Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m

Rationale
I am not sure I will support; I may. I may also oppose on the simple conservative principle that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The rationale that I see is that "m" is shorter to type and read than "term". Also, it uses the "m|en|..." syntax rather than "t|lang=en|..." syntax, being shorter again ("en" is the language code). OTOH Template:term could be adjusted to use "term|en|..." syntax; that assumed, the choice between "m" (standing for "mention") and "term" is that the former is shorter. As a disadvantage, template:m was used in the past for a gender template, so reusing it now for other purposes may render the revision histories of pages a little less legible. Furthermore, "term" seems more self-explanatory than "m", but "m" will have a documentation, which should deal with this.

Please add more in the way of rationale.

Making the wiki easier to use by using only one of the two templates is not a rationale for template:m; it is a rationale against creating template:m in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Two questions

 * 1) Why the letter m? Does it stand for something?
 * 2) I understand the phrase "discontinuing Template:term" to mean that if this vote passes, Template:term will eventually be deleted. If this understanding is correct, what is the rationale for doing so, given that deleting templates causes inconvenience to editors who are used to using them? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen people state "m" stands for "mention". documentation currently basically redirects to, which says this: "Use this template to mention a term or phrase within running text ...", italics mine.
 * The "discontinuing" phrase is a bit unclear, I admit; my idea of it is declaring obsolete and swiftly replacing any new uses with . Not deleting the template has the advantage that it makes old revisions legible. Voters should ideally indicate whether they are okay with merely declaring the template obsolete or whether they want to delete the template. The rationale for making  obsolete is that uniformity of markup in the mainspace is generally beneficial. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

For mentions or not
I realized that is mostly used not so much for mentions as for foreign terms. It is not true that we italicize all mentions. Lists of items in synonyms, antonyms, derived terms, related terms, etc. are all mentions but we do not italicize them. The mention theory is supported by the fact that the template italicizes even English terms, but the point with lists of items stands. Actually, even items in lists of translations are mentions, and yet we do not italicize them (luckily enough). --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)