Wiktionary:Votes/2015-10/Matched-pair naming format: left, space, right

Voting on: Using this exact format for matched-pairs in all languages:

• left, space, right: ( ), “ ”, « », ¿ ?, " ", ' ', , { }

With 2 caveats:

• Redirects -- say, from () to ( ) -- are outside of the scope of this vote, until further discussion. This vote does not intend to decide whether they are allowed or not.
• The above treatment may be overriden by consensus, for example if there's any issue with using this format on a specific language (such as right-to-left languages), their exact format for these languages can still be discussed as possible exceptions.

Rationale:

• This is the same format used by circumfixes, such as ge- -t.
• The space in the middle makes the distinction between the 2 parts clearer and, arguably, " " looks better than "".
• It is the second shortest separator (the shortest is no separator at all). Other suggested options include three dots (like (...)) and ellipsis. The ellipsis is also a one-character separator, but it is harder to type.

If this vote passes, here are some other formats that should not be used, unless there's some consensus as mentioned above:

1. left, right: (), “”, «», ¿?, "", '', , {}
2. left, space, ellipsis, space, right: ( … ), “ … ”, « … », ¿ … ?, " … ", ' … ', , { … }
3. left, ellipsis, right: (…), “…”, «…», ¿…?, "…", '…', , {…}

Schedule:

• Vote started: 00:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote extended to: 23:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Votes/2015-08/Allowing matched-pair entries (previous vote, passed on October 13, 2015)

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/July#Merging ( and ) into a single entry

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Allowing matched-pair entries

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Poll: Format of the matched-pair entries

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-10/Matched-pair naming format: left, space, right

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support It makes sense, and the exception for right-to-left languages clears up my concern about the technical considerations. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Dixtosa (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
4. Support —JohnC5 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
5. Support, and I assume that the "space" in question is always U+0020 SPACE, and not any of the other spaces, yes? Or might it be, for example, U+3000 IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE for matched pairs like 『　』? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
6. Support, provided that the “space” referred to in this vote is the single-byte ASCII space U+0020 SPACE. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
7. Support although I've opposed this direction from the start. I'm now a little more convinced that it will be manageable if paired symbol definitions (e.g. single quotes ' ' and ` ' and ‘ ’) are kept to the paired symbol page, and individual symbols (e.g. an individual quote ' or ` or ’ or ‘) link to such pages as relevant. There will still be definitions that only apply to symbols individually (e.g. apostrophe ' or ’), definitions that have to link between variations with and without the space (e.g. angle brackets < > vs. not equal <>), and definitions where a space is optional which should probably be defined as an alternative form (e.g. curly brackets { } for set notation and other uses vs. empty set {} but also { }). So, there are still plenty of corner cases, but only one place that functions as a base lemma for each definition. As far as spacing for other scripts is concerned, I would say choose which space character is most appropriate, and redirect the other if necessary. DAVilla 09:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Abstain I have no objection but I don't feel this issue requires a vote. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Abstain --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Passes - 7:0:2 (100% of non-abstaining votes) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)