close
Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Notice This is an information page.
It is not a dictionary entry, nor one of Wiktionary's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wiktionary's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.
Shortcuts:
WT:VOTE
WT:VOTES
WT:V

Votes formalize and document the consensus-building process and the decisions that the community makes. This page displays the full contents of recent, current and planned votes.

See Wiktionary:Votes/Active to add new votes to the “active” list and remove old ones. Finished votes are added to Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline, an organized archive of previous votes and their results, sorted by the vote end date.

Creating a new vote

For the policy, see Wiktionary:Voting policy.
For a tutorial for creating a vote, see Help:Creating a vote.
Warning Before starting a new vote
Change “Title of vote” in associated the field to add a short description, or add the user to after “User:”. Once the vote is created, add it to the list of active votes.


Note: Update the vote list at WT:A.


Note: Update the vote list at WT:B.


Note: Update the vote list at WT:C.


Routine clean-up

For admins, periodically check for orphan votes at Wiktionary:Votes/ for votes and voting templates, including templates for creation of new votes:

Current and new votes

Planned, running and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
EndsTitleStatus/Votes
May 14Updating voting eligibilityIssue 1: failed;
Issue 2: passed;
Issue 3 - option 1: failed, option 2: passed
May 17User:TongcyBot for bot statuspassed
(=2)Wiktionary:Table of votes(=0)

Updating voting eligibility

Voting on: updating our voting eligibility policy in Wiktionary:Voting policy § Voting eligibility.

Schedule:

Discussion(s):

Issue 1

  • Ending the locality restriction in the first voting eligibility requirement by removing the struck out text:
  1. Their account’s first edit to English Wiktionary (made locally rather than transwikied from another project) [...]
Rationale

Transwiki has not been used on Wiktionary for around a decade. The only transwiki edits currently performed are when Stewards move user pages, and this already falls into other exclusions, which makes those brackets unnecessary.

Support
  1. BERJAYA Support Zbutie3.14 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Support For sanitization of the text I find it good, and my rationale for the remaining rare use cause is: if my edits are so good that they are imported into another Wiki, why shouldn’t they count there? As an efficient workflow to cultivate multiple languages in one’s lifetime, there may be editors that work in one working language, or two, or three, but barely more, and one must resort to others importing one's work, while occasionally one might edit the other project (in lesser concentration). Editors below erroneously imagine but transwikis from en.Wikipedia to en.Wiktionary, but other-language Wiktionaries copy our technical structure and thus, with sufficient motivation to fully exploit the MediaWiki infrastructure’s capabilities, have it easy to import our entries—which is also idealized for intertranswikis from a Wikipedia to another Wikipedia by reason of copyright—, and whatever the ancient provision had in mind exactly, I reckon it right that the formulation has to be generalized to the general concept of local edits, which is here done by making it no requirement any more.
    This being the background, one should interpret the current clause in the fashion that an edit to another Wiktionary is no “edit to English Wiktionary” so the clause it redundant anyway and my argument of text sanitization holds while there is no material rule change here. This interpretation is necessary because otherwise one could vote without even demonstrating understanding the working language, i.e. in edge cases when all or most edits are exclusively transwikied: currently not just for the first edit but edit count for voting eligibility only local edits count therefore. There should be a separate quorum for untranswikied edits, if the situation of meeting the edit count requirement but only with transwikied edits weren't too complicated and too rare a case to regulate yet, i.e. e.g. 500 (250) edits to our relevant mainspaces whereof at least 100 untranswikied. Yet the provision voted on above is about the first edit rather than edit count which makes the current formulation even more misplaced. Fay Freak (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Weak support Unlikely to pass, but I'm going to go against the grain here and say that anyone who only has transwikied edits from over a decade ago and for some reason hasn't made any edits since then is A. extremely unlikely to participate in votes in the first place and B. probably isn't the best person to vote on current issues affecting Wiktionary? I just don't see how this change is really that big of an issue. We don't really have people randomly coming back to solely vote anyways, and for admin (which is a different issue obviously), we remove them in a much shorter time period for inactivity. AG202 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. BERJAYA Oppose. I recognize that the likelihood of using this clause is extremely low. However, as a person who prefers the existence of fine print, I see no harm in retaining this clause. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 03:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Oppose Following the same rationale as TranqyPoo. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Oppose Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Oppose As I've mentioned on Discord, this would make someone with transwikied edits from decades ago but no other edits be elligible. Even though transwiki has not been used for many years, the transwiki edits still exist. – wpi (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Oppose per wpi. --dringsim 14:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Leaning oppose, as not an entirely implausible precaution. bd2412 T 19:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. BERJAYA Abstain as I know nothing about transwikiing. Altho Polomo's rationale for this proposal seems to make sense, wpi's concern on Discord that someone with transwikied edits from decades ago but no zero edits otherwise will be qualified to vote if this proposal passes sounds valid as well. Davi6596 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to Wpi's concern from Discord —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Abstain. As with Davi5696, I don't know anything about transwikiing. StrangerCoug (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Abstain. Vininn126 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Abstain: I did not know wikis could transition until now either. However, having now woken up, I can say that I do not support banning these transwikis from partaking in our project—seems transphobic. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Abstain - I don't know what transwiki is either. Trooper57 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Abstain I don't see issues with being over-specific. Catonif (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Abstain per Davi.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Abstain Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA Abstain Geographyinitiative 🎵 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Abstain from voting in this section, and any other section. I just can't be bothered. DonnanZ (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Decision

Issue 2

  • Changing this part of the first voting eligibility requirement:
  1. [...] must predate the start time of the vote by at least 1 week.
to read as follows:
  1. [...] must predate the start time of the vote by at least 30 days.
Rationale

The Wiktionary community makes and alters its site-wide policy by votes. This differs from how consensus is determined in our “Requests for” discussions or on Wikipedia, where policy-making is determined by discussion and the strength of arguments matters, rather than simply the number of people with a given opinion. Just like Wikipedia, we have no reason to restrict newbies from our WT:Request pages, as their opinion should be heard; however, policy-making by polling, as done on Wiktionary, requires more considerations.

Since a vote with little to no justification is worth the same as a well-argued vote, we need to set higher standards for voters: a week-old account has very little, if any, experience with the project. If a user’s subjective opinion is reason for changing policy, we need the user to have a higher degree of familiarity with the community’s practices before voting.

As such, we should employ a 'bare minimum' expectation of 30 days of editing so that our voters are not completely unexperienced with Wiktionary.

Support
  1. BERJAYA Strong support. In a system that primarily relies on the vote count over the strength of a position, we should absolutely require each editor to have a certain level of demonstrated experience/familiarity with the policies and practices. Do note that a young editor may still create/contribute to discussions in order to persuade voters. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 03:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Support. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Support as creator. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 10:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Support per Polomo and TranqyPoo. Davi6596 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Support – makes total sense! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Support per Polomo and TranqyPoo. StrangerCoug (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Support — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Support — [ɪˈɫa.wə kəˈta.kə] (talk) (edits) 20:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA Support A 30 day time requirement seems reasonable to me and is not too dissimilar to the probationary periods implemented by some workplaces. In a person's first week they are still learning the dynamics of an organization and seeing some of its ebbs and flows. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Support - 1 week is just too low. Trooper57 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trooper57 You forgot to vote on the other issues. Davi6596 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BERJAYA Support Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BERJAYA Support Zbutie3.14 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BERJAYA Support — BABR・kurwa? 20:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  14. BERJAYA Support – wpi (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  15. BERJAYA Support Sounds reasonable. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 23:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  16. BERJAYA Support Saumache (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  17. BERJAYA Support – A user should be familiar with a website before being eligible to vote on policies of said website. One week is not enough to be become familiar enough with Wiktionary. — This unsigned comment was added by نعم البدل (talk • contribs) at 00:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC).[reply]
  18. BERJAYA Support per Tranqy.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  19. BERJAYA Support Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  20. BERJAYA Support lattermint (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  21. BERJAYA Support 1 week is too short. AG202 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  22. BERJAYA Support — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  23. BERJAYA Support: reasonable and since there is a long lead-in to a lot of votes, this will discourage the (I think very rare) practice of making an account to vote and won't disenfranchise anyone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  24. BERJAYA Support --dringsim 12:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  25. BERJAYA Support. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  26. BERJAYA Support. Tighten things up around here. bd2412 T 19:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. BERJAYA Oppose The current policies have not caused any recent issue I'm aware of. I did not receive the evidence I asked for on the talk page. As such, this vote will likely change none of the outcomes of the votes in the near future, and it is a only symbolic question on wheter we should be slightly more cautious or slightly more inclusive. I'll have no issue supporting such a change once it is proven to be a practical issue, but as long as it remains theorical, I will always vote towards inclusivity, no matter how much outnumbered. We are people before we are a dictionary. Catonif (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Catonif: I have not voted yet, but I do note that there have been a few votes that would've changed had the 30-day, 250-edit (or 500-edit) requirement been in place and assuming new votes had not come in. These are all after the requirement for a supermajority was put into place in 2019, and are largely hand-counted by me, so apologies for any errors.
    AG202 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @AG202, very much for taking your time going through the hassle of documenting all that. My answer is that if this happens three times in 7 years (granted that there might have been more), I am still not convinced it is an issue requiring intervention, more like an event. Who are we to say that these votes were harmful? They changed the outcomes, but for better or for worse? There is no objective answer (for example, I agree with them on the letters vote). To me, the fact that we would be removing the right to vote from users like 2019's The Editor's Apprentice, someone who both is and was more thoughtful and considerate than the vast majority of admins here (myself included), is repulsing, especially if it's just for fear of a made-up issue. We're assuming incompetence on those who may be busy with other things, and assuming reliability on those who have nothing better to do in their lives than going around doing bot jobs manually. The vote in its entirety takes a moral direction I dislike, which is why I also opposed this first point. (The first vote mentioned is sadly ironic, @Polomo you're not being very grateful to the kind of people who supported you, no?) Catonif (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it’s pretty ironic. Of course I consider all of those votes (including my admin vote) valid, regardless of who voted, but I wouldn’t have lamented if my admin vote had failed either. Overall I find your position sensible, and it’s true that people making mass edits would have the ability to vote earlier, but I still find that having a stricter criterion is an improvement, even if it still lets some . This is not assuming that everyone with 250 edits is reliable, just assuming that someone with less than 250 has a high chance of not being such. Nevertheless, I’ve been convinced that 500 edits is quite a high requirement... I’m changing my vote to opposing that option. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Oppose Hftf (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. BERJAYA Abstain It should be 1 month and not 30 days in my opinion. Can’t be not ticked off in the calculation, due to the customs of deadline calculation in law. Perhaps others do it more intuitively with their tools. Fay Freak (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Abstain Geographyinitiative 🎵 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Abstain from voting in this section. I just can't be bothered. DonnanZ (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Decision

Issue 3

  • Changing the second voting eligibility requirement:
  1. [...]
  2. Their account must have at least 50 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Thesaurus or Reconstruction namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote.
Rationale

For the same reasons as given under Issue 2, Wiktionary’s policy-making needs to require a higher standard from voters. Just as someone who has only recently joined the project cannot know enough to be able to weigh in on policy, having a very small number of edits strongly indicates that a user is similarly unfamiliar with the community. As such, we should increase the minimum-edit requirement from the current threshold of 50 edits, which can be obtained extremely quickly on Wiktionary.

Option 1 proposes increasing this requirement to 500 edits (this is the same as Wikipedia’s baseline for “extended confirmed” status), while option 2 proposes a lower requirement of 250 edits. If you support the stricter option 1, you are encouraged to support option 2 as well; in the event both options pass with 2/3 support, option 1 will take precedence.

Option 1
  • Making it read as follows:
  1. [...]
  2. Their account must have at least 500 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Thesaurus or Reconstruction namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote.
Support
  1. BERJAYA Support. See my vote for issue 2. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 03:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Support. Chihunglu83 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chihunglu83 You should support option 2 too as Polomo recommended. Davi6596 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Support. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BERJAYA Support as creator. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 10:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BERJAYA Support How many edits do I have in those namespaces? Zbutie3.14 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zbutie3.14 You have 448 (434+13+1). —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zbutie3.14 You should support option 2 too as Polomo recommended. Davi6596 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Support StrangerCoug (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Support — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Support. Imetsia (talk (more)) 07:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Support Saumache (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Support per nom and Tranqy.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA Support 500 edits allow inference of attention to the dictionary matter and motivation to interpret and understand the rules, whose outlines are partially stretched across talk pages, and which are modelled on entry page practice. Fay Freak (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Support, my preferred option. PUC – 10:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. BERJAYA Oppose because this threshold is too high. Davi6596 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Oppose per Davi6596; there have been quite a few good editors with less than 500 edits who have contributed positively to discussions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Oppose Way too high, I only eclipsed 500 edits after over a year of being an active editor, assuming a similar rate of editing (close to two edits a day), requiring editors to be actively involved for a whole year before getting a formal voice in site policy seems ridiculous - many editors already come to the site with background experience and I feel that trapping they're influence behind such a high edit requirement is only detrimental. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Oppose Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Oppose per my comment under Option 2 — [ɪˈɫa.wə kəˈta.kə] (talk) (edits) 11:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Oppose - seems too high. Trooper57 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Strong oppose Zbutie3.14 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Oppose per my vote above. Catonif (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA Oppose: I’ve been made to rethink this threshold as being too high. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 19:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Strong oppose Anti-democratic, bad solution in search of a problem. I have not seen what the issue is that requires the status quo to be changed. It can take twenty years for an otherwise fine contributor to reach this threshold, and "we need to set higher standards" does not meet a smell test for rationale. Hftf (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BERJAYA Oppose: Depending on what kinds of edits they are making, 500 edits is a ton of effort to require of someone before considering them a full member of the community. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. BERJAYA Abstain Vininn126 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Abstain — BABR・kurwa? 20:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Abstain. I passed 500 edits slightly over a month (which would be more or less consistent with the 30 days requirement) after my first real edit, but I'm pretty certain I am an outlier and most editors would not be close to that number. – wpi (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Abstain – I'm not particularly against this, however I don't really see what this would achieve. 500 minimum edits requirement wouldn't really restrict bad-faith actors when it's possible to make genuine mass edits (such as declensions etc.) to the website. This also assumes that the community only consists of editors, which is not necessarily the case. نعم البدل (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Abstain Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Abstain Geographyinitiative 🎵 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Abstain 500 edits is maybe a tad bit overkill. AG202 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Abstain from voting in this section. I just can't be bothered. DonnanZ (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2
  • Making it read as follows:
  1. [...]
  2. Their account must have at least 250 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Thesaurus or Reconstruction namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote.
Support
  1. BERJAYA Strong support. See my vote for issue 2. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 03:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Support. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Support as creator. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 10:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Support because this threshold isn't too low as today's or too high as Option 1's. Davi6596 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Support LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Weak support I prefer 500, but 250 is also good if 500 turns out to be too high. StrangerCoug (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Support — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Support Vininn126 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA Support Zbutie3.14 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Support — BABR・kurwa? 20:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BERJAYA Support. Imetsia (talk (more)) 07:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BERJAYA Support – wpi (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BERJAYA Support per nom and Tranqy.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  14. BERJAYA Support 250 edits allow inference of attention to the dictionary matter. Fay Freak (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  15. BERJAYA Support Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  16. BERJAYA Support lattermint (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  17. BERJAYA Support 250 edits is a good barometer of whether or not someone has been active and knowledgeable enough about the community here. AG202 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  18. BERJAYA Support — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  19. BERJAYA Support --dringsim 12:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  20. BERJAYA Support although I would've preferred the 500 threshold. PUC – 10:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  21. BERJAYA Support, also to tighten things up, within reason. bd2412 T 19:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. BERJAYA Oppose Following along the same reasoning I outlined against the 500 edit requirement, requiring an editor to essentially complete a six month plus probation to have a formal voice seems way too high. To my knowledge, real world jobs usually have a 90 day probationary period at the longest, with others having only a 30 day one. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Oppose per The Editor's Apprentice, plus the reality that such high requirements would effectively reward those making minor and/or bulk edits (such as via WT:ACCEL) while punishing those who focus on more accurate, considered, and complete edits or new lemmas. With the increase to 30 days of editing, I think 50 is adequate for showing investment while encouraging interaction with more seasoned editors. — [ɪˈɫa.wə kəˈta.kə] (talk) (edits) 11:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Oppose per my vote above. Catonif (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Strong oppose see above Hftf (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Oppose: I would be ok with doubling our current requirement to 100 edits, but I would want to see evidence that an increase is necessary before putting it any higher than that. If examples were given of past votes where many low-edit accounts took the same side, then perhaps I would be persuaded. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 04:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. BERJAYA Abstain. 500 seems high. 250 may be reasonable, but still feels a bit high to me. Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Abstain - same as Cnilep. Trooper57 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Abstain Geographyinitiative 🎵 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Abstain from voting in this section. I just can't be bothered. DonnanZ (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Decision
  • Option 1: Failed: 10-11-8.
  • Option 2: Passed: 21-5-4.
– Svārtava (tɕ) 05:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:TongcyBot for bot status

Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:TongcyBot (operated by User:TongcyDai). The bot will be running via Pywikibot and mwclient. Its planned tasks are as follows:

  • Primary Task (Lithuanian Pronunciation): Standardizing Lithuanian pronunciations by replacing manual IPA or adding missing pronunciation sections with {{lt-pr}}, powered by the newly developed Module:lt-pron. The bot will cross-reference data from kalbu.vdu.lt to ensure accurate input parameters. Additionally, it will automatically create the generated rhyme and syllable categories (e.g., Category:Rhymes:Lithuanian/ɛ/4 syllables, Category:Lithuanian 6-syllable words) and populate the corresponding Rhymes pages (e.g., Rhymes:Lithuanian/ɛ).
    Test edits: abejingiausiu, miestelis, Slovėnija, Panevėžys, pianinas, fluidas, heroizmas, ejakuliacijai (covering a diverse range of stress patterns and cases)
    Source code available on Gist
  • Future Task (Lithuanian Inflections): Replacing current standalone Lithuanian headword and inflection templates (e.g., {{lt-noun}}, {{lt-adj}}, {{lt-verb}}, {{lt-noun-m-as-1}}, {{lt-adj-is-2}}, {{lt-conj-3-t-circum}}) with a centralized, automated Lua module system once it is fully ready.
  • Future Task (Reference Fixes): Updating outdated reference links and IDs. For instance, updating the entry IDs for the MoE Taiwanese Hokkien dictionary ({{R:nan-hbl:thcwd}}) which were broken due to upstream database updates.
  • Miscellaneous Maintenance: Other routine maintenance, debugging, and template substitutions. I will always seek explicit community consensus at the Beer parlour before executing any new sweeping or potentially controversial bulk edits.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

  1. BERJAYA Support as nominator. TongcyDai (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Support: They are a trusted and experienced editor in other Wiktionary projects. --Hzy980512 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Support — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 14:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Support — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 16:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Support — [ɪˈɫa.wə kəˈta.kə] (talk) (edits) 17:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Support —Fish bowl (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Support --dringsim 14:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Support because I see no reason to oppose. Davi6596 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA support and my gratitudes for the thing tranqypoo also mentioned below!! əkrəm. 09:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Support Vininn126 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BERJAYA Support Schützenpanzer (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BERJAYA Support Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BERJAYA Support. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 07:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BERJAYA Support per TranqyPoo's abstention rationale. 0DF (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. BERJAYA Oppose. Lerman (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. BERJAYA Abstain. I know nothing about Lithuanian. However, I applaud at the user's ability to provide all the necessary information in an organized manner to determine a vote. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 16:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Abstain. Looks fine, but I don't know enough about Lithuanian or the modules involved to have an informed opinion. Cnilep (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decision


Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, in cases where the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or where the vote appears to require substantial revision. If you have not created a passing vote yet, it is recommended that you use this section and actively solicit feedback by linking to your proposal in discussion; your vote may have a better chance of passing if it is first reviewed.

Votes may linger here indefinitely. If changes in policy make a proposal irrelevant, the voting page will be requested for deletion. On the other hand, you do not have to be the creator to initiate one of the votes below. Place any votes with a live start date in the section above at least a few days before that start date arrives.

Forthcoming votes

Wiktionary:Votes/2023-12/Represent the GenAm NURSE and STRUT vowels as schwa
Wiktionary:Votes/2024-06/CFI for mainspace constructed languages
Wiktionary:Votes/2025-04/Deletion of user talk pages
Wiktionary:Votes/2025-08/Prefer Synonyms and Antonyms Templates
Wiktionary:Votes/2025-09/Delete and regenerate pinyin entries
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-06/Streamlining the approval process of online sources
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-07/Stubifying alternative forms
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-11/Should unidiomatic phrases be included if there is consensus for likely utility to readers?
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes&oldid=89572126"