Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2020-05/User:Tr-conj-bot for bot status

User:Tr-conj-bot for bot status

Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:Tr-conj-bot for the following purposes:

I made a newer version of the templates {{tr-conj}} and {{tr-conj-v}} that is easier to use, is more correct, and most importantly supports irregular verbs. If you want to check it out, a test page with comparisons is in here and the template itself is here. I'm making this request to replace the current template with the new one, and then using a bot to change the template syntax to use the new one.

Example edits: Special:Diff/59346783, Special:Diff/59346782, Special:Diff/59346781

Schedule:

Vote starts: 11:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Vote ends: 23:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Vote created: betseg|g 11:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

Support

Support, as there seems to be sufficient consensus for these edits as per the BP discussion. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 13:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imetsia (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: @Lambiam supports this, so I do too. P U C – 10:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great improvement. --Lambiam ~~16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)~~ 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it makes the templates smarter. Fay Freak (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Abstain. There's too many headless chickens running round already. DonnanZ (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Donnanz: ...what. Is that even a criticism? --betseg|g 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

5-0-1, passed. We need a bureaucrat to mark User:Tr-conj-bot as a bot.
@SemperBlotto, Chuck Entz — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15 days later, no bureaucrat has taken action. Do we need a vote for a new bureaucrat? @SemperBlotto, Chuck Entz, Hippietrail, Ruakh —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks for the ping. (And yes, I think we need some new bureaucrats.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]