Wiktionary:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Definitions — non-lemma
- Note: This follows Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-08/Definitions — introduction, which edited the first paragraph of WT:EL#Definitions.
Voting on: Editing the next piece of WT:EL#Definitions.
Rationale and notes:
- The previous text contains two vote links concerning rules that were voted and approved. Specifically, one vote is about italic "form-of" definitions and the other vote is about bold links in "form of" entries. The proposed text states the actual rules.
- Mentioning non-gloss definitions.
- Vote starts: 00:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#2nd Definitions vote
- User talk:Wikitiki89#Next definitions vote
- Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-09/Definitions — non-lemma
- Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support – I have no objection to the text that is being added, but I think it would have been better if an description of what non-gloss definitions are had been proposed at the same time. — Eru·tuon 15:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. My concerns on the talk page were not fully addressed. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose because it doesn't say what a "non-gloss definition" is. I think I have a vague idea, but the link to [[gloss]] is useless. Either define "non-gloss definition" or link the whole term to a page that explains it. (And yes, I think having the undefined term "non-gloss definition" in the policy is worse than the status quo!) This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)