"This is a list of aspects of formatting which usually make no or little difference to how a user sees the page, but does make the pages conform more to a standard format reflecting what we think of as best when editing a page. Issues such as where to put blank lines and how many, whether to put spaces inside the == ==, or after asterisks in lists."
Adding to the page the same policy box from CFI and ELE, whose policy status reads specifically as follows.
weak support It's nice to have a set of guidelines. That said, (1) some of these are faulty as described below, (2) few of these really seem important to enforce, even among bots—and the ones that are probably belong in ELE proper. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — 1) {{acronym-old}} has been deleted; reference to it should be removed from WT:NORM#Headings 5. 2) WT:NORM#Headings 7 reads “---- before each language heading heading except the first.”; one of the words heading should be removed for grammaticality. 3) I disagree with WT:NORM#POS sections; headword lines; senses/definitions 1.1; beyond that, I would prefer that {{wikipedia}} were banned in favour of {{pedia}} occurring in External links sections. 4) ReWT:NORM#POS sections; headword lines; senses/definitions 3, POS sections should be permitted to contain multiple headword lines, at least until numbered Pronunciation sections are permitted without having to use code like {{rfc-pron-n|Pronunciation 1|lang=la}}. 5) ReWT:NORM#Translation sections 1, Neapolitan has grammatical gender; accordingly, the example text should read Neapolitan: {{t|nap|acqua|f}}. 6) Unless Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV is right in his interpretation of it (see the Support section, in his post timestamped: 15:14, 10 June 2015), WT:NORM#Categories and interwikis 3 destroys the potential of {{C}} and should, therefore, not be enacted. 7) I have seen an interwiki link on a Hebrew-script page (without niqqud) link to a page on another Wiktionary for a Hebrew-script page of the same spelling, except that it had niqqud; there would be no such beneficial linking if WT:NORM#Categories and interwikis 7 were enacted. 8) ReWT:NORM#Others/Technical, whilst templates are preferable to wikitables, and wikitables are preferable to HTML tables, none of them should be banned. 9) I'm sorry that I did not raise my objections in the Beer Parlour before this vote began. — I.S.M.E.T.A.02:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche: That wouldn't work in this case, because we don't have entries for Hebrew terms written with niqqud (if the other Wiktionary had redirects from niqqud-free spellings to those with niqqud, then they'd have an interwiki to our page, but we wouldn't have one to their page). — I.S.M.E.T.A.02:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would work exactly the way the linking between fr.Wikt and en.Wikt works: each side has an entry at its desired pagetitle, and a redirect to there from the other site's desired pagetitle, and all of the pages (including the redirects) host interwiki links to their identical counterparts on other wikis. In any event, interwiki links have been required to be between exactly identical pagetitles for longer than I've been an editor here (see e.g. WT:Links#Interwiki_links), and interwiki-bots to my knowledge uniformly enforce this, so codifying or declining to codify this practice in an additional place, viz. WT:NORM, won't make a difference. - -sche(discuss)02:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we're constitutionally incapable of creating new pages. No one here knows how! If you figure out how, can you let us know? (PS, we even have an edit filter that warns people against adding interwikis to non-matching pages.) - -sche(discuss)00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the snarkiness of my previous comment. If other wikis lemmatize niqqud spellings, having redirects from those spelling to the spellings we lemmatize would seem to be a (informal) requirement for us, as with the curly vs straight apostrophes. But I don't see anything on the subject in WT:AHE or [[WT:T:AHE (although the variableness of niqqud’s spelling makes it hard to search WT:T:AHE) so it's possible that the fact that other wikis lemmatize niqqud spellings and that this affects interwiki linking hasn't occurred to Hebrew editors, so one could raise the issue on WT:T:AHE before creating such redirects. One of our main Hebrew editors is also the operator of one of our main interwiki bots (Ruakh). - -sche(discuss)01:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no problem with normalization of the sort proposed (and, perhaps modulo some details of the sort mentioned in ISMETA's vote in opposition, no problem even with the specific normalizations proposed). But I oppose the imposition of such a page as policy unless it clearly indicates that it is meant as an objective for entries, as best practice for humans, and perhaps as a requirement for bots — but not as a requirement for humans. I don't want editors reprimanded for not following the bulk of NORM, which is solely for editors' (and bots') ease and doesn't affect readers' experience at all.—msh210℠ (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Dan P's vote in opposition, I realized that I had, somehow, missed the NORM's lede completely. It does say almost precisely what I said I'm opposing because it doesn't say. My apologies; and I'm now striking my vote in opposition.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Currently, the page mixes regulations obligatory for bots only with regulations obligatory for humans as well ("These norms are mandatory for bots. When they make a difference to how users see the entries, such as the presence of ---- and non-linking of language names in translatio ren sections, they are mandatory for everyone."). Thus, if it becomes policy, every human editor will have to wade through the page and figure out which parts are obligatory for humans. To address this, all parts that are mandatory for humans should be transferred to WT:ELE (Entry Layout Explained), which is the already existing location for formatting policy. Thereafter, the normalization page should only contain regulations that affect aspects of formatting invisible in the rendered page, and that humans should not be too anxious to forget to heed. It seems my comments are along similar lines as those above by msh210, while being slightly different. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support transferring all rules mandatory for humans from WT:NORM to WT:ELE. If the vote passes and NORM is enacted as it is now, as the creator of the vote I believe this would be a way to further improve NORM afterwards. It seems the items affected would be as follows:
Edit NORM's "Translation sections: Language names should not be linked or templated". ELE already mentions that language names should not be linked; this part could be removed from NORM. The part about "should not be templated" is invisible to the reader and therefore could remain in NORM.
Remove from NORM "Translation sections: Markup such as gender should be provided within the {{t}}/{{t+}} template, except for qualifiers, which should use {{qualifier}}." ELE already mentions {{t}} template but does not seem to mention {{qualifier}}, so it should be edited to mention the latter.
Remove from NORM "---- before each language heading except the first" but keep "One blank line before ----" and "One blank line after ----". ELE does not satisfactorily explain that we have ---- between languages, except for the subtle presence of ---- in the list of headings of WT:ELE#Additional headings, so the policy should be edited to explain it further.
Oppose. Arbitrary rules created for no benefit, like the intro to that page admits. Bots have to be resilient against whitespace variations anyway. More sensible regulations can be integrated into WT:ELE — and I think some are already. — Keφr10:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Arbitrary rules created for no benefit". As the creator of the vote, I disagree with that statement, on the basis that these rules are supposed to be simply a formalization of what the community already does in matters of standardization of newlines, category placement, etc. based on extensive discussions in this 2006 thread in a time where all of this was very random and we needed AutoFormat to fix it. Further to the point that these are just what the community already does, nothing undiscussed or controversial if possible, Wiktionary talk:Normalization of entries#Removed items contains a list of items I removed before the vote started, based on the 13 polls from May 2015; any of these items can be added later pending further discussion. Concerning ELE, I partially agree with you on the fact that I believe some of the items could be better placed in ELE and not NORM; see my reply to Dan Polansky above please. --Daniel17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I generally agree with having formatting rules for bots, but I object to a couple of the points:
For Arabic, we need to be able to have multiple stacked headword lines to support some cases of alternative declension or conjugation, like وحد or بريطاني, where duplicating the whole definition section would be awkward (especially for cases like وحد).
I don't agree with limiting categories to be at the bottom of language sections. For cases where there are multiple etymology sections, it IMO makes more sense to include the categories at the bottom of the appropriate etymology section. This is especially relevant for Arabic where there may be a bunch of distinct etymology sections due to the ambiguous spelling. Benwing (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human beings must write the software. Would you rather leave it to the one editor who writes the bot, or have an agreement among many which then determines how the bot must work? —CodeCat01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it is reasonable and I accept that you closed this vote as failed, especially after some flaws in the current version of the policy have been pointed out here; it is an imperfect policy concerning its scope in comparison to ELE, even though the list of items voted have been discussed and edited long enough with the initial 2006 thread and the recently created 2015 polls. Whether this vote had passed or not, as the creator of this vote I've been thinking of addressing those flaws and trying having another vote in the future. Still, in other circumstances, I might consider the possibility that a vote of 7 - 4 - 2 should pass by a slim margin; with 63,6% support, it reached the limit of 63%, which everyone seems to talk about. For context: I checked all the previously closed votes which were created since January 2014; all of those that passed had 63% or more support; while the others failed. Closest results: the vote for Tradicional Chinese redirects passed with 64,7%; the vote for trimming given and family names from CFI failed with 60% with only 5 non-abstaining voters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have extended the vote. A vote that nearly makes it should be given a chance, and be extended. Please let me know whether you agree. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Daniel 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose — 1) 
Abstain WT:NORM is utterly irrelevant and no more time should be wasted on it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)