Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/Enabling WebFonts extension

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Enabling WebFonts Extension

  • Voting on: Requesting of those with the ability to do so that they enable the WebFonts extension here on English Wiktionary.


  • Vote starts: 00:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not an ideal solution, and it has its share of problems, but I guess something is better than nothing at all. -- Liliana 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --WikiTiki89 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Yair rand (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Right ho, Jeeves. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg I didn't look into this, and am opposing based only on Ruakh's comment, below.​—msh210 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC) What is the problem that the extension solves? How have the issues raised in the failed Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension been addressed? Does it hurt that http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WebFonts says that "Development on this extension is discontinued. Please use Universal Language Selector instead and WebFonts is integrated in it."? Neither this page nor the talk page of this vote contains a summarized rationale for supporting this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    The main problem during the previous vote was Bug 38122, which has indeed been fixed. The problem that this extension solves is that certain scripts don't get displayed on computers without the correct fonts installed. Before I started this vote, I asked on the extension's talk page whether the extension was still available, and the answer was yes. Universal Language Selector, which will eventually include WebFonts, is still in beta and not yet finished. --Yair rand (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    Example of the problem: On some computers, အားလုံး has the Burmese content showing up as meaningless boxes, whereas the equivalent entry on the Burmese Wiktionary, which has WebFonts enabled, has all of the content visible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. This extension supersedes/obviates the fonts we specify in our site CSS, so I think it would have been better to examine those fonts first and make sure that we're O.K. with such supersession/obviation, before voting on the extension itself. Note that our use-cases differ from those of other sites using this extension; for example, this extension uses different fonts for Modern Hebrew and Ancient Hebrew, which distinction doesn't make sense in a dictionary. (Actually, I'm not sure that distinction really makes sense anywhere, but especially here.) —RuakhTALK 21:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    Wouldn't we be able to change things like that? --WikiTiki89 14:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    Nope. Not without filing another bugzilla ticket. —RuakhTALK 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Warddr (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit worried about bugs like this https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32775. Also the fact that it is discontinued doesn't sound that positive. - Warddr (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Decision

  • Looks like it passes, 5-2-3 (71%). Filed bug 43834. --Yair rand (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I wonder why he said it wasn't consensual? —CodeCat 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus. —RuakhTALK 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • But that doesn't refer to Wiktionary does it? —CodeCat 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Right, but . . . I think we must be miscommunicating. When the stewards said that our process is not "consensual", they were saying that it's (very) different from the process described at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus. When they said that it's "traditional and acceptable", they were acknowledging that en.wikt is not required to use en.wiki's consensus-based process. wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus is Wikipedia-specific in that as a matter of policy it only applies to en.wiki, but it's WMF-wide in that as a matter of definition it's (approximately) what WMF-icans have in mind when they use terms like "consensus" and "consensual". Do you see what I mean? —RuakhTALK 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I think so. I always have this feeling like Wiktionary is in a kind of war of independence with Wikipedia... —CodeCat 02:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Ach. The distinction seems ridiculous and the comment appears to be grammatically incorrect to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • WebFonts has been enabled. --Yair rand (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)