Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Wiktionary > Votes

Shortcuts:
WT:VOTE
WT:VOTES
WT:V

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.



Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2025-02/User: for admin}}


Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2025-02/User: for bureaucrat}}


Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2025-02/User: for checkuser}}


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
Mar 15User:Mellohi! for admin12 0 5
Mar 17Deletion of "Tennis player test"9 5 0
Mar 21Retiring the English verb conjugation tablestarts: Feb 27
(=3)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=30)

User:Mellohi! for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Mellohi! (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

Acceptance:

  • Languages: en-N, fr-2
  • Timezone: UTC-5
— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator: long-time and active editor with large number of quality edits. Svārtava (tɕ) 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support most likely not a dumb idea, especially for deletion rights, as guy designed when suggested administratorship. The editor also explains standards to other users, like a good example. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as a net positive to the project: Mellohi! is highly active and makes not only great, productive and well-researched edits but they also participate regularly and courteously in discussions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I respect Mellohi! and their contributions. I expect them to show good judgement. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Though I hope this doesn't mean Victar is getting indeffed within a day. Thadh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Always in favor of more admins, unless someone digs up some real dirt. Shouldn't be the case here. Polomo47 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --Davi6596 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Binarystep (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Vininn126 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A prolific and long-term contributor who has added countless reconstructions and etymologies. We haven't really crossed paths much but I'm aware of this user and they would make good use of admin tools. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

  1. Abstain. I don't know the user well enough. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain never seen this guy! Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain. Our paths have never crossed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain. I do wish that we got in the habit of putting why this user was nominated and why they want to become an admin within the vote itself. I see on Mellohi!'s talk page User talk:Mellohi! § Adminship that they want to become admin to help with the RFD backlog + get AWB access to replace wikilinks after a pagemove, which are good rationales. However, all the recent nominations, including my own, remind me of when Wonderfool would nominate any old active user (including myself!). It makes me continue to question if adminship is simply supposed to be an expected destination for unproblematic active users. AG202 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abstain. Haven't interacted with him enough to make an informed decision either way. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 01:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Deletion of "Tennis player test"

Voting on: deleting the section Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD#Tennis player test. This is a guideline allowing multi-word terms designating professions, such as tennis player itself, to be included even when they may appear to be sum-of-parts.

Please vote "support" to support deletion of this section or "oppose" to retain the section.

Rationale for deletion

In earlier discussion (linked below) it was suggested that the "tennis player" test is now superseded by WT:THUB. In fact, the archetype tennis player is itself not a "full" entry but only a translation hub. Also, it was pointed out that a large and indeed open-ended number of descriptive and apparently sum-of-parts profession names exist, all of which would seemingly qualify for inclusion under the "tennis player" rule.

Schedule:

Discussion(s):

Support

  1. Support This, that and the other (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to AG202's examples, I would support deletion of Spanish actor de voz (at least) as SOP. Some others would likely survive (border guard as THUB, nail technician probably as THUB and possibly also on the polysemy of "nail", teaching assistant has a specific meaning in US universities which we somehow don't have, French guide touristique on the polysemy of guide as person vs book). We should consider each of these entries on its own merits, not include them all on this somewhat arbitrary basis. This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other: No, per our current CFI rules, French guide touristique would fail since guide has always had the base meaning of English "guide (person)". It is SOP. Same thing goes for English nail technician. We also don't have any translations for it now. Again, I would support a more narrow reading of WT:TENNIS, but right now we're opening a can of worms to put common professions up for RFD. AG202 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much doubt that large numbers of entries will immediately be put up at RFD if this test is deleted. If, over time, any are nominated that we do want to keep despite being ostensibly SoP, it will encourage us to understand why we want to keep them (presumably above a plethora of others that "everyone" would agree are SoP clutter), and formulate a policy to properly do so (which we may in the process discover applies to many other phrases besides profession names). Mihia (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Svārtava (tɕ) 04:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support—the policy is somewhat arbitrary and allows for far too many clearly SOP entries; entries for “X player” (with X replaced with a sport) can be done for nearly every sport in existence. “X instructor”, “X specialist“, “X tester” (software, product, game), “X breeder” (cat, dog, panda) and “X analyst” (data, financial, business) are all further examples of this. I think AG202's concerns below are settled by the fact that most of the more popular professions will survive through THUB. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LunaEatsTuna: As it stands, things like English mechanical engineer would not pass THUB. But more importantly, you completely missed the second main point that THUB does not apply to non-English entries. AG202 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AG202: On diving into the history of WT:TENNIS, it was originally not considered distinct from the "fried egg" test which was then written as: Terms that imply certain social knowledge that could not be derived from any of the constituents. This would work to save tennis player if tennis + player ("one who plays") -> tennis player ("one who plays tennis professionally") but "professionally" being an in-built part or a connotation of the meaning of "tennis player" has been challenged and debunked multiple times. So I don't think that English mechanical engineer is intended to be saved by WT:TENNIS as the word "engineer" in it already contains a sense restricted to a professionality. Svārtava (tɕ) 20:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support—Test is too broad and would allow virtually limitless SoP combinations. Mihia (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, as the test is too broad and should be replaced by a better one that wouldn't include useless SoP entries. Davi6596 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Too many professions are simply SOP. If we're not careful we'll start including Gracie Fields' famous profession, 'the girl who makes the thing'[1]. In my eyes, the reason tennis player is idiomatic has nothing to do with it being a profession and everything to do with it being more vastly more commonplace than tenniser. Perhaps we could formulate a rule to keep entries on that sort of basis?--Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose: (For context, the THUB addition was added to tennis player in 2023) In general, though, I do think that having words like border guard, mechanical engineer, nail technician, teaching assistant, etc. are helpful to have in a dictionary since people are likely to look them up and dictionaries like MW keep track of some of them as well. Not all of them will pass THUB either. I could support a more narrow reading of WT:TENNIS, but I can't support a wholesale removal of it. This would also negatively affect the languages outside of English that can't rely on THUB for inclusion, so entries like actor de voz (“voice actor”), guide touristique (“tour guide”), and onímọ̀ ẹ̀dá-èdè (“linguist”). WT:IDIOM and similar policies are not just for English, and I continue to feel that most people forget about that fact when making policy changes like these. AG202 (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologise for repeating myself, but I feel obliged to counter the "THUB" argument on this page too. The thinking seems to be that we wish to keep certain ostensibly SoP phrases because they are "helpful", "useful" or "common", and that THUB is handy way of achieving this (which is something that certain RFD discussions already smell of). In my view, we should not be using THUB as a way of getting around SoP policies by the back door, in order that we can keep "helpful" entries. Instead we need a policy to define what kind of "helpful" and "useful" entries we wish to keep on their own merits. Mihia (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: This just seems like change for change's sake. Having redundant reasons to include entries causes minimal harm. If there was some crisis of proliferating profession names that caused reconsideration of this guideline, that would be one thing; instead, it seems like this proposal was prompted by reading the guideline and imagining what hypothetical issues there could be with it. But it is already listed as a guideline/test, so if it had real negative effects, we'd see them already.--Urszag (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per AG202.--Saranamd (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Strong in group-thinking and central coherence, neurotypicals go for social status and societal value provided by professions, not the activities their designations describe. It is doubtful that this applies for all one can be a specialist or instructor in, however, for example bullshit academia positions advertising some university institute, behind which there are basic professions like reader or professor, while a tennis player is not a player, so in my opinion LunaEatsTuna is putting out a strawman, we won’t add diaper engineer, epistemology expert, and C++ developer. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per AG202. Binarystep (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Decision

Retiring the English verb conjugation table

Voting on: Retiring the English verb conjugation table {{en-conj}} (example here) from general use, and replacing it with a feature (such as a drop-down or static box or list) to show archaic, obsolete and other verb forms not in standard modern use that cannot (or cannot desirably) be incorporated in the headword. The full conjugation table may be retained for the very small number of verbs, notably the "be" verb, that have standard forms not accommodated (or accommodatable) in the headword.

This vote is on the principle that the presentation to the user will be that of a display of archaic, obsolete and other non-standard forms, not a general-purpose conjugation table. The exact design and layout of the new feature can be decided if there is support in principle. Also, implementation of the feature would of course require someone's time if any new coding is needed.

This proposal does not affect languages other than English.

Rationale

The standard modern forms of almost all English verbs can be accommodated in the headword. However, the conjugation table gives the impression that the situation is more complicated than this, and that English verbs may standardly have more parts and forms – for example, an irregular subjunctive or imperative, or a past tense varying by number or person. In practice, the table seems to be used mainly as a way to link to obsolete/archaic forms, as the documentation at {{en-conj}} encourages, but this is not clear to ordinary dictionary users.

This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.

Schedule:

Discussion(s):

Support

Oppose

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:

Wiktionary:Votes/2023-12/Represent the GenAm NURSE and STRUT vowels as schwa
Wiktionary:Votes/2024-06/CFI for mainspace constructed languages
Wiktionary:Votes/2025-02/Retiring the English verb conjugation table
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Streamlining the approval process of online sources
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-07/Stubifying alternative forms
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-11/Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised:

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes&oldid=80698124"