Straw-polling on: Whether the phrasebook inclusion option should be removed from the CFI for the main namespace. Thus, removing this from WT:CFI:
"Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What’s your name? is clearly a summation of its parts."
As a consequence, all main namespace entries that were originally included solely as part of phrasebook should afterwards be required to satisfy other parts of CFI, including the requirement that entries have to be idiomatic. If you support removing the phrasebook inclusion option from CFI, please indicate whether you want to see non-idiomatic (semantic-sum-of-partish) phrasebook entries in an appendix, in a dedicated phrasebook namespace, or what other treatment of the phrasebook content you would like to see.
Support The Appendix namespace is not a wastebasket, even though it is commonly mistaken as such. The phrasebook entries should just go. -- Liliana•18:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide to do, guidelines about what constitutes a useful phrasebook phrase would be helpful, and hopefully inhibit the proliferation of facetious phrasebook entries. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it should have its own namespace. Mainspace could make sense as a home for a much smaller phrasebook, but it's clear that the contributors to the phrasebook want it to be much huger than makes sense to include in mainspace. —RuakhTALK19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a contributor to the phrasebook but I don't want it to be huge or repetitive or obscene. Some "I need ..." or "I don't need ..." entries, or I'm a guy type of entries for example, were created as a mockery or out of spite, to make the phrasebook look absurd, that's my opinion. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)22:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the good entries in your opinion? Which namespace? A separate Wiki?! If after the vote, the phrasebook is removed, there won't be anything to move. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Keep only entries which are set phrases. Organize the phrasebook as a number of pages such as Phrasebook:At the hotel (English), or something of the kind. Lmaltier (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone go about restoring or viewing contents of deleted entries, move them and reorganise? Opponents of the phrasebook are unlikely to do it. Advocates may also be discouraged. I doubt that in order to create something, you need to destroy something first. Appendices like Appendix:I am (ethnicity) proved to be cumbersome (hard to edit) and unpopular with casuals and many regular editors. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think very many of our phrasebook entries should go, no matter what namespace it's in. If that's done, then I have only a slight preference: mainspace preferably, otherwise its own namespace, otherwise an appendix. If that's not done, however, then I support removal of the leeway from the CFI and relegating the phrasebook to its own namespace (otherwise an appendix).—msh210℠ (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Move to the appendix or a dedicated "Phrasebook:" name space. I do think that the phrasebook has value, and I think it would be good to see it grow, but Phrasebook entries are not dictionary entries, and the current attempts to force them to fit the mainspace dictionary format are a large part of what makes them a bit silly (e.g. please turn right: "When giving directions to a person (for example, a taxi driver), indicates that he or she should turn right."). If they were in their own name space, they could develop their own rules and systems, they wouldn't need silly SoP definitions, and they could include more extensive usage notes than are normal in mainspace entries - you could have, for example, an entry Phrasebook:I need..., with a full explanation of the grammar required. Furius (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A phrasebook is an important tool in learning a language. Survival phrases on language difficulties, emergencies, greetings are all essential. It needs a clean-up, more attention and CFI, though. Appendices are seldom looked at by casual or even permanent editors, so important phrases, even greetings and courtesies in some languages may never become available to users. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests to me that we need to start tidying, reorganising and curating the appendices, not that everything has to be forced into mainspace. Equinox◑22:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without any work nothing happens but how do you get a Khmer or Swahili phrase for "pleased to meet you" into Wiktionary in the first place, if few editors look at appendices when contributing? --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)22:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This entry was deleted and similar ones will be deleted in the future. The vulgar contents itself is not against the goals of a dictionary - vulgar words, abuse need to be known, at least for understanding, like fuck or fuck you. That phrase was not a good phrasebook candidate at all, even though it was fun. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)00:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In order of preference, I think we should: 1) fix it up in the main namespace; 2) move them to Phrasebook: if adding a new namespace is feasible; 3) move to Appendix: as a last resort. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This vote (as it says in the description at the top) is only about removing it from the main namespace. Moving it to the appendix counts as removing it from the main namespace. --WikiTiki8909:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Moving objectionable entries to an appendix or even its own space is counter-productive. Too many useful phrasebook entries are also legitimate dictionary entries, such as greetings for starters. You wouldn't be moving just the objectionable ones, you'd be creating a lot of duplicates. If we have a separate phrasebook, it will be to address the need for fill-in-the-blank type of entries that don't work well under a single heading (if such a project outgrows the appendix), but we should still allow in the main namespace phrasebook entries that target the most universal needs. DAVilla09:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should not be duplicates: a number of phrases should be in the main space and in the phrasebook, true, but in a quite different form: in order to be found efficiently, phrasebook entries should be grouped by topic (a topic = a page). Has one of existing pure phrasebook entries ever been found and read by a reader interested by its contents? I doubt it. Lmaltier (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(This is a non-binding straw poll, so can't produce a formal "decision" equal to that of a vote.) — This unsigned comment was added by Ruakh (talk • contribs) at 02:32, 6 December 2012.
Support The Appendix namespace is not a wastebasket, even though it is commonly mistaken as such. The phrasebook entries should just go. -- Liliana • 18:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Yair rand (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)