Voting on: This vote is to establish use of the templates trans-top, trans-mid, and trans-bottom as the new standard for translation tables. These templates allow translations to be collapsible for users with modern browsers, and degrade gracefully for older browsers. See orange for an example in use. This vote is *not* for automated replacement of the tables, but merely to update WT:ELE to reflect the newly established standard.
Support\Mike14:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I presume this is about whether collapsible boxes should be used, not the template name... There can be redirects when that has become appropriate.[reply]
Not by my reading. Something has to be said in the ELE, and trans-top, trans-mid, and trans-bottom are specifically named in the vote. DAVilla21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportDAVilla09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC) as per the comment immediately above. I wouldn't be voting support if Connel didn't carry so much weight here.[reply]
Support. Can we rename "trans-bottom" into "trans-bot" and replace all existing translation tables by bot, please? Ncik21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tohru04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) It seems better for me to set the default as "expanded" rather than "collapsed" as discussed below, at least until the control via preferences is implemented.[reply]
OpposeV-ball 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I don't like them at all. They work fine and look fine, but it's an extra click to find some of the most useful (if not the most useful) information in Wiktionary (it's arguably the only stuff you can't get elsewhere in the given format). V-ball16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I like the idea of making things more controllable through prefs. Of course, it'd be even better if new users could easily see how to set preferences, but that's a different story. — V-ball13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Connel, this is the impression that I had also, the prefs option is something I would be very much in favour of and would satisfy both camps and those on the fence too.--Williamsayers7914:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDAVilla 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) I like the templates (color aside) but I don't like the names. We never did determine if it's possible to merge with {bottom} and with {mid} or even replace {mid#}. I would prefer to use {trans|...} or {translations|...} or even just substitute the code in at {top}. DAVilla18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain—Stephen 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I like the way these look, but they are inconvenient for checking and editing. I can imagine that having the translations hidden may also put a damper on new contributions. —Stephen05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded sounds like a potentially very good idea. What about basing the default on language preferences? Anonymous = unknown language ability = expanded. New user signs up in English = probably not interested = initially hidden, but can be changed in preferences. Is this feasible? DAVilla09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem stable enough to me, and while I agree that the prefs and naming should be addressed first, it appears that they will be anyways. DAVilla17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Approved: 10 for (plus one in favor post closure), 1 opposed, 4 abstentions.
Some concerns have been raised regarding the implementation. Therefore, I have created a new topic in the Grease Pit here (please voice any technical concerns there.) If no technical objections are voiced in the next few days, I'll go ahead and edit WT:ELE to reflect use of the current {{trans-top}} etc. --Jeffqyzt16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]