Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/Fix tense: start/end in votes

Voting on:

• Retroactively editing all votes, plus editing all vote preload templates (e.g., Template:vote-generic), to make the date labels agree on the tense.

Proposal 1:

* Vote starts:
* Vote ends:

Proposal 2:

* Start date:
* End date:

Proposal 3:

• Other format. Specify.

Procedural note:

• If this vote passes, the option with the most supporting votes is going to be implemented.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/November#Suggestion: make "Vote started" and "Vote ends" agree on the tense

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-11/Fix tense: start/end in votes

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

   I prefer this option. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

2. Support —Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

   Support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This text was in {{vote-generic}} on 28 November 2013‎. If I were an admin, I would have just reverted diff without a vote, as a nonconsensual change that I oppose. This does not really seem to be the stuff votes should be concerned with, but since we already have this vote, let's vote in it and move on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

   I figured we needed a vote for the act of retroactively editing all votes, plus to make sure what exactly is the format preferred by the community. Others might disagree with me, though. I wouldn't feel comfortable editing a lot of pages using "Vote starts / Vote ends" after at least one person had supported the format of "Start date / End date" in the original discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

   You're right; the retroactive editing part is more of a deal than restoring {{vote-generic}} to where it was in 2013. I actually abstain as for retroactive editing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

   I switched to oppose per msh210; see the oppose section. I still support changing the template to "Vote starts / Vote ends", which can be done right now, without a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

   Note: If this option passes, perhaps we should also change the "Vote created:" into "Creation date:". What do you think, @Wikitiki89? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   Sure. Would that require a new vote? --WikiTiki89 16:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   On second thought, that's not necessary; created is used as a passive participle, not as a past tense verb, and thus has no tense. --WikiTiki89 16:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

2. Support --WikiTiki89 16:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

   Abstain Not too bad but note that not only date but also time is provided. So this is slightly misleading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

   It's not misleading. The time is always the same and is only there to clarify the date. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

   To fill a field entitled "Start date" with "00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)" is slightly misleading, IMHO; not very much, but slightly anyway. Furthermore, the time is always the same for "Vote starts" and always the same for "Vote ends", but it is not the same between the two since it is 23:59 for the latter. As far as I am concerned, the time adds useful information and is distinct from date. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Oppose Needless busywork. This, that and the other (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose all formats because afaict no one has checked all past votes to be sure that this doesn't make a difference. I doubt it does, but we shouldn't mess with votes without care. Plus, anyway, although there may be some slight benefit in effecting this proposal for future votes (make them clearer for those whose English is poor), I see no benefit in effecting it for past votes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose the "Retroactively editing all votes" part per msh210 above. I still support the change in the template to be as it was: Vote starts / Vote ends. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose retroactively editing all votes per msh210 and George Orwell. --Droigheann (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Abstain — Such a vote is absolutely unnecessary. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   Why do you think so? For example, could we edit the start/end text in all prior votes votes without voting on it first? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   @Daniel Carrero: In my opinion, it is of so little consequence that we should just leave the prior votes as they are. By all means should {{vote-generic}} be fixed and should all future votes feature the revised wording, but those changes are certainly too minor to call for a vote. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   I tend to agree. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   Given all the comments above, I'm losing the will to edit prior votes myself. I was planning to do it with AWB. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• No consensus at 5-4-1 (3 of the support votes being in favour of option 1, and 2 in favour of option 2). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) ADDENDUM: Proposal 1 passes 4-1 solely as it applies to the format of future votes, not existing votes or past votes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  It seems that three of the four oppose votes were opposing only the retroactive part of the vote. So I think there should be a separate decision on the proactive part. --WikiTiki89 16:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  I agree. It seems the retroactive part fails (due to no consensus) while the proactive part of proposal 1 passes 4 voters (Daniel C., Andrew Sheedy, Μετάknowledge, Dan P.) to 1 (This). (I failed to specify that I was voting on the retroactive part only and worded my vote as general, but meant it to apply to the retroactive part only. I'm not sure whether we can count that as the abstention that I intended (for proactive) or need to count it as the opposition that I stated. If we need to count it as opposition, it's 4–2, which is borderline. Because that number is borderline and because anyway it's unclear how to count my vote, I say we should deem the proactive part of proposal 1 passed.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have no complaints with that interpretation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge: So could you officially change the decision? --WikiTiki89 16:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited these templates to use the format of "Vote starts / Vote ends". They were using "Vote started / Vote ends" before that.

• Template:vote-generic
• Template:vote-checkuser
• Template:vote-bureaucrat
• Template:vote-bot

I didn't touch this template, because it was already using the format of "Vote starts / Vote ends".

• Template:vote-sysop

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)