Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-12/Making simplified Chinese soft-redirect to traditional Chinese: difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Dan Polansky (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Ivan Štambuk (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I acknowledge that extending a passing vote with plenty of votes would be an unnecessary delay. But this vote is not passing, so extending it is giving it a chance to pass. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
I acknowledge that extending a passing vote with plenty of votes would be an unnecessary delay. But this vote is not passing, so extending it is giving it a chance to pass. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
: It's more than 50% no? Isn't that how democracy works? Besides, only one of the opposing vote has any knowledge of Chinese (zh-1), so if we weight it the impact factor is like 99:1. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] ([[User talk:Ivan Štambuk|talk]]) 16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:51, 8 February 2015
Outcome
11:6:02 is not a pass per our long standing practice. 11:6 is 64.7% support. The least threshold that I have seen mentioned and actually supported is 2/3.
I acknowledge that extending a passing vote with plenty of votes would be an unnecessary delay. But this vote is not passing, so extending it is giving it a chance to pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's more than 50% no? Isn't that how democracy works? Besides, only one of the opposing vote has any knowledge of Chinese (zh-1), so if we weight it the impact factor is like 99:1. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)