Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion
I think we need to back away from the idea that every small uncontroversial improvement to a policy page requires a vote. I don't think that idea was ever approved by a vote, and it's detrimental in that (1) it makes it harder to follow the votes that actually matter, (2) it deters numerous small improvements that can greatly improve a page over time, (3) it promotes dissonance between policy pages and actual enforced policy (since, despite our best and worst intentions, the policy we enforce evolves faster than the policy we document), (4) it shows the rest of WMF that we are really incapable of functioning as a wiki. —RuakhTALK21:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Keep AKA oppose deletion. Creating the vote was no work at all. While (1) is true, I find (2), (3) and (4) implausible. Performing minor changes to ELE without a vote does not fix the problem of outdatedness of policies, exactly because minor changes are just minor. For those who love to change ELE without a vote, there is Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained/Editable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Keep, per Dan Polansky's "Quickly started and quickly completed via a lean process that is at the same time formally clean." By the way, the idea of changing the rule from "It should not be modified without a VOTE" to "It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE." was voted in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing vote requirements for policy changes. --Daniel22:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Daniel Carrero that that vote stands until such a time as it is overturned. Having said that, it failed by less than 1%, I think a rerun would have a legitimate chance of success. Ergo keep this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Keep. For better or for worse, this seems to be the policy. (I voted for it, too, in the above-linked-to vote. So sue me.) While I'm in favor of ignoring that policy in this case (which is why I suggested that the ELE change this vote is over should go through without a vote), if someone wants to stand on ceremony then I think he has the right to call for a vote. (Incidentally, note that a number of organizations have in their bylaws that certain votes can be voice acclaim but that any one voting member can by requesting it require a secret ballot.)—msh210℠ (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I . . . I actually don't think I should have done it, and it's to your credit that you didn't think of it. There should probably be a statute of limitation on closing dubious votes; or at least, the vote should be re-opened for new members of the community to add their votes (and old members of the community to change their votes). If anyone undoes my having-passed it, I'll understand. I just got really annoyed with the comments above that implied that the vote had failed and the VOTE-for-everything wording thereby sort-of-approved. (This is probably also how Dan Polansky feels when he tries to remove something from CFI that was never voted on and seemingly never had consensus, when there's also no clear consensus for removing it.) —RuakhTALK22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I seem to think I have considered it in the past, and not done it. Still, I don't think you were wrong to do it per se, as there are three options; close it as passed, close it as failed, never close it ever. To me, they're all equally bad. Does anyone have a preference for which is the least bad? I lean towards Ruakh's solution of closing it as passed. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
This is why with one vote I created, I stipulated a minimum pass percentage of 60%, which was removed (justifiably) because when there's a numerical requirement, there's really no room for debate whether something has passed or not. The system of letting whichever admin gets there first to decide whether a vote has passed or failed is madness, and I'm amazed it hasn't been challenged before. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Did you maybe mean 2012-03 rather than 2009-03? Because it seems sort of strange to bring over the date from the old vote, but nothing else. —RuakhTALK23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fixed and edited my message. "2009-03" was in the name of my 2012 vote by mistake. Thanks for letting me know. --Daniel23:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
In the time since I proposed my own vote on minor policy changes, I've come to share the opinion of Ruakh and Davilla that votes on minor changes are tedious, overly bureaucratic and unnecessary. Still, I fundamentally oppose RFD-"votes" on the deletion of active policy votes... that just seems like taking a shovel and digging deeper into the rabbit hole. I think starting a new {{policy}} vote is a good idea. - -sche(discuss)00:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
