Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box

• Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to add PIE root box to a large number of entries in various languages including English, to float at the top right-hand corner of the page, like it does in this revision of spát.
• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/July#Vote: Adding PIE root box

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box

1. Support I both like the layout and the categorization system it implements. —JohnC5 01:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose I find the box distracting. It seems to duplicate information that IMHO should only be available as a simple "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-". In the linked entry revision above, there are both the simple "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-" and the PIE box. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. I don't think they're useful outside of the etymology, and they're irrelevant to most users. To display PIE roots so prominently, over any other ancestral words, doesn't make sense to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. --Vahag (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Andrew Sheedy. --Droigheann (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose I hate eating pie, except for chocolate pie. PIE doesn't look much better. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. Nibiko (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose: visual clutter that doesn't seem to provide any benefits over the regular use of {{der|##|ine-pro|*root}}. --Tropylium (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   What about the categories? —CodeCat 22:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   That seems like a separate argument from having an actual box as a visual page element. They might be useful for some things; though I predict many would get unusably swamped if we e.g. dumped not just base words but also all Greco-Latinate scientific compound or prefixed terms in them. (A discussion about the categorization aspect should probably also cover why do we do this with PIE and PSem., but not with any other proto-language.) --Tropylium (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

8. Oppose the use of automatic and semi-automatic edits to add boxes; oppose the use of boxes at all for this, but support enabling {{der}} and {{inh}} to populate the categories. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Andrew Sheedy. —suzukaze (t・c) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Andrew Sheedy. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose having PIE root boxes at all, per Andrew Sheedy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose having PIE root boxes at all. They're irrelevant to most users, they duplicate information that should be already there, and they also imply the correctness of a root when it often is (or at least should be) hypothetical. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain I just want to comment that if this vote does not pass, the status quo should remain and the root boxes should not be removed unless a vote is created to do so and passes (i.e. one in which voting support would indicate being in favor of removing the boxes). --WikiTiki89 17:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

   If this vote does not pass and we want to kill {{PIE root}}, can we just nominate it for RFDO or should we create a vote? In my opinion, I'm leaning towards RFDO, but this is a high-use template so if people want a vote, I wouldn't mind. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   I personally think that RFDO should be used for deleting the templates themselves (and replacing them with something else in a way that does not affect mainspace) rather than for opposing what the templates do in mainspace. However, that has been done in the past. The WT:BP would be a better place to do something like that less formally than a vote. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   By my lights, the status quo is that we did not do the PIE boxes, not that they were introduced by a small number of editors without a discussion and thereby became entrenched. Otherwise, I would have to be even less patient and have created a vote as soon as I saw this. I think what you and I might disagree about is the time period that has to elapse until a practice becomes status quo. Since, if these boxes were introduced by a single editor on a single day, I don't believe you would claim these boxes to be the status quo the other day, would you? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   For the record, {{PIE root}} was created in July 2015. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   Let me admit that I noticed the PIE root much sooner than when I created this vote. Something broke my patience but I am not sure what it was. I decided to try my luck with the vote despite feeling rather powerless; I was expecting a significant number of supporters. The intermediate result so far caught me by surprise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   Our practice is to allow new templates by default. {{PIE root}} does not violate any of our previous policies. This vote was created specifically regarding automatic and semi-automatic additions of the template, since those would need a vote. The {{PIE root}} boxes are already part of the status quo. The status quo is the situation as it is right now, not the situation as it was or will be a year ago or any other time. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   If I create a new undiscussed template and place it to 1000 entries in one batch of editing, and a vote created for it results in 40% supporting the template, are you saying that editors should not be removing the template and that it becomes entrenched in those 1000 entries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   This vote was not created for it, this vote was created for automating it. If there are people opposed to the template, there should be a discussion about removing it, and there never was one. --WikiTiki89 17:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   Ponder my question; let me invite you to try to answer it. It is not about this particular vote and automation; it is about under which conditions things become entrenched. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   I don't really understand what you mean by "under which conditions things become entrenched". But all I'm trying to say is that the right thing to do is to discuss the issue, and you seem to be avoiding that. --WikiTiki89 18:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   By "entrenched" I mean that it cannot be removed until there is evidence of supermajority for the removal. Normally, edits are not entrenched. If I disagree with an edit for whatever reason, I can undo it and the status before the edit prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   I believe this a valid point: I'll make a comparison between {{PIE root}} and {{def}}. The def template was created 2 days ago and it was added to less than 30 entries, by Dan Polansky's count. In this BP discussion Dan Polansky said: "For the record, I herewith submit my objection to using {{def}}, and consider the state before the creation of {{def}} to be the status quo ante."

   As far as I can see, {{PIE root}} was proposed in this discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/April#Categories for terms in a language derived from a particular PIE root (April–May 2015). Apparently, nobody objected to using {{PIE root}} for a year, until this vote was created. {{def}} is clearly not "entrenched" as of today, because it was recently created and quickly met with opposition. Does the lack of discussion for a year make {{PIE root}} entrenched to some degree? If the answer is yes, it places some burden on the shoulders of the opposers, which is the idea that if someone creates a garbage template, you better oppose it quickly or it will be too late. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   If someone creates a garbage template, no matter how long you wait you will always find a supermajority to oppose it. If someone creates a useful template that roughly half the editors support and half oppose, then this "entrenching" becomes an issue. --WikiTiki89 19:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   The discussion was probably largely unnoticed: it contains no "support" posts and in fact contains only posts from 3 users in total including the OP. Furthermore, the title of the discussion makes it clear to the skimmer that categories are at stakes, not boxes. In the post, boxes are mentioned only in "or maybe show a small box at most". My position is that, after a year, the boxes are not entrenched, but some may differ. Be it as it may, if the vote progresses the way it does now, we will have a very clear picture of consensus against the boxes, and the entrenching question becomes moot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

2. Abstain I wouldn't miss the PIE root box if it disappeared, maybe it should be in plain text form instead. I did have to deal with one (by moving it) where it interfered with the page layout, clashing with the presentation of an image. DonnanZ (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Could someone who actually supports the use of {{PIE root}} — say CodeCat and/or JohnC5 — explain here the benefits of the template, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Failed, 1-12-2 (7.7%-92.3%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)