Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar

• Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all definitions of English entries are within {{def}} or similarly named template.
• Example wikitext before the propose change, for a definition line of cat:

# A ] domestic ].

And after the proposed change:

# {{def|A ] domestic ].}}

• Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/July#Vote: Placing English definitions in def template or similar

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries#Separate proposal

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

   I support using {{def}} for all definitions, except those that already use {{n-g}}, {{form of}} or varieties of {{form of}} ({{plural of}}, etc.)

   But I'd prefer if {{def}} could be used around the whole list of definitions, like this (a simple version of the entry bat):

   {{def|

   # A ] used in ]s.

   # A ] ] ].

   }}

   --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Support since plain links often don't work correctly. Inconvenience for editors is not as important as misleading links for readers. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "don't work correctly"? --WikiTiki89 12:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

   I mean they often take the reader to the top of the page, which in some cases is very far away from the English section. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Support Makes definitions easier to find, plus links, plus more functionality can be added in the future. DTLHS (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose More overhead to support techno fantasies. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Equinox ◑ 00:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Makes entries more difficult to edit, with only minor benefits for most readers. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose. Not useful in most cases, and annoying to type, but an improvement over {{l}}. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose I like {{l}} \o/ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose no rationale can justify the proposal.--Dixtosa (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose — Saltmarsh^{συζήτηση-talk} 04:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose I don't want this imposed on us (yet). The idea is relatively new and not thoroughly tested. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose Makes wikitext less legible. Wikitext is the primary user interface to the wiki. The link retargetting to #English can be achieved using a MediaWiki plugin or using JavaScript. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. The primary user interface to the wiki is the displayed page. Wikitext is not a "user interface" in the general sense; at best, it forms part of the user interface experienced by editors. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
       • Fair enough: wikitext is the primary editing user interface to the wiki. Editing is important, very important. Furthermore, reading directly the wikitext is important not only for the editors but also for those who inspect editing histories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
         • Why do you think it makes wikitext less legible? What distinguishes lines starting with "# " as definitions? How would a new user know where a definition was in the text? DTLHS (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
           • I find text with extraneous markup less legible than the same text without that markup. I do admit that since there is no Definitions heading, a new user could take some time to figure out where the definitions are, but frankly, if the user knows what a definition is, they should find it relatively easy to spot them unless the wikitext is overflooded with other template noise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose Octahedron80 (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Failed: 3-11-0 (78.57%-21.43%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)