Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms
Add topicLatest comment: 6 years ago by John Cross in topic Attestation
Vote now open. This is the talk page. John Cross (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Problems with this vote
[edit]This vote has garnered no feedback, has not been visibly advertised, has not been a subject of prior discussion in the BP (or at least no such discussion is listed on the vote page), and has not been listed on {{votes}}. The best course of action would be to postpone the start date by at least a week, and post about it in the BP to assess the community's response. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Given the mostly negative feedback, I think you may want to reconsider this vote. If you do choose to go ahead with it, be sure to list it at
{{votes}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)- I really think we need to formalize a rule that votes on policy must have been previously discussed, and that the text of the vote must have been proofread by at least a few experienced editors. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds like too much bureaucracy. I had hoped that John would see the discussion as a way to improve upon the vote (or at least acknowledge that it wouldn't pass as written), but I suppose I didn't make that clear enough in my comment above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's a bigger bureaucratic nightmare that anyone can just create a binding vote without discussion. I'd like to be able to just delete such votes on sight and tell the creator to bring it up at the BP first. --WikiTiki89 17:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds like too much bureaucracy. I had hoped that John would see the discussion as a way to improve upon the vote (or at least acknowledge that it wouldn't pass as written), but I suppose I didn't make that clear enough in my comment above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I really think we need to formalize a rule that votes on policy must have been previously discussed, and that the text of the vote must have been proofread by at least a few experienced editors. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@John Cross: Go ahead with the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Attestation
[edit]Is this vote asking for all possible retronyms to be included? Or is attestation still a requirement? -Stelio (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't like creating "paperwork" but this vote is a perfect example of why discussion is important. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @John Cross, as the person calling the vote, do you have a view on my question? -Stelio (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- In my view attestation is still required. I was trying to create a limited exception to 'sum of parts' but not to change other requirements.John Cross (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)