Voting on: Suppose that an editor sees a part of an entry (a language section, or part-of-speech section, or sense, or whatnot) that doesn't seem to him [if you'll pardon my gender-neutral use of he] to meet our criteria for inclusion, or that seems to him to be redundant, but he's not sure, and he'd like to start a wide-input discussion about the possibility of removing that part. This vote is about where he should start said discussion.
Not voting on: This doesn't apply to cases where an editor is requesting verification of a word or sense; in those cases, I think it's clear that Wiktionary:Requests for verification is the correct place.
Not voting on: This doesn't affect the possibility of having such discussions on the entry's talk-page. This only applies to cases where the editor wants more input than just the people watching that entry.
Not voting on: Pages outside the main namespace.
Those caveats out of the way, I'm proposing the following places:
Wiktionary:Requests for review revision — a new project page that (in DAVilla's words) "would be a place of action on definitions when the meanings themselves are not disputed, only their organization."
The vote is structured as an approval vote; the option with the most support will win. Please feel free to vote in support of multiple options.
SupportConnel MacKenzie07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC) The archiving scheme matches perfectly, for senses in particular, while it sometimes seems inadequate for complete entries. The centralized, logical place for deletion discussions is, just like RFV for verifications, a single page.[reply]
I would argue that very few nominations are made this way, and even so the nomination can be hotly debated, hence this vote. Also given that they almost all come from the same contributor, it's really unfair to characterize this as "status quo". {{rfd-redundant}} is changing the character of the existing RFD page, and this option would solidify that change. DAVilla05:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound like rfd-redundant was created yesterday, not six months ago. It's been working fine since then. Why go through the hassle of changing it? I don't see how discussing whether part of an entry is redundant or meets CFI next to discussions about whether a whole entry is sum-of-parts or meets CFI is a significant difference. In fact -- this is exactly parallel to having rfv-sense and rfv go to the same place. Cynewulf17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six months ago? Wow. And it's been in use for as long, I'd presume? The short life that {{rfd-sense}} had grew out of confusion that probably wouldn't apply today. Even if it isn't widespread, the intent of the related {{rfd-redundant}} is at least very clear. I have to retract what I said about a single contributor though, if only because I realize I'd made a similar sense-type RFD request with apple pie. And what a headache that was. Oh, regret!
Oppose -- This would seriously change the tenor of the tea room, from a place of thoughtful discussion about word-subtleties, into a keep/delete melee area. --Connel MacKenzie06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support These sorts of questions are sometimes dealt with a heavier hand than is necessary. Although there will always be a gray area and some dispute, most contributors, if they don't have an appreciation of the finer distinctions, can be trusted not to make revisions that collapse them. DAVilla17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RFC may be appropriate when it's a true cleanup request, e.g. when it's obvious that someone went on a hashing synonyms rampage or what have you, but in that case it's almost always easier to just clean it up yourself. DAVilla18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pretend "abstain" means comments for now. I admit I didn't participate in the Beer Parlour thread, but, looking over this, I think the vote is a bit rushed and maybe misses the point. The question that needs addressing is not where to discuss disputed senses (that's already clear enough, usually) but whether disputed senses that don't encompass an entire page (and therefore don't require an admin to delete anything) still need a community review of some sort, or whether they can be simply edited out by the editor that wishes to do so. If this vote doesn't even include the option to remove the bad sense on your own judgment, I think we need to go back to the discussion stage. Dmcdevit·t10:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread the description of the vote, which makes it quite clear that this is about cases where the editor is "not sure, and he'd like to start a wide-input discussion about the possibility of removing that part". When that's not the case, he should of course be bold. It even clarifies that it doesn't remove the possibility of talk-page discussion, if he's not sure about the removal but doesn't think a wide-input discussion is necessary. —RuakhTALK15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can always be edited by a contributor, but given that a contributor's reputation may depend on such edits, especially incorrect or controversial ones for which they may be reprimanded, this is an entirely applicable scenario and appropriate question. Analogously, as a sysop would like to have some basis for making a deletion decision. In both cases the collective discussion will help keep us all in accord. DAVilla17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With 6 voters in support and 2 not in support (including an abstention), option 1 passes. Any particular section of an entry may be discussed for removal in WT:RFD. The other options each had only 2 voters in suppot. DAVilla04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]