Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook

Maybe structure as approval vote?
Maybe this should be structured as an approval vote, with the options being things like:


 * keep phrasebook in main namespace
 * move phrasebook into appendix namespace
 * move phrasebook into its own namespace
 * remove phrasebook from project

?

The fact that the latter three involve a change to WT:CFI almost seems like an implementation detail — explained in the "Voting on:" section, of course, but not actually part of the L4 headers.

—Ruakh TALK 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would group the second and third together as it makes no real difference whether it is in the Appendix or its own namespace. We can decide that later if it passes. --WikiTiki89 07:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I was assuming that if it's moved into its own namespace, it would still be organized more or less as it is now, whereas if it's moved into the appendix namespace, it would be converted into language-specific lists. Maybe that's a bad assumption to leave implicit? —Ruakh TALK 14:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's bad assumption to leave implicit. I never would have guessed at such a distinction. I think the leave-as-it-is-now vs. convert-into-language-specific-lists should be the main distinction between those two options rather than which namespace it ends up in since it could do either of those two things in any namespace. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be a useful vote or a poll. However, this vote is designed to find out how many editors support the proposal expressed by the posts "just nuke the entire phrasebook" and "If I'm asked, delete the whole g-mn phrasebook". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The last negative comment was by User:Hekaheka who has taken an active part in translations. I have a hunch people are getting sick with the way phrasebook is currently developing, not necessarily with the idea as such. It is a dangerous vote. I don't want users to look for essential phrases (language difficulty, emergency, greetings, etc.) elsewhere but you may be right in trying to determine the moods. The problem with the appendix approach is that the majority of contributors never touch complex pages with tables, rather than the usual glosses, and don't go to pages like "Appendix:blah-blah", so we may miss out on many language translations. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pruning and/or trimming?
One potential complication with this vote is that some people's opinions will depend on a question not (yet) addressed here, which is — should we prune and/or trim the phrasebook? Personally, given the choice between keeping the phrasebook as-is and deleting it, I think I'd rather we deleted it (we're better off with no phrasebook than with one that includes "I need a condom" and defines it as "Indicates that the speaker needs a condom"); but if we seriously undertook to remove the stupid entries and stupid definitions, I'd be more inclined to keep it. And SemperBlotto's comment in the BP discussion suggests that he feels more or less the same. —Ruakh TALK 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Really, I think that instead of removing it from the CFI, we need a clear policy (even if it just says that phrasebook entries must be in the Appendix, or may not exist, or whatever consensus decides). I also think there are a handful of phrasebook entries important enough to merit inclusion in the main namespace, and RFD should be able to determine that. Even with the wave of anti-phrasebook voting, of which I am a part, who would vote to kill I love you at RFD, even though the first two senses are not idiomatic AFAICT? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This vote should find out how many people want to remove the phrasebook completely from the main namespace. Recently, there were such messages in RFD, such as "just nuke the entire phrasebook" and "If I'm asked, delete the whole g-mn phrasebook". What I want to find out is how many people actually support that. The title of the vote--"Removing phrasebook"--makes it clear. So this vote captures the proposal to completely "nuke the entire phrasebook". Other proposals can be captured in other votes. Those who oppose nuking the entire phrasebook may favor its trimming or not; that is not what this vote should find out. In any case, voters can provide all sorts of stances and proposals about the phrasebook in their vote comments, to help shape further votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

in an appendix?
in a appendix is not very clear. Does this mean in a single appendix page? I would support the move to a number of appendix pages, with titles such as At the hotel (French), preferably in a new namespace. Lmaltier (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See below. Please clarify any preferences you have in your vote comment, or even here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A related point: I would also support changing the SOP/idiomatic requirement to does it belong to the vocabulary of the language?. I consider that happy birthday belongs to the vocabulary of English, because it's useful to teach this set phrase in vocabulary courses. And it also belongs to a phrasebook. But, of course, I´d like to book a room please does not belong to the vocabulary of English, and should be in a phrasebook only. Lmaltier (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "idiomatic" is clearer than "belongs to the vocabulary". 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not feeling happy birthday as idiomatic (but our definition of idiomatic is very unclear). And, yet, it's worth being learned in vocabulary lessons: this is the appropriate phrase, rather than good birthday, etc. Lmaltier (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Simplicity again
I have returned to vote to the state in which I have created it, having only the "support", "oppose", and "abstain" options. The "support" option pertains to the mainspace, as it pertains to the text being voted on. This vote should find out how many people want to "nuke the entire phrasebook" from the main namespace. People can clarify in their vote comments whether they want to see the phrasebook in an appendix, in a dedicated namespace, or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those who are against canning the phrasebook should also be able to clarify what they prefer if it ends up being nuked. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are able to clarify that, in their vote comments. But even if they don't clarify that, the opposers of nuking cannot per default be counted as opposers of phrasebook in an appendix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But the proposal says “If you vote to remove the phrasebook inclusion option from CFI, please indicate ”. I think it should say “Whether you vote to remove or to keep . — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So can you post here the complete thing you think it should say? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (The last phrase) something like: Whether you vote to remove or to keep the phrasebook inclusion option from CFI, please indicate whether you want to see non-idiomatic (semantic-sum-of-partish) phrasebook entries in an appendix, in a dedicated phrasebook namespace, completely removed from Wiktionary, or what other treatment of the phrasebook content you would like to see if the vote does pass . — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should someone opposing the removal of a phrasebook from the mainspace clarify whether they want to see the phrasebook completely removed from Wiktionary? Does not make any sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those voting support might. Those voting oppose will most likely prefer moving it to another namespace, methinks. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What, those who oppose removing the phrasebook from the mainspace will prefer moving it to another namespace? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. If the vote fails passes, they will prefer moving it to another mainspace, instead of just deleting everything. That is my guess, at least. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The vote proposes to remove the phrasebook provision from CFI. Thus, if the vote fails, the phrasebook stays in the mainspace, that is, main namespace. If you want to propose to move the phrasebook from the mainspace to a dedicated namespace, why don't you start a vote to do that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What I think, is that the people who vote "support" should be able to indicate what they want to do with phrasebook (i.e. delete entirely, move to appendix, etc.). --WikiTiki89 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki: They are able to indicate that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then everything's all set. But it might be better to have subsections in the "Support" section so it is clear how many people favor which option. --WikiTiki89 20:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. I meant if it passes. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: With the newly "simple" vote, only the support or opposition is to be enacted when the vote's decided, right? The "please indicate whether you want to see non-idiomatic (semantic-sum-of-partish) phrasebook entries in an appendix, in a dedicated phrasebook namespace, or what" is just for fun, right? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think that should be a subsection of the Support votes so that it will guarantee the phrasebook won't be deleted entirely if we agree to move it. --WikiTiki89 08:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not for fun. If a clear consensus about a prospective action can be gleaned from vote comments, it can be acted upon, unless it involves modification of a document whose modification is subject to voting.
 * Why don't you guys create a vote upon your liking? You can have a nice convo about how the vote should be worded and the like, and then you can let it be run. Am I preventing you from doing that in any way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why I object to this vote.
I converted this vote last night to a straw poll. From the edit-history:


 * Ruakh: This is not a real vote. We can't just eliminate the phrasebook-exemption from WT:CFI without having any idea what we want to do with the phrasebook entries.
 * CodeCat: Undo revision 18939657 by Ruakh (talk) - That doesn't change the intent that a vote be held. Make your own straw poll.
 * Ruakh: rv CodeCat: but he's *not* proposing this. he's made clear that he just wants to see how many people would support this. that's a straw poll, not a vote.

But the edit-history of a series of reverts is not the best place for this discussion, so, here's an actual discussion:

has indicated that his reason for holding this vote is that he wants to know how many people support removing the phrasebook-exemption from CFI. He wants to be able to point at the result of this vote and say, for example, "See? Only 30% of voters want to remove that exemption." The problem is, he's constructed the vote in such a way as to deter people from voting in support: they can vote to remove the phrasebook-exemption, but they can't vote on what to do with it instead. If someone is O.K. with keeping the phrasebook in mainspace, but would greatly prefer that it be moved to its own namespace, then they theoretically support removing the phrasebook-exemption, but will still be forced to vote "oppose", because a "support" vote seems to mean that the phrasebook would be deleted, and even if we interpret it as just open-ended, a "support" vote still doesn't mean anything specific.

So whatever Dan's actual intent, he's not actually making a proposal. He's sabotaging one. And I don't think we can allow that.

A straw poll, however, doesn't have this problem: it allows people to indicate that they want the phrasebook-exemption removed, and what they'd like to see instead, without actually committing themselves to some unspecified result.

—Ruakh TALK 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Move to table. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I request that I am given the right to phrase a proposal to be voted on. You are free to create your own vote; I don't understand why you did not do that. I reject the accusation that I am "sabotaging" any one's proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your turning the vote to a straw poll, and then reverted again back to your version. Your version is good enough. If we need a follow-up vote for this being a mere straw-poll, that is okay with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)