Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections

CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections

 * Voting on: Updating WT:CFI to let terms be linked to pertinent sections where they are defined for CFI purposes. In particular:
 * In section General rules, linking the word "term" in "including a term if it is attested and idiomatic" to CFI section Terms.
 * In section General rules, linking the words "attested" and "idiomatic" to CFI sections Attestation and Idiomaticity rather than to mainspace entries.
 * In section Attestation, linking the phrase "conveying meaning" to CFI section Conveying meaning.
 * In section Attestation, linking the word "independent" to CFI section Independent.
 * In section Attestation, linking the phrase "different requirements" to CFI section Number of citations.
 * Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/July
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/CFI - letting terms be linked to pertinent sections

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But we could have just edited CFI without a vote, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the future, I support editing CFI and EL without a vote, when the edit simply links a term to a section in the policy. This does not change the regulations in any way. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -Xbony2 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  and, for the record, I don't think this kind of change requires a vote. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  and add my voice to saying that this type of non-substantive change should not require a vote. This, that and the other (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  per my rationale linked above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , and yes, not worth a vote. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * : seems quite commonsense. — Eru·tuon 08:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Passes unanimously. 7-0-0 (100%-0%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)