Wiktionary:Votes/2007-03/Word histories

• Voting on: whether to allow people to create in-depth word histories for words, which would be separate files, similar to /citations files, linked to by the words in question. The in-depth histories would not replace the more concise one-line etymologies, but would complement them.

• Vote ends: 01 April 2007
• Vote started by: Language Lover, 01 March 2007
• Discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#pray/etymology

Allow in-depth word histories, linked to from the words in question.

1. Support -Language Lover
2. Support EncycloPetey 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) - although we would need to decide naming conventions and locations for the word histories. Maybe even on the /Citations pages?
3. Support Atelaes 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I think that EncycloPetey's idea about having it on the same page as the citations is an excellent idea. Perhaps there could be a standard dictionary entry, and an in-depth subpage, with everything which is too big to fit on the standard entry. That'll get worked out later, I imagine.
4. Support --Enginear 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Beobach972 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (-- Beobach972 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
6. Support Goshzilla 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) More detail is always good.
7. Support --Richardb 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ban in-depth word histories.

1. Oppose Widsith 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC). ‘Ban’ might be too strong a word, but my instinct and experience is that most ‘word histories’ are unnecessarily prolix and conjectural, and are usually more useful after they've been edited down into what we'd think of as a ‘normal’ =Etymology= entry.
2. Oppose Connel MacKenzie 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) This seems to be an invalid vote. There is no way that Wiktionary can encourage massive copyvios in this manner. Furthermore, this sidestepped mention of the previous discussions on the topic. The existing practice is because no one wants lengthy discourse when trying to find a definition, while an etymology itself is useful. This vote also ignored the fact that 90%+ of our "word histories" submitted are vandalism. There is absolutely no way this can be condoned. You'd need an OK from the WMF lawyer(s) first. And I think it is a safe to say, that they will never give any such OK. --Connel MacKenzie 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   This vote also ignores the simple fact that our existing suite of sysops cannot cope with the current entries, nor the current level of vandalism, adequately. Such a proposal would need dozens of full-time employees to check copyvios (quite an absurd notion, on the face of it.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps I'm wrong on this (I am the new guy, to be sure), but I somewhat doubt a winning vote would cause a massive inpouring of expanded etymologies. It's my observation that most copyvio contributors are relatively unaware of policy. Atelaes 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose SemperBlotto 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Robert Ullmann 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC) In general, there isn't any source for these that isn't either original research or copyvio.
5. Oppose Saltmarsh 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Williamsayers79 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Abstain DAVilla 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I trust Widsith on these matters. With all the objections, I could not vote to "allow in-depth word histories" in all cases, while at the same time I have no objection to the handful of histories that have undergone more than "speculation" and are provably not copyright violations.
2. Abstain H. (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Same thing here.

• Inconclusive. No action to be taken, policy on this subject remains ambiguous. Until policy is nailed down, please help Wiktionary by reviewing such etymologies on a case-by-case basis. — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).