Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

 * Voting on: From WT:CFI, removing the following sentence:
 * Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names.
 * Rationale: see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
 * Vote started: 00:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk)
 * Vote extended to 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2015/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

Support

 * 1)  The sentence suggests we only include place names if they happen to be given names or surnames, which is untrue. The best evidence of broad support for broad inclusion of place names that I know of is  Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) . "Many places [...] are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." Er, what? (Alternatively, "[...] some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names" makes sense, but what are placenames doing at the start of the line?) I guess this was an inept reference to the fact that Winston Churchill is often called simply 'Churchill', Hillary Clinton is often called simply 'Hillary', etc, but I have no idea why placenames got shoehorned into the mix. The line could be revised as suggested on the talk page, but then it would still be vacuous. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  &mdash;Internoob 19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Moved to . I support the removal of this sentence, but without it, the paragraph reads: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia." Obviously that is silly; therefore I oppose removing the sentence and not making any other changes. I would support an alternative vote that replaced the paragraph with something like: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. The names of some places or people may qualify for inclusion in Wiktionary as words (see below), but any information about the places and people concerned, beyond a simple definition, belongs in Wikipedia." This, that and the other (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:This, that and the other: Yes, the result reads poorly because of the repetition, but this can be cleaned up via a follow-up vote. If this vote fails, another vote will be necessary either way. I focused this vote on the single sentence so that the arguments become centered around the single sentence and its accuracy. The undesirable repetition is already there; the proposed removal only makes it more conspicuous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  - the sentence seems to me to be factually correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Factually correct, yes, but misleading; that is why I said the sentence "suggests". The sentence is in any case irrelevant; why say that many places' single word names are included as given names or surnames (e.g. London) and not say that many more place names are included as neither (e.g. Oceania, Liverpool, New York, Nile, Titicaca, Mont Blanc, Himalayas). Thus, why single out a small part of all place names that we include, and stay silent about the rest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  It's not obvious what the author of this sentence was trying to say; its intended meaning, and the reason why it was included in the policy, seem to have got lost in the mists of time. Having said that, I think it would be more useful to replace this sentence with a comment on the includability (or otherwise) of the place and person names in question. This, that and the other (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote. FYI, the sentence was added by on 22 May 2005 in, so he would know what he intended by the sentence and what discussion, if any, preceded his edit to CFI. Furthermore, includability of places and people is driven by WT:CFI, which is a section of CFI fully created via votes: Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities, Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Remove "Place names" section of WT:CFI, Votes/pl-2010-12/Names_of_individuals. As you can see from the linked votes, there was a specific regulation for place names until the editors decided that that was unnecessary or unwanted;  of CFI is one where you can see a section for place names before it was removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails 3–2–0 (60%). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Msh210: My last extension of the vote was to 30 April. I would like to extend the vote one more month since there could actually be consensus for the vote, given the results so far. Do you object to that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Dan Polansky: somehow I missed that last extension when I called the failure. However, now that it's done, I think it should remain done. This vote was open for some eleven weeks and it doesn't look like anyone's complaining of having missed the opportunity to vote in the final 43 hours. It's eminently fair in my opinion to call this a failure. But let's see if anyone disagrees who didn't vote here in support. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)