Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/No triple-braced template parameters in entries

No triple-braced template parameters in entries
Voting on:

Adding this rule to WT:NORM:
 * No triple-braced parameters like the ones that appear in template code, such as  or.

Note:
 * WT:NORM applies to entries only.

Rationale:
 * As said in the August 2016 discussion: "This is probably something that goes without saying, since regular pages aren't ever passed parameters. But to have it codified would again be a useful assumption for parsers: rather than having to decide whether a bunch of curly braces should be grouped two or three, it can assume it's always two."

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/September
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-09/No triple-braced template parameters in entries

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  DTLHS (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  &mdash; I had never looked at WT:NORM before, but it contains a lot of rules that I did not know existed but are generally followed, and this one seems in the same vein. — Eru·tuon 05:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . I see no reason for this rule to be explicit. We can clean these up from entries without littering WT:NORM. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  ^ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Equinox ◑ 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Sometimes we have to use it. No more restriction to make template works. Octahedron80 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you provide an example of this, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone want to send parameters to a subpage? I believe the restriction is not useful.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant: Could you provide an example of an entry which uses these triple-braced parameters, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The main namespace does not have subpages. There is never a situation where these would be needed unless we restructure our main namespace (which has been considered in the past), but in such a case, we'd have to rewrite all the rules anyway, so this one won't make a difference. --WikiTiki89 00:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) . "This is probably something that goes without saying..." Enough said, I think. I'm not voting oppose, though, because I don't really care. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Fix the current entries and put in an edit filter and I'll support it. DTLHS (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the current entries and attempted to create Special:AbuseFilter/56. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  for lack of overview of the consequences of either outcome. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  since there is an infinite number of things that are undesirably in entries, list of these things should be limited to things that are common or time-consuming to clean up. If someone changes  to word, no-one's going to revert that change because it isn't listed in WT:NORM. Just isn't needed, but that's not actually a reason to oppose, so I'm not. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  The premise of this vote is that if it's documented at WT:NORM, then bots are allowed to assume it (and presumably are given a free pass if this assumption breaks things when wrong: "Garbage in, garbage out"). But the text at WT:NORM does not seem to endorse that premise, so the vote seems potentially ill-founded. —Ruakh TALK 06:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Decision
No consensus: 3-4-5 (42.9%-57.1%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)