Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-01/Final sections of the CFI

Final sections of the CFIEdit

[[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion]], at the very bottom (except for interwiki links) reads as follows:

Issues to consider
Attestation vs. the slippery slope

There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form. Some examples:

  • Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry).
  • Any word may be rendered in pig Latin, but only a few (e.g., amscray) have found their way into common use.
  • Any word may be rendered in leet style, but only a few (e.g., pr0n) see general use.
  • Grammatical affixes like meta- and -ance can be added in a great many more cases than they actually are. (Inflectional suffixes like -s for the plural of a noun and -ed for the past tense of a verb can actually be used for almost any noun or verb.)
  • It may seem that trendy internet prefixes like e- and i- are used everywhere, but they aren’t. If I decide to talk about e-thumb-twiddling but no one else does, then there’s no need for an entry.
Typographic variants

The inclusion of terms which contain unusual characters or are otherwise unusual in form, such as G-d, pr0n, i18n or veg*n is somewhat controversial. A few view some of these as bizarre or illiterate, notwithstanding their appearance in a variety of media, and find them to have no place in a respectable dictionary. This raises the question of what constitutes a respectable dictionary, and in any case tends to exclude terms that people might well run across and want to know the meaning of.

  • Voting on: whether to remove the "Attestation vs. the slippery slope" section, the "Typographic variants" section, both, or neither.
  • Note: If both are removed, then so will the header "Issues to consider" be removed.
  • The vote is structured as two separate binary (remove/retain) votes, one on each section.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove (support removal of) "Attestation vs. the slippery slope"Edit

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Yair rand (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 21:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ƿidsiþ 08:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky 07:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Retain (oppose removal of) "Attestation vs. the slippery slope"Edit

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm not crazy about the slippery title and some of the wording, but I think it does more good than harm to spell these things out clearly with specific cases and examples. DAVilla 08:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose —Stephen (Talk) 08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I couldn’t find much of anything in the way of discussion of this. What’s wrong with it?
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a good section to link to in case such an argument is ever presented at an RfD or elsewhere. -- Prince Kassad 16:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInternoob (DiscCont) 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I don't really see why—it is policy and it does pertain to the inclusion of entries.

Explicitly abstain with respect to "Attestation vs. the slippery slope"Edit

Remove (support removal of) "Typographic variants"Edit

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Yair rand (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support.​—msh210 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Because SGB, below, worries that removal of "Typographic variants" will be interpreted as implying that the odd spellings it deals with are to be excluded, I'm stating for the record that this voter's intent, at least, is that they be included.​—msh210 (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    Ditto. —RuakhTALK 12:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 21:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Strong support. I have no problem with including punctuation in headings if it reflects the way the term is actually used. A good example is s/he which I'm still not sure how to capitalize. DAVilla 08:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ƿidsiþ 08:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Prince Kassad 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky 07:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC) If a dispute arises about the inclusion of "pr0n" and the like, a newly found consensus for the inclusion of such attestable variants can be added to the section about spellings. --Dan Polansky 07:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    With this support, my intent is to have "G-d", "pr0n", "i18n" and "veg*n" included as long as they are attestable. I may change my mind later if someone presents convincing arguments against the inclusion, though. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg SupportInternoob (DiscCont) 04:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    For the record, I am in favour of these entries as well. I do not believe that they are "somewhat controversial" —Internoob (DiscCont) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Retain (oppose removal of) "Typographic variants"Edit

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose —Stephen (Talk) 08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) What’s wrong with it?
    It doesn't reflect consensus or practice: see the BP discussion, linked to above, that led to this vote. (I think others will argue that it also has no criteria so doesn't belong as part of the page of CFI, but that wasn't my reason for starting this vote.)​—msh210 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    The BP discussion didn’t say anything of substance, unless the real discussion was somewhere else besides where the link went. It only said that we have a consensus among the editors which is at cross-purposes with the note. However, I didn’t see any evidence of the consensus, and I cannot figure out if this alleged consensus finds the variants to have no place in a respectable dictionary, or that it finds them indeed to have a place in a respectable dictionary. You want to remove this note in order to enable you to do what exactly? Delete current entries? Add new entries? What is the intended purpose of the removal of these two notes? —Stephen (Talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    The wording of the paragraph implies that inclusion of the words mentioned in it is controversial. In fact, AFAICT, it's not: pretty much everyone agrees we should include them. Also, the current state of affairs is that we do include them. So this paragraph is simply false; also, as it implies the existence of some sort of controversy over whether there is (or should be) a rule for these words that overrides the general CFI and causes them to be deleted, someone reading it might make that mistake, thinking there is such a controversy, or even such a rule. I advocate for its removal so that no one so err.​—msh210 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    I’ve been under the impression that some people wanted to exclude them. Personally, I think they should be included. This note seems to favor inclusion while recognizing that some may disagree. It seems to me that removing the note and replacing it with nothing only bolsters the argument against having the variants. —Stephen (Talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    So I guess you would support this if, in addition to removing this section, we also added an explicit indication that such forms should be included? I'd be down with that. Maybe in the section about misspellings and variant spellings and such? —RuakhTALK 18:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes. Because I had no idea what effect these two changes were supposed to have (still haven’t in regard to the first one), and an omitted mention could be interpreted in different ways. —Stephen (Talk) 19:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Explicitly abstain with respect to "Typographic variants"Edit

DecisionEdit

  • The section "Typographic variants" passes 9-1-0. It is therefore removed from CFI.
    The section "Attestation vs. the slippery slope" fails 5-4-0, and so is kept in CFI. -- Prince Kassad 15:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. By my count, six of the ten voters on "Typographic variants" expressed a wish to include such entries as were discussed by that then-CFI section, and the other four expressed no view on that issue one way or the other.​—msh210 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Last modified on 6 March 2011, at 09:15