Voting on: Replacing all uses of {{context}} with {{cx}}. First making sure {{cx}} is unused, then changing {{cx}} to use "cx|en|colloquial" syntax instead of "cx|colloquial|lang=en" syntax, then furnishing {{cx}} with the fastest code currently available in Wiktionary templates and modules for the purpose, and then performing the replacement. No proposal is being made about whether {{context}} should be retained afterwards, e.g. to simplify reading of revision history.
Oppose due to the fact that it needlessly complicates things. Why are we moving templates away from things that can be remembered again? "context" is a lot clearer to newer editors to use than "cx", and always will be. --Neskayasprecan?17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually read a study this the other day. There is no statistically significant correlation between template migration and kitten deaths. --WikiTiki8900:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point. The point is template migration confuses the heck out of editors. IMO, it's in the top 5-10 of reasons editors throw up their hands and leave the project. So it should be avoided whenever possible. It's possible to avoid it here. Purplebackpack8914:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to respond to that. This is formulated as a blanket opposition to any and all template migrations. I think this extreme position is generally harmful; there should be moderation in template migrations, but to do template migrations after careful deliberation, after a public discussion took place and editors agree is useful. I do not believe infrequent and carefully deliberated template migrations drive productive editors away.--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, Dan, it's not infrequent in this case. There are slang terms that used to have their own templates, and then (wrongfully, IMO) got merged into Template:context. Now, people are using Template:label instead, and proposing to move Template:context. So, a high-profile template has been migrated multiple times since I got here. And if it's happened multiple times, it means we weren't careful or deliberate the first time. The other problem is that a lot of editors seem to expect the learning curve on new or migrated templates to be quick and easy. From all the evidence I've seen, it isn't. Wiktionary is already hard to use as it is (with overuse of templates and arbitrary policy); migrating templates makes it worse. Purplebackpack8914:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The migrations you mention happened and are happening without votes. They would not have so easily happened via a vote. Yes, we used to have {{slang}}, and yes, I would have opposed migrating away from it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If users don't become editors, one of the main reasons is that the internal page format frightens them. Everything making it still less readable is a bad thing. Lmaltier (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wiktionary editors come from Wikipedia, they are used to the wiki syntax. I was not referring to it, but to all these templates making the page difficult to understand. On fr.wikt, we already had a number of users telling us that they could not contribute to Wiktionary because of that. Lmaltier (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Policy votes in English Wiktionary -- transparent, fair, open-to-discussion and timely collective decision making enabling broad editor participation since 2006. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ask the reader to check English Wiktionary votes to verify the presence of plentiful open discussion (a) before the votes in locations referenced by the votes, (b) directly on the vote pages, and (c) on the talk pages of the votes. I also ask the reader to verify in the votes that plain majority does not get to decide in English Wiktionary votes as evidenced by the closure of the votes; we actually decide by supermajority, at the very least 2/3 of voters, although higher thresholds have been mentioned. I also submit to the reader that I saw no unjust or cruel rule imposed by the votes, so no case of "tyranny" can be confirmed. To the contrary, I point to my favorite vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities, which relaxed stringent requirements on proper names required by a vocal minority; via that vote, a rule by a minority via inflexible application of unvoted-on policy in RFV process was removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing casual editors is bad, but replacing lang= with 2= is good. Is there a way to get rid of the lang= parameter without screwing everything up during the transition? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus (2-3-3; 40% support) after 5 months of voting. The turnout here was poor, and I think Wikitiki89 makes a good point in their Abstain vote. If the creator of this vote had waited until the closure of the "Templates context and label" vote, it might have been able to be more meaningfully structured. This, that and the other (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose due to the fact that it needlessly complicates things. Why are we moving templates away from things that can be remembered again? "context" is a lot clearer to newer editors to use than "cx", and always will be. --Neskaya sprecan? 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Abstain There are too many options that are not accounted for in this vote. --WikiTiki89 00:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)