Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-09/Qualifiers after terms in translation section, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Qualifiers after terms in translation section

Voting on: Changing the use of {{qualifier}} in translation sections to always come after a term. This prevents the use of qualifiers to span multiple terms by affixing a ":" and helps keeping a common parsable format of the translation sections for external tools (e.g. Bilingual Dictionaries for Offline Use by Matthias).

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

  1. Support: I'm all for having consistent standards, and the added clarity of avoiding multi-term spanning looks like good design. Literal translations also (rightly) come after the term; which comes first? Stelio (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, term first, then transliteration, then literal translation, then qualifier. You correctly assumed that anything spanning multiple terms is something I want to get rid of because it is very hard to parse.--So9q (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support: This seems eminently sensible to me; at least off the top of my head, I can't devise any reasonable objections to this proposal. --Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support. Perhaps {{t}} and related templates could also be updated along the lines of {{synonyms}} to allow for built-in qualifier parameters (|q1=, |q2=, etc.). — SGconlaw (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support Jberkel 16:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Too simplistic. A single solution doesn't fit all situations. --{{victar|talk}} 06:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    Could you elaborate? פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain The translation adder script prefers {{t}} + {{q}}, which is what this vote wants to enforce, but Template:q#Usage demonstrates {{q}} + {{l}} for us. —Suzukaze-c 22:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Abstain --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Decision

Passes 9–1–3 (90%). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)