Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed

borrowing, borrowed
Note: All the proposals below concern the template. The other templates are shown for comparison purposes only.

This is the status quo:

Voting on:


 * Proposal 1: Remove the "Borrow ing from" text altogether from the output of, and add "Borrow ed from" outside the template. Feel free to state if you think a link to Appendix:Glossary is necessary or not.


 * Proposal 2: Introduce a new parameter called "ger=1". Make display "Borrow ed from" by default, except it shows "Borrow ing from" when "ger=1" is enabled. Add, by bot, "ger=1" in all entries that currently display "Borrowing from". This may be used as a first step to use "Borrow ed from" in all entries.

If any of these proposals passes, feel free to use these template tracking categories to edit the entries. The categories are expected to be deleted at some point.
 * Category:bor with notext
 * Category:bor without notext
 * Category:bor with nocap
 * Category:bor without nocap
 * Category:bor with lang

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Daniel Carrero/2016
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Template talk:borrowing
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed

Support — proposal 1

 * 1)  for consistency between,  and . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) . It's more work to have to override it than it would be to just type the words "borrowed from". --WikiTiki89 17:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I rather more work for ~10% of entries than more work for ~90% of entries. --Victar (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's a different kind of work. Typing an extra word when you're already typing a lot of things is not really extra work because it just goes with the flow of what you're doing. But adding an extra parameter to a template is much more disruptive. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's arguable and probably varies by person. For me, that would not be the case. I think two other points need to be addressed as well: 1. Given human nature, people will lazily or forgetfully omit adding  and 2. The benefit of linking to the glossary, which admittedly, could be improved. --Victar (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the proposal 1 passes and you would like to make the text "Borrowed from" appear without typing it, we could use a subst like which would return "Borrowed from ".
 * I don't mind if some people omit the "Borrowed". We can probably run bots later to check for uses of without a "borrowed" in the same etymology section. If we assume that people will sometimes add "borrowed from" when needed and never remove it, the number of "borrowed from" will always increase. And the borrowing categories will probably be filled more easily because we will simply add the  without having to worry about the default template text, which won't exist anymore.
 * I added a link to the glossary in the sidebar today, between "Help" and "Donations". I don't think we need to link all instances of "borrowed" to the glossary (but it can be linked if other people want). We don't link all instances of "adverb", "diminutive", "present participle", "suffix" and other linguistical terms. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Wikitiki89. Generally speaking, I don't want any default text in etymology templates. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  in general, although I don't agree that there's anything ungrammatical about "borrowing" as opposed to "borrowed". Ƿidsiþ 11:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, probably not really "ungrammatical", but grammatically inconsistent, ex.  vs.  . --Victar (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But you could make the same argument for saying "calqued" instead of "calque". Ƿidsiþ 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The standard text would be OK more often if the template said either "A borrowing from" or "Borrowed from", but it currently says only "Borrowing from". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * any thoughts? --Victar (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like consistency (so I support per Daniel, I guess). :P Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too, so please see my arguments on consistency. --Victar (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like consistency, too. To be fair, "consistency" can be applied to any situation where everything happens the same way. One completely consistent system can be replaced by another completely consistent system. It would be nice to consistently not have any automated text in, like it's already done in and . This would still be inconsistent with other templates like , which have the automated text and are not affected by this vote. In my opinion, it would be even better if all templates like these didn't have the automated text. Manual text would be freely added as needed. (sorry for repeating arguments sometimes, they seem applicable here and elsewhere too) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If your goal is universal consistency, that meanes removing lead text from all etymology templates, including cal, blend, translit, bac, clipping, etc. The truth is der and inh are outliers. --Victar (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support it. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a battle that would be met with quite a lot of resistance. --Victar (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for that? If this was not discussed/voted before, we don't know what other people might think. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need evidence for my thoughts, but can tell you that a) people are lazy and b) people don't like change. --Victar (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I love when some stuff changes (improvement is a hyponym of change), so I know for a fact that the point b does not apply to 100% of the world population. All votes that pass change something. If proposal 1 or 2 passes here, things will change. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir. Again, though, there are no absolutes, no universalities, no one-size-fits-all. I'm just speaking about the majority. If the majority of people weren't complacent, we would have changed "borrowing" 6 years ago! --Victar (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is not necessarily a symptom of complacency. I mean, it does not mean people were happy or apathetic with "borrowing". It's just hard to reach an agreement and change stuff that affects thousands of entries, and we may have other priorities in mind. I don't mind preaching to the choir. I don't mind saying some obvious things, this way the conversation is clearer. We'll see where the majority lies after this vote ends. If the result is inconclusive, we might need new discussions and/or votes. I don't mind waiting. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  —CodeCat 16:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  -  [The] DaveRoss  13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  - I am in favour of removing default text from all such templates. BigDom 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  - Mulder1982 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Makaokalani (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What are the reasonings for your support? Thanks. --Victar (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging bor with inh and cog is just logical to me. Cal should follow, imho. Mulder1982 (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What's being merged and how do templates cog and cal fit in? --Victar (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think what you meant was "making consistent" not "merging" and der not cog. The problem with trying to make bor consistent with der and inh is that that will never be the case. We will always need lead text before bor, just as with cal. The vote is whether to make that lead text automatic or not, not to do away with it all together. --Victar (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WikiTiki.--Makaokalani (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  This will be nicer. Notext parameters are annoying and not discoverable without going to the documentation. This, that and the other (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In what situations are you using 1. Generally, the average user shouldn't ever need it because bor is intended to only be used at the beginning on an etymology. --Victar (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  - I find myself having to suppress the default output all the time, because it does not fit well into the natural flow of the etymology text. --Vahag (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. The current tensing makes it awkward to format, but both solutions address this problem. With that improved, the question comes down to having automated lead text or not and I argue that it's more beneficial to keep it than remove it, as bor functions well without notext for over 90% of entries. --Victar (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to type notext ever. --Vahag (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But you're willing to type  for 95% percent of usages for bor. That makes no sense to me, and I think it makes no sense for most casual users. --Victar (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute Victar's statement: "bor functions well without notext for over 90% of entries". It's true that apparently 90%+ of entries use without notext, but it does not necessarily mean the template is working well. It's just a pain to use notext. If everyone were super happy and naturally inclined to use notext, they would probably use that parameter in 100% of entries to transform "Borrowing from ..." into "Borrowed from ..." or any non-awkward wording.
 * The data is on my side. It's simply your opinion that some unqualifiable percentage of usages don't "look good", with no data to back that up. --Victar (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since your edited you reply, I'll amend mine. Why are your arguing with me about Borrowed vs. Borrowing? You know I agree with you on this point, and my belief in that is what started this whole vote. What I'm saying in that 90%+ (higher if you exclude people using notext to change the tense), of usages are at the start of an etymology and don't require notext. That was my point. --Victar (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true, I made a mistake in my wording. I edited that part before you replied. As you know, it now reads "it does not necessarily mean the template is working well". Yes, I agree with you that "borrowed from" is better than "borrowing from". I also agree with Vahagn below that we must be free to write the etymologies the way we want.
 * I'm just saying you can't say the template is working well because of the count of entries that use it alone. It has some possibility of being a poor metric because alternative interpretations exist. Currently, the vote count is consistent with removing "notext". If the vote ended today, "notext" would be removed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if you're intentionally confusing the issue, but I'll repeat myself again: 1. Never have I said the status-quo is the best course of action, and the solution that both proposals put forth is to change "borrowing" to "borrowed". 2. Your argument that the 90%+ usages of bor that don't use notext would still be flawed with proposal 2 is baseless conjecture. 3. The people that vote are not basal casual users. The people that vote are power users, admins, and the like. We should be voting with all users in mind, not just the users who deal with the specialized and technical. --Victar (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. "intentionally confusing the issue" is not assuming good faith. I'm replying to your ideas as opposed to trying to judge if you have any hidden intentions. Our conversations in this vote have too many repetitions. Removing "notext" would make the template less "technical" in a way, so it seems it would be better for casual users.
 * I assume you are referring to this in your point 2: "If everyone were super happy and naturally inclined to use notext, they would probably use that parameter in 100% of entries to transform 'Borrowing from ...' into 'Borrowed from ...' or any non-awkward wording." If so, how is it baseless conjecture? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I've trying to assume good faith, but I cannot help but find your arguments circular, redundant, and argumentative, and I've simply run out of patiences -- again. Please see my counter-arguments to your reply in the texts above and below. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute Victar's statement: "That makes no sense to me, and I think it makes no sense for most casual users." Removing "notext" would make it objectively easier for casual users. It would be one thing less to search for in the documentation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The casual user has no need for notext. bor is intended to be at the start of a etymology. Also, notext and nocap are not exclusive to bor nor obscure. Just as I expect to be able to use page or head in R. --Victar (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't type "Borrowed from" 95% of the time. I use many different constructs, as may be dictated by the logic of the text, e.g. "...an Iranian borrowing...", "...borrowing from the Alanic ancestor of...". After the change, I will probably omit the word "borrowing" completely. "From Iranian" is sufficient. --Vahag (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A) You and I are not casual users and as such, stretch the limits wherever we can. B) What you're suggesting is exactly what I'm worried about; people omitting "borrowed" because they feel using bor is sufficient. That is not what this vote is on. You should vote as if you were going to type "borrowed from" or "borrowing from" every time. Whether or not the lead text to bor should be dropped altogether should be a completely different vote. --Victar (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't worry about people omitting "borrowed". I am voting for saving me keystrokes. --Vahag (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. --Victar (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * : I probably more often than not end up suppressing the "borrowing from" when adding or cleaning up etymologies. — Eru·tuon 03:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose — proposal 1

 * 1)  Is inconsistent with with other like templates, and puts the manual burden on editors. --Victar (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Why would I vote for having more work? Template already has notext, so this vote just inverts the template to default to something that's only useful in fringe cases. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly true. And for what, flipping Esperanto? --Victar (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know your "And for what?" sounds sarcastic, but I'll try to answer where exactly the proposal 2 means less work:
 * Of all entries using, 10%+ entries (approx. 4,000 entries) use either "notext=" or "nocap=". (Category:bor with notext = 2,056 entries; Category:bor with nocap = 1,901 entries). They are, obviously, cases where you don't need the "borrowing from" or it's not at the start of the line. The remaining 90%- entries (37,000+ entries) without these parameters are the default "forced" text, it's not clear they're is always needed that way even though that's the majority -- there's simply not much room for improvement if the text has already been decided by the template. Sorry for the lack of diffs (I don't remember), but I've seen quite a few entries using where the correct choice would be  with no text (because "borrowing" or "borrowed" was already previously mentioned). It could be just me, but I find it natural to type "Borrowed from" because it's what we actually mean at the time and it's a pain to type something not to type something -- that is, typing "notext=1" because we don't want any text. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By "needed", do you mean proper uses versus, improper uses, like in the middle of an etymology? If so, I think that's pretty negligible. Joking aside, with Esperanto, etc., I wonder if we should make a second templates, like eo. --Victar (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that most of those 1 entries are from a) people fixing the grammar, ex., and b) people incorrectly using bor mid-etymology, ex.   --Victar (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "incorrectly". There are plenty of reasons for using in places other than the very beginning of the etymology. The etym 2 of arpagone starts with "1829 borrowing from French harpagon, ..." It's great that it has the year. Ideally, all etymologies should have the year of origin! (I know that does not seem always possible for all words in all languages.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I said most, not all, and gave two examples of it being misused. If you go through that category at random, you'll see that the majority fall under those two cases. --Victar (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also been thinking about how some templates could use a dat date parameter. I could really use one in desctree. --Victar (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : only noticing this now, but I rather like that idea. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  Mistrz (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  -Xbony2 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Korn above — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Support — proposal 2

 * : bor, as is, is consistent with all like templates, including der and inh. See arguments above. --Victar (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  I guess… Mistrz (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  -Xbony2 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  if proposal 1 fails. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : If the proposal 1 passes, would you like to vote "oppose" or "abstain" on the proposal 2? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * then I'd say . Now I'm thinking, how funny would it be if both proposals passed? This probably won't happen, but how should we proceed then? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure and I would welcome further discussion if this happens.
 * I'll suggest one possibility. But we don't need to take my word on this because I kind of have a conflict of interest: if both proposals pass, we could simply implement the proposal 1 because it's the most "extreme" one. If both proposals passed and we somehow had to implement both simultaneously, then the addition of "ger=1" would be redundant with the whole idea of taking the default text outside the template. But again, the supporters of the proposal 2 might consider this unfair. One alternative possibility would be keeping the status quo and not implementing any proposal. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . See my "conditional oppose" below. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , as explained by — Eru·tuon 03:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll count your vote as "support if proposal 1 fails, oppose if proposal 1 passes". (sorry for repeating obvious stuff) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose — proposal 2

 * 1) . I prefer the proposal 1. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the proposal 1 passes, I vote oppose the proposal 2.
 * If the proposal 1 fails, I vote support the proposal 2.
 * I prefer the proposal 1, but the proposal 2 is better than nothing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . No real benefit compared to option 1. —CodeCat 16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  -  [The] DaveRoss  13:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reasoning behind your vote? --Victar (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. I voted oppose because I oppose the proposal. Specifically I think it makes the use of the template an order of magnitude more difficult for those who aren't current on the most recent ways we have found to make it impossible for new or more casual editors to contribute. We are well down the road to having just one template with thousands of unnamed parameters which generate the entirety of the page text through module-based psuedo-databases. Any time now the only pages which won't have module errors will be redirects. - [The] DaveRoss  14:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps you misunderstand the proposals. The point of this vote is to change the existing text of  to  . What part do you see being made a "magnitude more difficult"? --Victar (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction: The point of the proposal 2 is changing the existing text. The point of the proposal 1 is doing that and also removing the template text altogether.
 * The addition of "ger=1" makes the template more difficult to use. It's one more way to suppress or edit the template text instead of just typing "Borrowed from" normally. (even if the "ger=1" is intended to be kept just temporarily, we'd still would need the time to review all the ~40,000 affected entries)
 * Having any kind of text like "Borrowing from" or "Borrowed from" returned by the templates probably makes it difficult for new or more casual editors to contribute because they have to build their texts around the default template text or consciously make it disappear. They may have to read the (sometimes large) documentations. Typing "notext=1" is not a very intuitive thing to do.
 * I see you specifically said above that you even want to add a "dat=" parameter meaning "date" to some templates after I mentioned the "1829 borrowing from French harpagon, ..." Adding that parameter to to show the year in the resulting text would seem like a terrible idea, you can just type the year outside the template. (I probably wouldn't mind having some template around the year for categorization purposes only.)
 * Today I fixed vegeburger, whose etymology had two "Blend of" this by mistake: "Blend of vegetable + burger, Blend of vegetarian + burger, or alteration of veggie burger" . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, answering for another user as a way to push your agenda is both cheap and disruptive to a discussion. Secondly, to say the addition of 1 will make the bor "more difficult to use" is purposefully misleading and an argument fallacy. You know as well as I that the intention of 1 is simply a transitional tool for converting existing instances of  and   and is not by and means intended for actual use. If someone wishes to change the lead text back from   to   (why, I have no clue) they should use the existing 1. Thirdly, this is a vote for bor not blend, but to your point, anyone can find some rare and unusual case, but we should cater to the majority of uses, not the obscure. --Victar (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, my to TheDaveRoss reply doesn't need correcting. The end goal of both proposals is to change  to  . They differ only in implementation. --Victar (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What I did was not cheap or disruptive at all. You simply asked a question about problems with the proposal 2 to which I had the answer. It does not matter who has the answer. It would be convenient for the proposal 2 if people were not allowed to talk about the problems it has.
 * The proposed "ger=1" as a "transitional tool" affects ~40,000 entries and therefore may have to used for quite a while, so it affects the difficulty in using the template. If thousands of entries have for a few months or years, new editors will probably feel they have to learn about the new parameter, unless we can remove it faster. (I think we are repeating arguments too much.)
 * Ideally, all (or most, or many) etymologies will have the (real or approximate) year of coinage, resulting in cases like "1829 borrowing from French harpagon, ..." and therefore entries like this will need to use "nocap=1" if the default template still exists, not only some rare cases.
 * In the future, I'd like to create a vote to let the text "Blend of", "Calque of", etc. to be placed outside templates like and . One person above said they would support doing it. Doing it with  is one of the very important points of the proposal 1. In my view, you misrepresented the proposal 1, hence my correction. Although I get that you don't like the proposal 1. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's complete horseshit. A parameter that has no intended use has zero affect on its difficulty in use. I'm so tired of your bullshit obscure usages that mean nothing to 99% of people. I'm done arguing with you in ridiculous circles. --victar (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your "99% of people" is inconsistent with the vote count as of now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry with you, but your last message was rude. I'm going to assume you are out of arguments. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 99% of people that use bor, not 99% of this vote, flipping obviously. I'm not out of arguments, I'm out of patience with your dragging a dead horse in circles. --Victar (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This vote is representative of real-life uses of . People who use the template are voting now. I realize it would be easier for the proposal 2 to pass if I and other people were not allowed to criticize it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, it's only a template. And even if this vote doesn't yield our respective preferred result, there's already been an improvement, since all documentation pages have been completed. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * However, I think that the two proposals should have been voted on successively and separately (preferably proposal 1 first, since it is the most "aggressive" one). I suspect all the opposing votes to proposal 2 here don't really concern the issue at stake (that is, the choice of "borrowed" over "borrowing", which nobody is opposed to in itself, as far as I understand), but rather ensue from a support vote to proposal 1. Right now we're heading towards the status quo... --Barytonesis (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. I think I would have been fine with voting first for the proposal 1 only and then the proposal 2 later, but I'm afraid this gives an advantage to the proposal 1. I don't know if supporters of the proposal 2 would see this system as unfair. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what bothers me with the idea. But doing it the other way around would maybe sound a bit ridiculous/uselessly procedural: "yeah, we replaced all instances of "borrowing" with "borrowed", now we're proposing to remove any text altogether" (although I would be fine with such a way of proceeding). --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone thinks "I prefer the proposal 1, but if it fails then the proposal 2 is better than nothing!", they can vote "Support proposal 1" and "Support proposal 2 only if the proposal 1 fails!", like you did. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm afraid the two proposals got somewhat "linked" in people's minds: "if I vote yes for one, I vote no for the other, and conversely." You personally, regardless of your preference for proposal 1, do you actually object to replacing "borrowing" with "borrowed"? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I've been thinking. On the one hand, any default text has the problems stated elsewhere. On the other hand, if we do have the text, it's better to have "borrowed" than "borrowing". Well, OK. I'll vote "Support proposal 2 only if the proposal 1 fails!" I can't promise I won't change my mind later, but for now it seems this can't hurt. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think another point we mostly agree on is a desire for consistency. The problem is the consistency can go either way at the moment. I think there should be a larger vote on whether etymology templates with lead text should be lead text free. --Victar (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I agree. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  - prefer proposal 1 as I would prefer to see default text removed altogether. BigDom 15:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Makaokalani (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , as explained by Daniel Carrero. — Eru·tuon 03:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain — proposal 2

 * 1)  Don't think it's worth the effort, but if it makes you happy...Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the effort has been in creating this vote! Running a bot would just take a few minutes. =) --Victar (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's effort involved: if any proposal (1 or 2) passes, we'll have the chance to do the work of changing "-ing" to "-ed" in all entries, unless it turns out no one wants to do it, which seems unlikely. But let the people interested in the proposals judge by themselves if this kind of work is worth their time. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true. I meant the module change itself. --Victar (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So if it comes down to it, would you rather neither pass? Did you have an alternative idea? --Victar (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative to what? The alternative is the status quo, innit? In case of prop 1 I prefer it, with regards to prop 2 I don't care at all. ps.: Concerning 'effort': Whoever does anything could spend that time doing something else. That's all I mean. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Decision
Proposal 1 passed.

Vote count:
 * Proposal 1: 13-5-0 (83.33%)
 * Proposal 2: 3-7-1 (30%) (The votes of these people only count as "Oppose" because the proposal 1 passed: Barytonesis, Daniel Carrero, Erutuon.)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)