Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

Voting on: Removing the following two sentences from WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia section: "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words."

The section before the change, with the planned removal in red:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.

The section after the change:

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.


Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

  1. Support — John Cross (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Equinox ◑ 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. The main removed sentence is of the form "Many places, , are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." It is not significant for places that they qualify for inclusion as these names since they qualify for inclusion as place names; the sentence may lead to the impression in the reader that place names are not welcome unless they are also given names or family names. The 2nd removed sentence is basically a repetition of the 1st sentence in the paragraph. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Droigheann (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support per Dan Polansky. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I agree that the shorter sentence can be deleted, but the fact that place names are unaffected is left unsaid. Shouldn't it be mentioned that they are allowable, providing the entry is not encyclopaedic? Any encyclopaedic entry could be trimmed anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a request to add a sentence. Does the edit proposed by the vote make things worse for place names? Note that place names are in fact regulated by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As another vote on place names has now popped up, I am withdrawing my opposition for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision

Passed: 8-0-0 (100%-0%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia