Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Variations: namespace

Variations: namespace

 * Voting on:
 * Creating two namespaces: "Variations:" and "Variations talk:".
 * Moving Appendix:Variations of "chan" to Variations:chan.
 * Moving all other appendices of disambiguation of letters and words to the new namespace. Examples of new pages would include Variations:a, Variations:ab and Variations:ac, which would be moved from Appendix:Variations of "a", Appendix:Variations of "ab" and Appendix:Variations of "ac", respectively.
 * Rationale A: The proposed names are shorter.
 * Variations:chan is 14 characters shorter than Appendix:Variations of "chan".
 * Rationale B: The proposed names are simpler.
 * Variations:chan is devoid of spaces, prepositions and quotation marks. Appendix:Variations of "chan" is not.
 * Rationale C:
 * Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Disambiguation: namespace proposed the implementation of a "Disambiguation:" namespace and failed. On that page, some people mentioned, and argued, that "Variations:" would be a better option.


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23.59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel 12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Disambiguation: namespace
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-07/Variations: namespace

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Tempodivalse  [talk]  00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC) per my comments in the previous, aforementioned vote. Tempodivalse  [talk]  00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Daniel 00:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] I'm guessing this is actually already tested well enough as a large section of the appendix. But I wonder if the heading would actually read “See also: Variations:a” or something some decipherable like “See also: Variations of 'a'”. DAVilla 05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter is doable with . (I'd say a new template could display it, but sometimes a link is needed to an a page besides the variations page. Well, I suppose the new template can include such in additional parameters. But  really suffices.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. Just my 10 cents. Would it be possible to edit the Variations:xxx page and have a bot or some process automatically update the pages mentioned on the Variations page with the See also Variations:xxx heading instead of having someone manually update each of those pages? Or do we already have something in place for that? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Weak oppose; I think the appendix namespace is sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. This proposal is an improvement over the previous one, but I still don't see a need for a dedicated namespace. —Ruakh TALK 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] I weakly oppose per my comments below and linked to therefrom. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose   I think the only real utility of a separate namespace is allowing different granularity of searches. It hasn't been show that "Variations" pages would benefit from this. If the only goal is shortening titles by a few characters then we would add hundreds of new namespaces (Wikiproject:, Frequencies:, Votes:, Policies:, etc.). We have enough separate namespaces to already confuse novice editors attempting to use the "advanced search". --Bequw → τ 04:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. Shortening of titles of pages for faster typing is alone not a sufficient reason for the creation of a dedicated namespace. For context, the pages that would end up in this namespace are in Category:Variation appendices, which has 248 pages (=26 + 216 + 6) in total. --Dan Polansky 07:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose I just don't see the need. SemperBlotto 07:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain
Abstain for now, at least, though I'm still open to arguments in either direction. I'm writing now only to voice the following: The big question for me is whether these pages serve the purpose of our appendix namespace, which is to serve as an appendix of the dictionary, with supplementary information. That is, are these pages useful sources of information proper, or only as disambiguation pages that direct readers to the pages they seek? I'm leaning toward the former, in which case appendix is the right namespace for them. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Switched to opposition, above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A reply to this from the vote's creator, and my reply thereto, are currently at my talkpage. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and have now been archived at this vote's talkpage. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails 4–6 (40%). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)