Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Patronymics and stylistic edits of CFI

Section "Terms"
I wholly support making the section heading '“Terms” to be broadly interpreted' shorter. However, "Terms" seems ambiguous, and I much prefer "Termhood" as a heading for a section that clarifies what CFI means by "term". Similarly, the section that defines what is meant by "idiomatic" is not called "Idiomatic" but rather "Idiomaticity", and the section that defines what it is to "attest" a term is not called "Attest" but rather "Attestation". --Dan Polansky 07:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I oppose "Termhood" because it's a relatively uncommon word, and sounds non-native (in fact, the first two pages of Google hits are the webpages of the same conference publications I've used to cite other non-natural-sounding words). - -sche (discuss) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit that "termhood" is rather rare, but, from its morphology, it seems to be the most suitable term for the section heading. --Dan Polansky 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clickable terms
Instead of boldfaced " term ", it would be better to write term, so that the reader can find the definition of the term "term" by clicking on the term. The same I would do with attested and idiomatic, which link to mainspace as if the two terms were defined in the mainspace rather than in CFI. Thus, I would write attested and idiomatic. I probably would not put the three terms in boldface, as they would be already hyperlinked and thus typographically distinct. --Dan Polansky 07:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I second re the linking (not re the nonboldfacing). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference one way (bold) or the other (linking). Anyone else have a preference? - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on the boldfacing, and I'm ambivalent on whether these words should be links to sections of WT:CFI, but I strongly agree that they should not be links to mainspace. —Ruakh TALK 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Directly in the vote
It seems much preferable to me to indicate proposed changes directly in the vote rather than letting the vote depend on a subpage of the user space: User:-sche/CFI. It seems unfortunate when a page in Wiktionary namespace depends for its key content on a page in User namespace, especially a vote. It is much more work to setup such a vote, I admit. One undesirable consequence of this dependence is that collaborative editing of the vote, by editors proposing edits that the creator can accept or reject, is impossible. --Dan Polansky 07:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured linking was more übersichtlich (easier to look over), particularly with regard to whitespace and spaces, and IIRC votes have cited diffs before, but it's easy to move everything into the vote page, so I've done so. :) Cheers! - -sche (discuss) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Votes have indeed cited diffs before; I just did not bother to complain back then. --Dan Polansky 11:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Horizontal rules.
The "Names" and "Issues to consider" sections are preceded by horizontal rules (), but the other L2 sections are not. Maybe this is a good opportunity to make that consistent? (My preference is to remove both of the rules — it's all one document, after all, it's not like mainspace pages where a single page can host completely separate entries for different languages — but consistently adding horizontal rules would also be O.K., just so's its consistent.) —Ruakh TALK 16:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I second. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add their removal to the vote. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Apostrophes and quotation marks
WT:CFI currently uses a mix of curly and straight apostrophes (included if it's likely, but they aren’t) and quotation marks (expression is “idiomatic”, idiomatic sense of "large traffic jam"). Can we get a consensus to use one or the other? - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-12/curly quotes in WT:ELE may (or may not) be relevant. —Ruakh TALK 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha, I suspected this might be controversial. Well, I suppose it's best to leave that issue out of this vote. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I favour using the typographical apostrophes and quotation marks. Note that that vote is over three years old and that two of the voters in opposition no longer edit here; AZard hasn't edited in over three years and this is Connel MacKenzie's only contribution he's made in over a year. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)