Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m

Migrating from Template:term to Template:m

 * Voting on: Replacing all uses of Template:term with Template:m, subsequently discontinuing Template:term.
 * Rationale: For a rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How many more times are you going to prolong this vote? — Keφr 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think everyone who is going to vote has already voted. Let's end this poll on 28 February. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Requests for moves, mergers and splits
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2014/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m

Support

 * 1)  --Vahag (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  —CodeCat 19:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  Mulder1982 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , but I would like the final result to be redirecting to  (or vice versa). --WikiTiki89 19:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To do that, we would first need to orphan, as the parameters are not compatible. And at that point there is no need for a redirect anyway, is there? —CodeCat 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is: so that people can start using instead of  if they feel like it suits them better. --WikiTiki89 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We should aim at there being one template in the mainspace. We should aim at at least a semblance of professionalism. Keeping term with old parameter order to make old revision legible is fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's also a good idea. --WikiTiki89 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  &mdash; It's better to have one term (whichever) than two - since the newbie suspects there's a subtle difference between them. Since most will look for an example (like me) either would do, but m is shorter &mdash; Saltmarsh απάντηση 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  — I can agree that "term" is more descriptive than "m", which can be confusing. On the other hand, not needing a named language parameter makes things a lot easier. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 00:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support "term" does not mean what it says, and it's NOT more descriptive; it's misleading, beside being longer. "m" would force the newbies to read the docs, which is eventually a good thing, because by seeing "term" they probably think that they already know what the template does, while they usually don't. --Z 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  per Z. --Fsojic (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Z. — Keφr 08:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) .  is much easier to use and should be the default. I agree with Wikitiki89, though, that it's best to leave  functional, since it's been in use for so long, and because we should go as easy as possible on casual editors. I think the best course of action is to swap out current uses of  to reduce confusion and encourage the use of, but not to introduce any overt obstacles to use of  by those who want to use it (hidden tracking categories should be ok). I can understand the resentment of many here for the way the changes in behavior of some templates with respect to omitted language codes was handled, but, on balance, I think this is a better course of action. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 8)  embryomystic (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 9)  — Ungoliant (falai) 05:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 10)  Vorziblix (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  No user will ever guess what  means, while the meaning of  is rather obvious. We need to think about non-regulars and casual contributors too. -- Liliana • 18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At least the name of is intriguing while term is misleading - one may take it for only a decorating template (like I did until recently xD).--Dixtosa (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note, is now a shortcut for the more descriptive name, while  is likewise a shortcut to . —CodeCat 21:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought stood for "list-item", not just "link". — Keφr 09:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also thought that. --WikiTiki89 09:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) . It's a cryptic and unhelpful name. But I think the parameter order of  is better. Perhaps it would be nice to migrate all existing uses of  to that parameter order. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  deleting Template:term. No opinion regarding any other action. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) . The name term is more comprehensible. The old revision histories will be clearer (not that that's a strong argument in my opinion, but it's worth something). And even if all were equal (m and term were equally good), there'd be no reason to specifically change from one to the other. I have no opposition, however, to reordering the parameters of either template to match those of the other, provided that that's done without introducing errors. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing 's parameters to match would break the old revision histories anyway. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) . As above - term means what is says; m will always mean masculine to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)   Per others, especially Liliana's argument. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 09:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Dijan (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) .  Another unnecessary merge. Pur ple back pack 89   14:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)  – I read the ‘rationale’ but can't see any explanation…does this new template do something different? If not, why can't we just change how  works? And why ‘m’?! Basically, no. Ƿidsiþ 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we change term to work like m... that's basically what the support camp is arguing for. That's basically support but under another name. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The disagreement seems to be about the template name. I don't see anyone insisting that term should be used like ...: instead of en: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This doesn't simplify anything. At all. --Neskaya sprecan? 05:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I can't decide between the pros and the cons. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I prefer but I see no reason to 'ban' . Renard Migrant (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be accurate to say you support "Replacing all uses of Template:term with Template:m" but not "subsequently discontinuing Template:term"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * No consensus (14-10-2; 58% support) after 6 months of voting. This, that and the other (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For completeness: Mr. Granger said "oppose deleting Template:term. No opinion regarding any other action", so migrating the template without deleting has 14-9-3 = 60.9% support. That is still "no consensus". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)