Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/CFI: List of terms

CFI: List of terms
Voting on: Editing WT:CFI to add more types of allowable terms. (diff)

Current text: A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:
 * Terms
 * Compounds and multiple-word terms such as post office.
 * Idioms such as go on and give up the ghost.
 * Proverbs.
 * Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms such as NBA.
 * Prefixes and suffixes such as re- and -ist.
 * Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing such as 字 or ʃ.

Proposed text: A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:
 * Terms
 * Words in the usual sense, including signs in a sign language.
 * Some compounds and multiple-word terms such as.
 * Idioms such as and.
 * Proverbs such as.
 * Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms such as.
 * Morphemes, including prefixes, suffixes, and other affixes, such as, , and.
 * Ideographic symbols and emoticons such as ಠ_ಠ, ♂, ;), and.
 * Letters, numerals, and symbols and such as, , , , and.
 * Some chemical formulae such as.
 * Some codes such as, , , and.

Disclaimer:
 * The proposed list is probably still incomplete. This vote is meant as an improvement to the current text, not as the "final" version of it.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/February
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-02/CFI: List of terms

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  -Xbony2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Droigheann (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak . Some improvements could be made, as Dan wrote below. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  --Dan Polansky (talk), as per:
 * 1) The introductory word "also" means that the list should not contain "Words in the usual sense ..."; it should only contain the things that are not obviously words. Either the first list item or the word "also" has to go.
 * 2) Some list items contain "some", probably to cater for the fact that not all terms are attested and idiomatic. However, the section only defines what we mean by "term", not what we mean by "includable term". Elsewhere, CFI states that a term--whatever a term is--is includable only if it is attested and idiomatic. The addition of "some" should go.
 * 3) By compound, we usually mean a closed compound AKA solid compound such as coalmine; there is nothing worthy of explaning about solid compounds and "compound" should probably not be mentioned at all; this is a legacy issue.
 * 4) It is not obvious to me that .com should be included; I do not see anything that I would recognize as uses of .com.
 * 5) Adding "morphemes" as the first word decreases clarity for the lay reader since I assume that the lay reader is better acquainted with the word "prefix" than "morpheme"; previous rendering was better. More of a matter of taste, and on its own not serious enough for opposition.
 * A) A note, not an oppose point: The list as is gives the impression to the reader that there is a variety of things included under the headword of "term". I do not see it necessary for the list to be nearing completion, approaching the manner of regulation in which each possible case is expressly covered. The first sentence of the section almost does the job on its own, although examples are a good thing. I do not really oppose making the list more complete, but do not see it as an unequivocal improvement either. The more the list approaches completion, the easier it is for someone to use absence from the list as an argument. This is intended to be addressed by a disclaimer, but that is only in the vote and not in the proposed text; the disclaimer will not be in the CFI.
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The more the list approaches completion, the easier it is for someone to use absence from the list as an argument": well maybe, but I could argue the exact reverse way: if the list is deliberately left incomplete, one can add something that is not lexical, and when challenged and told that what they have added isn't a valid item, argue that the list of valid items isn't complete. Per utramque cavernam 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Dan Polansky, including his point A, which also seems a good reason to oppose.
 * 2) ; the list adds several things which I don't think it's at all obvious should be included (and certainly not specified as includable), apparently in an effort to be more exhaustive, which is itself not obviously necessary. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  per -sche. --WikiTiki89 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  because there are multiple issues with it. Needs discussion. Equinox ◑ 23:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  The loss of simplicity is too much. Nibiko (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  per Dan really, just not well written enough. Ƿidsiþ 11:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails at 4-7. --Turnedlessef (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)