Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/No triple-braced template parameters in entries

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

No triple-braced template parameters in entries[edit]

Voting on:

Adding this rule to WT:NORM#Templates:

  • No triple-braced parameters like the ones that appear in template code, such as {{{1}}} or {{{head}}}.

Note:

Rationale:

  • As said in the August 2016 discussion: "This is probably something that goes without saying, since regular pages aren't ever passed parameters. But to have it codified would again be a useful assumption for parsers: rather than having to decide whether a bunch of curly braces should be grouped two or three, it can assume it's always two."

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support DTLHS (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I had never looked at WT:NORM before, but it contains a lot of rules that I did not know existed but are generally followed, and this one seems in the same vein. — Eru·tuon 05:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I see no reason for this rule to be explicit. We can clean these up from entries without littering WT:NORM. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ^ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sometimes we have to use it. No more restriction to make template works. Octahedron80 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Octahedron80: Could you provide an example of this, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps someone want to send parameters to a subpage? I believe the restriction is not useful.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Octahedron80: Sorry, I meant: Could you provide an example of an entry which uses these triple-braced parameters, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    The main namespace does not have subpages. There is never a situation where these would be needed unless we restructure our main namespace (which has been considered in the past), but in such a case, we'd have to rewrite all the rules anyway, so this one won't make a difference. --WikiTiki89 00:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. "This is probably something that goes without saying..." Enough said, I think. I'm not voting oppose, though, because I don't really care. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Fix the current entries and put in an edit filter and I'll support it. DTLHS (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    I fixed the current entries and attempted to create Special:AbuseFilter/56. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain for lack of overview of the consequences of either outcome. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain since there is an infinite number of things that are undesirably in entries, list of these things should be limited to things that are common or time-consuming to clean up. If someone changes {{{1|word}}} to word, no-one's going to revert that change because it isn't listed in WT:NORM. Just isn't needed, but that's not actually a reason to oppose, so I'm not. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The premise of this vote is that if it's documented at WT:NORM, then bots are allowed to assume it (and presumably are given a free pass if this assumption breaks things when wrong: "Garbage in, garbage out"). But the text at WT:NORM does not seem to endorse that premise, so the vote seems potentially ill-founded. —RuakhTALK 06:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Decision[edit]

No consensus: 3-4-5 (42.9%-57.1%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)