| | : CFI are not clear, and misunderstood, because they are much too complex. The simple way would be to clearly state: ''all words (including set phrases) used in a language and that may be considered as belonging to the vocabulary of the language may be included''. [[User:Lmaltier|Lmaltier]] 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | | : CFI are not clear, and misunderstood, because they are much too complex. The simple way would be to clearly state: ''all words (including set phrases) used in a language and that may be considered as belonging to the vocabulary of the language may be included''. [[User:Lmaltier|Lmaltier]] 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
| | :: "may be considered" does not seem like a usable rule. Considered by whom on what grounds? That's why we need CFI. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | | :: "may be considered" does not seem like a usable rule. Considered by whom on what grounds? That's why we need CFI. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
| | + | :::It's a simpler sentence, but applying it would ''not'' be simpler than what we have now. BTW I don't think NOTPAPER means "add every conceivable combination of words". We do need some credibility. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 20:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
沒有留言:
張貼留言