. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Why not, as in the previous vote, modify the wording of template:policy, rather than only two policies? The vote text can explicitly state that it affects the requirements for editing CFI and ELE, too. For example:
- Deciding what the wording of
{{policy}} and the requirements for editing WT:CFI end WT:ELE are.
- -sche (discuss) 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Mainly, because people ignore
{{policy}} to edit WT:AJA and whatnot without VOTEing.
- Apparently, rules for editing WT:CFI and WT:ELE is what matters the most, at this point. Rules for other policies can be discussed later, especially if/when the results of this vote set a precedent. --Daniel 00:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- To clarify: the text atop AJA says that "it is a policy think tank, working to develop a formal policy." It does not say anything about discussion or voting being required, or recommended, before editing. So no "ignoring" of
{{policy}} is necessary for such edits. —RuakhTALK 00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- When I sent my message above, about five minutes ago, AJA was using
{{policy}}, like CFI and ELE. --Daniel 00:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Right; sorry, I changed the rug out from under you, Ruakh/Daniel... I fixed WT:AJA as soon as I saw Daniel's comment here. - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Now that WT:AJA is Think Thank, only these other policies supposedly "should not be modified without a VOTE".
- I'm following -sche's lead and replacing
{{Policy-SO}} by {{policy-TT}} in all but CFI, ELE, AGF and PROTO. Now, the ones I edited this way are Think Tank too instead of uneditable, because they have been edited without VOTEs anyway.
- Since, as I said, we as a community have historically ignored that warning for some pages, it seems too much responsibility (not to say unnecessary) to have this vote encompass all present policies and conceivable future policies.
- I'm editing this vote to remove "edit policies like WT:CFI and WT:ELE" and replace it by merely "edit CFI and ELE" as it was before. If, in the future, people decide that WT:BOT should become uneditable, the exact text can be said in the other vote (like Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-13/Make WT:BOT uneditable) and it probably would copy whatever CFI and ELE uses anyway. --Daniel 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Now I edited my last message, above, to add WT:BRAND to the list. --Daniel 11:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Voting on minor changes is not unbearably tedious. Speeding up minor changes of policy pages by requiring no voting altogether (as contrasted to 7 days or even 3 days vote) cannot solve the problem of outdated policies, as the problem consists above all in substantial differences between policy pages and common practice.
As an example, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Patronymics_and_stylistic_edits_of_CFI is a perfect way to go about fixing minor things, IMHO.
If an edit is very minor by the estimation of the creator of the vote, he can set up the vote to run for 7 days instead of a month.
IMHO voting would work much better if people stopped depicting votes as evil and too bureaucratic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I see why you are opposing the option 2 ("It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE.")
- However, my interpretation is that you would oppose the two options because you said "Early oppose"; and "Oppose" is a votable section.
- If my interpretation os wrong, please correct it. Otherwise, please explain better why you would oppose the option 1 ("It should not be modified without a VOTE") as well.--Daniel 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Option 1 ("It should not be modified without a VOTE.") is status quo, which I support. I have failed to notice there are two options, possibly in part because the real effect of this vote is to propose option 2 against status quo. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for clarifying your position. Since Ruakh said (in this RFDO discussion) "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.", I wanted to give the chance for people to explicitly approve the status quo, even if the status quo does not need that to continue in use. --Daniel 11:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Just a note on the intended meaning of the current reading "Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE": It follows that only changes that are insubstantial and uncontested are exempt from the requirement of a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, and that was the wording in the earlier vote, too. That vote was apparently so contested that I doubt we could pass "Any substantial and contested changes...", but I wonder about changing the wording to "Any substantial changes...", because as it is, any one editor could contest every change, citing e.g. a belief that everything should be voted upon, and force votes unless the community decided to ignore such an editor, and that seems like the thing this vote is designed to obviate. In other words, as good an idea as this vote's passage seems (to me) to be, I must now question whether or not it would actually accomplish anything. - -sche (discuss) 06:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The thing is, even insubstantial changes (those that do not change the effect of the policy) can be controversial and should IMHO not be done without vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-12/curly_quotes_in_WT:ELE. I really think that voting on every change is not only the most simple way of doing things but also one whose overheads are justified by the benefit of simplicity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Fair point. (Who would have thought straight vs curly quotation marks would be controversial? Not I/me. Yet it was.) - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I disagree; I think it actually proves that Dan is wrong. I could also start a vote to change the type of quotation marks we should use in the entry for yes, and that vote would be just as divided — but it would not be evidence that all changes to yes should require a vote. (That said: I'm actually fine with requiring a vote for even minor changes if they're controversial. Such controversy can be unearthed either by a talk-page discussion, or by a bold-and-revert cycle. But this is hardly a reason to require a vote for minor changes for fear that they might be controversial.) By the way, if the community decided that minor changes don't require a vote unless someone contests them, and some editor made a point of contesting every change in order to unilaterally impose the communally-rejected rule that all changes require a vote, then that editor would most likely get blocked as disruptive. But I can't imagine anyone doing that; we're one of the more cantankerous WMF projects, but we do have some sense of community. —RuakhTALK 18:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- That's also a fair point. A bold-and-revert process (one person is bold, others revert if they disagree with the change), as on other wikis, seems like a good approach. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
If something is controversial and contested, ideally we should discuss and reach an agreement to make it as uncontroversial and uncontested as possible, right?
Votes work better for things uncontroversial and uncontested, as they simply serve to codify what people have already agreed on.
Relatedly, here are some examples of votes that passed with a beautiful unanimity:
--Daniel 13:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply