Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/Language-specific rfi categories

Language-specific rfi categories
Voting on:


 * 1) Allowing the template  (request for image / illustration) to categorize entries into language-specific categories, including:
 * 2) * = Category:English entries needing images
 * 3) * = Category:French entries needing images
 * 4) Allowing bots to add the language code to  in all entries, to populate the categories.
 * 5) Allowing bots to edit the template calls in all entries to replace the redirects of  by the main template.
 * 6) * Known redirects:, , , and

Note:
 * As of 15/11/2015, there are there are 6,592 entries using without a language code. Those entries are currently categorized in Category:Entries needing images by language.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to: 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-11/Language-specific rfi categories

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With Wikitiki89 qualifier below. The proposed category names are inaccurate/misleading. The rest of the proposal is good, IMO. See the conversation that started with Dan Polansky's oppose vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose using the proposed category names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  as long as this vote is not taken to impose any particular category names. --WikiTiki89 17:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  without prejudice to the question of category names. - DCDuring TALK  13:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  per DCDuring. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  since I oppose the category names and these have been made part of the proposal. "English entries needing images" is misleading. It should be "Requests for images in English entries" or the like. The category tracks where an image was requested, not where it is needed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I used the name "English entries needing images" on the model of other existing categories. I think you're right in that the proposed name is misleading. Perhaps this is a chance to rename all the categories that use this naming system, some of which have ungrammatical names. See the list below.
 * Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation
 * Category:English entries needing definition
 * Category:English entries needing etymology
 * Category:English entries needing images (the one being voted now)
 * Category:English entries needing inflection
 * Category:English entries needing pronunciation
 * Category:English entries needing quotation
 * Category:English entries needing reference
 * Category:English terms needing attention
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing native script (I edited the message to add this to the list --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC))
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. Many of these categories are wrongly named, as a result of poorly discussed and advertised renaming; see also Category talk:English entries needing definition for the discussion featuring two supporting editors. I had a wish for some time to start a discussion about renaming them back where they were before. But there are too many discussions ongoing and I did not want to add to that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right in that "requests" is better than "needing". Some thoughts:
 * The name "Category:English entries needing etymology[sic]" suggests that all English entries without an etymology should be categorized in it. This would not be the case, as the category only contains manually selected entries; that is, requests.
 * But, by that logic, some categories seem to be using "needing" appropriately:
 * Category:English entries needing inflection
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing native script
 * I would expect all English entries to have the inflection and all linked/mentioned Sanskrit terms to have both the transliteration and the native script, therefore an entry lacking that information is truly "needing" it. Still, to keep the category names simple, I guess "requests" would be appropriate for those, too.
 * These category names start with the language name ("Category:English [...]"). This means that the categories can use . Some of these categories had names like Category:Requests for pronunciation (English) and Category:Requests for etymology (English) before that RFM discussion, so they had to use separate templates. ( = Category:Translations to be checked (Dutch)). is the person who started the RFM discussion. She also deleted a number of old catboiler templates other than, so I wonder if centralizing the category naming system and the catboiler templates to some extent were among her motivations for creating that RFM. IMO, both "centralizing the category naming system and the catboiler templates" may be good things. The current names are ungrammatical and misleading and I'm in for changing them, but I'd prefer a name on the format ("Category:English [...]") if that's possible. If not, then I like your suggestion of "Requests for images in English entries". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px|link=]] support the voted proposal except for the category names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For completeness, other categories with different naming systems: Category:Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones/te, Category:Ancient Greek term requests. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  or to be more specific, Meh. Doesn't seem harmful. Worrying about the precise name of the categories involved seems like pedantry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) I support proposal 1, provided English is a default; otherwise I oppose. I support proposal 2 for non-English and oppose for English, if English is decided on as the default in the template, or for all languages if that version of proposal 1 passes. I oppose proposal 3, which seems pointless. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose making default to English. In the past, many templates defaulted to English (context, "[whatever] of", etc.) and it was a common occurence seeing FL terms in English categories when people forgot the code. In particular, at the very end of the English categories, after the letter Z, it was common seeing FL entries written in Chinese characters. If someone asks to, I can try looking for past discussions about this issue. IMO, it's better if the template generates a module error in the lack of a langcode. The proper syntax for an English request would be, as mentioned at the beginning of the vote. Besides, there's a sizable number of Translingual RFIs, apart from English. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A module error visible, within the entry, to users (as opposed to one that's visible to only editors, e.g. only autoconfirmed users) is almost always less preferable than almost any other option. Modules should degrade gracefully, which includes "without affecting the user experience". Even if the module should not default to English, so it e.g. categorizes as "without lang", that should not be visible to users (except e.g. in the category list). I know you didn't say anything here that contradicts what I'm saying here, but (as you know) there is a history of module edits that do contradict what I'm saying here. But you make a good point. I rescind my opposition to (and remain abstaining on) proposal 1 if English is not a default. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * About your idea of "Modules should degrade gracefully, which includes 'without affecting the user experience'."
 * I abstain, i.e., I'm okay with the current red warning text ("Module error #xyz: All humanity is doomed because of the last edit, fix it now.") but I wouldn't mind if modules failed gracefully as you described.
 * Proposal of implementation: To seek the purpose of modules degrading without affecting user experience, make all modules, whenever possible, produce the intended text in the entry, but categorize the entry into Category:Pages with module errors nonetheless. This has the downside that it would be less easy to find the module error in the page and fix it immediately, in the lack of a conspicuous error warning generated by the affected template. I appreciate the fact that, perhaps because of the warning, Category:Pages with module errors tends to be empty most of the time and when it's not, it tends to come quickly to the attention of other editors, particularly in cases where edits to modules or templates affect many entries at the same time. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For templates categorizing into error categories with few members. eg, Category:Entries with redundant template: taxlink, I add to the displayed name a short sequence of superscripted special characters in small type, which can be found both by eye and browsers' search functions. If this practice were to become widespread we would need to make sure that there was not inappropriate duplication of the the special character sequence. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision
Correct me if I make any mistake in the vote count. Anyway, I think it's clear that the result is: passes, as long as this vote is not taken to impose any particular category names.

Proposal 1:
 * Allowing categorize entries in language-specific categories.
 * 5 support except for the category names (Daniel Carrero, Wikitiki89, DCDuring, I.S.M.E.T.A., Dan Polansky) (Note: Dan Polansky is in the oppose section but added a clarification with a partial "support" in it.)
 * 1 support if English is the default language, otherwise abstain: msh210
 * 1 support without any conditional voting: Andrew Sheedy
 * 1 abstain without any conditional voting: Angr


 * Results:
 * Allowing language specific categories (not counting comments about specific category names): 6-0-2 (100%-0%)
 * Supporting the specific category names, or supporting the whole proposal: 2-5-2 (28,57%-71,43%) (Assuming all the 5 "support except for the category names" are oppositions to the category names, or are there any of those that should be counted as abstentions to the category names?)

Proposal 2:
 * 6-0-1 (100%)
 * I'm counting msh210's vote as a support because the proposal 1 passed but nobody else voted on making English the default language.

Proposal 3:
 * 6-1-1 (85,72%-14,28%)
 * I'm counting all non-abstaining voters except msh210 as supporters of this one. msh210 is the only one who opposed the proposal 3.

Also I have a headache now, after doing that vote count. I probably should not have mentioned any specific category names in the vote proposal. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the approved bot tasks to Approved bot tasks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)