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

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:

Discussion:

Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support DTLHS (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oppose. I see no reason for this rule to be explicit. We can clean these up from entries without littering WT:NORM. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ^ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Equinox ◑ 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes we have to use it. No more restriction to make template works. Octahedron80 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron80: Could you provide an example of this, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone want to send parameters to a subpage? I believe the restriction is not useful.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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. --Wiki Tiki 89 00:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Abstain Fix the current entries and put in an edit filter and I'll support it. DTLHS (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the current entries and attempted to create Special:AbuseFilter/56. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for lack of overview of the consequences of either outcome. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Ruakh_TALK 06:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contents