Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-06/CFI leading sentence

CFI leading sentence

Voting on: Expanding the leading sentence of WT:CFI as follows:

Proposal 1:

As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include basically “all words in all languages”.

Proposal 2:

As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include basically “all words in all languages”, subject to the following criteria.

Proposal 3:

As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”, subject to the following criteria.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/June#All words in all languages
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-06/CFI leading sentence

Support proposal 1

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Support As for "basically" being too informal, I did not know that, not being a native speaker. However, what the word basically does, being informal or not, is that it turns a false statement to a true statement. Clarity is not at stake, accuracy is. The only thing that can save the sentence is the present use of quotation marks; that suggests that what is in the quotation marks is to be taken with grain of salt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

   Here are a few synonyms of "basically" we can consider using: essentially, fundamentally, mainly, in essence, substantially, chiefly, primarily, mostly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, that is how I read the quotation marks. There's nothing else they can mean, unless we are actually quoting somebody else. Equinox ◑ 13:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

   Will this meaning of quotation marks be obvious to the international audience for which English is not the first language? Is not the use of quotation marks for the purpose even more informal than the use of the word "basically"? It certainly is very inexplicit, to my eye. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1

1. Oppose I don't like the "basically". Too colloquial, wrong register IMO. Equinox ◑ 12:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Both restatements add words without adding any value. - DaveRoss 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose Makes it sound worse without significantly improving clarity. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose, for the reasons others have stated. It basically ;) restates the sentence without clearly changing its signification / the scope of what is included. I agree with Equinox that the tone sounds subtly off, too (although that's subtle and possibly subjective). - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose. "Basically" sounds carelessly imprecise to me. Germyb (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. Plus "all words in all languages" is supposed to have a catchphrase kind of feel to it, and adding "basically" completely eliminates that and makes it sound cringy. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose See rationale under proposal 3 below. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose --WikiTiki89 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose as slangy and per my proposal-3 vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on proposal 1

Support proposal 2

Oppose proposal 2

1. Oppose I don't like the "basically". Too colloquial, wrong register IMO. Equinox ◑ 12:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Both restatements add words without adding any value. - DaveRoss 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose The word "basically" makes it sound worse without significantly improving clarity. If we took out the word "basically", I would be okay with the other part of this proposal. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Granger. I think the existing sentence is fine as an "aspirational" slogan which is obviously restricted by the following sections of the page, but I wouldn't mind adding the "subject to the following criteria" part, as a way of seguing into the rest of the page. - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose, although I would be okay with it if we eliminated "basically". Germyb (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

   @Germyb, you should vote in support of the new proposal below then. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

6. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose See rationale under proposal 3 below. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose --WikiTiki89 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose as slangy and per my proposal-3 vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on proposal 2

Support proposal 3

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Equinox ◑ 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Support, with the understanding that if there are criteria located elsewhere (not strictly "following" the sentence above and on the same page as it) which are currently in force governing the inclusion of words, this change will not be used to argue that they no longer apply. For example, Wiktionary and Wikimedia policies (and applicable laws) against copyright violations have been deemed to prevent en.Wikt from including overly large portions of certain constructed languages which originate in copyrighted works, like Klingon, although these policies are not located on WT:CFI (which never mentions the word "copyright" and only says to "have lexicon in the Appendix namespace" for Klingon) but rather elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Support, since it is true that there are restrictions on which words we intend to include. Germyb (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Support --WikiTiki89 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Helps reinforce that "all words in all languages" is just a slogan. I would like to see a stronger reinforcement, but there may be no consensus on one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Support — Eru·tuon 17:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 3

1. Oppose. Adds words without adding value. - DaveRoss 18:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose As has been noted, it’s meant to be an idealistic aspirational slogan, like Wikipedia’s “sum of all human knowledge”. The intent is clear, in practice (here and on Wikipedia) everyone knows that practicality must temper this ideal with restrictions, CFI is in effect one way or the other, and so per TheDaveRoss it “adds words without adding value”. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Vorziblix.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on proposal 3

1. Abstain. I don't think it's necessary—I think the current sentence is fine as an "aspirational" slogan, as -sche put it. But like I said above, I'm okay with this proposal. (Should we have an entry for be okay with/be OK with? It doesn't seem to be covered by any of the senses at OK.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   More or less synonymous with be fine with, be all right with. Perhaps OK needs the extra sense. Equinox ◑ 16:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Decision

Proposal 1 fails 2–10 (17%). Proposal 2 fails 0–10 (0%). Proposal 3 passes 9–3 (75%) and will be implemented forthwith.​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)