Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections

Rationale

For terms "attested" and "idiomatic", linking to mainspace is confusing since CFI gives its own operationalized definition that does not follow from the general meanings of the words.

For other terms proposed to be linked, it is convenient for the reader to see immediately that the terms are defined elsewhere in CFI, and to be able to get there in one click. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

About linking from CFI to this vote

If this vote passes, because this is a minor edit, I suggest not adding a reference to this vote 5 times in each linked term. Just linking the vote in the edit summary is enough IMO. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a reference is not needed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need this vote?

Can't we do this without a vote? I can't imagine it being controversial. This does not change the text in anyway and only makes the page more navigable. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that, to me, this seems to be a no brainer. But you never know. The vote does no harm. The most work consisted in finding the courage to bother the community with this, and making a specific write-up. The rest is cheap, if you ask me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The downside is that it sets a precedent that makes it look like these kinds of changes require a vote. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose that voters say "Support; for the record, I don't think this kind of change requires a vote". This will provide objective evidence that the voters actually thought this did not require a vote. And that will handle the precent issue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)