Wiktionary:Votes/2015-09/Creating a namespace for reconstructed terms

• Voting on:
  • Should we create a new namespace for reconstructed terms?
  • If this vote passes:
    • We will create a new namespace, whose name will be decided by discussion, and an associated talk namespace.
    • We will move all reconstructed terms from the appendix namespace to the new namespace.
    • We will move all talk pages of reconstructed terms from the appendix talk namespace to the new namespace's associated talk namespace.
    • The page names (excluding the namespace prefix) and the formatting within the entries will remain unaffected by this vote.
    • The criteria for inclusion of reconstructed terms will also remain unaffected by this vote.

"ID": {
    "id": ID,
    "case": "case-sensitive",
    "name": "NAME",
    "subpages": true,
    "canonical": "NAME",
    "content": false,
    "nonincludable": false
},

"ID+1": {
    "id": ID+1,
    "case": "case-sensitive",
    "name": "NAME talk",
    "subpages": true,
    "canonical": "NAME talk",
    "content": false,
    "nonincludable": false
},

• Vote started: 00:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Vote created: WikiTiki89 20:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Why don't we have an Unattested namespace?

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-09/Creating a namespace for reconstructed terms

1. Support --WikiTiki89 17:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support, though I do think more thought should be put into the final naming scheme before moving anything. —CodeCat 18:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support as preferrable to the current setup, although perhaps even better solutions are available. --Tropylium (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Please suggest your better solutions. --WikiTiki89 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

5. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support (Although I would like for all of our existing pages of reconstructed terms in the Appendix to be redirects to the new pages, so that links around the web don't get broken — is there a way we can ensure that this happens?) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, we just need to remember to leave redirects while moving. I presume there is some kind of parameter to leave a redirect in the API for moving pages just like the checkbox in the web UI. --WikiTiki89 17:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Do we really want all these redirects? Can we at least have a time frame for deleting them? —CodeCat 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

   If we ever want to delete them, we can do that later. We don't have to decide this beforehand. For the time being, we should definitely leave redirects. --WikiTiki89 23:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

7. Support Yes, please! —JohnC5 05:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support --profesjonalizm • reply 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Support --Aryamanarora (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Abstain Looks like a good idea. But can anyone point me to the discussion in which putting the reconstructions in the mainspace and having them start with "*" was proposed and rejected, if such a discussion exists? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   There are some attested terms that are spelled with *, like *nix. —CodeCat 19:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   Are there many of them? Could not this problem just be disregarded? Like, all reconstructed terms would start with * but some few terms starting with * would actually not be reconstructed. And these could contain a usage note stating "Although this term starts with *, it is not a reconstructed one" or the like. In Category:English terms spelled with *, I only find *, *band, *t, *nices, *nix, *nixes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

   Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/Proto- languages in Appendicies is when it was decided that reconstructed terms did not meet CFI for the mainspace and so belonged in Appendix: space instead. It was already the general practice before that vote, but then some reconstructed entries were created in mainspace, leading first to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/PIE, where a proposal to remove all traces of Proto-Indo-European from Wiktionary was rejected, and then to the vote I mentioned first, resulting in the compromise solution that reconstructed terms are allowed at Wiktionary, but only in appendices, not in mainspace. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

   Thank you. Overturning that vote might be preferable to a new namespace, if doable. I don't oppose the present vote and I am even inclined to move to support section; not that it matters since there are no opposes. The only reason I chose abstain is to highlight that an alternative course of action might be preferable. Since as for substance rather than past votes, I still do not know why reconstructed terms in the mainspace are a bad thing as long as they start with * to indicate they are not attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Passes 9–0–1. Next steps AFAICT are (of necessity in this order) to choose a namespace name, to get WMF folks to create the namespace, and to move pages. See the talkpage of this vote, where discussion is ongoing toward choosing a namespace name.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there interest in setting up a formal vote for the name of the new namespace? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't that's necessary. And technically you can say that the wording of this vote made the discussion to decide the name binding. --WikiTiki89 15:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The name is "Reconstruction:" then? —CodeCat 15:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that poll is not necessarily over yet, but I don't see it taking a turn in another direction. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not over? It has barely started! It was announced in BP only a couple of days ago. We have to give the editorship a chance to see and act on that announcement before any action is taken. (Hm. We don't have that sense of editorship. I wonder whether it's attested.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no set time for non-vote polls though. —CodeCat 21:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msh210: The poll has been going on for much longer though and in fact more people voted in it than in the vote itself. Only one new vote has come in since the announcement in the BP. Only two people who voted in the vote itself have not (yet) voted in the poll. I think it's relatively safe to assume that the 9-3 lead will not change much if we wait a week, which I am still willing to do. --WikiTiki89 21:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Are we there yet? —CodeCat 00:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would say we've waited long enough. "Reconstruction" is the clear winner. Who wants to submit the ticket? --WikiTiki89 00:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, as we were discussing earlier, how do we submit a ticket to get search bar shortcuts add like RC for Reconstruction? Should we have a vote about that too? —JohnC5 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should open a BP discussion about creating shortcuts for most of our common namespaces, such as Appendix, Category, Module, Template, MediaWiki, etc, and of course the new Reconstruction. We need to first decide on the names and then potentially have a formal vote if we think that is necessary. --WikiTiki89 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to open the discussion or shall I? —JohnC5 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You can do it. --WikiTiki89 00:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Since nothing is happening, I created the request myself: . —CodeCat 16:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Related polls:

• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-09/Creating a namespace for reconstructed terms#What should we name the namespace?
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Format of entries in the Reconstruction namespace

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical note:

This vote replaced Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/Proto- languages in Appendicies. (it stated that reconstructed terms were to be in appendices) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)