Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/Allowing character boxes

Voting on: Allowing the use of {{character info/new}} in all single-character entries.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/May#'character info' box
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-06/Allowing character boxes

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

   Some context: I'm pretty sure all single-character entries already have the character boxes. I could probably name at least three or four people other than myself who helped a lot to achieve that since boxes were created in 2009. (but then again, if I ping them, I'll be technically calling them specifically to vote here, which seems wrong) I created this vote because the character boxes were being recently discussed in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/May#'character info' box, some people seemed to oppose keeping the boxes. Personally, I like the boxes. That said, I'm interested in what will happen after this vote ends.

   If the vote fails and we follow the rule "When a vote fails, ignore it, the status quo prevails." then the boxes would be kept anyway because I believe keeping them is the status quo. But it should be easier to discuss further about deleting them.

   If the vote fails and we follow the rule "We can't have or do anything that failed a vote." then we would have to automatically delete the boxes... I suppose?

   Well, I hope it passes, anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   One thing about {{character info/new}} that I like is having multiple character boxes to display what exactly are the codepoint variations for the same character, which are usually redirects to the main entry. In the entry $, there are character boxes for $ (the normal dollar sign), 💲 ("heavy dollar sign"), ﹩ ("small dollar sign") and ＄ ("fullwidth dollar sign"). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Support. Part of the purview of an online dictionary that covers characters in the age of Unicode. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support, but make them way less obtrusive. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

   I second that. I like the boxes, but they could be smaller, especially when there are various boxes in an entry, like at $. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

5. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Support — Eru·tuon 22:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose --WikiTiki89 17:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Don't really want to see this on digits and suchlike. Equinox ◑ 17:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose Mistrz (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Keep them only on "extreme" characters. I especially think these boxes are merely unwelcome clutter on U+4E00 to U+9FA5 (they have literally no useful information, unlike the Unihan link in Translingual > References), and for those using Tabbed Languages, it doesn't help that they're outside ==Translingual==. —suzukaze (t・c) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

   What characters would you consider "extreme" for that purpose? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

   𫠠, CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-2B820 from CJK Unified Ideographs Extension E which was introduced in June 2015. Very, very few fonts support the newer blocks of CJK characters, partly because they're new and partly because no-one cares (unlike, say, Tangut, which was introduced in June 2016). —suzukaze (t・c) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

   If we remove the character box from most entries, why keep it in 𫠠 at all? If the reasoning is showing an image and character information for a character that "Very, very few fonts support", then it would follow that any character with few supporting fonts should have the box. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

   If you can't see the character (don't have the right fonts), then the only other possible way to identify it is by name, which would be provided by {{character info/new}}. Also, I've changed my mind for hanzi entries. I think they shouldn't be on any of them since {{Han ref}} is more useful in all cases. I'd like to change my example to 𒀉 (definitely a "weird" character that is unavailable for many, although Segoe UI Historic, which supports it, seems to come with Windows 10). —suzukaze (t・c) 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

   It also serves as an easy, on-wiki way to identify homoglyphs (for example, it can dispel confusion over the {{also}} entries at ə). —suzukaze (t・c) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose I never liked these character boxes, we're not a Unicode database. I don't really think we should even have entries about characters; alphabets would be much better suited to an appendix page. I also share Suzukaze's objection of having them outside a language section, which takes up extra space with Tabbed Languages. —CodeCat 18:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - DaveRoss 13:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose — Saltmarsh. 04:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose --Victar (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Abstain It might be good for pages that have few definitions and much space on the right; they are usually short. They can display variations which are not able to have their own pages due to policies. But it might be bad for pages that have many definitions and/or too many boxes stacking up. I can't decide. However, I will continue keeping them on Thai Wiktionary. Octahedron80 (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

   @Octahedron80: Do you think you would support keeping the character boxes in all single-character entries if the boxes were way smaller (possibly either by being collapsed by default and/or having less information)? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

   I prefer minimum width as Wikipedia box. I am okay if the stacking boxes can be merged into one box/template so they could be much smaller. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Abstain --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Abstain I really like these, but it's a pain with tabbed languages. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Failed: 6-9-3 (40%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)