Wiktionary:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma

Definitions — non-lemma

 * Note: This follows Votes/pl-2016-08/Definitions — introduction, which edited the first paragraph of WT:EL.

Voting on: Editing the next piece of WT:EL.

Current text:
 * The vote “2006-12/form-of style” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.
 * The vote “2010-08/Italicizing use-with-mention” is relevant to this section, without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for details.

Proposed text: Non-gloss definitions are italicized. Non-lemma definitions (plurals, conjugations, superlatives, etc.) are treated and formatted as non-gloss definitions, linking to the lemma form, which is in bold when the linked term is in the Latin script.


 * References

Rationale and notes:
 * The previous text contains two vote links concerning rules that were voted and approved. Specifically, one vote is about italic "form-of" definitions and the other vote is about bold links in "form of" entries. The proposed text states the actual rules.
 * Mentioning non-gloss definitions.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/September
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Wikitiki89
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  – I have no objection to the text that is being added, but I think it would have been better if an description of what non-gloss definitions are had been proposed at the same time. — Eru·tuon 15:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . My concerns on the talk page were not fully addressed. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  because it doesn't say what a "non-gloss definition" is. I think I have a vague idea, but the link to [[gloss]] is useless. Either define "non-gloss definition" or link the whole term to a page that explains it. (And yes, I think having the undefined term "non-gloss definition" in the policy is worse than the status quo!) This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Decision
No consensus: 3-2-1 (60%-40%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)