Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections
[edit]- Voting on: Updating WT:CFI to let terms be linked to pertinent sections where they are defined for CFI purposes. In particular:
- In section General rules, linking the word "term" in "including a term if it is attested and idiomatic" to CFI section Terms.
- In section General rules, linking the words "attested" and "idiomatic" to CFI sections Attestation and Idiomaticity rather than to mainspace entries.
- In section Attestation, linking the phrase "conveying meaning" to CFI section Conveying meaning.
- In section Attestation, linking the word "independent" to CFI section Independent.
- In section Attestation, linking the phrase "different requirements" to CFI section Number of citations.
- Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
- Vote starts: 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion:
Support
[edit]Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- But we could have just edited CFI without a vote, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- In the future, I support editing CFI and EL without a vote, when the edit simply links a term to a section in the policy. This does not change the regulations in any way. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Support -Xbony2 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Support and, for the record, I don't think this kind of change requires a vote. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Support and add my voice to saying that this type of non-substantive change should not require a vote. This, that and the other (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Support per my rationale linked above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Support, and yes, not worth a vote. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: seems quite commonsense. — Eru·tuon 08:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]Abstain
[edit]Decision
[edit]Passes unanimously. 7-0-0 (100%-0%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)