Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux

Voting on:

Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to replace the following templates:

1. {{term}} → {{m}} (Only uses of {{term}} with a language code; it is not possible for a bot to infer the language code automatically in all cases.)

   Syntax: {{term|word|lang=en}} → {{m|en|word}}

   Note: {{m}} is a redirect to {{mention}}

2. {{context}} → {{label}}. (If the language code is lacking, the bot can infer the language code by the current language section.)

   Syntax: {{context|grammar|lang=en}} → {{label|en|grammar}}

   Notes: {{cx}} is a redirect to {{context}}; {{lb}} is a redirect to {{label}}

   Procedural note: Any uses of {{label}} as described in this part of the vote may instead be changed to the shorter redirect {{lb}} if there is consensus for that demonstrated on this vote or elsewhere.

3. {{usex}} → {{ux|label}}. (If the language code is lacking, the bot can infer the language code by the current language section.)

   Syntax: {{usex|Why is a raven like a writing-desk?|lang=en}} → {{ux|en|Why is a raven like a writing-desk?}}

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote created: —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Vote revised: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:

• 2015 discussions:
  • Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux
  • Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Language codes in templates
  • Wiktionary:Grease pit/2015/November#Suggestion: "term -> m" by bot
• Older discussions:
  • Template talk:term#RFM discussion: August 2014–June 2015
  • Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/August#Renaming existing uses of Template:term to Template:m
  • Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/April#Template term and lang parameter
• Previous vote:
  • Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m (no consensus: 14-10-2; 58% support)
• Template talk pages:
  • Template talk:term
  • Template talk:mention
  • Template talk:context
  • Template talk:label

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --WikiTiki89 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support —JohnC5 21:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Taken the proposal alone, I am undecided. But a 6-month running vote showed that 61% of a fairly representative votership prefers {{m}} over {{term}}, per Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m. So let this be done. For the record, I oppose deletion of {{term}} since we need to keep revision histories legible; yes, this is not being proposed here AFAICS. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support — Mulder1982 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support --Fsojic (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
9. Support —Enosh (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
10. Support And I finally learn what the m stands for! Equinox ◑ 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
11. Support But keep {{term}} so we don't break anything! —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
12. Support --Leasnam (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
13. Support --Vahag (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
14. Support --Droigheann (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
15. Support. I'm fine with bot replacements but I neither support nor oppose the deletion of {{term}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
16. Support --Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
17. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
18. Support --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
19. Support - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
20. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
21. Support – Jberkel (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose - I think that we should, instead, fix term to work how we want it to work, and have m be an alias of term. I like having verbose versions of template names for readability, and then have shorthand versions for use in editing. Let bots convert the shorthand to the long form so that the code remains as readable as possible. Converting the lang= to the first undefined parameter is nice though. - TheDaveRoss 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   @TheDaveRoss: I have an opinion that is opposite from yours.

   • Exhibit A: From {{term|en|lorem}}, from {{term|en|ipsum}}, from {{term|en|dolor}}, from {{term|en|sit}}, from {{term|en|amet}}.
   • Exhibit B: From {{m|en|lorem}}, from {{m|en|ipsum}}, from {{m|en|dolor}}, from {{m|en|sit}}, from {{m|en|amet}}.

   I prefer the "m" version for readability. I would not want to repeatedly read the template name every time I see the wikitext of an etymology; "term" begs to be read every time, "m" is easier to ignore if I want, while still being able to see if everything's okay with the templates used in the etymology. Just my 2 cents. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

   Nb: redirecting one to the other allows both to be used without prejudice. - Amgine/ ^t·e 21:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose Needlessly changing high-profile templates. Purplebackpack89 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Waste of time. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

   My preference is towards {{lb}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

2. Support taking this to mean that both {{context}} and {{cx}} can be converted to either {{label}} or {{lb}}. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

   Forgot to mention that my preference is also toward {{lb}}. --WikiTiki89 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

3. Support per Wikitiki, with my preference being toward {{lb}}. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support My preference is towards {{lb}}. —JohnC5 21:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Support — Mulder1982 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support --Fsojic (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support, since my preference is {{lb}} --Leasnam (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
9. Support. I'm fine with bot replacements but I neither support nor oppose the deletion of {{context}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Support per Wikitiki, although as with Daniel Carrero I also prefer {{lb}}. --Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
11. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
12. Support - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
13. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose I oppose replacement with {{label}}, so spelled, but I abstain as for replacement with {{lb}}, so spelled. For a relevant poll, see Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Templates context and label. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think that these should mean two distinct things, context relating to things like region, dialect and field while label is used for non-context labels such as dated or vulgar. See comment on the term/m section re shorthand forms, I think the same should apply here (and in all templates). Also Template:qualifier might need to be included in this discussion, since context, label and qualifier are used for similar purposes. - TheDaveRoss 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   @TheDaveRoss: Just because you want there to be such a distinction, doesn't mean that there is one. The creators and most users of these templates did not intend there to be such a distinction. Proposing that they be used that way would have to be part of a separate vote and will require a great deal of work to implement. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   @Wikitiki89: I understand that it would be a lot of work, this whole project is a lot of work. Regarding intention, I am not sure that matters, they have all grown past their initial usage into a muddle of usage which makes them less useful overall. I also agree with you that this would be a different vote (after a long discussion) I was just trying to briefly state why I was opposing. - TheDaveRoss 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   @TheDaveRoss: I agree that intention itself is irrelevant. Only how they are used actually matters, and I am not aware of anyone who holds by your distinction other than perhaps yourself. Thus, I do not agree that "they have all grown past their initial usage" (of being alternative forms of each other with differing syntax). --WikiTiki89 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   @Wikitiki89: The usage of these templates (context specifically) is pretty broad, while running through them I found examples of the template being used to provide glosses in translation sections, to give parenthetical information, etc. I think these are probably not generally accepted uses, but in some number of cases this template (and qualifier, maybe label) is really just being used as an alias for italbrac. - TheDaveRoss 20:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   The use of {{context}} and {{label}} outside of definition lines has always been considered incorrect. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   Is that a universal enough sentiment that I should "correct" the usage by replacing with some other template or simple wiki markup? - TheDaveRoss 20:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, in lists and tables and such they should be replaced with {{qualifier}}. In headword lines, they should be moved to the definition line. I'm not sure sure where else they are sometimes found, but each type of location requires a separate decision about what to do with them. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   As Wikitiki states, your personal desire for a new system does not really have anything to do with making sure that these are all marked with what language they are, which is something I know you actually support and which is the point of this vote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   I absolutely think the language tag is important, I am not sure how changing the name of a template achieves that result. I understand that the two function slightly differently, I am not sure why we aren't just fixing context to operate in the manner we want. - TheDaveRoss 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   We can't switch over the way context works without breaking it; it has to go through an intermediate step. That intermediate step would have to be a different template, so we are using one that is in practice used identically (whether it should be is a different issue, but has nothing to do with the templates' actual use). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   Could it not also be having a bot move the lang= param to be the first param in every use, then updating the template so that the first param, whether or not it is lang= is handled as the language? Then, if desired, the lang= could be removed by a bot as well. - TheDaveRoss 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

   I disagree that "dialectal"/"regional" and "dated"/"vulgar" should use different templates. There is a second set of context labels (besides Template:context and Template:label), but they have a different purpose: I created Template:term-context and Template:term-label a while ago to address the need to distinguish (especially in categorization) labels that apply to only one sense (e.g. one sense of a word is British or dated, but the word as a whole isn't) from labels that apply to the whole word (e.g. the word itself, the spelling, is British or dated, and American English or modern British English uses a different word/spelling). That distinction does seem to have gained some currency: about 1700 pages use the term-context templates, probably the majority of which were thanks to people other than me. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose Needlessly changing high-profile templates. Purplebackpack89 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Fails to address the vastly more important question of how we treat the topical vs usage labels. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

   That's outside the scope of this vote. Make a new vote about it if that concerns you. —CodeCat 20:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain But can we please just pick something and stick with it instead of endlessly changing the templates editors are supposed to use. Ƿidsiþ 09:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

   Hear! hear! --Droigheann (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Abstain --Droigheann (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Abstain I would support if it were for {{context}} → {{cx}}. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Abstain – Jberkel (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --WikiTiki89 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support —JohnC5 21:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
6. Support — Mulder1982 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support —Enosh (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support --Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
9. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
10. Support The conversion by a bot should be done properly, though. Support simplification of parameter "inline", which is too long. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
11. Support —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
12. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose Why not just change how {{usex}} and {{term}} work and fix usage with a bot? "usex" somehow seems like a more sensible template name to me. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   @suzukaze-c: That's essentially what we're doing. My hope is that once {{usex}} is orphaned, it can be deleted and become a redirect to {{ux}}. The name might be less preferable in the short term, but that's a minor concern compared with the gains of all templated usage examples being marked for language. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   Thoughts:

   1. About usex/ux:
      • WhatLinksHere results for both templates: {{usex}} = 13,245 pages; {{ux}} = 6,002 pages. Albeit {{usex}} is used more than twice the other template, I do (weakly) support {{ux|en|Lorem ipsum.}} rather than {{usex|en|Lorem ipsum.}} as the "main" syntax -- since both names qualify as high-use templates, if we are to merge the names available, I'd rather keep/use the shortest one. If other people prefer the template name {{usex}}, that would be fine by me, since "usex" is a term we actually use, as in: "This entry needs some usexes."
      • Note that, if this vote passes and {{usex}} becomes a redirect to {{ux}} (thus allowing both {{ux|en|Lorem ipsum.}} and {{usex|en|Lorem ipsum.}} -- with the language code as the 1st parameter in all cases, never as lang=), then all old uses of {{usex}} with lang= in the history are going to be broken, unless people want to keep lang= somehow usable with the intent of preserving the history. (What do you think, @Dan Polansky?)
   2. About term/m:
      • I oppose using {{term}} and adapting it to allow the syntax {{term|en|something}} or using it as a redirect to {{m}} if we can help it. Similarly as above, I maintain that "if we are to merge the names available, I'd rather keep/use the shortest one", with an additional thought: while {{ux}} is used only once in a line, {{m}} is often used many times in a single etymology. A single-letter title is better for this template since it's so widely used IMO. {{m}} also has the advantage of being readily usable as it is, without having to adapt the template itself. Currently {{term|en|something}} would return this: something -- the text "something" linked to the entry en.

   --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   It would be hard to change syntax of {{term}} and {{usex}} without breaking legibility of revision histories, right? This vote does not propose that {{usex}} becomes a redirect to {{ux}}. I oppose making {{usex}} a redirect to {{ux}} since it would break revision histories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   On "the gains of all templated usage examples being marked for language": This is not the point of this replacement. The point is a syntax that multiple editors prefer. And there seems to be a trend in which more editors prefer very short names than not; {{m}} is being proposed for use rather than {{mention}} or {{ment}} (redlink). Full use of language code can be achieved with {{usex}} as well; it would suffice to modify the template so that it places all instances without a lang parameter into a maintenance category, and then clean up the category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

   "it would break revision histories" Things change; they improve and get better. Opposing better syntax because it would break old versions of pages is a silly fear, IMO. Exchanging consistency (with other templates) and efficiency for backwards compatibility is not worth it. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose Instead of a less clear template name let's convert to usage-example or similar if a conversion must be done. - TheDaveRoss 19:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Needlessly changing high-profile templates. Purplebackpack89 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose Waste of time. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Abstain --Droigheann (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Abstain would prefer to change {{usex}} to have a mandatory lang param – Jberkel (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Please note that if we fix all uses of {{usex}} to use a language code (which can generally be done with a bot) and make the language code mandatory, we can support both the old {{usex}} syntax and the new {{ux}} syntax under {{usex}}, conditioning on the presence of the |lang= parameter. This is similar to what's down with {{borrowing}}/{{bor}}. Not that I'm proposing this; I have no problem with just replacing {{usex}} with {{ux}}. But this might help the opposers above. Benwing2 (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

   This would fail when the lang parameter is absent. But I guess we could just check if the first parameter is a valid language code. --WikiTiki89 01:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

   See my first sentence, where I said we'd first need to add the lang parameter everywhere. Benwing2 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

   Unless you hack the database and change the histories of all the pages, then that won't solve the problem I was trying to solve with my suggestion. --WikiTiki89 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

   This might have to be a breaking change that will break on the histories of those pages that didn't have a language code previously. Oh well ... Although in truth your suggestion would work 99% of the time, even if it's kind of an ugly hack. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

   It's not quite as ugly of a hack as it may seem. If the template is used correctly, the result is unchanged, it is only when it is used incorrectly that we have such a low success rate of 99.99%. This kind of trial-and-error is standard practice in most scripting languages (and not even only in poorly designed scripting languages like JavaScript, but also in well designed scripting languages like Python). --WikiTiki89 21:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Clear consensus for all three proposals, though not unanimous:

• Proposal 1 (term → m) passes 21–3 (88%)
• Proposal 2 (context → label) passes 13–4 (76%; 4 abstentions)
• Proposal 3 (usex → ux) passes 12–4 (75%; 3 abstentions)

Some voters expressed concerns about past revisions of entries becoming illegible if backwards-incompatible changes are made to term, context and usex. I think the users who implement this vote should bear that in mind, and perhaps engage further with other editors to address the concerns. This, that and the other (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that Proposal 2 is slightly more nuanced; using the markup {{lb}} is preferred, as several supporting users specified it, no supporting users specified any other preference, and one opposing user actually abstained if {{lb}} is the markup. Anyway, @Benwing2, CodeCat, do one of you want to use your bot to implement this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:CodeCat started on this, although MewBot has stopped for the moment, perhaps because it wasn't converting the usex → ux templates correctly. I imagine it will restart soon. The bot is also changing context → label and cx → lb rather than mapping both to lb. I think both should be mapped to lb but I want to make sure this is generally OK before doing it myself. Benwing2 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for it, @Benwing2. I talked with CodeCat about it, see Thread:User talk:CodeCat/lb vs. label.

I created Wiktionary:Approved bot tasks to keep track of these bot tasks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

{{usex}} has now been orphaned. My own preference would be to make them synonyms now: {{usex}} would redirect to {{ux}} or vice versa. —CodeCat 18:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is OK with me; in my view it would entail redirecting {{usex}} to {{ux}} and making the latter accept a lang= param and use its presence to detect the usex way of doing things (see also my comments above). But I think some may be opposed to this. Benwing2 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Let us preserve {{usex}} as it is, and let us deprecate usex. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

{{context}} (and by extension {{cx}}) has been orphaned now too, except for some non mainspace pages. I have seen some users adding it to new entries though, in particular User:Equinox. —CodeCat 01:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)