or apparent, so disputes and acrimony surrounding this matter (edit wars, etc.) are likely.
    Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support as an acceptable option. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support. Our inability to maintain a distinction (in edits by both veteran and new editors) prior to now does not suggest that we will start being able to maintain it (in actual practice), even outside of edge cases where e.g. it's unclear whether a spelling is intended to represent a standard or nonstandard pronunciation or where e.g. sed is used along spellings representing nonstandard pronunciations. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support The term "eye dialect" is somewhat esoteric, and Wiktionary is helping to popularize a term without popularizing its actual meaning. The lack of clear understanding from editors and users only adds to the confusion. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  1.   Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 19:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose. Can we not link the label to a definition of the term? RichardW57 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    We do do that, but I'm not sure that the linked information is entirely stable. Mihia (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  1.   Abstain. Support if the proposal below doesn't pass. PUC – 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain. I generally am in favor of preserving precise classifications, even if they are finely-shaded. That said, I can see, per Hazarasp's argument, why it would be more practical to subsume "Eye dialect" into the larger, more straightforwardly determined supercategory of "Pronunciation spelling". Tangentially, and regardless, I'm in support of very stringent and and high-bar critera for inclusion for such words. --Uisleach (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain since I prefer option 3. Equinox 20:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Option 3

Restrict the "eye dialect" label to its "strict" meaning; that is, to nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations but are intended to imply that the speaker generally uses a nonstandard dialect, such as sed for said or lissen for listen.

  1.   Support. PUC – 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   SupportMahāgaja · talk 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support, though I'm not sure whether we'll be able to maintain the distinction in practice. Experience shows editors have trouble with it. It might be better to abolish the "eye dialect" label entirely and avoid the issue (Option 2). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  4.   Support. --Uisleach (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Support  --Lambiam 15:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  6.   Support Equinox 20:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  7.   Support RichardW57 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  1.   Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 19:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Victar I see you oppose all three options, so just out of curiosity, how do you think the label should be used? Mihia (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose; see above. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  1.   Abstain I don't think this is wrong, but there would need to be a way to make it clear to editors when to use it and when not to - and this just doesn't seem to be the way Wiktionary works. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed votes

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

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

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: