Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing

Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing

 * Voting on: Mass adding template (request for etymology) and an etymology section to all lemma entries where etymology is missing.
 * Vote starts: 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rationale: For a rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-12/Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.


 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2014/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-12/Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing

Oppose

 * 1)  --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC) I have never seen substantive numbers of etymologies added by people filling in RFE requests. The people whom I saw add larger numbers of etymologies did not go by requests; similarly, the people whom I saw add larger numbers of Latin lemma entries did not go by requests. The presence of RFE in every lemma entry may possibly slightly increase the rate of addition, but only at the cost of flooding Wiktionary mainspace with information-free etymology sections for many years. An editor mentioned that placing requests worked well for inflection. I do not know whether this is true, but even if it is true, we have to realize that, for native speakers, inflection is largely trivial and easy-to-fill, whereas etymology requires research in sources unless it is folk etymology. As for evidence, I have seen presented no evidence to support claims about efficacy of placing these sorts of request boxes to pages. Such evidence could be collected from dumps. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  I always try to add etymology where I can, but this info is not always available, or incomplete. Entering the etymology of compound words can be a lot easier. The mass addition of RFE to entries tends to make them look untidy. Donnanz (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , but I wouldn't be opposed to lemmata missing an etymology being placed in a hidden category (according to language, e.g. "Category:English lemmata with no etymology section"). This, that and the other (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , but I agree that a hidden category is fine. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , some of the other language Wiktionaries have such requests for every section, but it hasn't (as far as I am aware) encouraged lots of editors to join and add the missing information. Kaixinguo (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  as proposed. A great many languages and words are not even etymologically well-researched in the first place. A hidden category sounds like a good idea though, but should not be conflated with items tagged with regular . Something like "entries with no etymology" for the former, "entries with etymology requested" for the latter? --Tropylium (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Equinox ◑ 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails (0-7-0; 0% support). My suggestion of a hidden category had limited support from the oppose voters; this could be the subject of further discussion. This, that and the other (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)