Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-08/Templatizing usage examples

< Wiktionary:Votes

Templatizing usage examples edit

Support edit

  1.   Support. For the reasons of format consistency and automatic transliteration of non-Latin scripts. --Vahag (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vahag: Do the same reasons of format consistency and transliteration of non-Latin scripts also apply to templatization of attesting quotations of usage, leading to a broad use of the likes of {{quote-book}}? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think quotations should always be templatized. I am actively using the template {{Q}}. --Vahag (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support DTLHS (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. Consistency, personalisability, metadata tagging, automatability of features, flexibility... yes please! — Ungoliant (falai) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   I support for languages other than English. I abstain re English. And I register my general opposition to formal policy votes on matters of template usage and entry style. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support the use of {{ux}} for example sentences but oppose its use for quotations. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support when a language is not written in Latin script, per the vote's author, oppose for English, and abstain otherwise. As far as I can tell, the scope of this vote is not intended to apply to quotations. DAVilla 05:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support in all proposed cases. Makes the wikitext data format clearer and less ambiguous. —Pengo (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support for reasons given by Ungoliant. Benwing2 (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support more structure! and the templates are more compact, so actually reduce visual clutter. Jberkel (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support As long as it's not obligatory for any individual to use it, I think this is a good idea. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support —CodeCat 12:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support —Enosh (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Renard Migrant (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support —JohnC5 18:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Einstein2 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support  — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support embryomystic (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support per Ungoliant--Dixtosa (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk). I oppose this above all for English, Czech and other languages that use Latin script. The templates add visual clutter to the wiki markup with almost no added value, AFAICS. Yes, templates can provide automatic transliteration for languages that use non-Latin scripts, but I disagree with providing transliteration for example sentences. I'll reiterate that the wiki markup is the user interface, and that decisions concerning the markup therefore matter a lot. While the reader does not see the markup, the wiki has to be easy on editors, both for reading the markup and authoring it. While were're at it, I oppose enclosing all definitions in {{def|en|...}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki markup is already difficult, no point making it easier.--DixtosaBOT (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This must be a joke. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose - pointless SemperBlotto (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose per Dan. Structure for structure's sake isn't necessarily a good thing. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose per SemperBlotto and ObsequiousNewt. --Droigheann (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose for any English usage example, whether in an English or Translingual language section. This seems like a particularly low value use of templates. Are we really running out of things to do to improve quality in a substantive way. DCDuring TALK 13:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DCDuring: Can you please strike out one of your votes so that you have only one oppose vote in the Oppose section? Is perhaps your vote from 02:04, 11 October 2015 now superfluous? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just added a colon to correct the numbering. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Thanks. Comments merged. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose Equinox ◑ 22:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose Vote started: 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vote ends: 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Riverstogo (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain This is already longstanding practice; there's no need to vote on an existing consensus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree inasmuch as it would "[give] a full go ahead to all automatic and semiautomatic edits that replace [the templateless syntax]". Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renard Migrant: Why is that? Do you fear semi-automated errors? Or do you prefer not to see {{ux}} and {{usex}} in the wiki markup? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain I've been abstaining anyway, might as well make it explicit. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

  1.   Support for foreign languages, because it surrounds the sentence in HTML tags that specify the language: this is (or should be) good for SEO and screen readers. Oppose for English as (AFAICT) pointless and per Dan P., above, 07:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC).​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support for foreign languages only and oppose for English per msh210. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support for only foreign languages, oppose for English, per msh210 and Metaknowledge. English is fine as-is. Aryamanarora (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support for FLs, only if it yields a conspicuously bad result like a Lua error if there is no English translation of the FL usage example provided. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It does make me think perhaps this vote should be two votes; one for English, one for foreign languages (FLs). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renard Migrant: Could you please specify what precisely you support and oppose? As it stands, I have no idea how your vote can be counted (I would probably treat it as an abstain in absence of clarification). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for only non-English as above, and if non-templatized examples are allowed if the templates result in something considered less-than-optimal such as ugly romanization due to outdated orthography. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give examples where you might get ugly romanization? These should be fixable through manual tr=, I would imagine. Benwing2 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Template_talk:ja-usex#ヶ. I could use {{usex}} (which may create visual discord), {{ja-usex}} (which doesn't have |tr= input, just plain kana input, which is proving slightly problematic), or some other hacky method which may or may not look acceptable —suzukaze (t・c) 09:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the link you gave, and tried using {{usex}}, but I'm not quite sure what exactly the issue is. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @suzukaze-c, Benwing2 @suzukaze-c First of all, you can't blame the Japanese usex tools (module or template), it's to do with the Japanese transliteration module, which needs some attention of an editor skilled in Lua. It does a lot of things already, considering that it's not a trivial task at all, I personally think the tool is great. For cases when the Japanese specific {{ja-usex}} doesn't work, you can use the usual {{usex}}, which works for all languages but you won't get ruby (furigana) with it. Just need to add handling for ヶ and sokuon ッ. User:Wyang, User:Kephir, User:Eirikr, are you able to help there? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Shogakukan, there is a katakana ケ (ke), and a kind of non-katakana ケ (ka or ga), often written with the minuscule form ヶ. Although both the katakana and the non-katakana ケ are identical in modern Japanese, and in fact use the same glyph and Unicode codepoint, these two have different origins. Katakana ケ developed as a graphical change from 介. Non-katakana ケ was a shift from older 个, itself a graphical abbreviation of counter 箇 (ka). The ga reading arose from simple rendaku of the ka reading, giving rise in turn to the use of ケ and its minuscule form ヶ as an ateji or substitute character for the particle が (ga, modern subject particle, Old Japanese copula particle).
    I don't expect I'll have time this week to examine the Module:ja code. Treating ケ or ヶ as straight katakana doesn't seem safe. @Wyang, @Keφr, do either of you have time to make the necessary adjustments? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It seems easier to include both forms as kanji and supply readings for transliteration purposes. The issue with ッ is probably solvable since っ is working fine, no?--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

  • Passes 21‒7‒2 (75% of non-abstainers in favour). Allowing ambiguous votes, all subproposals also pass, except for use for English example sentences, which fails due to no consensus 19‒12‒4 (61¹⁹⁄₃₁% of non-abstainers in favour). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @I'm so meta even this acronym: The numbers are a bit off (Riverstogo is ineligible to vote, but I'm not sure if that's the only issue). I find that 65.5% of editors voted in favour for English, which might be construed as passing (although I personally would count it as "no consensus"). The details of my count are below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Details of Metaknowledge's count

For all languages (including English), the vote is: 19-10-3, which yields 65.5% support.

  • In support: Vahag, DTLHS, Ungoliant, ISMETA, Daniel Carrero, Benwing, Pengo, Anatoli, JBerkel, WurdSnatcher, CodeCat, Enosh, Matthias, Renard, John, Einstein, Saltmarsh, Embryomystic, Dixtosa
  • In opposition: DAVilla, Dan Polansky, Semper, ObsequiousNewt, Droigheann, DCDuring, Equinox, msh210, Metaknowledge, Aryaman
  • In explicit abstention: -sche, Angr, Wikitiki89
@Metaknowledge: suzukaze supported "for only non-English". That means opposing for English. (Note that that's not the same as supporting "only for non-English", which is abstention for English. Supporting "for only non-English" means that the support is specifically for the proposition that the template be for only non-English.) That makes the count 19–11-?, or 63.3%. But I guess we're all in agreement here that there's no consensus for English, anyway.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@msh210: suzukaze did not specify opinions on English explicitly, and you're reading more into their comment than I was comfortable with doing. (Note that placement of only is dialectal in English, and in many parts of the US it can be moved throughout the sentence without the semantics changing.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewording/clarification: I suppose using templates, but on non-English entries only (I have no preference for English; templates, no templates, whatever). (Additionally, not using templates if there are technical issues is OK) —suzukaze (t・c) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I pinged suzukaze so he/she could correct me if I was wrong. 19–10 on English, then. Still not a consensus.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason why we'd have different formatting practices for English entries compared to non-English entries. I think it's unnecessarily complex and confusing to users. —CodeCat 20:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeCat: The reason is that people voted that way. You can read their votes above. If you disagree, feel free to start a vote about it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-08/Templatizing_usage_examples&oldid=35653207"