Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Representative entries

Representative entries

 * Voting on: Deprecating the practice, rule or guideline that allows representative entries to be placed at the start of the list of members of categories.

In other words, representative entries should simply follow other perceived rules of organization of entries if they exist. For example, if the representative entry is an English word, and all other entries are sorted in the English alphabetical order, then the representative entry should simply be organized within the alphabetical order too.


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23.59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Daniel. 12:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2011/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-04/Representative entries

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Daniel. 06:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC) The proposed practice is more intuitive than the practice of sorting them at the beginning. What's the first letter in Unicode anyway? I don't remember offhand.
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. —Ruakh TALK 11:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Incidentally, I dislike the practice of including arguments for one option in a vote in the vote's prologue. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other suggestion of a place to leave the rationales for future votes? --Daniel. 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The vote page generally links to a BP (or sometimes other) discussion, which includes such rationale, and to the vote's talkpage, where people can add rationale. (Also, people sometimes include rationale as a comment when voting.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one like having some rationale in the vote. It is often useful when the proposer explains a bit why the proposed idea is a good thing. No one needs to read a rationale presented in a collapsible table, do they? I would often rather read a summary of the rationale than a lengthy BP discussion. Nonetheless, the rationale in this vote has around 450 words and could be made shorter; details could be outsourced to the talk page. The alternative in which the proposer presents his rationale as part of his vote does not seem to improve anything. --Dan Polansky 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind rationale in the vote where the vote is de novo (as, for example, a vote for a new admin). But when there's been a BP discussion already and people have expressed reasons for both sides, including only one of those sides' reasons in the vote seems unfair to me. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not seem unfair to me. Voters are still free to read the BP discussion if they are inclined to do so, but I do not see it as the duty of a voter to read all discussions to which a vote refers. Voters often read the comments of other voters directly in the vote, which often contain counter-rationales. The proposer carries the burden of trying to convince a supermajority, while the opposers only need to form a 1/3-minority. Actually, I think that each policy vote and executive vote should have a rationale stated directly in the vote; I find it annoying when I do not know the reasons for the vote being proposed. I don't mind if the vote says 'Rationale: See the talk page, section "Rationale"', but I want to see an official rationale that is as polished as the text of the vote (or as unpolished as the text of the vote). --Dan Polansky 09:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, like Dan, below, I am only voting that (e.g.) time, if in cat:Time, be alphabetized among t words, and not that time be in cat:Time. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Dan Polansky 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC). IOW, I support replacing either of "  " and "  " in "time" entry with  "  "; and further on this model. I am saying nothing about whether "time" should be a member of "Category:Time" in the first place; what I am saying is that if it is a member, then it should be sorted in alphabetically rather than as one of the leading entries under "*" or " ". Some edits that introduced asterisk or space: "time" (, June 2005), "weather" (, December 2005), "psychology" (, March 2007). --Dan Polansky 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  Let's be honest, nobody goes to Category:Time to look for our entry on time. There's no need to have them right at the beginning. -- Prince Kassad 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. DAVilla 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I just don't care lol.
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes 7-0-2. &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)