Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-08/Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy

Rationale
@Mihia: Would you please move the rationale to this talk page? Another editor convinced me in the past that it is a good practice. Having the rationale on the talk page reinforces the notion that voters are not voting on the rationale but only on the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Mihia (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Link: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reasons to oppose
My reason to oppose is in Votes/pl-2012-03/Overturning COALMINE, starting with "I don't see any problem that removing WT:COALMINE would solve [...]" --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not know there had been a 2012 vote too. Mihia (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It would have some charm if CFI linked to that 2012 vote even if the vote did not pass. That would make it easy to find for those interested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposer's rationale for rescinding
[Moved from main vote page]


 * The "Coalmine" policy licenses the creation of sum-of-parts entries, which is contrary to standard dictionary practice and to users' expectations, potentially giving the false impression that "X Y" means more than X + Y when it does not, and potentially creating confusion about why one "X Y" exists in the dictionary while another ostensibly with equal merit does not.


 * Sum-of-parts entries may be kept on the basis of a tiny handful of obscure or nonstandard citations for the non-spaced form, thus giving these marginal uses a disproportionate weight or effect.


 * The rationale for the "Coalmine" policy in the original 2009 vote (see link below) was stated as "If we delete coal mine and a user searches for it and finds coalmine, (s)he will be under the impression that coalmine is the most common spelling of this, which is untrue." However, there seems no reason why a notice at coalmine saying that coal mine is the usual spelling would not be sufficient to dispel such an impression.

Mihia (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Making it brief
@Mihia: I would propose to remove the following from the vote:
 * 1) "A support vote is a vote to rescind the policy; an oppose vote is a vote to retain the policy". This is obvious.
 * 2) The whole section Background. I now provided a clear identification of the action to be made, and I doubt the Background is necessary.

The removal is nice to have, but I think it would make the vote better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have put it back to how it was. Please discuss first before making major changes. Thanks. Mihia (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You have now removed the identification of the edit to CFI that I added. I don't understand why. The text now starts with 'Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy' without saying what the Coalmine policy is, where to find it, and that it is in fact text in CFI to be removed. I find much superior. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Votes are often written collaboratively, but I have the practice of deferring to the vote author unless there is something egregious. In this case, your revert will stay as you see fit, but I do not feel guilty for editing the vote page without prior discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's a bit annoying to have what one has written, and to which one's name is attached, changed without any discussion. The banner says "Feedback and new ideas are highly encouraged!" not "Go ahead and rewrite it as you see fit". However, your suggestion may in the end be a good idea, so let me have a look at reincorporating it. By the way, the purpose of explaining the direction of "Support" and "Oppose" is to make absolutely sure that people do not think they are voting "Support" to support the "Coalmine" policy, or vice versa, which I think is a definite risk. Mihia (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I have reincorporated your suggestions. Please let me know if you have any further comments. Mihia (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. One remaining little issue is that "originally approved at WT:COALMINE" will cease to be accurate if WT:COALMINE ever gets to point to WT:CFI, which is ideally should anyway. The proposal was originally approved in a specific vote, which may not be identical with the target of WT:COALMINE. My wording said "accessible via WT:COALMINE", which does not have this defect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)