Wiktionary:Votes/2016-06/label → lb

label → lb
Voting on:
 * Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to replace by.

Rationale:
 * In Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux, some voters stated that their preference is towards rather than.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux (especially the discussions: label > lb and label and lb as choices in the vote)
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-06/label → lb

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , but this shouldn't have been a vote. Part of the reason that people were annoyed by your votes, Daniel, was not just the frequency of them, but also how unnecessary some of them were to have as votes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  I dislike the introduction of context, label and lb, but now we have it, and the markup should be as short as possible so that the label itself is visually more distinct and so that the markup takes as little space before the definitions as possible. Thus, in en, the word "medicine" is more conspicuous, which I like. Therefore, this is not only about typing in wikitext but also about wikitext reading. Furthermore, this matches some recent trends such as going from term to m and going from usex to ux, both achieved via passing votes. The short lb/cx was preferred by a majority at Votes/2014-08/Templates context and label, but let us get surprised in this vote. On the need of a vote: You absolutely need a vote if you want to do this switching via a bot, trivial as it might be. It is very uncertain whether this will pass. Thank you, Daniel, for the vote. Since you created this vote without also creating 9 other votes at the same time, this does not look like an overflood of votes to me. In Votes/Active, I see two votes created by you. Fine with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since the proposal is about editing all entries, I agree that a vote is simply required. We need to demonstrate consensus as suggested by WT:BOT.
 * Concerning what said above, sometimes it seems normal for some people to say about a vote: "we can do this without a vote", while others say: "we need a vote to do this". If there's any doubt or disagreement about whether a certain proposal that affects all entries needs to be voted or not, maybe the "default" course of action should be creating the vote and let the result speak for itself.
 * That said, I am trying to exercise restraint in creating votes and not overflood Votes/Active with votes created by me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Dan Polansky —suzukaze (t・c) 09:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Dan P Benwing2 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  --WikiTiki89 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Mulder1982 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  — JohnC5 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  - I use  already for new entries. DonnanZ (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  Duh. Nibiko (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Weak . Waste of time, and probably also far easier more new users to figure out what the purpose of  is than . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Sheedy: It's use or waste of the bot operator's time, which they should feel to dispose of as they see fit; we should not act as managers of other people's resources. There is some use of editor attention in this vote, but not too much. The argument with ease of figuring out did not find favor in Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m and in Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux; we have migrated away from term to m. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I still think there are better things bot users could be doing. I don't feel strongly about it, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)   is (almost) self-explanatory. (The need for the template is not transparent.)  is not self-explanatory. Also: 🇨🇬. DCDuring TALK  22:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  per DCDuring. On the French Wiktionary all templates names of two or three characters are prohibited because of the ISO languages codes preemption. Unless they're in capital: LB. Personally I use lb but I would be opposed to watch a bot obfuscating the syntax which had been written manually to be easy for the newbies (that's also a voted consensus on fr.wikt). I hope that if the vote passes, the template won't be renamed from label to lb. JackPotte (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't know, there is no preemption, because we don't have those templates any more. I doubt the association with Luxembourgish's ISO 639 code causes any problems for anybody here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I knew this for here, and I also know that most of us begin with Wikipedia which has them (eg: w:Template:Lb icon). JackPotte (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong  WTH? IANAF of TLAs & such. DAVilla 00:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Late (not counted in the initial vote closing).  I see no advantage in moving to these shorter wikicode forms.  I am concerned that these obscure and unclear hyperabbreviations create greater barriers to participation.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Feels like useless busywork to be honest. Unless we are actually deprecating/obsoleting the label form, then why remove it? There are more important things to do. Equinox ◑ 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess use of label directly in wikitext will be deprecated, like usex now is; usex lost in Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux. Or in any case, anyone will be free to run a bot to switch any newly appearing occurrences of label to lb.
 * Very important it is not, sure. OTOH, it does make the markup nicer via a transparent process, and most of the cost of doing so is borne by the bot operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  A matter of no importance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Vahag (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Mountebank1 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  No idea why we are voting on this. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes — 11-4-5 (73.3%-26.7%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)