Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-06/Requests for documentation

Why does this need a vote?

I don' think a vote is necessary to create this page, just do it. - [The]DaveRoss 12:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure there's consensus to do it first. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

One does not need a vote to establish consensus, just ask on the BP or GP. - [The]DaveRoss 17:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this shouldn't need a vote. Just do it. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Then go ahead and do it. If someone complains that it was done without consensus, I want to be able to say "but I wanted to create a vote, someone else created it unilaterally without asking first". In the TR discussion (Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/June#"the Variety -er"), there's some criticism against the idea already. And nobody replied at the BP discussion yet (Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/July#Vote -- Requests for documentation). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

All of our other requests pages and templates were created without votes. Why should this one need a vote? I don't want to set the wrong precedent that things like this would need votes in the future. I'm not particularly interested in creating this page and template myself, but I am against having a vote. --WikiTiki89 19:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a big thing and it's not clear that we want the new page, even though having it seems a good idea in my opinion. Two people here said "Just do it", which would imply that it can be created immediately and is noncontroversial. If it is noncontroversial, then just do it yourselves. I'm not interested in doing it this way.

I don't know how people did things back in 2003 and 2005, but if RFD and RFV didn't exist, I would support some form of RFD and RFV to be created today without a vote anyway, because they are essential request pages to have. RFDOC could be seen as important or not, I don't know. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a good vote. It allows people oppose and explain why. If there is consensus, let supporters show up and vote in support. If a vote were not created, this would be yet another thing installed without consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I also do not think this needs a vote. just do itDixtosa (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, do it, ignore the opposition and avoid discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I am not ignoring the opposition they just do not make sense. Why is it a bad idea to have the list of templates/modules that need documentation more than others? Nobody requires you to use it. It does not impose anything on users. --Dixtosa (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
      • You have not addressed in word the things raised by the oppossition. The increase of complexity of pages to navigate is there whether I want to use the page or not; the increase is imposed upon me. And you have not explained why a new category for requests as opposed to needing is not sufficient. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I do not see any increase in complexity. The new category makes sense because categories that are automatically populated tend to grow uncontrollably only to quickly become useless. The new category on the other hand will be, if not abused, much smaller. The real problem is there are irresponsible people who do not document their templates. --Dixtosa (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @Dan Polansky: You advised people not to be sarcastic in the past, but now you said: "Sure, do it, ignore the opposition and avoid discussion." I suppose sarcasm is OK sometimes? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
          • This seems to be veering off-topic. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Some more thoughts. Some people claim votes are evil. I agree that votes are bad in so far as they stiffle or replace discussion and lead to ignorance of arguments. However, votes do not need to replace discussion and be bare, argument-free. This vote is less than ideal in that multiple supporters did not address the points that opposition raised, viz that a request category is enough, that a request page requires more editing and burns more mental energy and that it increases the complexity of Wiktionary bureaucracy. This vote, even though it is a vote, is still the best vehicle we have for replacing thoughtlessness with something else. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Dan Polansky: As a supporter, let me try and address all the points you raised:

    About whether a request category is enough and the use mental energy -- Well, having a request page requires some editing and burns some mental energy. But just creating and closing discussions are easy things to do. Creating and fixing documentations are the things that require the most mental effort, especially when someone is documenting a template/module they didn't create. Maybe there's some mental power saved here -- by having actual written requests, the objectives should be clear, thereby the person creating documentations does not have to always figure out what to do or how they could help, or where to start (let's generally start with the oldest unresolved requests, naturally). The numbered list below should be the whole process.

    1. person A creates a new request at WT:RFDOC (simple text: "documentation missing", although it could be something more complex like "template is used in such and such way in a number of entries, but the documentation does not state that it is possible or how to do it")
    2. optionally, other people may discuss if the documentation looks good, or if other options are available, or if there are other ways to help (create a separate template instead of documenting a special case, or list other templates that already have a similar documentation, or list other templates that lack a documentation and have to be fixed in a similar way, something like that)

       This step could be very important for a number of templates/modules and would not be available is only a request category without the request page were created.

    3. person B creates or fixes the documentation
    4. anyone (which could be person A or B or really anyone) closes and archives the discussion

    About the fact that a request page increases the complexity of Wiktionary bureaucracy. -- Admittedly, that is true. I only hope the benefits outweigh this drawback. I believe the current vote is the best plan available to cause more templates and modules to be documented. Much like having RFD and RFV are the best plan available for deletion and verification of entries; it would be a bad idea to delete RFD and RFV and replace them by simple categories (which nobody suggested, I'm only using it as an example). I believe the existence of WT:RFDOC, hopefully created as a result of this vote passing, would be a good deal. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)