Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Patronymics and stylistic edits of CFI

< Wiktionary:Votes

Patronymics and stylistic edits of CFI edit

  • Change:

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

    To this:

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

  • Change the header “Terms” to be broadly interpreted to Terms.
  • Change * Proverbs to * Proverbs. (with a dot) to match the punctuation of the items around it.
  • Remove the hidden comment <!-- removed: blogs and -->.
  • Change to merit its own page the formatting of such a page to to merit its own page, the formatting of such a page (with a comma).
  • Remove one of the two lines of whitespace after "These languages include Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish (the first three do have ISO 639-3 codes)."
  • Standardise the use of spaces in subject headers by removing the spaces between the subject header text and the equals-signs in the minority of headers which currently have such spaces (Names, Company names, Brand names, Given and family names, Names of specific entities, Issues to consider, Attestation vs. the slippery slope).
  • Change === Genealogic content === to ===Genealogical content=== (i.e. remove whitespace and change to a more common word).
  • Remove the horizontal rules (----) before the Names and Issues to consider sections. (These are the only horizontal rules in the document.)
  • Remove:

    The status of patronymics has not been settled.

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support edit

  1.   Support Liliana • 05:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Dan Polansky 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Above all, I support that patronymics are included when attested. --Dan Polansky 08:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support — I also support changing WT:CFI so that it consistently uses typographic apostrophes and quotation marks, which was suggested by -sche on the talk page. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support EncycloPetey 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support, though I think it says something bad about this project that even such minor changes are considered to require a vote. —RuakhTALK 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting on minor changes is good. It is much better to vote on minor changes than to argue about and define what is and what is not a minor change. A vote that contains minor changes can run only for 14 days, or even for 7 days. --Dan Polansky (talk)
    That isn't even the worst. People even argued that correcting a blatantly wrong figure requires a month-long vote. -- Liliana • 12:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one argued that "correcting a blatantly wrong figure requires a month-long vote" (italics mine), only that it requires some vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support —Internoob 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain DAVilla 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Far too tedious for consideration.[reply]
  2.   Abstain --Daniel 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about Remove the "See also" section and move "* Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Sourced policies" into the References section.
    Why would we do that? Why is the References section better than the See also section, especially for a vote that applies to the whole policy? Would the same section be removed from WT:ELE as well, I suppose? If Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Sourced policies is moved to the References section, would it refer to which sentence, if any? Please don't tell me we would have these meta-references at the bottom, for example. --Daniel 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for moving it to the References section is that "See also" suggests it's another policy of ours (putting a link to WT:ELE in the See also section might not be a bad idea), when it fact it is merely the vote that established that we should have link our policy-bits to the votes that effected them. The references section seemed to me like an appropriate place to put it. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

11-0-2 (100%) - Passes. --Daniel 12:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Patronymics_and_stylistic_edits_of_CFI&oldid=16511371"