Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Independence

Independence

 * Voting on: Changing Criteria for inclusion from this:  This is meant to exclude multiple references that draw on each other. Where Wikipedia has an article on a given subject, and that article is mirrored by an external site the use of certain words on the mirror site would not be independent. It is quite common to find that material on one site is readily traced to another. Similarly, the same quote will often occur verbatim in separate sources. While the sources may be independent of each other, the usages in question are clearly not.  The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning.   to this:   This serves to prevent double-counting of usages that are not truly distinct. Roughly speaking, we generally consider two uses of a term to be "independent" if they are in different sentences by different people, and to be non-independent if: one is a verbatim or near-verbatim quotation of the other; orboth are verbatim or near-verbatim quotations or translations of a single original source; orboth are by the same author. If two or more usages are not independent of each other, then only one of them can be used for purposes of attestation.
 * Vote starts: 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Vote created: —Ruakh TALK 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour archive/2011/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour archive/2011/October
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Independence

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  Good one. I was wondering before why the Independence section makes so little sense; this is a much needed improvement. -- Liliana • 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dan Polansky 08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC) --Dan Polansky 08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. Big improvement on the previous version. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Daniel 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) A definite improvement.
 * 7) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support . A big improvement. I only have two minor disagreements: the title should remain "Independence", not "Independent", and verbatim should remain wikified. What was your motive for changing those? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For "independent" vs "independence", see Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Independence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The de-linkifying of was an oversight on my part. Unfortunately, we've reached a level of bureaucracy that makes it difficult to correct such oversights. :-/   —Ruakh TALK 15:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I continue to support if it's undelinkified. Otoh, I prefer it unundelinkified like the rest of the page. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Equinox ◑ 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  An improvement, although the wording could be simpler. See Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Independence —Michael Z. 2012-03-11 21:35 z 
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  EncycloPetey 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC) although the idea behind this change is one I support, there are specific problems enough that I must oppose because this needs rewording.  The new wording relies too heavily on one being a quotation of the other, and that isn't always the case.  Furthermore, it does not cover the possibility that both items being considered derive from a third option not included.  If we can reword the proposed new text to handle these situations smoothly, then I would support making the change. --EncycloPetey 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "and that isn't always the case: Such as when? --Dan Polansky 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as when a strong deliberate allusion is made to another source, without quoting it. The new wording also seems to prevent the inclusion of proverbs, which are typically verbatim. --EncycloPetey 06:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To attest a proverb, one has to quote not only the proverb but also some of the surrounding sentences. It is the whole attesting quotation (that includes the proverb only as a component) that is subject to the requirement that it should not be "verbatim or near-verbatim quotation of the other". When the proverb is quoted without its textual context, there is no way the quotation could help support various hypotheses about the meaning of the proverb. --Dan Polansky 07:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "it does not cover the possibility that both items being considered derive from a third option": how so, there is "both are verbatim or near-verbatim quotations or translations of a single original source", which seems to cover that. --Dan Polansky 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that option still depends on the texts being verbatim or nearly verbatim, which isn't always the case. There are a number of works and chronicles I've worked in that are clearly all from a single original source, but in which the parallel sections aren't always verbatim or even nearly so. --EncycloPetey 06:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. While the flow of the wording is captivating, and thought it can be productive to be specific, this enumeration seems too narrow to me. Sometimes vagueness and generalities are better at capturing the idea. DAVilla 03:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain . This is not an improvement, in my opinion. Both the old and new versions are very vague yet not nearly vague enough, and both have parts that must be simply ignored. If the new version of this policy were strictly followed, we would probably have to delete entries like et tu, Brute, for which every use is technically is a verbatim quotation. --Yair rand (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't have to, no. The new version intentionally uses language like "roughly speaking" and "generally", exactly because of (on the one hand) such situations as you describe and (conversely, on the other) such situations as EncycloPetey describes above. (I now feel that I should have sprinkled a few more such hedges in there, but I guess it's too late.) —Ruakh TALK 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) * We wouldn't have to exclude et tu, Brute, because it is the whole quotation attesting the term that must not be a verbatim copy: 'The head looks a sort of reproachfully at him, with an “Et tu Brute!” expression' is not a verbatim copy of the original Shakespeare quote. To want to check the verbatim sameness on the term level rather than quotation level is silly: of course "cat" equals "cat", and "don't cry over spilled milk" equals "don't cry over spilled milk". This is the same argument that I have given above regarding proverbs in response to EncycloPetey. Incidentally, the 2002 and 2006 citations provided at et tu, Brute look like mentions rather than uses to convey meaning to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Decision
12-2-1 (85,7%) - Passed. --Daniel 11:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)