Wiktionary:Votes/2010-03/Renaming requested entry pages

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Renaming requested entry pages[edit]

  • Voting on: Renaming the Wiktionary:Requested entries pages. The current naming convention separates the language name with a colon, such as Wiktionary:Requested entries:Spanish. This is both rare (no other user-edited pages are named like this) and confusing (Wikimedia software uses the colon as a namespace separator). This vote will use approval voting, so just support all options that you approve of.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Option 1[edit]

Enclose the language name in parentheses, such as WT:Requested entries (Spanish). This matches similar category names such as Category:Requests (Spanish), Category:Translation requests (Spanish), Category:Requests for etymology (Spanish), Category:Requests for audio pronunciation (Spanish), Category:Requests for pronunciation (Spanish), and Category:Tbot entries (Spanish).

  1. Support Yair rand 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Bequw → τ 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support.​—msh210℠ 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) This reads better than using a / or a : as a separator, and retains the advantage of having Special:PrefixIndex. To be honest though, this does not need a vote. Afterall, a camel is a horse designed by committee. Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support —RuakhTALK 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support EncycloPetey 03:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support   AugPi 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--Vahagn Petrosyan 11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Robert Ullmann 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC) And I also don't see why this really needs a vote, other than as a straw poll. (;-) (overloading the : separator further would not be good) Robert Ullmann 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Thryduulf 11:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2[edit]

Prepend the language name, such as WT:Spanish requested entries. This matches language related appendices/policies such as WT:Spanish pronunciation.

  1. Support.​—msh210℠ 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Daniel. 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A very minor change. I prefer prepending the language name. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3[edit]

Separate the language name with a hyphen, such as WT:Requested entries - Spanish. While this used to be common (cf. Wiktionary:Project - Spanish) it is no longer used in the Wiktionary: or Category: namespaces.

  1. Support.​—msh210℠ 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4[edit]

Separate the language name with a forward slash, such as WT:Requested entries/Spanish. This is commonly used for letter and date subpages (eg Index:English/w and Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/January 06) but it is rarely used for language pages (only occurring in pages like Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Spanish1000).

  1. Support.​—msh210℠ 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —RuakhTALK 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support   AugPi 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support (but not my favourite option). Thryduulf

Option 5[edit]

Keep the status quo of using the colon, such as Wiktionary:Requested entries:Spanish.

  1. Support.​—msh210℠ 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —RuakhTALK 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support EncycloPetey 03:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC). Seems relatively unimportant, and the options are all very similar. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly, the option 2 is more typeable and easier to remember. --Daniel. 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

  • Option 1 passes. --Yair rand 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only four people approve of option 1 but not the status quo, out of ten people voting. I'd call that a fail.​—msh210℠ 05:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one voted for option 5 but not option 1, whereas four people voted for 1 but not 5. I'd call that a pass. What do you think would be necessary for a pass on a multiple choice vote? --Yair rand 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a situation where a minority of the voters support changing the status quo in favor of the thing being considered passed. Cf. the discussion initiated by Ruakh at [[Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/ToC_format]].​—msh210℠ 06:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your first proposition is not discernible from an approval vote format (you'd need to see the individuals' ranking for those that voted equally for Options 1 and 2). I think the criteria we should use for approval voting is that an option wins if it has the highest support, that that support is large enough to be "consensus" (by our normal vote passing percentages), and that it has a substantial lead over the status quo (to be determined by the closer). Does that sound reasonable? --Bequw → τ 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to observe that no-one seems to really understand approval voting. It is useful when a choice must be made, such as electing someone to an office. (Where it should be used much more often!) It does not work for deciding whether a change should be made; including the status quo as an option doesn't work. This is related to preference strength: often there is a large majority who feel that something should be left alone, but not as strongly as those pushing for change. (cf the logo vote)

My advice to those who are tempted by approval voting is to ask for preferences somewhere (BP etc), figure out what most people want, and have a straight vote on changing to that. If you want a straw poll, use the approval vote to chose one candidate (leaving out the status quo), and then a straight vote on changing to the poll winner. Robert Ullmann 11:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Renaming requested entry pages 2 to confirm the result. It is a bit more bureaucracy, but it should work. --Dan Polansky 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I seem to be the only one disagreeing here: ignore me. As RU notes, though, future votes should not be structured the way this one was.​—msh210℠ 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us then execute the result of the vote. After that, the follow-up vote that I have started can be scratched. It is now 16 days after the end of this vote, so if a follow-up vote had been started immediately, it could have already been closed. --Dan Polansky 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's. And the other vote can be scratched before the execution is complete, too, AFAICT.​—msh210℠ 17:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other vote has passed, so this one's option 1 can now, finally, be said to have also with no contention, I hope.​—msh210℠ 18:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2010-03/Renaming_requested_entry_pages&oldid=53532722"