Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-03/Default language of templates that require a language

I'm not fond of this vote, for a reason I outlined on the vote page and will repeat here: The options assume that if someone wants some templates to default to English and others not then the first set is precisely the {{context}} templates. While that may be true of the people who have discussed the matter publicly, there are many who haven't. If someone wants to support that some other subset of templates should default to English (even a superset or subset of the {{context}} templates), then he has every right to call for the vote's annulment as unfair 9and I'd probably support that motion, personally). As it is, no one's done so AFAIK, and I personally do like the options offered in the vote (modulo my comment in the next section of this page, same timestamp), so I'm not calling for the annulment myself.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The vote does not really seem unfair. It is perfectly true that many people's preferences are unrepresented by the two offered options. However, a voter whose preferences match neither option can vote "oppose", and state in which way his individual preference diverge. If enough people vote and the vote fails, the responses in the vote can still be used to assess the best design for a follow-up vote. Nonetheless, if the designer of this vote is convinced that the leading option is a really good one, and if very few people opposed in Beer parlour, he has little reason to believe that the vote is doomed to fail. --Dan Polansky 09:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I assume the "Oppose" option means "Templates should default to English always unless their name starts with a language code and a hyphen"? That's very unclear. If that's what it means, all voters should IMO be apprised of it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am the one who has renamed the section to "oppose" (diff), so my explanation is probably due. Oppose does not mean support of anything. If the proposed options do not pass, the status quo remains, with whatever indeterminacy it may have. Unlike polls, all votes should have a section that allows people to oppose things without supporting anything in particular. It is merely an uncertain inference that an opposer supports "Templates should default to English always, as they do currently". --Dan Polansky 07:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(I'm here assuming that "Oppose" means what I assume it does (previous section of this page, same timestamp).) If 3 people vote for option 1 (no template should default to English), 4 for 2 (only {{context}} templates should), and ''3'' for 3 (all should), then we would seem to have 70% of people saying {{context}} templates should and 70% saying other templates should not, a pretty good supermajority in both cases. (Even if the vote goes 3–3–3, we'd have 2/3 saying {{context}} templates should and 2/3 saying others shouldn't, which, considering that this vote doesn't change any policy (as there hasn't been any policy hitherto AFAIK), would seem to suffice, I suppose.) Thoughts?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There really are only two proposals rather than three: the oppose section is not a proposal but rather a rejection of proposals. This setup gives large favor to the status quo, as is usual: the opposers can be in a minority and yet thereby succeed in defending the status quo. In your scenario, the status quo prevails: the templates should be defaulting to English. However, this will remain true only until some bold oligarch changes the templates without a vote, claiming that there is no vote that forbids that. If another oligarch reverts him, there will be a further evidence of disagreement.

Giving this high edge to status quo which has not been voted upon is often rather unfortunate, hence my poll-followed-by-a-vote scheme, which has worked at least once. This scheme makes it possible for voters to give in in the vote: abstain or even support the proposal that they have not favored in the poll. When voters cooperate with this scheme, the status quo has no more weight than its alternatives. --Dan Polansky 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, my comment assumed that "Oppose" meant "all templates default to English", which it doesn't. Nonetheless, a similar comment can still be made: If a supermajority votes for options 1 and 2 together, then that supermajority agrees that non-{{context}} templates should not default to English, so that should be the decision.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Formally speaking, I do no think that votes for option 1 and option 2 can really be added. But informally speaking, yes, adding them makes a lot of sense. In case of doubt, a follow-up vote can be set up to resolve the issue, 14-days only, a mere formality, or even 7-days only. If the informal outcome of this vote is going to be very clear, the formal confirmation of this outcome should theoretically be a cinch. --Dan Polansky 10:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply