Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/"Translations - wiki links"

Translations - wiki linksEdit

  • Voting on: the format to be used for trans-wiki links in Translations sections. These would take one of the format below. Please vote by number for 3 of the options offered — by entering a bullet in the line below the heading votes. The second vote, if taken will be a run off between leading contenders, this vote to run from 16 to 31 January.


    0.     German: Wissenschaft

  1. German: Wissenschaft Deutsch
  2. German: Wissenschaft de
  3. German: Wissenschaft ^
  4. German: Wissenschaft *
  5. German: Wissenschaft de
  6. German: Wissenschaft
  7. German: Wissenschaft
  8. German: Wissenschaft
  9. German: Wissenschaft
  10. German: Wissenschaft
  11. German: Wissenschaft
  12. German: Wissenschaft


  • 2, 7, 1 — Saltmarsh 15:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • FIRST CHOICE: 1 preferably with parentheses or SECOND CHOICE: a mixture of 1, maybe all-caps, with the hand in 5, but in both cases only if the link is red (doesn't exist), otherwise 0 (nothing); or THIRD CHOICE: 7 if the color of the triangle can be changed, or if it is only applied to red links. DAVilla 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 7, 8, 9 —Stephen 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2, 3, 7 (2 being most preferable, 3 next most preferable, and 7 least preferable) -- Beobach972 16:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    By least preferable do you mean third most preferable? DAVilla 20:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 (with parens), 7, 4 (with or without parens) I agree that the template should be usable (and default to nothing) if these params aren't added. --Jeffqyzt 18:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 (with parens), 5, 1. I think it is important to have some hint on what the link is for. Just a symbol confuses people. And of course, we are just all supposed to use {{t}}. henne 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 0 I.E. No such link SemperBlotto 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 7, 6, 3 Ncik 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 (with parens), 3 --Tohru 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 7, 8, 4. \Mike 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 7, 2, 6. Cynewulf 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 2. Robert Ullmann 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 2, 1. Reducing graphics loads is important during slow times. 2 is better than one, for one less parameter in 18,000,000,000,000 places. Failing that, (5) is cute. --Connel MacKenzie 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Late vote not counted.


  • Comment: What is the format of this vote? It isn't approval voting, even a limited-to-three version, because you've ranked (ordered) your choices. It would appear to be choice voting but then that doesn't usually have a run-off. I can only assume this is informal, and wouldn't carry any weight unless there were clear consensus. I'm also going to add option 0 before there are any new votes so that no one complains that you left out current policy. DAVilla 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This should be clear(er) that the vote is for the default appearance, and the various Wiktionary:Preferences stuff should be in place to honor an individual user's preference. --Connel MacKenzie 19:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We haven't determined whether there ought to be such links at all. There is a strong presumption in the English wikt that the word in the other language ought to exist as an entry, and one should be able to follow the iwiki links from there. While refining such a proposal is good, I doubt a vote is the way to do it at this point. Robert Ullmann 20:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    One problem is when the English Wiktionary page doesn't exist, hence part of the complication in my vote above. (The larger part of my vote is just stubborness.) So if there isn't enough support to always show the foreign Wiktionary link, I'd think this would still pass in some form. DAVilla
    WT:ELE clearly states that preferable, every translation would have a link to the other wiki as well (this might be hidden behind a link to a translations layout page). henne 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about the possibility of creating a customizable CSS-sensitive template, rather than forcing a single new format on everyone? --EncycloPetey 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    See Connel's comment above. Even with CSS we'd have to decide on a default. I'm for continuing this vote as a sort of straw poll to help guide future votes. It apparently was never really expected to have a clear outcome anyways. DAVilla 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL! Now that is full disclosure! :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Using a vote ranking system (3 points for 1st vote, 2 for 2nd, 1 fo 3rd - for each person's voting) produces I think 20 points for #2 (with or without paretheses) and 18 points for #7. The next votes are for #1 and #3 with 5 points each. #2 and #7 also lead with a transferable voting system. Should a runoff be held between:
  1. Status quo
  2. German: Wissenschaft de
  3. German: Wissenschaft
I will take advice! ——Saltmarsh 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you will use approval voting for so few options. I would warn that a ranked voting system can have irregular results which are especially likely with a very few number of voters. Such systems also tend to have dependency on irrelative alternatives, which would mean that selecting both that voting method and the alternatives that are listed would amount to manipulation. For approval voting, eliminating an option that could not win does not change the outcome of the vote. On the other hand, any method has its downfalls. As to the options themselves:
First, status quo is eliminated by the vote below. If anyone wants status quo they can abstain from the vote. Enough abstentions would make an inconclusive vote, since abstentions could also result from no acceptable option, etc. While listing status quo could potentially resolve such inconlusions, that scenario is improbable given that, as I said, the vote below eliminated that liklihood. Removing status quo will not change the outcome, only simplify the vote. On the other hand, it may feel safer to always list status quo.
Second, it is very clear from this vote that parentheses make a difference for option #2, and I would not like to be dragged through another vote to determine whether parenthesis should be allowed. List one option with parens and one option without. Doing it in stages, by voting on parenthesis once (presuming) the language code wins over the triangle, could result in a more universally approved option (the triangle, hypothetically) being thrown out early, if people are really opposed to either the with or without parens variations. If I'm wrong and parens are not so important, splitting an option would not dilute it under approval voting, which is another good reason to use that! DAVilla 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, I finally get around to voting on this, and you close it a day early? --Connel MacKenzie 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) While I am voting, no less! --Connel MacKenzie 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I was looking at another vote that said it ended on the 19th. Very odd. --Connel MacKenzie 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)