Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Removing Modern English possessive forms section from CFI

Removing "Modern English possessive forms" section from CFI

• Voting on: Removing the section entitled "Modern English possessive forms" from WT:CFI and replacing it with a "Language-specific issues" section stating:

  Individual languages may have additional restrictions on inclusion. These will be mentioned on that language's About page. For instance, Wiktionary:About English notes that the community has voted to not allow most modern English possessives.

• Note for comparison that the current "Modern English possessive forms" section reads:

  It is community consensus not to provide entries for Modern English possessive forms which are formed by adding the enclitics ’s or ’, and which are otherwise not idiomatic (with the single exception of the pronoun one’s). However, they are welcome as emboldened but unlinked words in inflection lines. Pronunciation transcriptions for possessive forms of words, if necessary, can be given in the pronunciation sections of the words’ entries.^{EXPLANATION VOTE}

• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 24:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vote created: Yair rand 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-01/removing Modern English possessive forms section from CFI

Support

1. Support Yair rand 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Support On reflection could we add a link to Wiktionary:About English in the text above? --Bequw → τ 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   That's what it was before, but msh210 changed it to link to the vote instead. I much prefer the old version. --Yair rand 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   My edit was revertible, of course. I changed it so readers should realize that that policy is strong (the result of a vote).​—msh210℠ 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Support Conrad.Irwin 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Thrissel 07:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Language-specific policies always take precedence over general ones. --Ivan Štambuk 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Seems reasonable. Support. DAVilla 07:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. This seems to give the About pages the weight of the CFI themselves (à la "included herein by reference"), which they don't really have, do they? Or at least they shouldn't, as generally a very few people know when a change is made to an About page. (My opposition applies both to the wording that referred to AEN and as to the wording, as modified by me, that refers directly to the old vote. (See discussion above.))​—msh210℠ 17:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  That interpretation would be erroneous given existing practices. Separate pages always have separate authority (which is self-displayed) and this is the case with all the other linked to pages from the CFI:

  • Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD (free to edit)
  • Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms (locked, but content has been modified)
  • Wiktionary:About sign languages (locked, but content has been modified)
  • Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not (free)
  • Appendix:List of protologisms (free)
  • Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes (locked)
  • Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not (free)
  • Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names (locked)
  • w:Use-mention distinction (free)

  WT:AEN is still free to edit, but the section on modern possessives would still have the force of a VOTE even though it moved there from the CFI. I don't think we need to worry about someone slyly editing voted-on sections in the About language pages and somehow corrupting policy. --Bequw → τ 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Hopefully the new wording makes it clear that AEN derives it's authority for that section from a vote, not from being linked to from the CFI. --Bequw → τ 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, as currently worded the proposal being voted on is much better. Striking my opposition. Were voters who voted on the previous version informed of the mid-vote change? (Namely Yair.)​—msh210℠ 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I was informed, and I still support it. --Yair rand 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Decision

• Vote passes 6-0-0. This has been affected. --Yair rand 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  You mean effected. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)