Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup

Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup

 * Voting on: Making usex the primary template name to be used in the wiki markup of entries rather than ux. This proposal is about template name, that is, "usex" vs. "ux"; it is not about template parameters or syntax.
 * Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Support

 * 1)  Superior to  in initial intelligibility; more obviously pronounceable, ergo more memorable for low-frequency contributors.  can be kept as a redirect, but a bot should be charged with converting it to . Using "usage example" would better serve all the objectives, but at the cost of more typing, more non-content cruft in edit windows, and a bit more bulk for storage and download.  is an effort to balance the various considerations. DCDuring TALK  03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a clarification: In RFM, I proposed to use usage-example because I misunderstood the RFM. I thought the RFM was to establish a situation like we have for lb, which is that lb is the main form in the mainspace while label is the actual template name. But it turned out that multiple people understood the RFM to be about the predominant markup in the mainspace, and I obviously do not support that such a long name is in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Vahag (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  per DCDuring. And because UX means something very different. —Ruakh TALK 06:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  per Ruakh. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  – Jberkel (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ux, this change would affect 26,622 (main namespace) entries.
 * The name recently passed per Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux. I'm uncomfortable with changing the name of the same template twice in short succession.
 * In my opinion, we could focus on other template name changes: I'd like to propose renaming all instances of into  eventually, if people support this idea.
 * Besides, in my opinion, neither nor  is that great of a name. I've been using  for new usage examples. It is an unvoted template that redirects to . (Before anyone asks, I oppose using a bot to convert all entries to  without a vote; doing this would require a vote.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . I don't think either one is better than the other, so there's no point. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . "usex" is not really easier to understand than "ux" if you are a newbie. ux is shorter to read and type. I opposed the templatization of user examples but if we are to have it, let it be really succinct. My position seems in keeping with Votes/2016-06/label → lb, which passed 11-4-5, and would be 11-5-5 with the late vote there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Echoing what Dan Polansky said about it being shorter and there being no difference for newbies in understanding "usex" vs "ux".
 * 4)  Shorter is better. Understanding should be facilitated with a dictionary for high frequency templates. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose having this vote

 * 1) As in the past, I oppose the suggestion that maintenance like updates to template names must be subjected to votes; one of our more colourful editors in the past called it bureaucratic masturbation. And the tendency of certain users to hold votes when discussion in discussion fora is moving towards a result they don't like is an effort to move the goalposts and subject changes, which may have majority support, to higher-than-usual, higher-than-majority thresholds in an effort not dissimilar to the way a filibuster works. (Votes/pl-2013-03/Japanese Romaji romanization - format and content is a previous vote with an "Oppose having this vote" section.) - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This vote started as a result of Requests for moves, mergers and splits. The RFM discussion presents some different points of view and arguments. This vote is an opportunity for me to vote Oppose. I said my reasons in the Oppose section.
 * I agree with having this vote because I believe that an RFM discussion should not be able to override a high-profile recent vote: Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux, which passed in January 2016. Specifically, the proposal "usex → ux" passed with 19 participants. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) * Late comment: I don't see why 6:5 majority should be enough for us to be changing template names used in the mainspace. While I admit that, for certain types of action, 2/3 is too high a threshold, a majority by one vote is too fragile anyway, IMHO; the principle of accepting bare majority (> 50%) too easily leads to unnecessary back-and-forths, with no added value to the users of the dictionary. This vote is good to have. This vote means that the issue has been brought to the attentation of a broader audience than the RFM would allow, which is good. Beyond that, what Daniel said above applies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) ** Ironically, this vote completely misses the mark on dealing with the RFM, so as far as I am concerned the RFM still passed. The RFM was about making a redirect, or alias, to  rather than a separate template. The outcome of this vote neither supports nor opposes that move, so the original RFM's consensus remains valid. The redirect should be reinstated. —CodeCat 18:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) *** What exactly is the value of making a redirect if ux is to be the main template name? What added value, even slight added value, justifies making the page histories less legible in this case? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) * For the record, I find the above "bureaucratic masturbation" language objectionable, containing no argument substance. My preference would be to no longer read that sort of inflammatory language, but obviously, taste varies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I don't really like either of 'em anyway. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  As long as the syntax is the same—i.e., as long as aa works just like aa works—then I don't really care which one is the primary name and which one is the redirect. I just don't want to use the old, clumsy Text syntax anymore. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * usex is a redirect, so the syntax is the same. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or not, but the syntax would be the same anyway I guess. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  I don't care and I would just like consistency and for people to stop moving them back and forth. DTLHS (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  —CodeCat 21:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  - I tend to agree with Equinox. DonnanZ (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  —Enosh (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) . I have mixed feelings. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Decision
No consensus
 * Counting "Oppose having this vote" as having the same weight an oppose vote: 6-6-7 (50%-50%).
 * If, for whatever reason, we chose not to count "Oppose having this vote", the result would be: 6-5-7 (54. 54 %-45. 45 %). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)