Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word

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

Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word[edit]

  • Voting on: Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI. For example coalmine already meets CFI as an attestable single word, but coal mine is much more common. If we delete coal mine and a user searches for it and finds coalmine, (s)he will be under the impression that coalmine is the most common spelling of this, which is untrue. It also avoids technical problems like coalmine displaying Alternative spelling of coal mine, because the less common term meets CFI, but the more common one doesn't


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support, seems like common sense to me. bd2412 T 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as an inclusionist. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Ivan Štambuk 00:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support EncycloPetey 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Common sense indeed. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Conrad.Irwin 00:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The criteria for including multiword terms seem to me to ensure that the multiword term describes a distinct concept; the fact that the word exists in the collapsed form seems to imply that authors agree it is a distinct concept; and thus it is a word we should include.[reply]
  7. Support Ƿidsiþ 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support   AugPi 00:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC) As per Conrad Irwin's reasoning: distinguished usage indicates legit lexical term.[reply]
  10. Support Dan Polansky 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support SemperBlotto 11:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support on the condition of an exact wording being proposed for CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But you support this proposal no matter what that wording winds up being?​—msh210℠ 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Never understood why it wasn't like this from day 1. -- ALGRIF talk 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Spelling is an important part of a dictionary, and we need to be sure that we do not mislead readers just because we are arguing internally and possibly unsure ourselves whether the disjoined words are idiomatic. Yes, coal mine could still be considered idiomatic on some other basis, but if it is the correct (i.e. significantly more common) spelling of the existing entry coalmine, then linking the alternative spelling as coal mine does not do justice to our users. DAVilla 13:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose The main argument for this change seems to be that we're slightly unsure about the exact best way to format the entry for the single-word spelling. Personally, I don't think that's a good enough reason for keeping an entry that we otherwise wouldn't. (That said, if there's a common single-word spelling of an expression, I think we should closely evaluate the possibility that maybe it is idiomatic. On the face of it, it seems that a coal mine is just a mine that produces coal, but if so many people treat "coalmine" as a single word, then maybe there's more to it than that.) —RuakhTALK 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument does not depend on quandaries of formatting of the single-word entry. My issue is that it seems an unfair privilege of the single-word form to be included while the much more common form is excluded. I admit that unfair privilege is typically ascribed to people and their organizations, not to words. --Dan Polansky 11:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Ruakh's comment immediately above and also per my own comment in the BP.​—msh210℠ 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Ruakh. I see no problem with the definition line of coalmine reading "(rare) alternative spelling of coal mine; a mine that produces coal" (but where the underline is appropriate link color). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    # Oppose per Equinox below, I don't think my wording is clear enough and if I can find how to word it, I'd prefer a second vote. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you're opposing yourself? Can't you just withdraw the vote, as the proposer? --Yair rand 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but it seems undemocratic. The vote was started by me, it's not "my vote". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, after all this effort, why not support it and let it pass, and then bring up another vote to tweak it as needed (if needed) in the future? bd2412 T 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you now change to support and the vote passes, what is becoming a common practice will be confirmed to be endorsed by the community of editors. The text of CFI can be left unmodified, and a new vote can be started with an exact wording. --Dan Polansky 11:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Yair rand 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain Equinox ◑ 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) until we know how CFI would be changed (new wording etc.); would one form redirect to the other? the commoner one? or how would it work? I may change my vote and support this if things become clearer and it seems workable. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the less common form, there should be no redirect but rather an alternative-spelling entry, like in coalmine—"{{alternative spelling of|coal mine}}. The more common form should get a full entry with definition, synonyms, translations, etc. The two mentioned principles are already a common practice, and do not need to be codified in this particular vote. --Dan Polansky 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 22:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Per above.[reply]

Decision[edit]

Passes 13–4–2 (76.5%). Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single-word spelling that already meets CFI. For example coalmine already meets CFI as an attestable single word, so coal mine, much more common, does too. — This unsigned comment was added by Msh210 (talk • contribs) at 23:15, 14 January 2010.

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic_multi-word_phrases_to_meet_CFI_when_the_more_common_spelling_of_a_single_word&oldid=62509544"