Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2009-03/Transwikis from other Wiktionaries

< Wiktionary:Votes

Transwikis from other Wiktionaries edit

Vote: Asking a developer to enable transwikis from the Simple English Wiktionary edit

This is a technical vote — whether administrators (and other privileged importers) should be able to use Special:Import to import pages from the Simple English Wiktionary. We need a developer to make this change for us (it involves changing a configuration variable).


Unconditional support
Enter {{subst:support}} here if you support requesting this change, whether or not we establish any of the new policies proposed below. (Of course, existing policies, such as WT:CFI and WT:ELE, will apply to these imports just as to all other pages. As will common sense.)
  1.   Support Razorflame 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support —RuakhTALK 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Carolina wren 01:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Neskaya kanetsv 06:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support.—msh210℠ 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Dan Polansky 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Nadando 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support DAVilla 07:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Jared 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support bd2412 T 14:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support — [ ric ] opiaterein — 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support — Goldenrowley 04:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unconditional oppose
Enter {{subst:oppose}} here if you oppose requesting this change, whether or not we establish any of the new policies proposed below.


Conditional support/oppose
Enter # ~~~~ here — preferably with a comment — if your support for or opposition to requesting this change depends on whether and which we establish of the new policies proposed below.


Unconditional abstain
Enter {{subst:abstain}} if you would like to abstain. Or, alternatively, don't.


Vote: Asking a developer to enable transwikis from foreign-language Wiktionaries edit

This is a technical vote — whether administrators (and other privileged importers) should be able to use Special:Import to import pages from foreign-language Wiktionaries, such as Wiktionnaire (the French Wiktionary). We need a developer to make this change for us (it involves changing a configuration variable).


Unconditional support
Enter {{subst:support}} here if you support requesting this change, whether or not we establish any of the new policies proposed below. (Of course, existing policies, such as WT:CFI and WT:ELE, will apply to these imports just as to all other pages. As will common sense.)
  1.   Support Razorflame 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support —RuakhTALK 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support —Stephen 02:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Neskaya kanetsv 06:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. Of course, a foreign entry imported to other than the transwiki namspace and not immediately (at least) translated into English (if such are allowed by the results of the votes below) will be deleted as {{notenglish}}, but I see no reason not to allow this technical ability.—msh210℠ 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Dan Polansky 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Nadando 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support DAVilla 07:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support — [ ric ] opiaterein — 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support bd2412 T 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Goldenrowley 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unconditional oppose
Enter {{subst:oppose}} here if you oppose requesting this change, whether or not we establish any of the new policies proposed below.


Conditional support/oppose
Enter # ~~~~ here — preferably with a comment — if your support for or opposition to requesting this change depends on whether and which we establish of the new policies proposed below.
  1. Conditional support on passage of Vote: Parlez-vous allemand ? below, otherwise abstain. Carolina wren 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unconditional abstain
Enter {{subst:abstain}} if you would like to abstain. Or, alternatively, don't.


Vote: Thou shalt not cause languor edit

Proposed new policy:

Administrators (and other privileged importers) should not import pages from other Wiktionaries unless they will be fixed up immediately for use here. If a page is imported from another Wiktionary and not fixed up immediately, then it can and should be speedy-deleted.

This policy will not be instated unless we approve one or both of the above technical votes.


Support
Enter {{subst:support}} here to vote in support of this proposed new policy.
  1.   Support Razorflame 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support —RuakhTALK 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Equinox ◑ 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Carolina wren 01:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support —Stephen 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Neskaya kanetsv 06:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Dan Polansky 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Nadando 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Of course immediately is a somewhat vague term, and I hope common sense will prevail (as it so often does) in interpreting this.[reply]


Oppose
Enter {{subst:oppose}} here to vote in opposition to this proposed new policy.
  1.   Oppose. It's a wiki, a work in progress: there's nothing wrong with having half-done entries. Of course, a foreign-language import into the main namespace which is not fixed at all will, despite this vote, be deleted as {{notenglish}}. But a translated transwiki, or an entry from simplewikt, is imo fine.—msh210℠ 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose. I don't see any point to importing to the Transwiki: namespace if one has to clean up the entry immediately. This proposal only makes sense for importing to the main namespace. That may have been the intent (in which case this vote can be nullified) but a clarification would be in order. DAVilla 07:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I think this vote is mostly unnecessary for importing to the main namespace, since we already have procedures for dealing with entries that aren't in English. It only makes sense for the Transwiki space, where policies currently allow pages to remain indefinitely without progress. (See Conrad.Irwin's comment at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Transwikis from other Wiktionaries.) You seem to consider it O.K. for pages to languish in the Transwiki: space? If so, you're quite right to vote "oppose". —RuakhTALK 14:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. I think it makes sense to apply some of the same restrictions to the Transwiki space, e.g. entries should be translated English within a month, and to encourage importers to clean them up. Unlike the inter-project imports that classify more as "we don't know what to do with this", Wiktionary imports would be more of the importer's desire and therefore responsibility. However, the language in this vote is a bit too strong and doesn't really put a process into place. I'm more interested in keeping tabs on the space and implementing practical solutions. DAVilla 16:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose with respect to Transwiki space. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose . It is easy enough to mark/categorize entries as needing attention/translation, so readers will not be confused into thinking them to be our finished product. Certainly stuff can linger a while in the Transwiki namespace, as others have noted above. bd2412 T 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose . I think this is counter to our basic tenet that words are judged purely on Criteria for Inclusion (CFI). Goldenrowley 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Enter {{subst:abstain}} here to abstain from voting on this proposed new policy. Or, don't.
  1.   Abstain Ƿidsiþ 16:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain These articles shouldn't be imported unless the editor intends to fix them up within a reasonable amount of time, but as long as the uncleaned articles stay in Transwiki, it's kinda whatever. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Vote: Oh, what's in a namespace? edit

Proposed new policy #1:

Administrators (and other privileged importers) should use the Transwiki: namespace for pages imported from other Wiktionaries.

Proposed new policy #2:

Administrators (and other privileged importers) should not use the Transwiki: namespace for pages imported from other Wiktionaries. Rather, they should use the main namespace for entries, the Appendix: namespace for appendices, and so on.

Neither policy will be instated unless we approve one or both of the above technical votes.


Support #1
Enter {{subst:support}} here to vote in support of proposed new policy #1 (to use the Transwiki: namespace for these)
  1.   Support Carolina wren 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Neskaya kanetsv 06:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I think that these entries should be put into transwiki, but only if they need to be worked on a little first and are 'in progress' here. If they're appropriate for the mainspace, they should go in the mainspace. So I guess I'm really voting a bit in between, but there wasn't an option for this. --Neskaya kanetsv 06:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Nadando 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support, since we are after all, talking about Transwikiing. bd2412 T 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Transwiki first, then once they're cleaned up they can go to the main namespace. Pretty simple, I think — [ ric ] opiaterein — 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We allow works in progress in the other spaces too though. It's not like entries have to be scanned for errors before going live. If that were the case there should probably be a forced preview screen. Nearly every day I get on there's an instance where I should have hit Show Preview before trying to Save Page. It doesn't really hurt anything. DAVilla 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly meant 'translated' when I said 'cleaned up', I make more than my share of mistakes which 'preview' probably could've saved :) — [ ric ] opiaterein — 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support. For process consistency. Goldenrowley 04:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support #2
Enter {{subst:support}} here to vote in support of proposed new policy #2 (to use the regular namespaces for these)
  1.   Support Razorflame 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose both
Enter {{subst:oppose}} here to oppose any such policy — i.e., to let administrators follow their own preference for what namespace(s) to use.
  1.   Oppose I think either way is fine, and I don't see any need to standardize something like this. —RuakhTALK 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose —Stephen 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose.—msh210℠ 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC) per Ruakh.[reply]
  5.   Weak oppose. I don't think we need to have a policy on this until it's apparent that it is or at least could be a problem. DAVilla 07:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain
Enter {{subst:abstain}} here to abstain from voting on these proposed new policies. Or, don't.



Vote: Parlez-vous allemand ? edit

Proposed new policy:

Administrators (and other privileged importers) should import a language-X entry only from the language-X Wiktionary. For example, they should not import German entries from Wiktionnaire (the French Wiktionary).

This vote will have no effect unless we approve one or both of the above technical votes.


Support
Enter {{subst:support}} here to vote in support of this proposed new policy.

  Support Razorflame 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1.   Support Equinox ◑ 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Carolina wren 01:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose
Enter {{subst:oppose}} here to vote in opposition to this proposed new policy.
  1.   Oppose There are plenty of reasons that we might want to import a Wiktionnaire entry for a German word; for example, it might have a thorough declension, or lots of good usage examples, or might break down the senses in a way that really makes things clear for a non-native speaker of German. Obviously this is of somewhat limited use, in that an editor would have to speak both French and German to do this, but I see no reason to make a policy of forbidding it. —RuakhTALK 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose Neskaya kanetsv 06:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC) As per Ruakh. If the Vietnamese wikt entry for a French word has something good in it, and we don't have that French word, I'd happily transwiki the Vietnamese entry here and translate it here, rather than having to copy it entirely manually, which is what I currently do. I don't see a reason to have a policy against this, overall. --Neskaya kanetsv 06:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose. Wiktionaries of "smaller" languages are likely to be empty, while fr.wikt or de.wikt, for instance, might have some useful stuff. --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose Ƿidsiþ 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Seems pointless to impose limits on where we can get our material from. Ƿidsiþ 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose per Ruakh.—msh210℠ 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose —Stephen 16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose Dan Polansky 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Per above comments; also, there is already the constraint that the importing user should be an admin or priviledged one, so presumably he is able to judge what is worth importing and what not.[reply]
  8.   Oppose Nadando 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose Razorflame 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC) per the other oppose votes.[reply]
  10.   Oppose The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose H. (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC) It is common sense, but no need to instate this as a policy. There will always be exceptions where it makes more sense to get your information from somewhere else. (E.g. a German word on French wikt will not contain translations, which we do not want either.)[reply]
  13.   Oppose. We should import the best version, wherever it originates. bd2412 T 14:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Oppose. This policy could hamper the assistance of good translation work. Goldenrowley 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain
Enter {{subst:abstain}} here to abstain from voting on this proposed new policy. Or, don't.
  1.   Abstain DAVilla 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) There is apparently some fault with the wording of the proposal, but per the example I would be really worried if we ever had the need to import a German term from the French Wiktionary. An imported entry should be fairly complete, and I trust it would be more complete on the native language Wiktionary, so importing from elsewhere is ill advised. This is not always going to be the case though, and if the contributor speaks both languages I would trust their judgement, but just in case it might be good to say a word or two. Obviously if anything needs to be cleaned up immediately it makes more sense in cases such as these.[reply]
    Re: "There is apparently some fault with the wording of the proposal": What fault is that, exactly? :-/   —RuakhTALK 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That it lists German/French as an example of where this type of situation would arise, when in fact it would be more probable for languages that are very similar, or in a language whose Wiktionary is very small (and if non-existant this is not addressed at all). DAVilla 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions edit

The entire decision is:

  • The community requests a developer enable imports via special:import from all other Wiktionaries.
  • Policy: An import should not be made from another Wiktionary to any namespace other than Transwiki: unless it will be fixed up immediately for use here. If a page is imported from another Wiktionary to any namespace other than Transwiki: and not fixed up immediately, then it can and should be speedy-deleted.

(For anything unclear, see the talkpage.)—msh210℠ 15:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed the developer request as bugzilla:18519. I have no idea how long we can expect that to take, but I'll post back here when it's done. Also, we never discussed where these policies would be listed, and there doesn't seem to be an obvious place, so for now I've just put the approved policy in MediaWiki:Import-interwiki-text (which is auto-included in Special:Import), with a link here. It's a bit ugly — the interface text really should be just "Don't transwiki-import pages from other Wiktionaries unless you're going to fix them immediately for use here", with the full policy being elsewhere — but it should do for now. (Anyone so motivated, feel free to move it somewhere better.) —RuakhTALK 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's done now; see Special:Import. :-)   —RuakhTALK 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2009-03/Transwikis_from_other_Wiktionaries&oldid=75279513"