Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries

Rationale
To be entered by supporters. I imagine something like this: let all wikilinking be based on l as far as possible so that the target language of the link is always specified. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you support this? You haven't supported it so far. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan's been on a spree of creating votes he opposes. --WikiTiki89 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate proposal
I have a separate proposal. Create a new template, possibly named Template:def, and use it around the whole text (except the "#") of each definition that is not or. The template should work exactly the same as. See the code below, and note that in the end result, the links are anchored to the English section, without the cumbersome addition of " " in every link:



Rationale:

I like that the code below is anchored diretly to the English section, but I dislike that the " " makes the code more cumbersome to read.
 * # A domestic.


 * 1) A  domestic.

I dislike that the code below is not anchored diretly to the English section, but I like that the code is easier to read.
 * # A meowing domestic animal.


 * 1) A meowing domestic animal.

The I proposed above has both items I like and none of the things I dislike. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I proposed this before, but suggested coopting as a shortcut rather than . See Grease pit/2012/June. —CodeCat 14:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * would look good in definitions as you suggested IMO, but it is currently a shortcut to . Apparently people are already used to using to ask for quick deletion of entries, and would have to change their habits if  became a definition template. With that in mind, I consider  to be the second best choice at the moment, and I'd be happy to use it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think d is used as a deletion tag on almost all Wikimedia projects, so I would be loath to change it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But for a template that tags every definition, something as short as is highly desirable. It would be used much more often than . —CodeCat 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked to see how many wikis other than Wiktionary use "Template:D" to ask for speedy deletion. See: this page. Turns out it's 7 wikis, apparently. (if we are generous and count Wikimedia Strategic Planning and Testwiki). Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikidata and Meta do it. Commons and Wikisource use "Template:D" for purposes other than deletion of pages. Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikiversity currently don't use "Template:D". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that using obscure abbreviations seems to be a (strange) feature on this project, but from a readability perspective, is way better since anyone can understand what it stands for. — Dakdada 08:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like this. But if we do do this, is better than . --WikiTiki89 15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Impossible alternate proposal
I believe it's not possible to do it in the first place, but if it were possible, I'd prefer doing this: creating two new templates, and, and placing them above and below every definition list. The point is, they should be able to automatically turn all  links into  links.


 * 1) A club used in sports.
 * 2) A nocturnal flying mammal.

P.S.: The example word is bat, and I realize I placed two senses from different etymologies together.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is possible:


 * --WikiTiki89 15:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I support all of the above separate proposals. But why is stuff being scratched out in the Support section because of people supporting ? Philmonte101 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those support votes were stricken out by the voters themselves, who are now voting oppose.
 * initially voted "Support unless something better like the template proposed on the talk page can be implemented." Naturally, this was before  was created. Once  was created, he withdrew his support and cast an oppose vote.
 * voted "Support" but quickly changed to oppose with the comment "mistook the meaning of the vote." She created . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I retracted the vote because I realised the vote was about automating it, not allowing it. I'm for allowing it, but with I think it would be better to use that instead in the long run. —CodeCat 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for clarifying. Can't we have a single for the whole set of definitions, as shown by  above? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * def can be used across multiple definitions as in Wikitiki's example, but it leaves extra blank space above it. I'm sure that's easy to fix, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, if we remove the space between the headword line and the definitions, seems to work perfectly, without leaving the extra blank space you mentioned. The code would be like this: (but I'd prefer not having to do it this way; I hope the module can be fixed)

Noun
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC) I think it is a bad idea to use a template for the whole list of definitions. I actually think that it is the perfect opportunity to unify the various sense templates into a better structure, i.e.:, , and of course (and maybe others). For example:

Noun
If the def is used for non-English word, there would be a lang parameter too (not used for the links in the def of course). Note the label part which avoids the use of | for the more natural comma (yet easily parsable). — Dakdada 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, but I'd have separate a separate category= parameter, because not everything worthy of categorizing needs to be displayed in a label. We could even have multiple parameters for all the disparate things that lb currently lumps together, e.g.  (for zoological technical terms, not for everyday names for animals), , or  . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to do this using one line per definition.

Noun


Or:

Noun
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't like that because all those extra parameters should be optional, and that is very messy to read. --WikiTiki89 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We should use "topic" instead, and have a separate "jargon" parameter for terms used in mostly or exclusively in a field. We don't currently distinguish these types, but we should. The sense id should be optional as well, since most senses don't need it. —CodeCat 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Topic" is fine, too. I agree that optional parameters should be generally named rather than positional (unless a template has only one or two parameters to begin with). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is a general agreement that the only mandatory field is the definition text, as parameter 1, with any other parameter being optional and named.
 * The template doesn't care in what order we input the fields then, or if we put them on the same line or not. I would still argue that putting each parameter on a separate line greatly increases readability and maintainability. — Dakdada 11:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It does make it more readable, but it departs further from what we're already accustomed to, which has them all on the same line with the definition last. I think we should let editors decide this for themselves, and see what comes out of it. —CodeCat 12:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If adding the senseid and/or the label (register/subject/etc.) in the makes it messy to read, then I prefer doing as I suggested in the first message of this thread. In my opinion, the whole point of is to provide links to the English section when the language is unspecified. The rest can be done with separate templates.

Changing to allow for "register=", etc. is another idea:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)