Wiktionary:Votes

Wiktionary > Votes

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. Edit 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.

Policy and help pages, respectively: Wiktionary:Voting policy (including who is eligible to vote) and Help:Creating a vote.

See also Wiktionary:Votes/ for an automatically generated, less organized list of votes.

Before clicking the “Start a new vote!” button below, change “Title of vote” in the field just above the button to a short descriptive title. Once you have created your vote, add it to the list at Wiktionary:Votes/Active.

Other

Admins, please periodically check for orphan votes at Wiktionary:Votes/.

Look for votes and voting templates, including templates for creation of new votes:

• Pages starting with "Wiktionary:Votes".
• Pages starting with "Template:vote-".

Main sections of this page: Current and new votes and Proposed votes. See also /Timeline.

Background

Recently, WMF staff have converted our old LiquidThreads discussion pages to the Flow discussion system, which is also obsolete. If you haven't been following the discussions, you probably haven't noticed any change, as only about 40 talk pages were affected. See User talk:Rua/LQT Archive for an example of a converted page.

User:Pppery's Flow cleanup bot can convert these Flow discussion pages into ordinary wikitext, to match all the rest of our discussion pages and archives. It also updates old links to LQT threads (such as the link starting "Thread:" in this comment) to point to the final location of the discussion in question. Finally, it deletes the now-unneeded LQT and Flow pages, for which it requires administrator rights.

Pppery is offering to run this bot here, having previously done so on MediaWiki wiki.

The bot requires an unusual MediaWiki permission (importupload) which is held by the importers group. The bot also normally runs with administrator privileges so it can delete the converted pages. See this comment on Wikinews for a more detailed explanation of why the bot needs these permissions.

The bot will likely only make around 200 edits and another 80 deletions, so this is a low-risk, low-impact, one-off piece of work. However, given the variety of special permissions required, a vote will help demonstrate that community support exists for the granting of these permissions.

Voting on

• allowing Flow cleanup bot to convert all Flow (ex-LQT) boards to wikitext and to update links to LQT/Flow discussions to point to the correct locations
• granting Flow cleanup bot a bot flag for the duration of its work
• granting Flow cleanup bot an administrator flag for the duration of its work
• granting Flow cleanup bot an importer flag for the duration of its work
• authorising Wikimedia system administrators to remove the LiquidThreads and Flow extensions from this wiki once Flow cleanup bot's work is done

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Vote created: This, that and the other (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/September#LiquidThreads will be removed from all wikis
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/November#LQT has now been fully converted
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2025-11/Authorising User:Flow cleanup bot to clean up after LiquidThreads

1.  Support, on the condition that the various permissions be rescinded after the work is complete. 0DF (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support Fay Freak (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support Ioaxxere (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support per nom. Juwan (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support Schützenpanzer (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support, with the understanding that "for the duration of its work" implies that those permissions will be removed following the work described herein. Cnilep (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support This, that and the other (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Abstain at this time because I cannot assess the risk. Also, though I expect that the permissions will be temporary, the vote does not say so. If all of our tech mavens vote in favor, my vote probably wouldn't be needed, but would be available if necessary. DCDuring (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   If it helps, the phrasing "granting ... for the duration of its work" is intended to convey that the permissions will be temporary. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Passed 8-0-1. @Surjection to grant the roles, @Pppery, This, that and the other. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot grant the importer group, only the admin group. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Requested on Meta. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 23:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Importer was granted; @Surjection could you add bot and admin rights? This, that and the other (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Voting on: In the Pronunciation sections of Chinese entries, making the IPA pronunciation visible by default instead of hiding it in a collapsed box, for some or all Chinese languages (options 1-3), or adding buttons to allow users to expand collapsed pronunciation information on a per-language basis instead of only being able to expand or collapse all languages at once (option 4).

• Option 1: Unhide IPA for Mandarin Chinese.
• Option 2: Unhide IPA for Chinese languages like Xiang where the romanizations that we currently present instead of IPA pronunciations are ones we made up here on Wiktionary.
• Option 3: Unhide IPA for all Chinese languages.
• Option 4: Add buttons to allow for expanding each language's collapsed pronunciation information individually.

(For rationales, see talk page.)

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion(s):

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/July § Bring Back Chinese (Mandarin) Pronunciation in IPA
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2025-09/Unhide Chinese IPA

1.  Support Because IPA is the least common denominator among all oral languages. Kai Burghardt (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support The pronunciation of a Mandarin word is not always what the pinyin appears to be (e.g. feng shui/風水). Apocheir (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support, but I would also support the unhiding of Cantonese IPA. The notion that this information is unimportant because Pinyin is transparent is fundamentally misguided; after all, we prominently include pronunciation information on Finnish entries... This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support. I think Mandarin and Cantonese should be unhidden. MedK1 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Mandarin IPA and Cantonese IPA should not be hidden in the pronunciation section to begin with; these two have the most audio sources and the most amount of volunteer resources poured onto. They are the two languages our reader comes here for the most, including myself and they should have IPA right next to the audio player. Having every other language in the list have their own IPA shown by default EXCEPT for Modern, Standard, Mandarin Chinese is, in my opinion, inconsistent to say the least. Skarsna.lanaf (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Not eligible to vote — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Oppose If this is to be interpreted as exclusive to Mandarin and not other languages under Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose For users already familiar with pinyin, this is unnecessary. It's also visual clutter unless separated to a new line (see Polomo's mockup on the discussion page). --Wandering Maiden (talk) (contributions) 08:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose per above. – wpi (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Abstain per rationale under option 4. Juwan (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Abstain. As I explained on the talk page, I don't think this is useful to most readers interested in Mandarin pronunciations, but it's a relatively small amount of added clutter. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Abstain, as option 2 seems preferable. Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Support Objectively, more people coming here to look up words' pronunciations know IPA than know the transliterations we invented, because IPA is the norm for giving pronunciations, whereas the transliterations we invented are...transliterations we invented. As discussed on talk, the Wiktionarian transliteration and the IPA could even be shown on the same line if the 'height'/'length' of the box (the amount of space it takes up onscreen) is a concern, just like we usually show enPR on the same line as IPA whenever enPR is present. - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support per -sche. see also option 4. Juwan (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Weak support I'm sort of torn on this one, as I'm also not sure if this would entail hiding any Romanizations that can potentially be considered 'in-house' as well (where I work most with Wugniu, both Wugniu and many other Wu romanization systems REQUIRE some sort of modification for usability in a dictionary setting since these things are most often only officially used for single-character readings and outside of that aren't centralized or standardized). But I think speakers/learners find romanization a really powerful and useful thing sometimes and especially with how there's no Wu romanization system with much institutional backing at all, it doesn't necessarily make sense to me just to hide a romanization for being "in-house", since most people only use these roms online, often also in an "in-house" way. But ultimately against this backdrop I think unhiding IPA might be a good thing. I think this also partly because some of our necessary in-house modifications for at least Wu, especially with its tone notation, it's CONFUSING, and editors input romanizations that maybe make sense in an underlying phonemic level but sometimes it spits out the wrong IPA and people don't notice. (ultimately this is also a question about the code's usability and conprehensibility but that will be very long-term work). But unhiding IPA (definitely in zh-pron with most Wu lects) could here I think 1. at least partly help with entry maintenance and any corrections that needs done, and 2. at least turn some editors' attention towards whether the end-result IPA as it appears seems correct in their edits. I think another thing I find attractive about this idea of unhiding IPA (with the option of showing them alongside in-house/uninstitutionalized romanizations?) might be that for many less-resourced varieties any romanization systems in use might still be quite loosely developing as a tool for transcription all around, it would be useful for people wanting to learn & practice romanization systems to maybe have the romanization side-by-side with IPA too, though the exact details of that would maybe be more of a case-by-case concern. Musetta6729 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Oppose Kai Burghardt (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Weak oppose I don't think it makes much of a difference whether a romanization is in-house or not. If the user is unfamiliar with it, they can't read it either way. Aside for adding buttons per option 4, I think having a romanization immediately visible is beneficial as it could help promote adoption of some common system for those without one.--Wandering Maiden (talk) (contributions) 08:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose Per above. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Abstain It might be better to unhide for Wiktionary-invented romanizations, but perhaps our in-house romanizations should also be hidden by default. This is sort of in line with other modules that use a modified orthography to show IPA, like {{fr-IPA}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Abstain. As Justin has suggested above, I think the better question for these languages with in-house romanisations is whether we want to display them or not, rather than whether they should be shown prominently in the collapsed view; I should note that there seems to be some limited usage of our in-house romanisations outside of Wiktionary. There is also the issue of which ones should be defined as "in-house", since there are sometimes minor modifications to existing systems (e.g. to cover some marginal phonemes not originally included) or adaptaion of some generic system (not in-house) for a group of lects where there isn't an explicitly defined romanisation (which is the case for Jyutping++ and Wugniu). – wpi (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Abstain. I'm not sure what's most useful to readers interested in pronunciations of these varieties, which are relatively uncommon for English speakers to study. I share the concern expressed above that it may not be clear-cut which romanizations are "in-house". —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Support This is free from bias. It does not make a statement that some pronunciation was more important (or “better”) than another. Beside this, some entries are already insanely long and hard to navigate because certain character sequences are words in multiple languages. Evidently this is not recognized as a problem there, so I don’t see page length posing a problem here either. Kai Burghardt (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Weak support. Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support, if this option corresponds to Polomo's mockup. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Oppose per rationale on option 4. this would cause a lot of visual clutter and drastically increase the size of the pronunciation section for common words. Juwan (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose This defeats the original purpose of having the hide button. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose Visual clutter. Unlikely a user will be interested in every supported lect. --Wandering Maiden (talk) (contributions) 08:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose per above. Extremely large amount of visual clutter if we display all IPA. A relatively basic entry with decent coverage of lects will have at least 40-50 IPA pronunciation lines. For example, currently the number entries 1-10 (一, 二, 三, 四, 五, 六, 七, 八, 九, and 十) has 50, 80, 59, 61, 87, 54, 57, 66, 47, and 45 lines of IPA respectively according to my count. – wpi (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Oppose Too much clutter. I think most readers of our Chinese entries are more comfortable reading standard transliterations like pinyin and Jyutping, and I think it's reasonable to make the minority of readers who prefer IPA click an extra time for the sake of limiting the clutter and making those standard transliterations easier to find. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Strong oppose per Justin. MedK1 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Support I think this is also a good idea, especially if the individual expansions are "sticky" (like e.g. showing vs hiding quotations is; i.e. you click to unhide/expand a particular lect and then it is visible/expanded on new pages you go to, unless you change your mind and click to collapse it again). - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support per -sche. this new behaviour would be a great UI/UX improvement for users that want to check only a certain language (and especially, if they want to always show a certain one but hide all others). Juwan (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support Per above. By the way, are we planning on adding a button for every single variety (e.g. Standard, Dungan, Hokkien) or just one for every variety group (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka)? The former option makes things easier to find, but the latter one reduces visual clutter (on pages like 水, we would need something close to 30 buttons with the former option). Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support Long overdue. Not everyone is interested in every lect represented in the module, so this helps give easier access to individual lects, especially those that are listed at the middle to bottom of the list. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Weak support Should be a good idea but questioning to what degree will the new buttons be a visual presence. I will do think there is some convenience in just clicking a single button to unhide everything. If buttons are added, I would prefer by variety group (Yue, Hakka, Wu, etc).--Wandering Maiden (talk) (contributions) 08:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Wandering Maiden I think I prefer that one too. But maybe some brilliant UI developer can come up with a solution that makes 30 buttons not look ugly. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6.  Support per Justin. I prefer having a button for each lect (or groups of) corresponding to one Wiktionary L2, since some of those span dozens of lines already (e.g. standard Mandarin, Hokkien, and Northern Wu). – wpi (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support. The implementational and design details might be tricky but customizability is good idea, and per - -sche and justin(r)leung above having it being a "sticky" setting for each user to be able to quickly access certain lects they're personally interested in by default would be a significant plus. — Musetta6729 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support. Making it sticky would be great too. I suspect most readers are interested in only one or two lects at a time. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support Step 1 do this, Step 2, split the dialects/languages/ "lects" (lol wtf, how do you think you can play with English like that) of Chinese up into their own language headers. --Geographyinitiative 🎵 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak support This can be a good UI/UX improvement if done correctly by a designer. This idea can also be in conjunction with showing the Mandarin IPA by default (option 1) as well. Skarsna.lanaf (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Not eligible to vote — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Strong oppose This sounds like UX nightmare. Why not add a slider (for time) as well? Kai Burghardt (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Kai Burghardt would you like to add on that? Juwan (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Abstain Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Abstain I don't know what this would look like. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 passes 9:1:2. 0DF (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Voting on: Transliteration of Russian Synodal Church Slavonic words will be allowed entries. The traditional system of Transliteration (outlined here (page 22)) will be used.

• For example: обилуяй, a Transliteration of the Russian Synodal Church Slavonic word ѡбилꙋѧй, will be allowed.

• Rationale: Texts which were written in this language are now more commonly quoted and reproduced in Transliteration form. Modern readers will most likely want to look up words in their Transliteration form; these readers will not necessarily know or be able to input the words' original-script forms. Transliteration will help Wiktionary-users find the original-script entries.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
• Vote created: ПростаРечь (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion(s):

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/October § Russian Synodal Church Slavonic transliteration: Wiktionary:Votes/2025-11/Russian Synodal Church Slavonic transliteration

1.  Support Zbutie3.14 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support We have transliterations for the Gothic language, which uses a script a majority of people can't type, so there's precedence. Schützenpanzer (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support Looks like normalization to me. Fay Freak (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support, but only if you tell me how to transliterate ꙮ. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support as it appears to be useful. Hopefully there is also transliteration into Latin. ꙮ would use "O". — This unsigned comment was added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) at 05:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

   @Graeme Bartlett Kinda boring. I had hoped it would be "OOOOOOOOOO". Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6.  Support but we might want to find a better word for it. Since the source and the target are both in Cyrillic, it's a little odd calling it a transliteration. I agree with Fay Freak that it's more like a normalization. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support Rodrigo5260 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Abstain. I was pinged in the Beer Parlour thread, and despite being active in Slavic languages, I feel confident only in one subbranch. I do not wish to voice an opinion on something I do not feel I know enough about. Vininn126 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Abstain. Saw this vote, but not voicing an opinion. Chihunglu83 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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:

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: