Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-08/Nullifying the previous templates vote

Additional clarification to "nullify"

I'm thinking of adding the following to clarify the term "nullify," in line with @Vox Sciurorum and @Chuck Entz's comments at the BP:

"To nullify is to render unenforceable, as if the original vote never took place to begin with. If the vote passes, the interpretation that prior lack of consensus forbids the usage of the two new templates will be invalidated. Absent a future RFD decision, anyone will be able to use the templates. But no one will ever be required to."

I'm adding this to the talk page first just to see if anyone else wants to phrase it better or differently. Imetsia (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: some questions here: 1) If we lost this vote, then finally we lose the templates? No chance of their usage? 2) If we win, then the opposition wouldn't be able to say "using these is a violation of the original vote"? If the original vote failed, how can we expect this to pass? The opposers are so stubborn that A user could dislike the templates but, on principle, vote "support" here just because they don't believe the templates should have been voted on to begin with is impossible. I am sure no opposer of the previous vote would support here. Svārtava² • 08:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: (1) Yes, if we lose the vote, we lose the templates. They probably won't be deleted, but other users will be empowered (or at least able) to revert their usage. I think at that point, we'd have to try other votes (just the bor+ template itself, mandating and standardizing the "Borrowed from"/"Inherited from" language as PUC has suggested, etc.). However, I don't want to flood Wiktionary with a flurry of votes that get at basically the same thing. So I think it'd be best at that point to wait a while before moving forward with that.

(2) To the first question, yes, that's exactly right. Second, the way this vote passes is by hoping on two things: that some of the prior opposition will vote in a principled way AND that we can increase turnout. I think many of our admins are principled. Some, I hope, will be able to vote in favor here even if they personally dislike the templates. Just out of the conviction that the templates never needed a vote. But more than that, there are some somewhat dormant/inactive users that I think we can move to action. Already, I can think of Gnosandes and Rishabhbhat off the top of my head, and hopefully there are a few others. Imetsia (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

yep. But I am not inactive, I mostly work on Kashmiri Wiktionary. Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in Beer Parlour before the vote started, yea I didn't think that (2) was seriously going to happen at all, and we're already seeing the opposite happen, I doubt that many people if anyone will switch sides to support. It's messy, it's not a good look, and it will more than likely hurt future votes such as one specifically for bor+. AG202 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this vote necessary?

Is this vote necessary? The heart of the matter is whether in etymology sections the phrases borrowed from and inherited from should be expressly used or not. Why not have a discussion about that instead? Everything else flows from that. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I do agree to an extent. I hadn't thought of the idea when I created the vote, but PUC pointed it out at the BP discussion afterwards. Had someone suggested so before I started the vote, we might instead have discussed a vote about including the phrases "borrowed from" and "inherited from" expressly.

Even then, however, that seems like a harder proposition, given our previous Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing,_borrowed. From a strategy perspective, this vote might be a better option if it has greater chances of succeeding than a vote to incorporate the phrases expressly. This is all speculative though, which is why I wouldn't change course with it in midstream. Imetsia (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No consensus result?

What happens if this vote ends up in a no consensus result? Would we stick with the status quo of there being no consensus on the usage of the templates? Would there actually be a discussion on how to use them? I'm a little confused as to what would happen. AG202 (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would preserve the status quo. One would hope that the instigators of this vote will then be forced to hold discussions about whether we actually want our entries to display text, and in what situations, and said discussions may actually bring us to a consensus. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: "no consensus of usage of the templates" but still they'll be kept, right, since they passed RFDO? @Victar: Per RFD if these templates are kept, is it really so necessary to go replacing these templates? Think about it, this vote was created just because of you, your non-cooperation. Since you support {{bor+}}, can you please stop replacing it? What about a compromise: {{inh+}} is not used (or deleted), (a decision I personally have don't like), {{bor+}} is not replaced? You might also want to see User:SodhakSH/Votes/2021-06/Having consistent wording for etymology templates for other options and give feedback on them. Svārtava² • 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Yeah, hopefully something can be reached about this. It's frustrating to have it be in constant limbo. AG202 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)