Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification

CFI and idiomaticity clarification
Voting on:

Editing the second sentence of WT:CFI.

Current text: This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic.

Proposed text: This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.

Rationale:
 * Adding CFI protection for single words.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:


 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Requests for deletion
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Renard Migrant
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2016/October
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Equinox ◑ 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , but as I mentioned on the talk page, I prefer to transition away from the word idiomatic in favor of non-SOP. Also, I don't why we are specifying that attestation must come before, when these are really parallel criteria and neither precedes the other. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Either one is logically consistent with our requirements, and is clearly stated, so I see no problem. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't get what you're referring to. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Helps make it unequivocal that single words are included if attested. Admittedly, the same can be read into current WT:CFI but with a bit more effort: the term "expression" used there has to be understood as "word or phrase", the implied ", if any" has to be inserted after "of its separate components", and the word "separate" needs to be emphasized and properly understood so that "clever" and "-ness" in "cleverness" are considered to be not separate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  -Xbony2 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Jberkel (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  — The proposed text should read “This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that condition is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic. ” (added word underlined). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Passed: 9-1-0 (90%-10%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed a mistake in the vote: it said "edit the first sentence" but it was the second sentence. Still, the vote passed and I edited (the first sentence) in that CFI section accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)