Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+

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

Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+

Voting on: The creation of the following new templates, {{|inherited+}} ({{inh+}}) and {{|borrowed+}} ({{bor+}}), which would generate the full etymological statement: ‘Inherited / Borrowed from’ before the term, in keeping with other etymology templates ({{lbor}}, {{slbor}}, {{ubor}}, {{psm}}, {{clq}}, {{pclq}}, {{sl}}, {{obor}}, {{blend}}, {{translit}}, {{univ}}) that generate a full statement.

Rationale: Once upon a time, {{bor}} generated the text ‘Borrowing from […] ’ until that was changed by a vote, for it to be in line with {{inh}} and {{der}}. Back then most of the other aforesaid templates (that generate a full etymological statement) were not well known to editors, but now that these have seen a rise in their usage in etymologies, it is high time that all etymology templates (but {{der}} for obvious reasons) generated the full text, not only for the sake of consistency, but also on grounds of a proper and logical display of the etymology: a reader should be able to read what the exact mode of derivation of a word is instead of having to see the wikitext or check the categories.

Further details: The templates {{inh}} and {{bor}} would still function as it does now; the distinction without a difference being that, {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} should generally be used at the beginning of the etymology, unless the editor uses some other formatting style, as this. Also, the new templates would have |nocap= as a parameter.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

  1. Support; this would make things very clear. It would be nice to just type a + sign to make the full text appear instead of |withtext= or something like that. Even the flexibility won't be taken away from the already existing templates. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as creator, though the original proposer is User:Brutal Russian. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 02:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support for being a splendid idea :3 I think such quasi-aliases are in principle better than multiplying parameters for the same reasons we aren't adding categories to {{etyl}} using parameters (or even manually). Brutal Russian (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Imetsia (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my position and respond somewhat to the opposition, I'm lukewarm on the inh+ template and would prefer it not included. However, I don't think it does much harm to have the extra template; and the addition of the bor+ template outweighs my slight dislike of inh+. Imetsia (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I like reading the Etymology section and I believe it would look better with these templates. Birdofadozentides (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I think that the largest problem with Wiktionary is that it's very inconsistent in terms of entry layout; take for instance whether definitions should be sentences or individual words, or whether synonyms should be listed with the syn template or with a specific header. I hope this might at least help somewhat fix this problem. Mårtensås (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Not so keen on {{inh+}} but for borrowings, a template that produces text is a real convenience. I remember {{bor}} doing so in 2017 and that's how I'm not used to manually entering "Borrowed from". If the text "Borrowed from" is to be considered as important in etymologies of borrowed terms, then it is only logical to make it more convenient for the editor to include that text. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support beacuse I always need to check the source to see if inh or der (or a forgotten etyl). Especially for latin-french, latin-italian, the relationship is not clear to me. Also, for inh relationships understood to be evident: they are not so evident to the general public. It might be an internal borrowing, or simply der. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ | 05:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support because {{bor+}} without {{inh+}} will be confusing, and plain {{bor}} and {{inh}} have their uses. RichardW57 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Akletos (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. To those below saying that our users don't care about this and that it will confuse them, I almost always see Wiktionary referenced by people who have a special interest in language and linguistics. I think we're already filling a certain niche, whether we like it or not, and I doubt the linguistically inclined users will be at all bothered by this change. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Can we also make a :Help page with an overview of the different templates and when and where and how to use them? Along with a style guide on how to phrase these things? It's the thing I think I've been most confused and uncertain about ever since I joined this wiki. Specifically how to handle words (or names or proper noun-like terms) that are a mashup of or are inspired by two words, one or both from another language or another era, modified in a way as to make them more recognizable. Think things like any multilingual word pun that caught on, many product names that derive from other languages, the like. How would you mark the changes?! These things would be cleared up with a compresensive overview somewhere, and having all templates consistent with each other is definitely moving in the right direction. 110521sgl (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @110521sgl: Sure. There is great inconsistency regarding the usage of templets. For example, {{bor}} should be used only for natural loanwords, i.e., loans that one linguistic group has borrowed from another through historical contact, but it’s wrongly used also for transliterations, learned borrowings, etc., even though we have separate templets dedicated to them. I too believe some information page would be helpful; but before that we would need some BP discussion to determine the linguistic margins. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Absolutely, however I honestly don't understand why this vote was created. New templates that add additional functionality without changing existing functionality shouldn't need a vote. Benwing2 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benwing2: Then can we just implement this, even if this vote doesn't pass? 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 09:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support — I often use {{m+}} and expect I’d use this as well. I cannot see an objection; if one does not like these templates, then simply do not use them; how would its use by others be harmful? (And, per Benwing2, why does this need a vote? There was some discussion before {{coinage}} was created, but there was no vote.)  --Lambiam 08:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I have found myself telling people to click on "edit" and check if the template used was inh or bor or der, and have found it strange to recommend such a thing at all. This template facilitates display of the relationship between word and etyma, in a non-obstructive way for existing entries.--Ser be être 是talk/stalk 03:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Not particularly in favour of the new templates and I'm unlikely to adopt them immediately, but I don't see any serious harm in allowing their use. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Why not? We have templates that generate full etymological statements. The ones that do not generate "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from" may still be useful if a clarification (such as "Possibly" or "Probably") is needed before the statement which in these cases should be uncapitalized. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. On the user side, there is no automatic indication of borrowing/inheritance unless you look at the category labels. So, this will be good to have. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking this one as untimely. Imetsia (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. This seems like templatisation creep; we can and do write it in full when it might be ambiguous, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't. A word that travels directly from Arabic to English must be borrowed, and one indirectly must be, well, indirectly derived. We don't need to write that out, because it's obvious. The templates serve the needs of specific categorisation, but that doesn't mean that readers need to see it written out in most cases. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to all opposers: this proposal means 2 more templates, but is no way going to change the current templates and one can continue to use the current ones instead of the new ones. This is, imho, no way worth opposing because this doesn't change anything already existing; just adds something. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very naïve; this vote will enable mass bot replacement, and it'll probably become standard if it passes. And if it does become standard, I'll use it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that one would still be able to use other words like first attested as, via, etc. for implying inherited/borrowed since the already existing templates won't change. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it is true that giving the first ancestor language makes the relation unambiguous in the majority of cases, this is absolutely not something that is obvious to all readers. Plenty of native speakers of English are unclear about the ancestors of English or about the grouping of nearby Indo-European languages; for many non-native speakers the situation is worse. Making clear whether the first 'transfer' is a borrowing or not adds a lot of clarity for laypeople. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one started out as a reader here. Reading WT helped me learn about language diversity, if not anything beyond. When I started editing here, even then I knew virtually nothing about linguistics; and my edits during that time were limited to pure lexicographical things. If the presentation of the etymologies had been consistent, it would have steaded me a lot. I living example am I ! -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metaknowledge: There’s much reason to distinguish between inheritances, loanwords (and others like learned loans, etc.). Many of our etymologies use {{der}} (either because the editor genuinely did not know about the precise etymology—which is acceptable—, or owing to that infamous botter’s indiscriminate and wilful mass replacement of the deprecated etyl with der), that is why we cannot do without the proposed distinction, lest misguided etymologies be presented. And readers need to see them, all amateur linguists (who make a majority of our readers) would like to have them; those who are uninterested are not even bothered about the topic etymology, and are even more likely to never visit this project again after they accidentally slipped here once ! And what’s more, categorization and presentation are equally important. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Metaknowledge's reasoning. I don't think the templates will help the readers but will certainly (unnecessarily) affect editors. By the way, although this vote's purpose was bringing homogeneity to the etymology sections, if anything, the templates will probably do the opposite, making sure that some etymology sections use "Inherited from", some "From", some "<"; the reader will get confused as to what means what and new editors will have to choose between five templates, rather than three. Thadh (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There'll be a bot operation to replace 'from's with the new templates. As it is, I've never encountered '<' in an etymology. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that using "<" is already strongly discouraged. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way it will affect editors in is by making it possible to add the relevant text with one button press instead of typing it out. Editors already have to type it out if they don't want to confuse readers, and I don't see how automating this can be seen as unnecessary. The wordings in etymology sections are already inconsistent and the reader is already being misguided, it literally can't be made any more sure than it already is. The aforementioned bot job will make it consistent; the template is to make sure it stays that way. New editors will choose between adding a plus when they need the full wording and not adding it when they don't - not exactly likely to induce existential anxiety in them. Brutal Russian (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thadh: Your saying about readers / new editors getting confused is wholly absurd. New editors are expected to edit coherently here. Maybe you are recalling the struggles of your early days here as a new user; but as someone who is also not an old user like you, I also (naturally) made some mistakes in the beginning that that I corrected later. And readers who supposedly get confused by the templets would also get confused by etymologies (or any other technical stuff, as the IPA)!! I can bet most of our readers are amateur linguists, who would be happy to see a clear presentation of our etymologies. You are being too stubborn on this, much to the detriment of the wholesomeness of this project. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Inheritance is always assumed; an {{inh+}} template would be pointless. I'm more on the fence about {{bor+}}, as, unlike Meta, I always write out borrowed when applicable, even in the middle of a chain. You'd be surprised how many people don't even know English isn't descended from Latin. I am however wary of this trend for {{template+}}, but regardless, since this vote is for the creation of both templates, I have to vote oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Countless entries use 'from' to imply a loan. For example, Hindi सभापति (sabhāpti) uses 'from {{bor|hi|sa|सभापति}}'. We take Sanskrit as an ancestor of Hindi, and so do so many readers - they can assume that this term is inherited. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using that without the wording "Borrowed from" is simply bad practice, and you should've fixed that as soon as you saw it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but literally a lot of entries use it! It is a widespread bad-practice why can confuse readers, and this proposal will solve that. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my counter-proposal for solving it: fix the entries already! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot operation like this would be okay, but I can't see why can't {{bor}} and {{inh}} have text like {{lbor}}, {{cal}}, etc. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are cases where the source of a loan is unknown - "{{bor+|th|pi}} or {{bor|th|sa}}" is going to be quite common. RichardW57m (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Change that to “{{lbor|th|pi}} or {{lbor|th|sa|notext=1}}”. But yes, there are such instances for natural loans also… -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a reason to assume that that's what a lay reader assumes; no less importantly I don't see why an editor should assume this either. To assume inheritance one has to know the relationship between the languages, which is problematic enough for English speakers as regards to Latin or Russian speakers with regards to OCS, forget about it everywhere else. In the original discussion I assumed that borrowing, not inheritance requires no explanation - which I recognise now was also an unreasonable assumption. The current practice makes it impossible even for me as an informed editor to tell what the editors' assumption was - expecting this from a lay reader is mistaken. I'm sure some people fix this when they see it; others don't; the templates are in order to help the editors fix this themselves. This propsal is in line with the website's "Wiktionary is not paper" policy and one of eschewing gratuitous obfuscation and arbitrary unwritten rules when clarification is elementary. Why would one insist on constantly manually fixing the results of introducing arbitrary, unintuitive and most importantly unwritten (or stashed away) rules and the editors not following them? Brutal Russian (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: It is far more important to have the correct etymology in the first place. I have come across a number of careless errors recently in older entries, with links to the wrong languages, so I urge all editors to double-check their submissions. This is more important than fussing with the wording of {{bor}} and {{inh}} - {{der}} is a satisfactory replacement for {{etyl}} for most users. DonnanZ (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donnanz: Agree that the correct etymology is the most important, but I don't see why it should have anything to do with this proposal. And, we're not fussing with the wording of {{bor}} and {{inh}}, we're just proposing to make two new templates for the complete wording - simple by a +. Also, Inqilābī said quite right, 'from' can be confusing as it is used for inherited and borrowed many times. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A big reason for this proposal is that the way you are messing with etymologies is making it sore difficult to undertake etymology cleanup. Your bot work has caused a huge concern about der-cleanup. There’s nothing wrong with the existence of etyl, it should be cleaned up by editors who are knowledgeable about the linguistic history of the language, it’s not a children’s game! You have not stopped your irksome, uncalled-for bot work despite concerns raised by four editors on your talk page. Lastly, it is actually not permissible (see last 3 messages). By the way your allegations are unfounded. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a bot to carry out bot work with, you're mistaken there. DonnanZ (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering when you would say that. Manual drudge is but an ancient form of bot edits. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not authorised to run a bot, and don't want a bot, and I can pick up more errors by manual editing. Bots don't "fix" all necessary {{etyl}} cleanups, there is usually some mopping up to do. DonnanZ (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Inqilābī From the perspective of "How to Win Friends and Influence People", your conduct towards Donnanz (and to a lesser degree towards Thadh) is less than ideal. Right now you need three more support votes to get the proposal to pass, getting one oppose voter to cross the floor would kill two birds with one stone. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: I don't know how many user names that user has, but I don't believe in DICTATORship. I won't be changing my vote. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo, Donnanz: I harbour no personal enmity against anyone here. I was only replying to MK where I told how {{der}} has got so proliferated in our etymologies thanks to the disruptive edits of our honourable Mr. Don’s (with all respect to him). -⸘- dictātor·mundī 06:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will gloss over and dismiss the assertion that I make "disruptive edits", but I find his deprecation of {{der}} difficult to understand. After all, every use of {{bor}} and {{inh}} also generates an entry in a "derived from" category, e.g. for deprecate. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: This vote should have been split into two options. I am with creating {{bor+}} but {{inh+}} is really unnecessary. — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 20:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose both on procedural issue (would have been better to propose them separately) and unconvinced that they are needed rather than just writing it out. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fenakhay, DannyS712: It is undesirable to create separate votes for this inasmuch as we are going to uniformise most etymology templets through this vote. I think you have not understood the scope of this vote.
    @DannyS712: Those who deal a lot with etymologies will benefit from these new templets— you will get full etymological statements with just an extra ‘+’ sign!— instead of having to write that part manually. Bear in mind that {{inh}} & {{bor}} are the only major etymology templets that do not display the full text. Nothing will change if this vote pass, a bot operation will implement the proposal. You may yet be not convinced, but do you really think you need to oppose the vote when the proposal would not interfere with your editing? -⸘- dictātor·mundī 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I don’t believe the source codes will be more readable with these templates, but I do expect them to be a source of confusion for newbs and oldfags alike. Now the only thing the etymology templates do is categorize, this is easy to convey, but introduction of the plus templates is a step towards mingling dictionary content and technical execution. Hence it was right to even remove formulation options in the form of parameters. Manaman should little be influenced by templates on how he word etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per my comments in the BP and per Metaknowledge above. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @-sche: This proposal is different from the one that was originally proposed by me. There would be no |notext=, only using {{inh+}} / {{bor+}} would generate the text. In cases of partial inheritance & partial borrowing, you would have to use the parameter |nocap= only once in the etymology section (with either of the two templets). Please tell exactly where your problems lie. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 08:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per what has been said, with some elaboration below. The pro's don't seem to weigh up against the cons, particularly in the case of inh+ which seems like it'd introduce a load of unnecessary clutter.
    These new templates would introduce inconsistencies in etymologies across mainspace: bor and inh now never generate text and are quite rarely introduced with manually added text (a status quo I am happy with), and more specialized templates such as lbor more or less always generate text (notext is rarely used for them). This means there is currently not much inconsistency in how each of these types of etymological derivation is handled and displayed - it's usually just a chain of "from"s with more specialized templates where applicable, with all etymology templates but der, inh and bor being considered specialized. Adding these templates in some entries but not others depending on editor preferences would break that consistency in the handling of inheritance and borrowing and render the formatting of our etymology sections less predictable. (I think the uniformization rationale for inh+ and bor+ is weak btw - comparing inheritance, a very general and common type of derivation, with the relatively specific (semi-)learned borrowings, is comparing apples and oranges.)
    There seems to be a slightly stronger case to be made for bor+, but even where that'd be useful (rarely - imo we should assume that the reader can generally distinguish between borrowing and inheritance), it seems preferable to add the text manually or at most add an optional text=1 (or tx=1) parameter to the extant bor template instead of creating a new template. (That way, the added complication of having inh/inh+ and bor/bor+ template pairs where the other templates have no such "plus" equivalents is avoided, too.)
    Resolving the inconsistency introduced by the proposed templates would entail either using inh+ or bor+ virtually everywhere or not using these templates at all (cf Metaknowledge's oppose rationale). Since I oppose the former, particularly inh+, I oppose this vote to discourage the introduction of new inconsistencies. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mnemosientje: I do not find your objections meaningful. inh+ & bor+ are to be used generally at the beginning of the etymology, and everywhere else the use of inh & bor would be retained. These new templets have been proposed so that the full etymological text is displayed with the addition of a + sign (inspired by {{m+}}); a provision for |notext= has not been made for the obvious reason that it would irk the editor to use it all the time (some people actually did call that parameter objectional in the BP discussion), and hence this compromise in the form of these new templets. To add the text manually, needless to say, is tiresome. And, I do not believe your claim that ‘the reader can generally distinguish between borrowing and inheritance’: only people with a knowledge of linguistics can do so, and a vast majority of our readers are linguistics-illiterate. Furthermore, the display of the full etymological statement would help (to-be) amateur linguistics greatly at understanding the types of etymologies, there’s no point in showing some while hiding others (however basic be inheritances and loanwords). -⸘- dictātor·mundī 00:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mnemosientje: The template will mainly be used at the beginning of the etymology, the rest of the "froms" being unaffected. The specialised templates are mostly used in single-term statements, and the + templates will make inherited and borrowed single-term statements consistent with those. In my editing practice I've found this sorely missing, and I assure you that there's currently a lot of inconsistency in spelling this out. I've been doing it everywhere myself, and I think the need for 95% of readers is obvious. The idea came to me when I discovered {{m+}}, and herein you have another consistency argument. Again, the "virtually everywhere" will mean "beginning of etymologies" - which is again consisten with the "virtually everywhere" of all the other etymology templates except der, inh and bor. Please, if you think my arguments have merit and if you believe there might be a not inconsiderable number of people who might agree with me and find the new templates useful, consider at least changing your vote to "abstain". Brutal Russian (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Instead of adding more text (our etymologies are already too long), and have more templates, couldn't we include (sort-of semantic) CSS classes to the terms, and then have some preference/gadget generate emoji arrows/tooltips/etc. to indicate the details, for those who always want to see them? – Jberkel 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jberkel: The text will generally be added just at the beginning of the etymology - surely it's a modest sacrifice in the name of clarity ("Wiktionary is not paper"). Don't you agree that the great majority of readers, having no knowledge of linguistics and only a vague conception of the relationship between various languages, will by default want to see these clarifications? There seem to already exist customizable templates ({{BCE}}), and if necessary this text could be made removable. With this in mind, would you please consider at least abstaining? Brutal Russian (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jberkel: But the reality is that there are already at least 10 templets that use the etymological text; you are of course welcome to make a proposal about dealing with these, but this is not the appropriate place to do so! If you remove your oppose vote, then we shall be glad to consider your opinion— after all you would not be achieving any long-term goal by opposing this proposal. Besides, why our etymologies are so long is because many of them have not been updated for years: for example, even when the etymon’s entry is created, the cognates are not deleted from the etymology section. Also, some people like User:Sgconlaw are fond of writing unnecessarily huge etymologies by surface-analyzing Middle & Old English words in the English entry itself (which could be shown in the respective entries), by lengthily dwelling upon PIE roots, and abruptly ending the etymology chain and then starting ‘The Middle/Old English word is from […] ’ instead of simply using ’from […] , from […] ’. So you see that our inherent problem is the editing style, rather than the etymology itself. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reading this a proposal again, it seems to be mostly about reducing the "tiresomeness" of manually adding the text, saving keystrokes at all costs, in the same vein as those cryptic 2-letter shortcuts. I think one reason of removing automatic texts was to push the decision to the editors, to let them choose the appropriate wording (which might not be the same in all cases). – Jberkel 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jberkel: Not just about tiresomeness, it’s more about inconsistency: if 10 templates (ironically they are used the least) can generate the text, then inh & bor should be no exception. We can come to your idea of ‘hiding’ the text somehow, later on. For now, please do not oppose the proposal, for, if we do not achieve this consistency across all templates, it would be difficult to get to your innovative idea. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jberkel: For "letting them choose the appropriate wording", the templates {{inh}} and {{bor}} will remain untouched. 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 07:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why new same-but different templates? "This is, imho, no way worth opposing because […] [it] just adds something" – that's exactly the problem. We are creating a culture in which redundant/overlapping templates are added because no consensus can be found on the existing ones, fragmenting the whole environment. – Jberkel 08:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jberkel: We already have {{m}} & {{m+}}, for the record. Overlapping templates are there for flexibility, it’s up to the editors to choose which one they will to use. There’s nothing wrong with them, because it gives us the option to have the text generated or not. And why we are proposing the new templates is because parameters like |notext= were frowned upon in the BP discussion. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. These are unnecessary. If you want to say "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from", just write it in. No reason to complicate things by adding two new templates. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Late oppose. PUC – 11:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Late vote shouldn't be casted. Express your thoughts in comments, not in this vote. Maybe you just wanted nullify Aryaman's struck support vote. --SodhakSH (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Abstain ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Abstain Not particularly inclined for or against the proposal. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kutchkutch: A bit unexpected vote, since I've seen you use the full text manually many times. Don't you think this would make it easier? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also taken aback at Kutchkutch’s not supporting this vote. After all, he was an early user to have used ‘Inherited from […] ’… Seems like he’s not properly considered the vote. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Inqilābī, SodhakSH: I remember when MewBot added withtext=1 in November 2017 and WingerBot removed withtext= from {{bor}}/{{borrowed}}/{{borrowing}} in June 2018, and I was aware of the linked discussions as they were happening. Of course, the proposal would make it much easier to display the etymological text by simply adding +. However, having the etymological text written out it is more meaningful than a shortcut, and as Fay Freak said I don’t believe the source codes will be more readable with these templates. Regardless of outcome, your efforts are much appreciated. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain moved from oppose. Was under the impression that this was to be used throughout the ety, not just at the start of the ety. (So Inherited from x, inherited from y, borrowed from z .. ) which would be weird af (so I opposed). The inconsistency argument I made earlier still holds, but tbf I don't oppose it strongly enough to keep the oppose vote. In any case, as some others have pointed out here, a vote on the creation of a template like this seems a bit unorthodox (usually people just create 'em), although surprisingly many people seem to have opinions on the matter... (A vote on how we want to standardize etymologies would be another matter, but this appears not to be intended to standardize all etymologies according to its premise, but merely to facilitate one editing style in a status quo that has multiple different editing styles existing side by side.) For the record, I still think specifying inheritance is really unnecessary for most (if not all) languages. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Inqilābī: There are many who are supporting {{bor+}} but opposing/are not-so keen for {{inh+}}. Sad, but seeing the current votes, it seems unlikely that this vote will pass. Do you plan on creating another vote only for {{bor+}}? Also @Metaknowledge if this vote doesn't pass, would it still be okay to use the full text manually for {{inherited}} as currently on many entries? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing out the full text is always encouraged where it removes confusion. As you pointed out, many Hindi entries have failed to do this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge: It is too tiresome to write the etymological text, and hence this vote (among other reasons). I hope you understand this simple language. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Hindi, you can use {{lbor}} anyway. Also people like to write something is “a tatsama” rather than “borrowed”, or even in addition to it, as on तजना (tajnā) which is “borrowed from” and then “a semi-tatsama“. I didn’t want editors to be influenced on wording etymology by these plus templates. Whereas {{lbor}} and {{slbor}} exists because of perhaps explaining less known processes by linking, while to link the terms “borrowed” or “borrowing” would be overkill—it wasn’t but about tiresomeness. Fay Freak (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now fixed Hindi तजना (tajnā). I was the first Indo-Aryan editor to have systematically begun using {{lbor}} & {{slbor}}; and upon my urging, others have also started using them. It will take some time for the nonstandard terminologies to go away. But {{bor}} is used a lot for adstrate words; {{lbor}} and {{slbor}} are reserved for superstrate words. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SodhakSH: I am not keen on having only either of the two proposed templets. It makes no sense to me to make a compromise: I do not believe {{inh+}} should be left out. Let there be no consideration for those people who crave {{bor+}} alone and have drowned the whole proposal owing to {{inh+}}. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe what makes sense to you is not what's best for the dictionary. If a supermajority supports a certain outcome, then we should probably find a way to make it happen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@victar, Fenakhay, DannyS712, Mnemosientje, -sche: Hey, thank you guys for voting. I see that some of you see one of the proposed templates as more welcome than the other. However, consider that the very purpose of this proposal is to give people an option to add the relevant text in one single button hit, and thus ease the life of those editors like me who care about clarifying borrowing vs. inherited confusions, and especially those great majority of readers who would lose nothing, but potentially gain ease of mind, if nothing else, after seeing the exact way of derivation spelled out for them. Doing this with both inh and bor seems the right thing to do - I would find it hard to explain to a new editor why this convenience option has been given to them in the case of one, but barred in the case of another. So, even if you don't think that one of the templates will be useful to you, but you might use the other one, and if you believe there are editors and readers out there who will find either one of them useful (have a look at all those new "support votes"!), and if you don't specifically believe that having both will interfere with reading and editing Wiktionary - please consider at the very least casting an "abstain" vote instead. —Also, -sche, just to clarify, this is indeed an entirely different proposal from the one you opposed in BP and will not affect the currently-existing templates or require setting any parameters. It will encourage following the "Wiktionary is not paper" guideline more closely, but it also makes doing this as easy as hitting the + button once. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Implementation

’Tis time we had set a policy on how to implement the opinion poll (for which there is wide consensus) to make it clear what kind of behaviour is expected of us all regarding the usage of {{inh+}} & {{bor+}}. To prevent further conflict of interest, I set the following guidelines which editors across all convictions needs must abide by:

  • There would be no bot operation to bring about a normalisation of etymologies using these templates, simply on the grounds that many of our etymologies are not accurate or are even erroneous.
  • Per above, no one would be allowed to make an edit to only replace the old format with the new templates (like this test edit). However when the editor makes other changes as well to the entry, as this, then they can do so.
  • No one would likewise be allowed to remove these new templates from an entry and replace them with plain text and the old templates (unless it is to revert a bot(-like) substitution as mentioned above).
  • Any one found breaking any of the above rules will be blocked.

@Ruakh, Chuck Entz, I urge you to see to it that all editors follow the rules laid down above, in the name of fairness and goodwill. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Any one found breaking any of the above rules will be blocked" part sounds pretty intense. Is there consensus for it? —RuakhTALK 23:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A simpler solution and one that would be acceptable to more people would be to have a compromise line in the form of a date and time. This compromise will be made by people agreeing to not touch any instances of {{inh}} or {{inh+}} that were existent in entries before that date. And in new entries/ newly entered etymology sections (after the compromise date), either {{inh}} or {{inh+}} can be used and once entered, it will be considered bad practice for an editor to replace one with the other. (Everything above applies to {{bor}} and {{bor+}} too). This way both the templates will remain in use and editors will be completely free to use whichever they prefer and no template will replace the other or grow in usage at the expense of the other. It will compromise on consistency a bit but it is not like we do everything else consistently on here. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 00:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This vote did not overturn Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing,_borrowed and so I do not recognize this vote. --{{victar|talk}} 04:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruakh, I am afraid that this vote may be used as a future reference for creating new templets; and some are already taking it as a ‘vote’ as such— therefor would it be considered fair to move the page to a different namespace? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Inqilābī: The glossary link is really important and I support a bot operation. Would any of you mind if I replace "Inherited" with "{{glossary|Inherited}}" (and same for borrowed)? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually not. That's why we voted to get rid of it. --{{victar|talk}} 04:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for those who do not know, User:Eirikr already links the keyword to the glossary in Japanese entries. The glossary link is important seeing as other etymology templets have the link as well; furthermore, it’s okay only for {{der}} to have a plain ’from’, while for all others, including {{inh}} & {{bor}}, if the etymological text be missing, the editor doing etymology cleanup would have trouble to understand if {{der}} or {{inh}}/{{bor}} has been used (so sadly, @Bhagadatta, as someone who is wont to cleaning up old entries and updating stuffs, I find your compromise much stricter with respect to the support camp: I think my guidelines are more neutral considering the reality that, while SodhakSH advocates a bot operation, Victar follows a policy of total noncooperation [*stark contrast*]). I would be against a bot operation because inaccurate etymologies would get standardised thereby. @victar, seeing that the opinion poll has wide consensus, and that no bureaucrat has said that the templets cannot be used, I suggest you start a project fork that would not have these templets; or else, tolerance would be the best policy for you: live and let live. @Ruakh, I agree the last point was harsh, but I do not see any other way to put an end to wild edit wars marring our revision histories. Please suggest an alternative solution to’t then! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I usually give people the benefit of doubt but with respect to 𑀥𑁂𑀡𑀼 I simply cannot bring myself to think that Victar's actions were in good faith. This condescending, belligerent opposition to everything a particular editor does when they have not broken any rules is detrimental to the growth of Wiktionary. @Inqilābī: I think you believe that as a result of this "compromise", editors will not be allowed to replace {{der}} with {{inh+}} or {{bor+}}. That isn't what I said. I just want no instance where either {{inh}} or {{inh+}} replaces the other. If there is {{der}} on a page and someone goes "hey that is inherited", they are free to use either {{inh}} or {{inh+}}. It's just after one of these two templates make an appearance in an entry, they should not be replaced by the other. I think it's fair because otherwise an editor wishing to toggle between {{inh}} and {{inh+}} will make some other minor insignificant change and then retort with "Hey, that isn't the only thing I did, it's not like I came to this entry to do specifically that...". The compromise I suggested will work if people agree to adhere to it, the chances of which happening, I acknowledge, are scarce. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 08:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the templates defenders: again, I point out that I'm not against them per se, but I hope you realise how ridiculous the situation looks now. While your stated goal is consistency, what you propose is a situation where we would have two pairs of competing, virtually identical templates, but no way to enforce one or the other and achieve consistency in the long term.
Why, exactly, are you against the replacement of "{{inh+}}" and "{{bor+}}" by equivalent plain text ("Inherited from {{inh}}" and "Borrowed from {{bor}}")? Because it would remove the links to the glossary? Seems very tenuous, and you yourself must not have thought it that important, since those links were a late addition.
And if you want a massive replacement the other way, I suggest you draft a new vote where you state that clearly. Because I do feel this is your goal sub rosa; and this would indeed be an overturn of Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed, which I, for one, would be against, for reasons I've already stated before. I don't quite condone Victar's attitude, but I share his suspicion.
In fact, I think the way out of this mess would be to put several questions to the vote in clear and unequivocal terms:
  • 1) "Do we want to add "Inherited from" / "Borrowed from" explicitly everywhere?" (I'd be in favour, but others clearly aren't)
  • 2) "Do we want to add links to the glossary in every instance?" (not particularly in favour, but I could live with it)
Hopefully a strong enough consensus will arise one way or the other for each of these questions, and even if the consensus goes against Victar's preferences, I'm sure he will be happy to comply. After all, he voted against the Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed proposal!
I think once these two questions have been taken care of, the question of templates will be much easier to solve:
  • (3) "Assuming we do want to be explicit, and we do want to add links to the glossary, could we create a template to help us do the job?" (You've already got a near-consensus for that, and if the two issues above had been clarified beforehand, I'm sure it would have been even stronger)
  • (4) "In the long term, do we want to enforce template use, or manual use?"
But currently they can't, because several issues are being conflated.
@Bhagadatta: your compromise could work, yes, but I don't see what will have been achieved. 212.224.225.102 12:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken, the idea of linking to the glossary dates back to early March (see this discussion); I did not make the vote description big because the pre-vote discussions covered everything in details. The outstanding features of the vote, which I had explicitly mentioned in the vote, are: 1) the creation of the templets, and 2) the usage of the templets everywhere possible. Now, it is not actually possible to use the these new templets in certain cases, or sometimes the editor can use some other format so that they are not needed. Otherwise, the vote requires of us to use them at the beginning of the etymology.
@Bhagadatta: Your idea is pretty nice (thanks for the clarification!), but I would also like to use {{inh+}} & {{bor+}} in entries created by me, for obvious reasons (regardless of whether it is for etymology cleanup or not). For entries created by other editors, I would replace the text and old templets with the new templets only for {{der}}/{{etyl}} cleanup (and also for other possible corrections of blatant errors, like when {{bor}} is mistakenly used instead of {{inh}}), and not for other cases. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Anyway, I've said my piece, good luck with your templates. 2A02:2788:A4:205:BD71:50DD:8493:312F 23:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:2788:A4:205:BD71:50DD:8493:312F: Did you even get what I said? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, @2A02:2788:A4:205:BD71:50DD:8493:312F, whatever you say, your words are worthless since you have not participated in the vote. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months since this vote has been created, and another month of discussion before that. Surely nobody can deny that these templates are very controversial, and controversial things on this wiki need a vote. This one failed, and I find it strange that some continue to act as if it didn't. I know some, like Inqilābī and SodhakSH are probably tired by me being this 'stubborn' as they would call it, but unless another vote is created in a considerable amount of time to poll the thoughts of the new generation of editors, these votes' templates' creation have been voted on, and the vote has failed, and the templates shouldn't have been created in the first place, let alone used. I don't see how there can be any compromises about this: if the vote had passed, you would have equally demanded everyone obey the vote's outcome. I really don't see how we can still be debating this. Thadh (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Thadh et al.: Sorry for wasting your time due to the discussions, but I would like to ask one thing: seeing that the vote ended with no consensus, is it possible to extend the vote so that we know the true extent to which people support or oppose it? One month was a rather short time for such a big proposal, but creating another vote would waste our time, and also lead to a lower turnout. I know there’s no precedent for it, but still asking if that be feasible… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopen an ended vote? No. --{{victar|talk}} 10:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the original proposal, but I agree with Thadh and don't think it's right to not acknowledge the results of the vote. The templates should be deleted.--Tibidibi (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibidibi: See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others § Template:bor+ and Template:inh+ (where you can vote). J3133 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also of the same opinion. I can never imagine creating the templets when we lost the vote. I supported the templets’ creators for the same reason as some of the original supporters of the vote also backed them— I just wanted to see if the opposers were willing to yield to the demands, but I had no strong opinion on this. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in blatant disregard for this vote not passing, both {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} were created by @SodhakSH, and per @Inqilābī's suggested policy above, @Imetsia issued a 3 day block on my account for enforcing the ruling of this vote. @Metaknowledge, Thadh, Donnanz, Fenakhay, DannyS712, Fay Freak, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja --{{victar|talk}} 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said everything I could say: I don't agree with the creation of the templates, think that they should be deleted and not recreated until a decent amount of time has passed and another vote held. However, I'm not in any position to counter an admin's action, that should be left to other administrators, and I can't myself delete the templates or anything of that sort. Thadh (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the point of ignoring the vote was, but the result is a divided editorship, mistrust in voting/governance in general, and 2 trivial templates which are largely unused. – Jberkel 08:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. PUC – 11:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit reductionist to say that anyone has been "ignoring the vote." Victar misled a user into creating this vote and now wants to claim that it "failed." This isn't the first time Victar has done this (see Metaknowledge's comment at this vote for example), and his voting-policy irregularities are numerous (see also Bhagadatta's comment here). So no one should have faith in this vote to begin with. In addition, as Lingo explained on RFDO and as I quote below, this vote "does not carry force to disallow the... usage of these templates...."
    The idea that there is a "divided editorship" is also in question. As I see it, a vast majority of users have supported these templates. Some users, including me, find them useful. But there is just one single individual who has taken it upon himself to obstruct the operation of the templates. If there's any division here, it's between one solitary individual against a supermajority of users.
    Lastly, the templates are "largely unused" simply because (a) Victar has been systematically undoing their usage; (b) they're relatively new; and (c) it seems preferable not to engage in any "template substitution" that would make the new templates more widespread. I believe bor+ is useful, and a number of other users have implemented the templates in their own edits. Imetsia (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a large group of users who did not want new templates for this purpose, or not in this form. Right after the vote is over, without consensus, these templates show up. I think it's understandable that the users who voted against the introduction feel ignored and that the whole vote wasn't worth very much. As the most vocal opponent Victar gets singled out, and now even blamed for instigating the vote. Most template-opposers probably weren't happy about the creation (and the way it was handled), but decided that it wasn't worth edit-warring or arguing over. So casting this as one "solitary invidual" against everyone else doesn't feel right. – Jberkel 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really do not understand what this block is about; no admin took any action when PUC and Victar were editwarring from the beginning. Now it is too late and Victar should be unblocked. No doubt Victar, PUC, and Thadh are somewhat misguided, but since they are so bent on not allowing the usage of the templets, we just need to end this whole dispute in a mature way (which is why I withdrew my support at RFDO). We have the option of a revote (with a longer duration). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [When I wrote these words, I was not aware that my guidelines stated above have been accepted. I was acting according to the situation…]
    @Inqilābī: Please show me where I've been edit-warring. PUC – 12:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SodhakSH will know better than me. Also do not ping me for unimportant things. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're accusing me of block-worthy behaviour, namely edit-warring. As far as I can remember, I've done no such thing. I think pinging you to ask for some evidence supporting your assertion is warranted, even though it may seem "unimportant" to you. I guess I should get used to it; after all it isn't the first time you blithely throw heavy-loaded words around. PUC – 16:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about your position on the block. You seemed to support it here, but now argue that it should be undone? Maybe I misunderstood something.
    Secondly, I think we have more desirable options than a revote:
    1. Asking for a variance at BP from the typical vote deadlines. It seems absurd that some users can argue this vote "failed" when 2/3 of users support creating the templates.
    2. Voting to nullify this vote and establish that templates can be created freely by any user, but are subject to the same RFD process that any of our typical entries are. If a consensus is reached that the template in question should be deleted, then we can do that.
    But we don't even need to go through the trouble of doing any of that. I'm still of the position, to quote Lingo on RFDO, that this "... vote does not carry force to disallow the creation or existence of these templates anyway. The bloody sodding thing almost passed with 2/3s anyway, it is utterly ridiculous to read that vote as a consensus for deletion of the templates." These two templates exist and are legitimate; efforts to delete it have failed. After having failed to disallow the creation of the templates at this vote, then failing again at RFDO, Victar is now insisting on a third chance to reverse community consensus. They should be denied that opportunity.
    As a minor note, I wouldn't say PUC is "bent on not allowing the usage of the templets[sic]." As they stated on RFDO, "What I do oppose strongly is any kind of template substitution..." which I interpreted as being a two-way remark. Imetsia (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Imetsia I think you should've let an admin that hasn't voted, or at the very least isn't as involved as you are, to look at the situation before issuing a two-week block to Victar. I believe that on occasions like this here, when it isn't clear what the new consensus is, one should stay on the cautious side (in this particular situation, not use the template) until everything is cleared up, which is what Victar was doing, and for which you have blocked him.
The vote, which is our highest form of democracy, failed, and so any further action shouldn't rely on one admin's interpretation of the policies, but rather on a thorough analysis by multiple, if not many, admins. Pinging some active and maximally uninvolved admins from the list, sorry for the mass ping: @BigDom, Erutuon, Mnemosientje, Surjection, Justinrleung, Sgconlaw, DTLHS, Equinox, Chuck Entz, Eirikr, Ultimateria, Semper Blotto Thadh (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did let a less-involved admin "look at the situation" (see here) before issuing a two-week block.
When "it isn't clear what the new consensus is,"* one should go with the status quo (in this case, the templates existing). If Victar wanted to challenge that, they bear the burden of showing why the templates should be deleted, which they failed to do. At a minimum, after being told repeatedly not to undo usage of the bor+ template, they could have engaged other users in a discussion about it. If they truly wanted to avoid a block, they should have started a post on BP or on this vote page (which they did after the original block) where these issues could have been settled. If Victar had suspended their edit reversions after the three-day block pending the conclusions of this discussion, I wouldn't have blocked them a second time. This all goes to the idea that they don't seem interested in cooperative editing, an issue in its own right.
* But note that the original consensus is clear. 2/3 of users supported the templates, even if one vote was procedurally barred. Not to mention, where's the consensus to delete the templates or put them out of operation? Victar tried at RFDO, but that effort didn't succeed. Imetsia (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the status quo is the templates not existing, the templates were created after this vote failed and were as such going against the status quo which Victar tried to reinstate. Second, as Benwing pointed out, they aren't uninvolved or unbiased themselves. But more importantly, there wasn't two-thirds of users supporting the template: even though Aryaman was too late with a support vote which would've won over the vote, so was PUC with an oppose vote, making this already well-known argument completely irrelevant. Thadh (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An IP cannot vote; that argument is ever relevant. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One revert is not edit-warring, and I cry foul at your using that term. PUC – 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: I haven't replaced a single instance of {{bor}} with {{bor+}}. I've only restored the usages of {{bor+}} where they had been entered by someone else (in today's particular case, Benwing) without replacing {{bor}}. Even I am against replacing all instances of {{bor}} with {{bor+}} but an editor who is introducing a hitherto absent template to the page should have the option of using either of the two. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 14:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation_of_Template:inh%2B_and_Template:bor%2B&oldid=64532357"