Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Requests for partial deletion, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Option 4: Wiktionary:Requests for
Requests for partial deletion
- Voting on: Suppose that an editor sees a part of an entry (a language section, or part-of-speech section, or sense, or whatnot) that doesn't seem to him to meet our criteria for inclusion, or that seems to him to be redundant, but he's not sure, and he'd like to start a wide-input discussion about the possibility of removing that part. This vote is about where he should start said discussion.
- Not voting on: This doesn't apply to cases where an editor is requesting verification of a word or sense; in those cases, I think it's clear that Wiktionary:Requests for verification is the correct place.
- Not voting on: This doesn't affect the possibility of having such discussions on the entry's talk-page. This only applies to cases where the editor wants more input than just the people watching that entry.
- Not voting on: Pages outside the main namespace.
- Those caveats out of the way, I'm proposing the following places:
- Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
- Wiktionary:Tea room.
- Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
- Wiktionary:Requests for
reviewrevision — a new project page that (in DAVilla's words) "would be a place of action on definitions when the meanings themselves are not disputed, only their organization."
- The vote is structured as an approval vote; the option with the most support will win. Please feel free to vote in support of multiple options.
- Vote ends: 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Vote started by: —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Purpose of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion; Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#make; Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#with; Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#secular; Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Evo; User talk:Uncle G#WT:RFD; edit summaries at Template:rfd-redundant; Template talk:rfd-redundant; and possibly other places I'm unaware of. (Some of those have more discussion than others.)
Option 1: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion
Support —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Especially for parts of an entry that the editor feels might not meet CFI. —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: RFD is big enough with just deletion requests for pages or entrie language sections. DAVilla 05:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Connel MacKenzie 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC) The archiving scheme matches perfectly, for senses in particular, while it sometimes seems inadequate for complete entries. The centralized, logical place for deletion discussions is, just like RFV for verifications, a single page.
- Support Cynewulf 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Status quo.
- I would argue that very few nominations are made this way, and even so the nomination can be hotly debated, hence this vote. Also given that they almost all come from the same contributor, it's really unfair to characterize this as "status quo".
{{rfd-redundant}}is changing the character of the existing RFD page, and this option would solidify that change. DAVilla 05:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)- You make it sound like rfd-redundant was created yesterday, not six months ago. It's been working fine since then. Why go through the hassle of changing it? I don't see how discussing whether part of an entry is redundant or meets CFI next to discussions about whether a whole entry is sum-of-parts or meets CFI is a significant difference. In fact -- this is exactly parallel to having rfv-sense and rfv go to the same place. Cynewulf 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Six months ago? Wow. And it's been in use for as long, I'd presume? The short life that
{{rfd-sense}}had grew out of confusion that probably wouldn't apply today. Even if it isn't widespread, the intent of the related{{rfd-redundant}}is at least very clear. I have to retract what I said about a single contributor though, if only because I realize I'd made a similar sense-type RFD request with apple pie. And what a headache that was. Oh, regret! - Anyways, I'm glad if I led you to give the vote more thought overall. DAVilla 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Six months ago? Wow. And it's been in use for as long, I'd presume? The short life that
- You make it sound like rfd-redundant was created yesterday, not six months ago. It's been working fine since then. Why go through the hassle of changing it? I don't see how discussing whether part of an entry is redundant or meets CFI next to discussions about whether a whole entry is sum-of-parts or meets CFI is a significant difference. In fact -- this is exactly parallel to having rfv-sense and rfv go to the same place. Cynewulf 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would argue that very few nominations are made this way, and even so the nomination can be hotly debated, hence this vote. Also given that they almost all come from the same contributor, it's really unfair to characterize this as "status quo".
- Support — Beobach972 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (— Beobach972 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
- Support —Saltmarsh 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support If it is obviously bilge to everyone then it won't survive RFD. Williamsayers79 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Option 2: Wiktionary:Tea room
- Support —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Especially for parts of an entry that the editor feels might be redundant. —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -- This would seriously change the tenor of the tea room, from a place of thoughtful discussion about word-subtleties, into a keep/delete melee area. --Connel MacKenzie 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support These sorts of questions are sometimes dealt with a heavier hand than is necessary. Although there will always be a gray area and some dispute, most contributors, if they don't have an appreciation of the finer distinctions, can be trusted not to make revisions that collapse them. DAVilla 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Option 3: Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup
- Support —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Especially for parts of an entry that the editor feels might be redundant. —RuakhTALK 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment RFC may be appropriate when it's a true cleanup request, e.g. when it's obvious that someone went on a hashing synonyms rampage or what have you, but in that case it's almost always easier to just clean it up yourself. DAVilla 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with DAVilla — if it's obviously a cleanup issue, it goes to WT:RFC (but/and in that case, it won't be tagged with
{{RFD}}, now will it?). — Beobach972 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support —Saltmarsh 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Option 4: Wiktionary:Requests for review revision
- Support DAVilla 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Review was an older concept that I was trying to adapt; I think "revision" makes more sense here. DAVilla 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I didn't get what you meant before, but now I understand. :-) —RuakhTALK 05:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain
- I'll pretend "abstain" means comments for now. I admit I didn't participate in the Beer Parlour thread, but, looking over this, I think the vote is a bit rushed and maybe misses the point. The question that needs addressing is not where to discuss disputed senses (that's already clear enough, usually) but whether disputed senses that don't encompass an entire page (and therefore don't require an admin to delete anything) still need a community review of some sort, or whether they can be simply edited out by the editor that wishes to do so. If this vote doesn't even include the option to remove the bad sense on your own judgment, I think we need to go back to the discussion stage. Dmcdevit·t 10:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misread the description of the vote, which makes it quite clear that this is about cases where the editor is "not sure, and he'd like to start a wide-input discussion about the possibility of removing that part". When that's not the case, he should of course be bold. It even clarifies that it doesn't remove the possibility of talk-page discussion, if he's not sure about the removal but doesn't think a wide-input discussion is necessary. —RuakhTALK 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they can always be edited by a contributor, but given that a contributor's reputation may depend on such edits, especially incorrect or controversial ones for which they may be reprimanded, this is an entirely applicable scenario and appropriate question. Analogously, as a sysop would like to have some basis for making a deletion decision. In both cases the collective discussion will help keep us all in accord. DAVilla 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Abstain EncycloPetey 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I don't quite understand the subtleties of this vote, but I'll trust that the people voting do. --EncycloPetey 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Decision
- With 6 voters in support and 2 not in support (including an abstention), option 1 passes. Any particular section of an entry may be discussed for removal in WT:RFD. The other options each had only 2 voters in suppot. DAVilla 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)