Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Remove "Place names" section of WT:CFI

Remove "Place names" section of WT:CFI
Voting on:


 * Undoing the result of Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2; or, equivalently,
 * Removing the ===Place names=== section of WT:CFI and modifying the ===Names of specific entities=== section not to describe place names as an exceptional case covered by that section; or, equivalently,
 * No longer allowing or forbidding place-name entries on the basis of what information they initially include, but rather, leaving it open for future discussion which (if any) place names warrant inclusion and which (if any) do not.

(Note that the exact textual change to the ===Names of specific entities=== section will depend on whether this vote passes, but should be obvious in either case.)


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote created: —Ruakh TALK 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Remove &quot;Place names&quot; section of WT:CFI
 * See also:
 * Criteria for inclusion and Criteria for inclusion
 * Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2
 * Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Ruakh TALK 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Yair rand (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support DCDuring TALK  18:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. It was too complex. I assume that normal CFI will apply to placenames. The meaning of a word should never be a reason for excluding it. Lmaltier 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this vote passes, this is what is going to apply to geographic names: "Many names of specific entities should be excluded while some should be included. ... there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." --Dan Polansky 18:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support for the same reason I initially opposed the new rule. DAVilla 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  It was bad anyway, since its actual effect was „All placenames are allowed“, which is clearly not intended. -- Prince Kassad 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly to you maybe... I thought that was the intention, to allow all place names. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Placenames are just words (or multi-word terms) and the normal CFI rules should apply. SemperBlotto 12:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC) With such little support from people, it will be quite difficult to enforce. Even when in was "in force", people still didn't want place names to actually be deleted it seems.
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Venere 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC). I prefer controversial rules to no rules at all. It's not like the age of 'no consensus at all' was a golden age for us. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose along the same lines as Mglovesfun. - -sche 08:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC) per what I said in the BP. I would fully support this rule with only a few modifications: allow alternative spellings and derived terms to be counted as "information about grammar" and make it allow the etymologies of multiple-word place names that aren't intuitive like Phnom Penh.
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose.  Without this section, it's all up to whoever happens to notice and vote on the rfd page: "many place names should be excluded while some should be included". The policy had a good effect on the recent edits of User:Morkai5, see WT:RFD. The policy can be fixed to count two non-identical translations as meeting the requirements, and to include demonyms and synonyms. Or the first paragraph could be changed into something like this:"Names of common important/well-known places meet the CFI by themselves, but no entry can be deleted on the basis of insignificance of the place if it contains two of the following: ..". And we should decide to have a period of grace for entries created before the vote passed. (It seems pointless to create a third vote yet while two others are going on.)--Makaokalani 17:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Dan Polansky 14:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC) The proposal I have made in Votes/pl-2011-02/Relaxing CFI for geographic names seems better to me. I may switch to oppose, after seeing arguments and votes of other people. --Dan Polansky 14:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes (?) at 9-3-1 or 75% &mdash;Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Made it so. DAVilla 03:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)