Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/Matched-pair entries — policy page

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Matched-pair entries — policy page[edit]

Voting on: Creating a new policy page, based on the following votes and discussion.

  1. The rules that were already voted and approved in:
  2. And new rules about redirects and placement of definitions, as discussed in:

Implementation details:

Title: Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries.

Header statement: "It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE." (currently generated by {{policy-VOTE}})

Contents:

Edit WT:EL#Entry name accordingly, replacing this red-bordered text by the green-bordered text:

Edit WT:EL#Definitions accordingly, adding this text:

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support[edit]

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SupportAndrew Sheedy (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This isn't much for one policy, don't you think? -Xbony2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. I'm open to discuss other suggestions, but I wanted to have a single place for information that WT:EL would probably have in the separate sections "Entry name" and "Definitions". I wouldn't want to create a separate EL section like "WT:EL#Matched-pair entries" either, because the policy is really about some entry names and definitions. Additionally, in the future, I'd like to discuss separate rules to add to this policy, if other people agree:
    • suggesting that a matched-pair entry can use character boxes for their components... * * has a box explaining the * (asterisk)
    • suggesting that the headword line of a matched-pair entry should also use the format "left, space, right" (without ellipsis or whatever), linking to the components: * *
    I like to try to keep policy proposals simple... For example, I dislike the style of the (think thank) Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms. For a policy page, it contains a lot of encyclopedic information instead of a link to Wikipedia, and only a few actual regulations. (P.S.: If we wanted to add an explanation about the history of parentheses and quotation marks to Wiktionary:Matched-pair entries, it could be a lot longer... But I don't think we want to do that. I'm just criticizing when it happens in other pages.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SupportEru·tuon 02:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SupportJberkel (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose I don't think there should be a separate policy page for such a minor thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

Passed: 7-1-0 (87.5%-12.5%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited policies accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]