Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Nullifying the previous templates vote

Nullifying the previous templates vote
Voting on: Nullifying Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+, and holding that the two templates in question did not require a vote or consensus support for creation.

Rationale: The creation of templates has never required a vote. Therefore, the establishment of our previous templates vote was improper and should be annulled. In addition, some users have claimed that the “failure” of our previous vote is a ground to foreclose the operation of the two new templates. This vote would declare that argument invalid and affirm the legitimacy of the creation and deployment of the two templates.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Imetsia (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] '''User talk:Inqilābī § Regarding etymologies...
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Benwing2 § In light of your automated standardisations…
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Requests for deletion/Others § Template:bor+ and Template:inh+
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2021/June
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Victar § Imetsia's block
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Svartava § bor+
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Imetsia § Victar’s block
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User:Imetsia/The new templates and User:Victar's block
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 

Support

 * 1)  as nom. Imetsia (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  as I find these templates highly useful. I don't believe templates should even require a vote. Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  "[W]e don't generally require consensus to create a template; anyone can do so. So the fact that this vote failed with ‘no consensus’ has very little effect; all it means is that no one is required to create and/or use these templates.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/62934478 Llittleserie (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) . I fought for these when all seemed lost; is it not bloody obvious I'll support? Svārtava2 • 06:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  08:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Tibidibi (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Clarification: weak support, agree with AG202 and Taimoorahmed.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  as I find the templates useful and agree that they should have never required a vote. However, I do agree with those opposed thus far that this wasn't the best way to go about it and that it seems like continuous drama, as I mentioned in the discussion in Beer parlour. Regardless of how the vote plays out (though I've been expecting it to fail), there needs to be more clarity, and an actual solution needs to be reached. AG202 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  I disagree with the idea of nullifying because it causes further conflicts and would like to see this resolved, but this template is incredibly useful for someone like me and don't see why it shouldn't exist. -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 17:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) I  this as the only step that could now pull us out of the terrible crisis. [Alternative history 1: User:Benwing2 goes ahead with templet creation following his support for the templets. Victar the Terrible nominates them for deletion; most people vote keep and the templets are declared fully legitimate. Alternative history 2: No user goes ahead with templet creation after the vote does not pass, and User:Inqilābī creates another vote (of a longer duration) after a while. This time more people participate in the vote and the vote passes.]  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , this user our WT:NPA policy. --  19:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I never personally attack any fellow editor. All my activity (be it contributions or comments) are done or said in good faith. I can understand how Victar the Terrible is bent on getting me blocked, this is not something new. Ironically, this is the same user who brazenly uses the f-word all the time. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is your good faith, I'd hate to see what your bad faith looks like. Stop engaging in these borderline personal attacks. This is your last warning. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are happy to get me blocked, please do so. I do not regret saying things I know are not wrong. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even as someone who feels passionately about the templates, the votes, the block, etc. I do agree that comments like "Victar the Terrible" are inappropriate. It's better to disagree with a user about the substance of their actions/beliefs rather than their character. Imetsia (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. That was a cool epithet. I will not mind someone doing likewise to me. When will people become mature and stop getting irked by mild words? Come on, get over this childish complaints and all! ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 's comments on Victar are correct. The way he has been replacing new good templates is utterly awful. When most agreed to it. We didn't impose anything on him, why does he have to. He pushes users to make votes, so that he gets to oppose. He didn't edit Prakrit, neither he does now, but he opposed Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one. He got the vote created as he wanted to oppose. I didn't realise his intentions then, and supported his reasons for vote. When all arguments were stated and his concerns (rather excuses to oppose) addressed, he didn't change his vote. Really bad that he was unblocked. Special:MobileDiff/63422167 . —Svārtava2 • 04:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to leave here... --  06:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s irrelevant here. Why bother if you were uninvolved there? ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  09:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) ; just to permanently resolve the matter around the misguided attempts to delete the templates. That some have taken it upon them to 'interpret' a result barely short of a supermajority as a consensus to delete is deplorable and wikilawyering at its worst. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to try and change your option on the goal of this vote, but two points: 1. whether a vote is "barely short" of passing or not doesn't matter -- it still doesn't pass, and 2. the previous vote was for the creation of the templates in question, not their deletion, yet even after the vote didn't pass, the templates were created regardless, and for the record, were never deleted. -- 17:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit over 1/3 of the votes is not enough to establish a consensus for deletion, because the default isn't that such templates should be deleted so that is not the status quo to fall back on. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  what LB said. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) .  The previous vote was unnecessary.  Time we recognise that. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  - It isn't a bad thing to acknowledge that an anomaly has happened. In fact, it is the appropriate thing to do. I am in favour of stating that "the creation of new templates doesn't require a vote", a sensible and workable stance worthy of explicit affirmation. --Frigoris (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I never heard of template creation requiring a vote, that seems kind of silly. That's not required on Wikipedia so I don't see why we need it here. Geracruzcolusa (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  – not only because I think the vote should not have been held to start with, but also because acceptance may clear the air. Alas, it does not look like this is going to happen.  --Lambiam 13:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason a vote was initially needed was because it undermines and subverts Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed. It was a contentious issue then, and it's a contentious now. If it wasn't contentious, it would have passed with flying colors. -- 17:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2017 proposal was not well designed. Imagine a user who wants a solution that allows, simultaneously, (1) users not to have to manually enter the text “Borrowed from” for each instance where they want it to be displayed (covering most cases), and (2) this text not to always be there, so that some other text can be used, e.g., “From”, or “Possibly borrowed from”, should they so wish. Proposal 1 was incompatible with wish (1), and Proposal 2 was incompatible with wish (2). The vote gave a choice between two rigid options: never a canned pre-text, or always a canned pre-text. I liked neither option.  --Lambiam 20:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to defend the 2017 vote -- I, in fact, voted against it -- I was simply pointing out that there is presence for the need of a vote to overturn it. As I stated in the last vote, I might have supported bor+, but I don't, under any terms, support the creation of inh+ and . -- 20:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with you regarding the premise that the creation of bor+ without prior vote would have undermined the outcome of the 2017 vote. I think that it was a mistake to hold a vote on its creation. There is nothing dishonorable about admitting a mistake, and I interpret the present proposal as offering the community an opportunity to do so – and expressly not as an attempt to change the outcome of a vote because you don't like it. --Lambiam 21:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you're not just disagreeing with me, but others who oppose this vote. To quote SGconlaw below, "circumventing [the 2017 vote] by creating a new template and then arguing that no vote is necessary to create a template seems quite wrong in the circumstances." -- 21:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It should indeed be clear that I also disagree with SGconlaw. I think that in this case you are both wrong. --Lambiam 15:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  My thoughts are set out on the discussion page of Imetsia. However, I recently noticed that a user (I don't remember who it was) used a word between the words “Borrowed” and “from”. This spelling will not work with the bor+ template. Gnosandes (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, so the template will be used in this case. It is not that its usage is being stopped. There is simply added functionality. Rishabhbhat (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I'll support it so the new templates could be used freely. Birdofadozentides (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) ??? This is a weird vote though. I will use the templates regardless of the outcome. Benwing2 (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  on the grounds that the previous vote was unnecessary and somewhat out of process. Normally I wouldn't participate in a vote that sought just to overturn the results of another recent vote. It is true that there was a vote to remove the "Borrowed from" text from templates, so I don't feel strongly about this, but if memory serves, the point of the previous vote was that the template at the time included the text by default, which could be annoying. This retains the option either way. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I don't see what is the point of allowing people to vote for templates to be created. If a template is indeed taking up unnecessary space, it can be deleted. — Fredrick Campbell (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  The templates are very useful and should be kept. Imranqazi90 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I think enough reasons have been given above. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Wiktionary's most active Proto-Norse editor ᛭ Ask me anything 18:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . I don't have terribly strong feelings about the templates; at this point, I might actually be slightly in favour of their existence. However, I do have strong feelings about the idea of "nullifying" a vote to get one's way after an unfavourable consensus. The solution to a poorly conceived vote is not yet another poorly conceived vote. Go work this out like adults (that is, with a discussion), instead of edit-warring, blocking, and creating bureaucratic counter-votes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) . Enough drama already. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) . I posted this comment on the talk page: “Is this vote necessary? The heart of the matter is whether in etymology sections the phrases borrowed from and inherited from should be expressly used or not. Why not have a discussion about that instead? Everything else flows from that.” (Imetsia posted a reply.) I really see little point in arguing back and forth about the templates if the primary issue isn’t dealt with. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , the first vote flew right over my head (I was probably on my spring sabbatical), so I apologise for not having participated first time around. With that said, I second Metaknowledge – I'm pretty "meh" when it comes to these templates, but starting a new vote to nullify the previous one just because some disagree with the outcome, is counterintuitive and sets a bad example for any current or future vote around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This might be one of the greatest misconceptions about this vote. The nullification effort is not about a disagreement "with the outcome," but a disagreement with the inception. The first vote should never have been created to begin with and was the direct result of "Victar's manipulation of another user" (quoting myself).
 * If the nullification effort "sets a bad example," just think of what precedent not annulling the previous vote would establish. If any one user disagrees with a policy, community decision, etc. they would be free to obstruct its operation. They would be able to engage in all manner of edit-warring, unfair enforcement, etc. until they're happy with the result. If anything, it would be this one user who would have their way with our policies "just because [they] disagree with the outcome." Imetsia (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree Imetsia. This vote should never have been created - how is this any different from requesting that a term is undeleted just a mere week after it has been deleted? Of course Victar shouldn't have gone on a deletion spree, but there are other ways of dealing with such an issue and creating a new vote to nullify the previous isn't one of them. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) . This is a new variety of edit war, and Imetsia should know better. DonnanZ (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  this vote in its principle. See my comment at Beer Parlour. I've nothing more to say. Thadh (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  😬 — Fenakhay ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 16:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) As I've stated before, I'm not against the templates per se: if people want to save keystrokes, let them do that. But I think having two sets of competing templates is bad, and here's what I think we should do to avoid that (I'll be quoting myself): "1) the use of  and  would be tolerated in new instances (i.e. when they add a precision that wasn't there before); 2) they could not be used to replace the old templates when these are already preceded by "Borrowed from"/"Inherited from" (i.e. when it has no impact on the users' end); 3) on the contrary, they could be replaced by the old templates by whoever should wish to do so. They would be in a state of permanent semi-deprecation, if you want." Apart from the fact that the new templates create a link to the glossary - something which I'm not convinced is necessary - I'm yet to see a cogent reason to oppose this; all I see is a weird attachment to the templates themselves. As Imetsia said, "There is no race to see how widespread the templates can become, or if one template can overtake the other"; so why should it matter that the new ones are systematically being replaced by the old ones, as long as one can use them when they want to save some typing? But since the templates defenders seem to be opposed to that idea, I'm forced to . Besides, I agree with Sgconlaw that rather than arguing about this, we should be discussing . Finally, I disagree with the notion that the initial vote shouldn't have been held to begin with. I will once again quote Thadh: "." PUC – 12:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I don't know if template creation requires a vote or not (someone please direct me to the relevant written policy), but it seems to me that if there was a prior consensus established through a vote that and  should not display "Borrowed from" and "Inherited from", then creating and using  and  was completely inconsistent with that consensus. The proper procedure is to revisit the earlier decision and clarify whether "Borrowed from" and "Inherited from" should appear in etymologies, and if so, whether they should be manually typed or incorporated into the templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained why (a) template creation doesn't need a vote and (b) why using bor+ and inh+ is not inconsistent with our prior consensus at . Imetsia (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see how the creation of and  is consistent with "Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed". The proposal which carried was proposal 1: "Remove the 'Borrowing from' text altogether from the output of, and add 'Borrowed from' outside the template." The template  specifically re-adds "Borrowed from" inside the template. Personally I have no strong feelings over whether  should automatically generate the "Borrowed from" text or not; it may well be more convenient to have the template do so. However, since there was already consensus on not having the text generated by , I cannot see how creating a new template  to do that very thing can be consistent with the earlier vote. The earlier discussion can be reopened to see if consensus has changed, but circumventing it by creating a new template and then arguing that no vote is necessary to create a template seems quite wrong in the circumstances. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The version of before the 2017 vote always added the pre-text “Borrowing from”. There are instances where the entry should be categorized in some category “X term borrowed from Y”, but this pre-text does not work (such as, “..., or borrowed from ...”). Better then not to have any pre-text than an inflexible one that usually works but sometimes stands in the way. The 2017 proposal was not, “No template that categorizes terms in a category of borrowings shall add a pre-text”. It was an awkward vote on an awkward version of, not a vote on a nonexistent entry  . One might as well (mis)interpret the outcome of the vote as requiring each use of  to be preceded by a manually added “Borrowed from”, which would defeat the purpose.  --Lambiam 11:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * my understanding of the intent of the earlier vote was that should not be hard-wired to produce the text "Borrowing from". I appreciate that there was no vote saying that "Borrowed from" should no longer be used (and indeed I manually type this in where appropriate), but I think it was ill advised for another template like  to be created to then hard-wire the text again. This creates the bad precedent that if there is a vote on a particular template X that editors don't like, they'll just create another template Y that ignores the consensus of that vote and argue that the consensus was limited to just template X. Let's have a discussion about the real issue of whether the text "borrowed from" should be used or not, instead of creating a multiplicity of similar templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is fine to have a discussion on a proposal to change the uses of “Borrowed from” in etymology sections to just “From”. However, that was not what the vote was about. I see no reason to assume that the intent and purview of the earlier vote went beyond what was stated in the proposal and its discussion. The outcome of the vote was the agreement that the hard-wired side effect of producing a given text is undesirable. I do not see an argument for extending this agreement to a presumed agreement that the "soft-wired" production of a similar text by other means is also undesirable. --Lambiam 15:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the outcome of this vote, I am thinking of writing a BP post as to why we really need these templates. Or else life would be harder for us… ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  DTLHS (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it because you "don't understand what it means to 'nullify' the vote" per the BP discussion? (In which case, I can clarify further as much as you'd like.) Or is it because of some other reason? Imetsia (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In general I am likely to oppose do-over votes. In particular, we have a survey of the community on this topic and I don't want to pretend it didn't happen.  The lawyers say the vote didn't affirmatively do anything.  But it is still an opinion poll.  Unfortunately our customs do not allow setting up a binding vote on mutually exclusive options; there is always a chance that nobody will gain a supermajority.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Jberkel 23:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Trying to nullify a vote you don't like is so 2020. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per Mahāgaja. Masonthelime (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  on procedural grounds mentioned. And, if a template annoys someone enough to organize a vote against it and a sufficient number of people express their agreement by voting, that template can be removed. Templates don't need prior approval, but can be disapproved and removed by vote. DCDuring (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, just to see if I understand you correctly, you agree with the substance on the vote but oppose it because you see this as a hasty revote? Did I get that right? Imetsia (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the substance, but strenuously object to the idea that a vote can't be used to challenge a template and to voting again after a short interval, ie, sore loser behavior. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the vote did not challenge any existing templates – the outcome of the vote merely established the lack of an agreement on the perceived need for these proposed templates. The proposal failing, we returned to the status quo ante. --Lambiam 15:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The status quo was that bor and inh have no lead text. Replacing said entries with NAME + is breaking with the status quo and a reversal of the votes and discussions that set it. --  18:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The introducing new templates doesn't actually change the status quo. New templates are introduced all the time. Setting up rules on how and when to use them, that's changing the status quo. 110521sgl (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The definition of status quo: “the state of things; the way things are, as opposed to the way they could be; the existing state of affairs.” The "existing state of affairs" is that bor and inh are the default derivation templates for etymologies. Replacing them with bor+ and inh+ is change of the current "the state of things". -- 23:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) . I don't think that this vote is the right way to pacify the underlying conflicts. We need more community, less administrative measures. --Akletos (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see that you formerly supported the new templates; I understand that this is not the best method, but seeing as many people are in favour of it, I shall appreciate it if you would change your vote to Abstain. Cheers! ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  After looking into the facts some more, I'm going to have to oppose this. I'm all for the idea of inh+ and bor+, but I'm against overturning previous vote results. Now if we'd actually come together, create a page outlining the usages of templates and formats, forming a guide that all can follow, then we can talk reverting. 110521sgl (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Let me be clear that I have absolutely no opinion on the matter of the bor+ and inh+ templates. However, it is very concerning that because a vote on the creation of templates has failed, some believe that the templates may not be created or used. Our convention is that failure of a vote represents a return to the status quo, which is (in this case) that the templates may still be created. A failed vote already is a nullity, and I support that concept. As I see it, the correct order of events would have been to (a) create the templates, (b) begin to use them in a few entries, then for someone to either (c) get approval for a bot to replace them into a large number of entries or (d) send them to RFDO. Although I support the principle of this vote (in fact I could have voted "support per Llittleserie"), there would be some irony in me voting "support" here, as I don't think this vote has any meaning either. This, that and the other (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per This, that and the other: "A failed vote already is a nullity". Kutchkutch (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the past vote is already a nullity, because its foundations are invalid. But other users have continued to insist that the templates are illegitimate because of the failure of the last vote. We need to finally declare that justification null and void, and that's what this vote does.
 * I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "I don't think this vote has any meaning either." But insofar as it strikes down the aforementioned justification against the templates, I think it does have an impact. Even in the worse-case scenario, this vote's passage would lead to a PUC-and-the-idiom-label situation. That is, say user A implements the templates on one page and someone else (user B) reverts them. User A can revert user B once again and ask them to stop. If they don't, we can resort to administrative action. Then the new templates will be fully in operation, and we can enforce the results of this vote.
 * At bottom, I think we need every vote we can get to try to pass this proposal. Both of you seem to agree with the crux of this vote, so I encourage you to vote in support of it. Imetsia (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Imetsia I had already stated that another vote was a bad idea, but agreed since that looked like the last option. Is it possible to stop this vote? I suggest there be an admin-only discussion about these templates and the previous vote's failure's value. Svārtava2 • 11:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's possible to stop this vote, but there's no precedent for doing so and what would it gain us? And I don't know the basis for an admin-only discussion. We generally operate on the consensus of the community, not a selection of administrators; and there's not much foundation for a departure from that standard. Besides, even that probably wouldn't achieve our desired result.
 * Here's a better idea: if this vote goes nowhere, wait for a few months and then propose a new vote. PUC and others have convinced me that the better approach would be to discuss whether to reincorporate "Borrowed from" into the bor template; rather than whether to use the new bor+ and inh+ templates. If we keep pushing for the new templates, making new votes, etc. right now, I think that would hurt our chances of getting the votes through.
 * In the meanwhile, there are many template-vote-adjacent decisions that we can work on. To begin with, the effort to pass the "sore-loser rule" should be defeated. Maybe there should be some discussion about forming a proper Arbitration Committee. Or maybe the 2/3-consensus standard should be relaxed and reconsidered. All valuable discussions to have while we wait our turn to resolve the templates situation.
 * Also, your new pings aren't working. Just use the ping template instead. Imetsia (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The admins only discussion on whether or not the previous vote bans the templates and how they think about their creation. An admins only discussion to declare that the earlier vote's failure doesn't mean that the templates can't be created. What do you say? We cant let victar revert all their usages based only on his interpretation of the vote. —Svārtava2 • 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess that matters of procedure, as distinguished from matters of policy, can be given to the hands of admins rather than the community at large. But to do that, we'd have to stop this vote midway through and... create a new admins-only vote?? When have we ever done something like that? This is something an Arbitration Committee could sift through, and (again) this is something we can work to build while we wait on the templates situation. Even suppose that we abort this vote and create a new one open just to admins. Where would that get us? I don't think a majority of our admins will all of a sudden support such a measure. Imetsia (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I support aborting this vote, or else victar will say that after 2 votes we definitely can't use bor+ & inh+. Svārtava2 • 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the above. The vote in question failed, so there's nothing to nullify. If the problem is that some editors keep insisting that a failed vote is equivalent to a successful vote for the opposite proposal, and using that as an excuse for edit-warring and other disruptive edits, then the solution is to block those editors until they stop disrupting the project, rather than creating a second vote for them to willfully misinterpret the outcome of. —Ruakh TALK 00:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did block the main edit-warrior in this case (Victar) for doing exactly what you describe. But then Mahāgaja unblocked the user on dubious grounds. What do you suggest we do in such a situation? Imetsia (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand the situation well enough to make a good suggestion. Some things I think you should think about:
 * Can you just leave this issue alone for a while, and let tempers die down? Like — can you get by without these templates for now?
 * People on the "other side" from you seem to be saying that these templates violate some other earlier vote. Have you looked into that statement? Do you understand why they say that? Do you agree with them? If you disagree, then what are your counterarguments?
 * More generally, are the people on the "other side" from you making any other arguments that you can agree with, or where you can at least understand where they're coming from? Are they making any arguments that you don't fully understand, and would like them to elaborate on?
 * Are there options that have been proposed but not really discussed, or possible options that haven't even been proposed, that more people might be OK with?
 * Once you've looked at those things, you should be well-equipped to start one or more discussions to try to sort out the issues amicably, to see if everyone's concerns can be addressed, etc. (N.B. Discussions, not votes. Votes don't create consensus, they just capture it.)
 * Edited to clarify: The above are rhetorical questions. I'm suggesting that you think about them — I am not asking you, or anyone else, to reply here with answers. My goal is to help sow the seeds of potential fruitful discussion in the future (whereas I think that anyone trying to answer them here would be likely to end up just re-airing grievances).
 * —Ruakh TALK 01:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC); edited 08:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I am trying to generate a capacity to participate here, and I will just say that the significance of annulling of a vote ending in no consensus (the first two sentences of the above "Rationale" seems obscure from my extremely limited viewpoint- I would want to have a greater fleshing out of that. The "In addition" sentences seem reasonable. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The last vote ended in no consensus, but some users have understood it as a consensus that the templates should be banned. Thus, Victar has been reverting the new templates on sight despite the fact that they have been completely legitimate. What's their justification? That they're enforcing the "failure" of the last vote and reverting things to the status quo.
 * To make matters worse, that original vote should never have occurred in the first place. The creation and deployment of templates has never required a vote. It should now be made clear that our prior templates vote was a procedural nonstarter AND that it cannot be interpreted as a decision to strike down the bor+ and inh+ templates.
 * Lingo stated it nicely when he said that the "vote does not carry force to disallow the creation or existence of these templates anyway" (my emphasis). I want to make that explicit. I want this vote to declare, once and for all, that the previous vote is unenforceable -- that it "does not carry force." Imetsia (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * : Basically what User:Sgconlaw said. The real issue was whether to write "inherited from" and "borrowed from" in etymologies and when. (For instance, to me it seems unnecessary to write it when one language only ever inherits from another, like Middle English from Old English. But maybe it's helpful for newcomers.) Having another vote on the templates isn't necessary if we agree that we want that wording in etymologies and if and  makes it easier to add it. (I gather some people have already been adding that wording to etymologies and that's why they are in favor of the templates.) I'm abstaining because this nullification concept is weirdly conceived and avoids the real issue. I think the original vote was not a good idea either because the wording of etymologies is better resolved in discussions. — Eru·tuon 03:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per TT&TO.  – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * – You are all basing your abstention on the formal argument that a failed vote means no change of status, and so was effectively a no-op. While I agree, it seems clear to me (seeing how that vote failure was interpreted following the creation of the templates) that failure of the present vote will not be interpreted as a nullity, but as a victory for those who also saw the failure of the previous vote as more than that. Also, there is more to the present vote than clearly establishing (for those who do not see the light) that the previous vote, by its failure, carries no weight. It also aims to establish, as a principle, that creation of a new template does not require prior approval by voting. So therefore the vote itself was improper – it should not have been held in the first place. If you agree with that principle, then please reconsider your position.  --Lambiam 21:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) . Ultimateria (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Decision

 * No consensus: 22-17-7. Imetsia (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

07:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This vote was useless, just like the earlier one. Many people who have no opinion on the templets have cast an oppose vote (including former supporters of the templets). Now, for what it’s worth, the new templates can be discontinued from use only by a vote that seeks to ban them (note that the RFD request already failed). Until then, I think can see to it that no vandalism occurs in entries using inh+ & bor+.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  06:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Imetsia also. There is not any consensus to revert the templatesas well Svārtava2 • 08:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It cannot be the case that the two possibilities of a proposal succeeding and it failing both result in a status change. It would leave voters who wish the status to remain unchanged no option – damned if you support, damned if you oppose, and damned if you abstain. It should IMO be clear that we need to be more careful in formulating proposal texts and ensuring that it is clear what we are voting on. Given the variety of viewpoints among editors, everyone who cares about the outcome should always have at least one option they can vote for. Most abstainers in this vote abstained because they thought the vote was meaningless, not because they didn’t care. Based on the votes and the rationales given above for abstaining, a consensus can be seen that none of the votes concerning bor/inh templates since the 2017 vote resulted in a status change. --Lambiam 09:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)