Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor

borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor
Voting on: Allowing all entries to be edited by bot, to perform these tasks:


 * 1) Replacing, , ,  by.
 * 2) Converting the format  to . (that is, removing "lang=" from the template in all entries)

Examples:

Notes and rationale:
 * Currently,, , and  are redirects to . It follows that this proposal does not change the displayed text and categories. It just changes the code to . Compare:
 * is a redirect to ; in entries, usually is used, rather than.
 * is a redirect to ; in entries, usually is used, rather than.
 * is a redirect to ; in entries, usually is used, rather than.
 * and use the format "  " instead of "  ". ( uses the format "  " with a single language code.) Therefore, this proposal makes  use the same syntax as the other templates in all entries.

Entry count as of July 29, 2016 (using WhatLinksHere):


 * Total: 19,815 entries using, , , or.
 * Template:bor — used in 11,855 entries (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:bor)
 * Template:borrowed — used in 5 entries (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:borrowed)
 * Template:borrowing — used in at least 7,884 entries ( Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:borrowing returns 19,815 entries, but all the other templates redirect to so entries using the other templates are counted here, too )
 * Template:loanword — used in 3 entries (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:loanword)
 * Template:loan — used in 68 entries (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:loan)

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Grease pit/2016/June
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Dan Polansky
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/July
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Mulder1982 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  --WikiTiki89 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  -Xbony2 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just changed and  to . Bot actions are kind of pointless if it's just 3 or 5 entries that need to be changed. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Leasnam (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  —Enosh (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Ultimately, this makes things easier for new editors, since  will hereby be made consistent in use with  and . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Dan Polansky (talk) I realized I actually support the renaming, as per recent renamings to m and lb. ISMETA above makes a further good specific point. I do not really support the existence of the template, but that is not what this vote is about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  — JohnC5 15:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * : Makes sense for the three major etymology templates to all be abbreviated, and take the same parameters. — Eru·tuon 01:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Less typing is better typing and 'bor' is not so cryptic to confuse new editors. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Agree in principle. But I am still confused when to use bor, der or inh because they are similar. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * bor is for direct borrowings from one language to the language of the entry. inh for terms inherited from an earlier stage of the language. der is for everything else, or if you aren't sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Korn. Benwing2 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Once more an proposal that is exactly backwards (like  → ). We need more intuitive aids to new contributors, not more jargony template abbreviations that discourage even veteran users who haven't been following votes, let alone new contributors. DCDuring TALK  01:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Too many bot edits and it seems too insignificant. Nibiko (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  I would never use it . What's wrong with "from"? DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't about using it. This is just about bypassing template redirects, which we used to always do without even voting on it. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, struck that bit. DonnanZ (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, this isn't about vs "from", this is just about bypassing templates redirects. --WikiTiki89 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiTiki89 is right. For example, click here to see a diff where is changed to . The vote is about doing edits like this in all entries. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am actually opposed to the use of the terms "borrowing" or "borrowed" anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * : What term would you use instead of "borrowing" or "borrowed"? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On that note, as discussed here, I'd prefer if the template didn't return the "Borrowing from" part, but this is a separate issue. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just use "From ..." instead. That is perfectly adequate. DonnanZ (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  The "rationale" doesn't explain why this is worth doing. Equinox ◑ 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So we don't have a million names for the same template? --WikiTiki89 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , but support using a bot to change all instances of to, and  to , etc., allowing editors to save keystrokes, while making it easier for later and newer editors to read. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think consistency is just as important, and since I don't think I'm going to win this one (and I type out the shorter forms myself, anyway), I abstain. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . I'm all for using bor, but I'm opposed to having bots fix redirects that ain't broke. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Aɴɢʀ: What is the disadvantage of using bots? Will not bots make the conversion to bor faster, on the assumption that people often copy what they seen in existing entries, and the fewer non-bors there are in the wiki markup, the fewer models there are to pick non-bor from? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a waste of the bot operator's time and an annoyance to anyone watchlisting the pages to have bots doing nothing to pages but changing the names of templates. At the very least, I don't want to see bots making edits doing only this; if a bot does it incidentally while making some other, genuinely important edit, that's less of a waste of time and less annoying to others. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Aɴɢʀ: Frankly, the bot operator's time should be the operator's concern, and if the operator wishes to do something, no one should hinder them only on account of that being waste of operator's time. As for watchlisted pages, that's a valid point although one that I am surprised to see made. --Dan Polansky (talk)


 * +1 late . (Busy IRL, and wasn't even aware of this vote.)  Brevity is fine, but not when it results in lost meaning.  I echo the sentiments in DCDuring's comment at the top of this section.  I can see zero advantage in real terms for using  instead of .  This change increases the barriers to entry, and renders Wiktionary even harder for would-be editors to contribute.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * abstain . On an important if marginally relevant note, I am not convinced the borrowing vs. inherited distinction should have been introduced and cemented via templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1)  Just as a thought: I believe we overcomplicate Wiktionary for occasional editors. I just discovered I am a few templates behind. I am still using the etyl-template followed by the term-template for example adding "loan translation" or "borrowing", not the borrowing or der templates or any of its variants. And I am still wrongly using the context template and not the label or the lb template. Likely there were good reasons for these changes, but how to take occasional editors along? How to inform them and keep things simple and consistent? Morgengave (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The good news is that m was installed via a vote showing plentiful consensus, which brings me hope that we will not see a similar change any time soon. That's one good thing about votes: they slow down the juvenile love of change. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Undecided. Consistency across templates is a good thing, but the the tendency towards cryptic template names is a bit worrying. Can't we just keep  and change the template arguments (make language required and use the proposed order for )? – Jberkel (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said somewhere else, I find long names too distracting when lots of etymology templates are read together. If possible, I'd like to avoid situations in which I would read "borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, derived, derived, derived" over and over in the same paragraph, which add up and make longer paragraphs. I prefer when the borrowed word itself is more distinct than the template, so I prefer over  or . This is just my opinion. Feel free to have your own opinion on the matter. See Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux and Votes/2016-06/label → lb for different arguments from support/oppose/abstain sections. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand what you mean, but it's really optimising the markup for extreme cases (lots of borrowings) and highly proficient editors. Soon we'll have exhausted all 3 letter combinations :). – Jberkel (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . I think bots should be making the opposite change, allowing editors to type the shorter form, but making the templates more intuitive for newer editors. However, I think consistency trumps that (but not by enough for me to support the vote). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment
A question to opposers: Are you actually comfortable with using a longer syntax for the borrowing template? , you said: "it seems too insignificant", but the longer syntax is actually cumbersome for some people to use (I mean, I hope it's not just just me). If you want to say that English "foie gras" is borrowed from French, are you comfortable with typing the whole " . instead of the shorter ". "? Honestly, I used to forget at times if the "lang=" parameter was the source or target language, and had to check. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it if other editors want to type it that way. Unlike or,  isn't used as frequently, so it doesn't bother me. When creating Japanese gairaigo entries, I copy a previously-created entry, so I rarely type it out. It makes sense that the "lang=" parameter is the target language, since that is how every other template works, but for templates that use the named sort and language parameters, I put them first so as to go along with the templates that don't use them. Nibiko (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , you said: "It makes sense that the 'lang=' parameter is the target language, since that is how every other template works". Right now, I don't remember other templates that use "lang=" as the target language, as in a source/target distinction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "lang=" usually just means "the current language section", like in: . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe a better analogy is that puts the source language immediately before the source term, as does . In any case,  is the odd one out. Nibiko (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the speed of change. Barely has a new convention been introduced when we want to standardise it, ditch the old one that editors have hardly managed to memorise yet, and wipe out all traces overnight with a bot. I find myself comparing this with the hard work done to make Windows 3.x apps still run up until XP. Equinox ◑ 23:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Nibiko (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes: 14-5-3 (73.68%-26.32%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)