Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2
Voting on: Removing the following two sentences from WT:CFI section: "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words."

The section before the change, with the planned removal in red: See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.

The section after the change: See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2017/January
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-01/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia 2

Support

 * 1)  — John Cross (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Equinox ◑ 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) . The main removed sentence is of the form "Many places, [...], are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." It is not significant for places that they qualify for inclusion as these names since they qualify for inclusion as place names; the sentence may lead to the impression in the reader that place names are not welcome unless they are also given names or family names. The 2nd removed sentence is basically a repetition of the 1st sentence in the paragraph. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  -Xbony2 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Droigheann (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8)  per Dan Polansky. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
I agree that the shorter sentence can be deleted, but the fact that place names are unaffected is left unsaid. Shouldn't it be mentioned that they are allowable, providing the entry is not encyclopaedic? Any encyclopaedic entry could be trimmed anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a request to add a sentence. Does the edit proposed by the vote make things worse for place names? Note that place names are in fact regulated by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As another vote on place names has now popped up, I am withdrawing my opposition for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Decision
Passed: 8-0-0 (100%-0%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)