Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
ELE text about wikifying language names
- Voting on:
- Removing this text from WT:ELE#Translations:
- The names of languages which are expected to be well-known among English speakers are not to be wikified, while language names which may not be known to the average person or are potentially subject to confusion are to be wikified. Details and a list of affected languages are listed on Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification.
- Removing this text from WT:ELE#Translations:
- Rationale:
- Language names are no longer wikified at all per consensus at WT:Beer parlour archive/2011/December#Poll: language linking in translation sections.
- Vote starts: 10:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 10.15, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (7 days later)
- Vote created: --Daniel 10:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion:
Support
Support --Daniel 10:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vote doesn't start for two days...? --Yair rand (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Starts immediately, ends 7 days later. I messed up the dates for a moment accidentally, but that's all fixed now. --Daniel 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vote doesn't start for two days...? --Yair rand (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 11:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support —CodeCat 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. --Yair rand (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support , but please don't do this change prematurely. -- Liliana • 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- What needs to be done before this is effected, or... well, what do you mean?—msh210℠ (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this. -- Liliana • 15:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- What needs to be done before this is effected, or... well, what do you mean?—msh210℠ (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) although I do seem to remember a bit of confusion in relation to two unrelated languages called Galician. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Maro 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. —RuakhTALK 01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support —AugPi 13:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Linking no language is one of the two most simple policies with close to no disadvantages: at worst, the person who does not know the language can select the name in Wiktionary, copy it to clipboard, and paste it to Wiktionary search field. Pasting the language name to Wikipedia could be more useful anyway. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Vahag (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose DAVilla 04:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think it necessary to link nearly as many languages as we do. The top 40 rule was rather arbitrary from the beginning. Still, I'm not against linking some of the really obscure languages, and there still might be good reason for others, per EncycloPetey.- Oppose EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) There are some languages that are regularly confused by name (e.g., Scots vs. Scots Gaelic), and a link cannot but help disambiguate them. I wouldn't mind linking less, but think we ought to link some. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
- Abstain. As I understand it, this was not the consensus of WT:Beer parlour archive/2011/December#Poll: language linking in translation sections. The consensus was to remove the links from language templates which under the current system means that KassadBot (talk • contribs) will unlink them in translation sections. The fact that under our current system, one implies the other doesn't mean that both have a consensus. See also the talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. The title of that section is "Poll: language linking in translation sections", but then the options include "I want all language templates to be unlinked" and "I want all language templates to be linked". So that section was clearly set up under the assumption that one does imply the other, and most voters seem to have shared that assumption, in that only one voter (yourself) seems to have even noticed that the assumption was being made; everyone else seems to have either taken it for granted without thinking, or else must have considered the distinction and not minded. —RuakhTALK 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, language names in translation sections have been unlinked. This link is an amusing mass-unlinking in water, for example. --Daniel 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Ruakh I totally agree, very well explained. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, language names in translation sections have been unlinked. This link is an amusing mass-unlinking in water, for example. --Daniel 09:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. The title of that section is "Poll: language linking in translation sections", but then the options include "I want all language templates to be unlinked" and "I want all language templates to be linked". So that section was clearly set up under the assumption that one does imply the other, and most voters seem to have shared that assumption, in that only one voter (yourself) seems to have even noticed that the assumption was being made; everyone else seems to have either taken it for granted without thinking, or else must have considered the distinction and not minded. —RuakhTALK 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Decision
- Vote passes 14-2-1. --Yair rand (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)