Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-08/Definitions — introduction

Two questions
1. The closer of the previous vote suggested that having some discussion would be helpful. Was there any discussion between that vote and this one?

2. Does the proposed change have the intended, but unstated, aim of bringing WT:EL closer to a system where each definition has to be placed in a template, like e.g. # ? This would explain the removal of "They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#)".

Equinox ◑ 21:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. No, sorry.
 * 2. No. I don't see why it would. The proposed text does not intended to change any regulations other than removing the stuff about starting with a capital letter and ending with a period. Aside from this, I thought of this proposal as a minor edit/rewrite.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * About the question 1: the previous vote was Votes/pl-2015-12/Definitions. In retrospect, I feel that I should not have created the previous vote without properly discussing that huge proposal that intended to review a whole EL section. Still, the current vote is a minor rewrite, and I believe the "starting with a capital letter and ending with a period" thing was discussed enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current vote should be pretty uncontroversial. In the future, I believe there are reasons such as those (minor edit, uncontroversial, was discussed enough in my opinion) for creating a new vote without creating a new discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vote ending in a few days
Sometimes, when a vote is going to end soon and only a few people voted, I invite more people on the BP to vote, or there's some conversation about extending the vote by 1 month. I'm not really interested in doing either of these things right now. This vote had low attendance too, but it's basically a minor edit to WT:EL and all the 5 voters support it. I'd like if more people voted, but if nobody else votes, I'll close the vote as passed when the day comes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if a bunch of people don't vote, I think it's their own fault for not looking at the watchlist/vote page/beer parlor every now and again. Or, if not that many people vote, not that many people care that much about the vote, likely because it is a very uncontroversial vote like this one. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For more important stuff, I feel it would be correct to do the things I mentioned: inviting more people, and/or extending the vote. This vote is just a minor edit. Bot votes also usually pass with only a few votes, especially when they have 0 opposition. I closed Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2016-08/User:OctraBot for bot status as passed today with 5 supporting votes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"The numbers are generated by adding the number sign (#) at the start of each definition"
Just a minor point, but: unlike the old text, this proposed text might misleadingly suggest that the # sign generates numbers when the page is saved, rather than causing numbers to be displayed when the page is viewed. Equinox ◑ 10:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree that this is not a huge problem. It seems the vote will pass; it would be nice if we changed the wording a bit, later, to address your concern. If that wording confuses someone at first sight, presumably they are going to learn the truth quickly after seeing the definitions in the code of any entry. IMO, this does not change the fact that the voted text is a noticeable improvement. The previous version was not amazingly accurate either, concerning what the # does. It said: "They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#).", which might suggest that definitions start with # instead of numbers:
 * # The first definition.
 * # Another definition.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)