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

Rationale
Individual stock market index names are idiomatic and attestable, but also numerous and encyclopaedic rather than lexical. Just as we include the makes of cars but not the model, so we should include the series name for stock market indices but not individual index names.

Further examples (not exhaustive) to support the vote:

-Stelio (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification

 * I'm pinging users involved in prior discussion, to ensure that you have the chance to consider the proposed wording of the vote before it commences. (I'm only calling a vote to force a consensus decision from the community, since debate has been somewhat limited.) Thanks, Stelio (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Policy at CFI
Comments copied from voting page:   Well, I did first set out the wording for the vote in March, but no one responded then. This is why a vote is sometimes necessary, as a way to force people to respond. ;-) This highlights my lack of experience in policy-setting on Wiktionary. Based on the format of previous votes, I made the assumption that for a policy to be put into effect, it needed to be part of the wording of an official policy page. If, as it seems to be, it is sufficient for a vote to pass and then the vote can be referenced, then I'm totally up for that. So is that the case? Can we just vote on the topic without the need for adding wording to any other page? -Stelio (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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'm totally inexperienced with the nuances of policy here as well, but check out the vote page for WT:COALMINE, which does not add or remove text to CFI, simply references it and sets a precedent--sort of sets an agreed standard. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works for me. I'll go ahead and change the vote contents with some new wording. Please complain further, everyone, if the wording is unsuitable or can be tightened! :-) -Stelio (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(Also, is there a particular procedure to follow if I'd like to pause this vote, in order to spend some time improving the wording? This situation isn't covered at Votes, Voting policy, or Help:Creating a vote.) -Stelio (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wording updated to a new slimmer and leaner version, now with 0% CFI! -Stelio (talk)
 * Great job, particularly with the clarifying rewrite. I've switched my vote to support. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)