Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-01/Final sections of the CFI
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Yair rand in topic a minor point
vote structure edit
I do not anticipate that voters will wish to vote contingently, wishing to retain/remove one section if or only if the other is retained/removed, so this seems okay. Does anyone differ?—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Meaning edit
Does everyone believe that removing these sections doesn't change the meaning of CFI? I'd like to have consensus that this is a purely editorial change before going forward.--Prosfilaes 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, obviously it changes the meaning of the content of the page [[WT:CFI]]: we're not proposing to remove meaningless words. I think what you're asking is whether it changes the criteria for inclusion, whether it changes the (theoretical) list of inclusible words and senses. ASFAICT the answer is no, it doesn't.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it does change the meaning of the CFI, in that it removes discursive caveats. A Constitutional amendment that says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not going to be interpreted the exact same way as one that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", no matter how convincingly it is argued that the first clause merely justifies the second and has no legal meaning of its own. But then, I also don't see why we need to have consensus otherwise; we need consensus to remove them, but not consensus on why we're removing them. —RuakhTALK 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it better for us to be all on the same page, when making a change to CFI, so as to avoid argument later about what it meant. If I think that people are going to interpret it as a real change to the document I'll probably vote against it, which is why I'd like to see that people don't think that before going forward. That's a personal desire, not a project mandate.--Prosfilaes 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it does change the meaning of the CFI, in that it removes discursive caveats. A Constitutional amendment that says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not going to be interpreted the exact same way as one that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", no matter how convincingly it is argued that the first clause merely justifies the second and has no legal meaning of its own. But then, I also don't see why we need to have consensus otherwise; we need consensus to remove them, but not consensus on why we're removing them. —RuakhTALK 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
a minor point edit
There is a horizontal bar above the "Issues to consider" header. Since there's no mention of it here, I'll assume it stays, which leaves the bar alone at the very end of the page. This looks very odd and something should be done about it. -- Prince Kassad 05:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's assumed that if the header goes, so does the bar. --Yair rand (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)