Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Stock market indices

Stock market indices
Voting on establishing the following policy with respect to dictionary entries for stock market indices and stock market index series:
 * Include terms that are the series names for stock market indices (e.g., ).
 * Use stock market index names as examples of usage for the series names (e.g. "FTSE 100", "CAC 40").
 * Include initialisms of specific stock market indices, where they form a single term that does not include the parent word (e.g., ).
 * Hard Redirect most common stock market indices to the series name (e.g., ).
 * Exclude names of specific stock market indices (e.g. FTSE MID 250, CAC Next 20).

Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Stock market indices. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Stelio (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Requests for deletion/Non-English
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2018/March
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Stock market indices

Support

 * , as proposer. -Stelio (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  as a sane policy to handle these terms. If this passes, we could make a shortcut to it as WT:STOCK to make it easily linkable in discussions. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  -  TheDaveRoss  17:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think. Can't see a problem with it. Equinox ◑ 21:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  This is good.  I also like the WT:STOCK idea. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  -Xbony2 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 6)  Useful. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 7)  PseudoSkull (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , as the proposal offers protection of series names that I consider desirable and also allows the removal of cruft that I really do not want. . ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  for political reasons —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 20:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  a blanket decision, since I know from the languages that I'm familiar with that referring to the "FTSE" tout court is fairly normal, whereas referring to the "CAC" is not: you always say the "CAC 40". These should be judged case-by-case. Ƿidsiþ 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , would you want entries for all of the stock market indices that I mentioned in the "Do not include" column here? -Stelio (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Most of them probably not. I just know that in French "CAC 40" is an appropriate entry in a way that, in English, "Dow Jones Transportation Index" is not. To put it another way, in English people talk about "what the FTSE's doing", or how "the FTSE's recovered" or whatever, and in French this casual shorthand takes the form of "CAC 40"; no one talks about the "CAC". Ƿidsiþ 08:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should explicitly note: if the vote passes then my intention is to add a new sense to (in addition to the existing one) along the lines of, "The stock market series code for the French stock market, the Paris Bourse," using CAC 40 as the primary usage example. I certainly do not intend that the existing  entry is in itself sufficient to capture the sense as it relates to "CAC 40". -Stelio (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Widsith: WT:RFDN does not show consensus for deletion, and the user may well be better off with CAC 40 being a full entry rather than a redirect. That is not so say that all items proposed for exclusion by the policy are to be included; indeed, the policy is probably almost right. Rather, there may be a couple of items as regards of which the policy may be overexclusive. On another note, what has bothered me is that a policy is proposed for a very specific case of names of specific entities; that does not seem good. If this is to be an inclusion-exclusion policy, it belongs to WT:CFI, but then, some people do not want it in CFI per Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Stock market indices. The complaint on the talk page is that it "bloats" CFI, but not placing it to CFI does not solve the problem: it will no longer bloat CFI but it will bloat the total body of policies and make it harder to find relevant items of policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It only needs to be referenced on rare occasion at RFD, and I haven't seen anyone complain about referencing WT:COALMINE or WT:REPEATING there. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, both COALMINE and REPEATING are in CFI. The shortcuts do not point to CFI, but the policy texts are present in CFI nonetheless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On the lack of consensus for deletion of CAC 40: that's why I raised it to the Beer Parlour for wider discussion. And following no engagement, that's why I've pushed it to a vote. The prior lack of consensus is not in itself grounds for opposing. Rather, one should consider one's personal stance and vote accordingly. The entire reason for having a vote is that there was no consensus (if we had generally agreed to either include or exclude stock market indices, there would have been no need to call a vote).
 * That there is no proposed wording for CFI is not an argument for opposition in itself, as (if the stance is accepted) CFI can be updated following a successful vote. Indeed, if the vote passes, a single bullet under "Names of specific entities" pointing to the vote result would be sufficient.
 * As to why I think "CAC" is fine and "CAC 40" is not, I see it as entirely analogous with makes and models of car. We include "Ford" but not "Ford Escort". In practice people talk about Ford Escorts, but we don't make an entry for them or the dozens of other Ford models. Similarly, I see it as useful to have content relating to stock market indices but not in listing every single possible index, and I believe the best balance is in listing just the index code (a clear and easily enforceable policy).
 * A middle ground decision of "not just the codes, but not all index names" is ambiguous. "FTSE 100" would be a definite inclusion, in that case. But would "FTSE 250" be in or out? How about "FTSE 350"? "FTSE techMark"? Where do you draw the line, given that any traded stock market index can pass attestation?
 * -Stelio (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having this vote is fine; I merely oppose its proposal. My point was that it may actually be good to have CAC 40 as a full entry. Vote-haters are a minority, but a vocal and, lately, incredibility aggressive and rude one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) . Too specific of a rule. If you think about it properly, you realize the general case covers this pretty well. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree. Which bit of CFI do you think covers stock indices? They're all proper nouns, so should come under "Names". "Brand names"? We can find 3+ independent citations for pretty much every stock index listed on the talk page. But then the index series code could be considered to be a reference to the distributor, in which case all stock indices should be rejected. "Names of specific entities"? Again, they can all be attested. I couldn't work out a clean reading of CFI that would help me decide why I should, for example, include "FTSE 100" but not "FTSEurofirst 300". -Stelio (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

 * . Looks good, but it also looks like the sort of thing that doesn't belong in CFI. This can be worked out in RFD discussions by the few people who care, and we could even link to this vote if it passes (like we do with WT:COALMINE), but why bloat the CFI with these specifics? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , since there are no other supporters yet, you could still change the wording of the vote if you would support not adding this to CFI. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * : Hello. Sorry for not replying to any of your pings; I didn't really have anything to contribute. Metaknowledge has just put into words the inkling I had: it seems a bit too specific to appear in the CFI. That said, I think I agree with what you're suggesting, so maybe Weak support. I'm still not sure deleting is the right move though. --Per utramque cavernam 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * . I second Metaknowledge--I like the idea of this, but specifically as something that can be referenced as a precedent like WT:COALMINE. If it were so, I'd support it.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion topic relating to the above comments on the talk page. -Stelio (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Decision
Passes 9–4–0 (69.2%). -Stelio (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally admins close votes, but yes, I agree that this passes the usual 2/3 support:oppose criterion. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 13:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)