Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/EL introduction

Voting on: Adding some text as the introduction to WT:EL (diff):

Rationale and changes:

• Quickly states that WT:EL is and what it does, for those unacquainted with the policy.
• The first sentence was based on WT:NORM's "This is a list of aspects that govern how the wiki code behind an entry should be formatted."
• The second sentence is a generic, all-encompassing statement but it also suggests that we have some standards concerning specific allowable headers and contents.
• The third sentence was based on WT:NORM's " they do make the pages conform more to a standard format reflecting what we think of as best for the wiki code."

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/December#WT:EL new votes
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/EL introduction

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Droigheann (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support but I would prefer "what sections are allowed" rather than "what are allowed sections" and "what contents are expected to be found" rather than "what are the contents expected to be found". --WikiTiki89 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   • @Daniel Carrero, Andrew Sheedy, Droigheann, Angr Would you object to Wikitiki89's proposed edits being made to the vote text? This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

     Fine by me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

     I would not. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

     I have no objection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

     Sure, go ahead 👍. --Droigheann (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

     Done, thanks. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

6. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
7. Support --Vahag (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
8. I support the addition of the first two sentences but I oppose the addition of the third sentence. although Dan Polansky is right in objecting to the use of the word "best"; proper modesty would require justifying these rules by appeal to the value of consistency, not to the optimality of the format they enforce. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC) — Post edited (underscored elements added, stricken element removed). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

   @User:I'm so meta even this acronym: So what makes you support? The addition has no practical policy impact, which makes it dispensable, and is misleading. It does not even codify existing practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   @Dan Polansky: I agree with Rationale point 1 ("Quickly states hat WT:EL is and what it does, for those unacquainted with the policy."); preambles like this are a good idea, IMO. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   @ I.S.M.E.T.A.: Fair enough. What if you voted "I support the addition of the first two sentences but I oppose the addition of the 3rd sentence"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

   @Dan Polansky: Yeah, OK. Done. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose 1) These are neither norms or "rules", IMHO. I like what we currently have in WT:ELE: 'While the information below may represent some kind of “standard” form, it is not a set of rigid rules.' 2) As for "These rules reflect what editors think as best concerning the standard format of an entry": The use of the word "best" and the language are inappropriate, and I failed to notice this in the vote about WT:NORM. The format is what we have arrived at through history and convention, not what we think is "best". For the sake of consistency, we want to keep a fairly uniform format, but claims of bestness are invalid. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose As with many of our recent votes, the wording seems to be a patchwork of the wording of votes and early versions of other documents, such as WT:ELE, supplemented and unified, to the extent that it is, by World English wording, which is to say that it will clearly indicate to would-be natively English contributors that they are guests, not custodians. I believe that the most enduring contribution of this entire rewrite effort will be to further discourage the potential volunteers who could help us update and reword our English entries and, for that matter, the glosses used to "define" non-English terms. I know of no other way to slow or stop this process than to rant against it and oppose any change that I do not strongly favor. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

   Ok, should I stop? Would you rewrite EL in any other way or would you keep it in the current state? We already talked about it before, but I didn't get in which way the current rewriting effort would "further discourage the potential volunteers". On the contrary, most of my proposals are to rewrite EL to remove prehistoric information and help new users to understand our entries by using the policy, not just by copying the layout of other entries.

   The current vote is an exception, becayse it is not a revision of old rules, it's just a nice introduction. (in my opinion) What do you think about the proposed EL introduction? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Procedurally, I don't see why allowing the change of wording on the fly should be decided solely by advocates of the proposal in the middle of the voting period, especially as there is no provision for such a change in any rule that we have. At the very least the voting period should be extended, but withdrawal would seem appropriate as there is no specific provision for such extension either. I guess that this aborted vote would constitute another discussion of the matter. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think diff all that a big deal: it is an entirely minor change to make the sentence read more English. Let's not be all that extremely formalist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  It was agreed to by all of the voters who had already voted at the time of the change. --WikiTiki89 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Even in spite of ISMETA's conditional vote, there is a consensus 7-3 (70%) for the change and the vote passes, notwithstanding DCDuring's procedural objection (which not only jumps to conclusions by referring to this vote as "aborted", but also, I'm sorry to say, has a tinge of sour grapes in light of his opposition to the vote, and has in my view been adequately and sensibly rebutted by Dan and Wikitiki). This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Results:

• 1st and 2nd sentences: 8-2-0 (80%-20%) -- Passed
• 3rd sentence: 7-3-0 (70%-30%) -- Passed

I edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)