Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/elfism validation

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

elfism validation[edit]

Voting on: Do we accept the provided citations as sufficient validation for the term elfism?

Schedule:

Support[edit]

  1. Support Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Binarystep (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, all senses clearly demonstrated to be in use. This, that and the other (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I consider all 3 senses to be properly verified and archived but senses 1 and 3 unambiguously so. I support verifying sense 2 as well though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Elf (2003), Benson (2011), Epps (2013), and possibly VIPSEEN (2016) are durably archived. 70.172.194.25 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 04:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qehath Which sense do you think is insufficiently cited? 70.172.194.25 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain Do we really have to have votes regarding specific entries? I feel like this can and should be settled in a RFV. Furthermore, it's not even clear to me what are the consequences of this vote. Shall it superseded the discussion in RFV if voted for or down? To me, it looks like we are setting an unnecessary conflict in procedures. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These votes are in response to the second dot point at WT:CFI#Attestation: "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks". If you're unsure what this is all about, take a look at the FaCIAbook vote – a much clearer-cut case where no conventional durably-archived citations have been found. In that case it's unambiguous that if the vote were to not reach consensus, the RFV would fail and the entry would be deleted (unless another set of online-only sources were found and voted on, I suppose). Likewise, if that vote passes, the RFV will pass. The intention of using the "vote" system appears to be to gain wider input than is possible at WT:RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain per Sarilho. This should have been raised in a fora or a discussion page of the relevant pages. Pointless vote. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain per above. Seems weird to have votes like this... Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abstain Belongs in RFV, per Sarilhol. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Abstain AFAICT there are enough citations under each sense that meet the longstanding CFI that we don't even need to consider whether the internet sources meet the new addition to CFI: assuming the variation in the spelling of the movie citation is not an issue since it's spoken, there are 3+ books and magazines under senses 1 and 3, and there's a movie, journal and magazine under sense 2, so other than affirming "yep, books continue to count", I'm not sure what this vote accomplishes. - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Passes 4-1-7 (80%). This, that and the other (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/elfism_validation&oldid=67338047"