Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-06/Single lowercase entry in situations where both cases are present

• Voting on: In cases where both upper and lower cases are used, for example Brook (the name) and brook (the water feature), redirecting the uppercase entry to the lowercase entry and collocating the text of both entries on the same page. Case distinctions can be provided on one page. In cases where only an uppercase entry exists, the lowercase entry can redirect to the uppercase, but that would not be a necessity.

Current policy states "For languages with two cases of script, the entry name will usually begin with a lowercase letter. Exceptions include proper nouns, German nouns, and many abbreviations."

Proposed policy would state "For languages with two cases of script, the entry name will usually begin with a lowercase letter. Exceptions include proper nouns, German nouns, and many abbreviations. For a particular spelling, all entries will share the lowercase entry, variants in script case will be redirected to the main entry."

Incidentally: I'm all for form and procedure when its actually warranted, but if you don't like a specific aspect of this proposal, then change it and we can actually have a real vote on something people do like instead of voting against something we don't like. This idea that we have to have a vote like an ArbCom case is sort of silly. I'm for just dumping the whole vote now if we can't just work on ideas in a community-oriented fashion. -- Avanu 11:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Vote starts: 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Vote created: Avanu 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#Single lowercase entry in situations where both cases are present (English Wiktionary)

  User talk:Avanu#santorum

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-06/Single lowercase entry in situations where both cases are present

1. Support Avanu 10:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC) It's easy and helpful. -- Avanu 10:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose --Yair rand 04:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Daniel 04:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose Equinox ◑ 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Per my arguments in Beer Parlour. Avanu says he does not understand them, but that does not make them invalid. Equinox ◑ 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Equinox, feel free to comment on your vote, but please don't attribute ideas to me that I didn't say. -- Avanu 11:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu said, "I do not understand the mentality of those who think separate pages make any sense at all when you have the same spelling." I don't believe I was attributing any idea to him that he did not say. Equinox ◑ 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I don't understand the resistance to making things easier, although I do understand your reasons for why you think it shouldn't be changed. -- Avanu 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC), I thought this idea died a slow and painful death on the Beer Parlour, so why it's here is beyond me. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Abstain —CodeCat 10:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Abstain. I like the concept, but not this realization of it. —Ruakh_TALK 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• No decision. I was under the impression that the community actually discussed things, not just plopped in a vote. This is not how its done at Wikipedia, and if this is the process here, I'm withdrawing the vote because there's no give and take and amending things to reach consensus. Not my impression of how community improvement processes should work. Part of the problem seems to be that several editors have conflicting ideas of what is even being proposed and why. -- Avanu 22:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding "I was under the impression that the community actually discussed things, not just plopped in a vote". Huh, you started the vote, are you actually complaining about your own behavior then? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I put a vote in because that is what I was told to do after reading. If I had known you don't really discuss things here, I wouldn't have bothered. The idea that you have to canvass first is pretty much contrary to the approach at Wikipedia. -- Avanu 23:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia includes many projects in many languages, and each has their own rules and norms. The English Wiktionary is not bound by any process decisions on the English Wikipedia, the French Wikisource, or the Russian Wikibooks. This is a separate project, and the approach chosen on some other project is irrelevant here. --EncycloPetey 01:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Given a discussion on Daniel Carrero's Talk page just now, I am seeing that the Wiktionary project was not what I thought it was at all. I realize that different projects might have different processes and norms, but not sure if it has to be. However, at this point I can't really speak to what is best or not since I'm unbelievably new to this. My first impression is that people in a much smaller project like this probably ought to realize that 'outsiders' are likely to be incredibly lost and as such be willing to almost expect errors in process due to an ignorance of the culture here. -- Avanu 03:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)