Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification

< Wiktionary:Votes

CFI and idiomaticity clarification edit

Voting on:

Editing the second sentence of WT:CFI#General rule.

Current text:

This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic.

Proposed text:

This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.

Rationale:

  • Adding CFI protection for single words.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support edit

  1.   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Equinox ◑ 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support, but as I mentioned on the talk page, I prefer to transition away from the word idiomatic in favor of non-SOP. Also, I don't why we are specifying that attestation must come before, when these are really parallel criteria and neither precedes the other. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Either one is logically consistent with our requirements, and is clearly stated, so I see no problem. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't get what you're referring to. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Helps make it unequivocal that single words are included if attested. Admittedly, the same can be read into current WT:CFI#Idiomaticity but with a bit more effort: the term "expression" used there has to be understood as "word or phrase", the implied ", if any" has to be inserted after "of its separate components", and the word "separate" needs to be emphasized and properly understood so that "clever" and "-ness" in "cleverness" are considered to be not separate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Jberkel (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Weak oppose — The proposed text should read “This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that condition is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic. ” (added word underlined). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Decision edit

Passed: 9-1-0 (90%-10%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a mistake in the vote: it said "edit the first sentence" but it was the second sentence. Still, the vote passed and I edited (the first sentence) in that CFI section accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI_and_idiomaticity_clarification&oldid=41660963"