Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-08/CFI Misspelling Cleanup

CFI Misspelling Cleanup

 * Voting on: Removing two items from WT:CFI:
 * Removal 1: Remove "A person defending a disputed spelling should be prepared to provide references for support."
 * Removal 2: Remove "The misspellings may well merit entries."
 * Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-08/CFI Misspelling Cleanup. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2014/August
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-08/CFI Misspelling Cleanup

Support removal 1

 * 1)  Nothing especially exciting here, just making sure CFI stays coherent and reflects reality. This, that and the other (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my rationale on the talk page: we do evidence-based lexicography rather than reference-based lexicography. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) . If the line is suggesting that someone should provide a reference that says "x is a misspelling" in order to persuade others that Wiktionary should have an entry for the misspelling x, then the line should be removed because that's not how Wiktionary works. As one of the preceding sentences states, "rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included", and whether or not a misspelling is common is, as Dan says, determined by evidence and not by "references". Whereas, if the line is suggesting that someone should provide references that say "x is a standard/acceptable spelling" in order to defend x against claims that "x is a misspelling"... well, that's just common sense, and the line should be removed because that doesn't need to be spelled out, and the line does a poor (ambiguous) job of spelling it out, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  per -sche etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support removal 2

 * 1)  Nothing especially exciting here, just making sure CFI stays coherent and reflects reality. This, that and the other (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  The sentence is superflous, now that Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings has passed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) . The line has no meaning/effect; the previous paragraph already establishes that some misspellings do merit entries; restating that sentiment in vaguer, weaker terms ("may well merit entries") is unnecessary and undesirable. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  per -sche etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Decision
or whoever: Care to make the changes to WT:CFI, if you are administratorially able? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone please close this? I cannot edit WT:CFI and I am the creator of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK:
 * Removal 1 passes 4‒0‒0 (100%).
 * Removal 2 passes 4‒0‒0 (100%).
 * Removal 2 passes 4‒0‒0 (100%).
 * ✅. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)