Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility"

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility". In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility", but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility" in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility" you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility" will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/Removing "Flexibility", as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Removing "Flexibility"

Voting on:

Removing the section WT:EL#Flexibility. (diff)

Flexibility
While the information below may represent some kind of “standard” form, it is not a set of rigid rules. You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them. Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that. Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct. Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas.

Disclaimer:

  • Removing this section does not mean opposing all that is being said in the text. It's possible that some of the information is true but would be better placed somewhere else.

Rationale:

  1. "While the information below may represent some kind of “standard” form, it is not a set of rigid rules."
    • This is a meta-rule, not a layout rule, and could be part of a help page concerning how rigid are the rules in our policies.
  2. "You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them."
    • Same as above.
  3. "Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that."
  4. "Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct."
    • Arguably, this sentence could be added to any policy without changing the content in any way.
  5. "Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas."

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - -sche (discuss) 05:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Equinox ◑ 01:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk). The flexibility section is my favorite one. Our actual practice is not to enforce WT:ELE in a rigid manner as if it were a statute of a country. That is a good practice. Rigid enforcement of WT:ELE would probably prevent many recent innovations that turned out to be supported by a supermajority, including the use of {{ux}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose AFAIK, this is our only text analogous to Wikipedia's Ignore all rules, our only text confirming that we are willing to prefer reason to wikilawyering. I find comments like "this rule could be part of a help page" meaningless, because (a) it would then be argued "that's just a help page text and can't override real rules" and (b) I don't believe for a split second they ever would be put there. Once this paragraph is gone, it's gone for good; even if somebody made the attempt, there'd be always enough literalists to block its reintroduction. --Droigheann (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This is important. Tharthan (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The text is not perfect, but should be improved, not removed. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain In general, I support the notion of flexibility, but I think this is poorly written and contains unnecessary information. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    User:Wikitiki89: I agree that the current wording is probably not the best and should be trimmed, but, to me, it is essential to have at least one sentence in WT:ELE stating that it is not a set of ridig rules. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Just on the side of failing 6–4–1 (60%), assuming we're using a two-thirds margin (a fact which doesn't seem to be written in the header of this page). This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No consensus is what we usually write in such a situation.
For the record, at least one editor disputes the 2/3 threshold as too low. I support the 2/3 threshold in general with exceptions requiring a higher threshold unspecified and I saw multiple other people support that threshold. I think I saw someone even support 60% threshold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia