Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries

Using template l to link to English entries
And after the proposed change:
 * Voting on: Allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that: 1) All definitions of English entries use l to link to English terms instead of the plain wiki link. 2) All translations on the definition lines of non-English entries use l to link to English terms.
 * Example wikitext before the propose change, for a definition line of cat:
 * 1) A meowing domestic animal.
 * 1) A  domestic.
 * Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2016/July
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries

Support

 * 1)  all the way and will not change. L is super useful. We should use that to link to all languages IMO, not just English. Philmonte101 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * MackyBlue11 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ineligible to vote. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  no more ambiguous links please… Jberkel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * unless something better like the def template proposed on the talk page can be implemented. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I created now. —CodeCat 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this vote has nothing to do with . --WikiTiki89 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  - Can also be used for non-English links within non-English entries, such as derived terms. I do it all the time now. DonnanZ (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. This vote is only about definition lines, which only contain English links. There is another vote for see-also-type sections. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I support that anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  AtalinaDove (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose edits like " " because it gets more annoying to read the code. I support edits like simply " ", which don't have that problem. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this. seems fine for long definitions, but for single-word translations,  seems silly. I probably found this vote too late to affect it, though.__Gamren (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  because I'm sick of this "automatic and semi-automatic edits" qualifier that's inserted into every vote without any plan to actually do so. DTLHS (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @DTLHS: Do you have anything of substance to say to the actual proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . In Beer_parlour/2015/October, User:Wikitiki89 said, "If we want to link a word that we happen to use in running English text, then I think plain links are the best choice in order for the wikitext to remain easy to read. But if we were to talk about a word or present an example of text, then we should use a template even if it is in English." I agree. In the example above, I think the "before" wikitext is better than the "after" wikitext. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above. I hate reading the  template, and hate typing it out even more. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there's nothing in the vote that says human editors should use, just that wikilinks should be changed over by bot to  . Renard Migrant (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the second part of my statement is irrelevent, but I do realize what we're voting on. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , as it seems like too much bother and mess for too little reward. I'm intrigued by, however. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Mr. Granger. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I would prefer using def instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , mistook the meaning of the vote. —CodeCat 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Daniel Carrero and Mr. Granger. —suzukaze (t・c) 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Droigheann (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  I haven't seen any intelligible statement of benefits to others and I cannot imagine any for me. DCDuring TALK  23:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Lack of convincing rationale by vote creator and supporters. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  Annoying! Equinox ◑ 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  Makes wikitext less legible. Wikitext is the primary user interface to the wiki. The link retargetting to #English can be achieved using a MediaWiki plugin or using JavaScript. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  Not needed. That's definition in English just like the language of project. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) . Afaict, the two benefits of using  are (a) that it marks the text as foreign (for purposes of script choice and HTML lang attributes, possibly inter alia) and (b) that it links to the relevant section of the target page. For English terms, "(a)" is not a consideration, since the language is inherited from the page, and "(b)" is barely a consideration, since English is usually first on the page anyway. (And even when we mean to link to the English entry, the Translingual entry may be of interest also.) So there's really no reason to use this template for English links in an English context (e.g. a definition line in any L2, or a 'nym list in ==English==). Moreover, it clutters up the wikitext. In fact, I routinely change such template use to a bare wiki link  (though obviously I'll stop if the vote passes). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the diff you link to does not apply to this vote, but rather to another currently ongoing vote Votes/2016-08/Using template l to link to English entries from English entries (yes, these votes are poorly named, but read the "voting on" section). --WikiTiki89 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read "Voting on" here, and item (1) is what I was commenting on. Did I misunderstand? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, the diff. Right, the diff was an example, not covered by this vote, of the same idea. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, as long as you're aware (because some people were confused by these two votes). --WikiTiki89 18:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I don't know yet enough about Wiktionary to make up my mind which way to better links to prefer and to vote here, but I "vote" do do something: After all, by using " " we link to a page, which does not make sense to me, we want to link to an English word. In my opinion, the markup should reflect this - somehow -, and the link should lead the user directly to the start of the English word within the page. Rbrunner7 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Failed: 5-16-1 (23.8%-76.2%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)