Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2022-06/Attestation criteria for derogatory terms

Interpretation of the result

How exactly would the result be tallied if say Option 2 AND Option 1 pass the threshold necessary to pass? I'd like to default to Option 2 if possible, but that may not be what you'd like @Sgconlaw. Also, since it says please vote for one option, are folks allowed to vote "oppose" for both options? I just want to be sure. AG202 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: good points. I will update the instructions to say the following:

• Editors can certainly oppose both options.
• If there is sufficient consensus for both options, the option with more “support” votes and fewer “oppose” votes succeeds.
• If both options have sufficient consensus and have been supported and opposed by exactly the same number of votes each, option 2 succeeds.

— Sgconlaw (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! AG202 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Theoretically, this list is not exhaustive. If Option 1 passes 10-5 and Option 2 12-6 then neither of your if clauses applies. Not that it will matter in practice though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: the rest of the instructions only apply if at least one of the options succeed by the required two-thirds majority, which is what I meant by "sufficient consensus". If neither option has sufficient consensus, then of course neither of them will be adopted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: In my example, both options have reached supermajority. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: oh yeah ... boy my maths is bad. Ah, I think you didn't notice that on the main vote page I refined the rules. The relevant actual rule states: "If there is sufficient consensus for both options, the option with, in the first place, more “support” votes and, if there is a tie, fewer “oppose” votes, succeeds." So, applying this rule to your scenario, since option 2 has more "support" votes than option 1, option 2 passes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Right, I see. I only saw the above three bullet points and didn't look at that part of the vote. Thanks! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Definition of "derogatory"

A term is considered derogatory if it:

• denigrates a named individual in any way; or
• denigrates an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

I'm not sure if this definition really captures what we want it to capture. In particular, it doesn't make sense to me to speak of a geographical location being denigrated on the basis of any of those characteristics, since it doesn't possess the characteristics. I suppose you were intending to capture Norgay etc, but at least in my mind, it doesn't quite work. Also I'm not even sure if, on a close reading of this definition, Mexicunt would be captured.

How about: "apparently intended to denigrate an individual person, group of persons, or geographical location through its use of, or implicit reference to, slurs, obscenities, or demeaning metaphors or comparisons." That seems to capture all the terms listed on the vote page. My use of "apparently" is to avoid arguments that a term is "all in jest". This, that and the other (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I think it might be better to keep the definition to a shorter, less open-ended list of characteristics, otherwise editors may object that "slurs, obscenities, or demeaning metaphors or comparisons" is too uncertain. If in future editors want to expand the existing list, there can be a further discussion about that.

Alternatively, perhaps a compromise would be for the definition of derogatory to be reworded as follows: "[...] denigrates an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or with the use of a demeaning or obscene term."

Some other comments:

• I think it's fine to mention denigrating geographical locations on the current named bases. (I would say that Mexicunt perhaps denigrates Mexico on the basis of gender or sex?) Yes, the intention is to cover demeaning epithets for cities, countries, continents, etc., as these are also likely to cause offence.
• "Apparently intended" sounds good to me.

However, if you would like to add a third option with the more open-ended wording above, I have no objection. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Making the vote more confusing with a third option would probably be counterproductive. On the other hand, I certainly approve of your compromise suggestion. This, that and the other (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: OK.  Done. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

First two bullet points

The first two bullet points left me a bit confused. Am I understanding it correctly that the first bullet point (speedy after 2 weeks without notice) applies to all terms created after the vote has passed and the second (speedy after 2 weeks at RFV) to all terms created before the vote? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Explicit comparison to current criteria

I think it would be a good idea to be explicit in how the proposals differ from our current criteria, so that people without a lot of time on their hands understand what they're voting for or against. E.g., the speedy provision, and 3 cites vs 2. Anything else? kwami (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Number of citations

If a term is derogatory to an individual, group of persons, or geographical location, it must have at least three quotations satisfying these requirements added to it within: […]

Must derogatory terms in languages not well documented on the Internet have at least three quotations too? 沈澄心✉ 15:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

As the proposal is currently phrased, I'd say yes. If it is thought that an exception should be made for limited-documentation languages, that can be the subject of a separate proposal in the future. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Update to the vote

@Sgconlaw, Binarystep, This, that and the other, MuDavid, Prosfilaes, Svartava, The Ice Mage, Benwing2, Thadh, Andrew Sheedy, John Cross, TheDaveRoss, Whoop whoop pull up, Fay Freak, brittletheories, Geographyinitiative, Akonada, PseudoSkull, 沈澄心, AG202, Lingo Bingo Dingo, kwami, Tibidibi, Fish bowl, Fytcha, Imetsia, Graeme Bartlett, Overlordnat1, Allahverdi Verdizade This is to notify you that the vote has been slightly modified after your votes/comments. This may or may not change your decision, but I felt the need to inform you so that you can amend your vote accordingly if needed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami as well (wrong name pinged above). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is how I understood the (spirit of the) proposal, so I won't change my decision. Thanks for the notification though! MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Justinrleung! — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)