Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-12/CFI for appendix-only conlangs

< Wiktionary:Votes

CFI for appendix-only conlangs

edit

Voting on: Replacing the following text in WT:Criteria for inclusion#Constructed languages:

Old text:

Constructed languages

Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose.

All constructed languages are excluded except for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Novial, and Volapük.

Some individual terms from constructed languages have been adopted into other languages. These should be treated as terms in the adoptive language, and the origin noted in the etymology, regardless of whether the constructed language as a whole is included.

Languages originating from literary works should not be included as entries or translations in the main namespace, consistent with the above. However, the following constructed languages should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace: Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, Orcish[1][2] and Lojban.[3]

References:

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-04/Fictional languages
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Simplifying CFI about constructed languages
  3. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2018-02/Moving Lojban entries to the Appendix

New text:

Constructed languages

Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose.

All constructed languages are excluded from the main namespace except for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Novial, and Volapük.

Some individual terms from constructed languages have been adopted into other languages. These should be treated as terms in the adoptive language, and the origin noted in the etymology, regardless of whether the constructed language as a whole is included.

Other constructed languages should not be included as entries or translations in the main namespace, but may have lexicons in the Appendix namespace at the community's discretion. One use in a durably archived source is the minimum attestation required for an individual entry in an appendix-only constructed language.[1]

References:

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-12/CFI for appendix-only conlangs


Rationale: We currently have 22 languages in Category:Appendix-only constructed languages, and no explicit standard for what content belongs there. Rather than force conlangs to follow the usual CFI, which would require deleting most of our content, or making them LDLs, which would require including thousands of words that have never been used by anyone, this compromise ensures a base level of quality in the appendix.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

edit
  1.   Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Ultimateria (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. When I squint, I think Lingo's approach is the marginally better one. However, this is still an improvement from the status quo, and I don't know that there's a huge distance (in practice) between the two proposals. Imetsia (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support as an improvement compared to no CFI, even though I believe it'll be a (mostly) toothless rule and even though I agree with LBD that the durability criterion can be refined. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support, --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support: I concur with the general sentiment that this isn't perfect, but is nevertheless worth voting for as it represents a improvement over the conlang inclusion policies we've currently got. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support — Dentonius 09:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support – Jberkel 16:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1.   Oppose according to my comments in the Beer Parlour. I favour a different type of relaxed CFI: a mention in an official source or three durable uses. Few conlang communities are as dedicated to producing durable writings as the Idists and the Interlinguists, so I think it should be possible to use mentions in durable sources as an alternative. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Your proposal would open the door to thousands of protologisms, which I something I'd like to avoid. To be clear, are you just saying that you want us to document protologisms for conlangs? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To a point, but not indiscriminately. I am okay with limits on the quantity of protologisms (as stated in the BP); but I think the general policy should allow for protologisms to an extent. As you know, my issue with the proposed CFI is that some of these words are used but aren't used durably. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

edit
  1.   Abstain For the record, I added Glosa (igs) words, like avi, from the following link: http://www.glosa.org/gid/coglen.htm Why not? Apisite (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain. I think this is an improvement, but I also think Lingo Bingo has valid objections. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

edit

Passes 12–1–2. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-12/CFI_for_appendix-only_conlangs&oldid=61757314"