Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Attestation vs. the slippery slope 2

Voting on:

Removing the section WT:CFI#Issues to consider completely, including the subsection WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slope.

This is a repetition of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Attestation vs the slippery slope.

Rationale:

• This is an essay arguing against the use of the argument that "adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms". It is akin to Wikipedia's Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. These are not criteria for inclusion. If these items are true and supported by the community, they can be kept somewhere else.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote extended to: 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/December#Attestation vs. the slippery slope
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-02/Attestation vs. the slippery slope 2

Previous vote:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Attestation vs the slippery slope

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  --Dan Polansky (talk) As before at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Attestation vs the slippery slope: The section is unnecessary and misleading for its use of terms "common use" and "general use". But let me consider a weaker proposal: removing the bullet items, and thus keeping only the following in "Attestation vs. the slippery slope" section:

   There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form.

   Do any of the opposers support this proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I would support that. --WikiTiki89 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

   This is OK. --Tropylium (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

   I am in favour of this as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

   Support. I like having examples, but I guess the way it's worded now is misleadng. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   I support this as well. (Noting this after I was pinged, below.) - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

   For the avoidance of doubt: I support this too. --Droigheann (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

   Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

4. Support. As has been noted in previous discussions, pig Latin terms etc don't have to be in "common use", they just have to meet CFI (they may be attested only thrice and thus quite rare). - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
6. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Korn (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I think this is helpful in deciding whether to include a term, not only as "argument not to use for deletion". Maybe the section should be reworded and renamed, but not removed. --WikiTiki89 03:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose insofar as at least "each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form" is still a (meta-)criterion for inclusion. (But Dan's proposal above to only remove the bulleted list would be a good compromise.) --Tropylium (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose DCDuring TALK 15:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I found this helpful in understanding CFI and what belonged in Wiktionary when I first signed up. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   @Andrew Sheedy: What do you think of Dan Polansky's suggestion above? --WikiTiki89 16:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose I think it is useful. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain I think the text is partly helpful per WikiTiki89 and partly misleading per Dan Polansky. Dan's proposal to just leave the two initial sentences looks good. Droigheann (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Abstain I agree with Droigheann: reducing it to what Dan proposed seems like a good idea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
3. But I support Dan P.'s proposal.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Vote extended by one month. Current results: 6-4-1. Like in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Removing "Quotations"#Decision, this vote did not meet the threshold of 2/3 but was close enough to it. According to @Dan Polansky in that vote, "at least two votes were closed as passed with the ratio at or below the 2/3 threshold, and at least one editor disputes the 2/3 threshold as too low". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  Instead of extending the vote, why not just create a new one for Dan's new proposal? --WikiTiki89 17:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  Because I promised I wouldn't make new votes for 3 months after I created many votes at once and some people complained. In retrospect, one could argue it was a silly promise, but I'm gonna stick with it. (Or one could say that I did the right thing by promising that, whatever.) You can create another vote if you want.

  Extending the vote made sense to me, because I still like very much the idea of removing that paragraph completely, and most voters are supporting it, (60%, not actually able to pass but close enough) but I don't mind if people want to close this vote right now. If the other vote were created right now, I'd like it to have both options, "Remove the paragraph completely" and "Replace it by (that shorter version)". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  I like extending the vote, but you may be accused by some of fishing for results or something of the sort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  I think my proposal has passed via this vote; I don't think it needs a separate vote. Anyone disagrees? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  No problem with me. I am pinging all the participants of this vote to make sure. (@I'm so meta even this acronym, -sche, Xbony2, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Tropylium, DCDuring, Andrew Sheedy, Droigheann) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, it seems to be dissatisfaction with the no-consensus result of the vote as originally scheduled and formulated that has motivated the arbitrary extension of the vote without any extenuating circumstances. Now we are creating the impression that deadlines are not to be taken seriously. Are there other parts of due process that are subject to arbitrary revision too?

The only honest thing to do is to start over with a better proposal. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

How much process is really "due" here? Is the notion that Wiktionary policy updates have to be decided by vote itself anything more than a community practice? I agree that the discussion of this vote seems to have ended up leaning in support of Dan's proposal, and that this seems sufficient for updating the policy. --Tropylium (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I just work here. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely in support of that. DCDuring is being ridiculous; as usual, he dislikes having frequent votes, but proposes that more unnecessary votes be made. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think User:Dan Polansky's proposal passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Which makes the extension unnecessary. --WikiTiki89 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Normally I'd say a proposal during the vote (which I'll call "subproposal" for brevity) cannot be said to have passed. Consider someone who looks at every vote page, saw this one, decided not to vote, never returned to see the subproposal, and would have opposed it. Saying the subproposal passed ignores that user. However, in this case, the subproposal (Dan P.'s) is a weaker form of the main proposal, removing less from CFI than the main proposal proposes to, and I think it's fair to say that almost every use who would oppose Dan P.'s proposal would oppose this vote also. Therefore, it is fair to tally up support for Dan P.'s proposal. I mention all this so that this vote is not used as precedent for future passage of subproposals that aren't weaker forms of their main proposals. (Also pinging DCDuring, since this is partially in reply to what he wrote, above.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can this vote be done yet? -Xbony2 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

  An admin action is required to update CFI; I am not an admin. Can some admin please update CFI according to the result of this vote, which AFAICT shows consensual support for the proposal that I made? Or if admins feel uncomfortable about that, I can start a new vote--I don't really mind either way. It will be more hassle, but it will get things done. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me go ahead and close this vote:

• 7-5-3 (58.3%-41.7%) no consensus - concerning the original proposal of removing the CFI section entirely.
• 9 votes in support of Dan Polansky's proposal (counting Dan Polansky's proposal as a support vote and also my late vote).

Dan Polansky's proposal passes per the discussion above. I updated WT:CFI. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, the supporters of my proposal are Dan Polansky, WikiTiki89, Tropylium, Μετάknowledge, Andrew Sheedy, -sche, Droigheann, I.S.M.E.T.A., and Daniel Carrero and msh210. The supporters of the main proposal not stating an express support for my proposal are Xbony2 and Korn. The opposers who do not state a support for my proposal are DCDuring and SemperBlotto. No support or oppose is discernible for msh210. Counting those who lack express support for the subproposal as abstains, this yields 9:2:3 = 81% 10:2:2 = 83%. On the very pessimistic scenario that User:Xbony2 and User:Korn support the main proposal but in fact oppose my proposal, we obtain 9:4:1 = 69% 10:4:0 = 71%, still a pass.--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In the Abstain section, msh210 said "I support Dan P.'s proposal." —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right; my mistake. I made corrections above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)