→Overturning COALMINE: Changing the order of sentences (and changing a few words) I think "abrogating WT:COALMINE" should go first as it summarizes the whole vote.
→Overturning COALMINE: Rewrite. "Abrogating" is not a common word, and in current non-legal use usually has a certain connotation that I don't think we want.
** Overturning [[WT:COALMINE]]. That is: allowing a multi-word phrase to be excluded as unidiomatic even if it is more common than a single-word alternative spelling that ''is'' included.
** Abrogating [[WT:COALMINE]].
* Note: Therefore, multi-word phrases would not be granted exemption from our usual CFI, even when they are the more common spellings of single words (unless such phrases are granted exemption for other reasons, such as Phrasebook entries).
Overturning WT:COALMINE. That is: allowing a multi-word phrase to be excluded as unidiomatic even if it is more common than a single-word alternative spelling that is included.
Vote starts: 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Vote ends: 23.59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This vote has not yet started. It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose. Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged! If you have not done so, please follow the discussion links for a better understanding of the topic. However, do not vote for any options at this time, as any premature votes may be struck. On the other hand, if the discussion is stagnant and there are no recent changes, anyone may choose to start this vote by properly listing it. Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed.
WT:BP#Revisiting_WT:COALMINE