Wiktionary:Votes/2019-08/Abolish the Old Latin header

Abolish the Old Latin header
Voting on: Voting on: Abolish the “Old Latin” header. Move everything under it to Latin. Latin without adjectives! Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-08/Abolish the Old Latin header. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Fay Freak (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Canonicalization (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Fay Freak (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Ketiga123 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  AuroraeLux (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) . It was an interesting experiment, and it turned out not to improve our coverage, but instead make it harder to find and define. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  This one's for you, daddy Plōtus! Brutal Russian (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  Since Old Latin doesn't have an ISO 639-3 code, then it shouldn't count as a language. --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We include many languages that don't have ISO 639-3 codes. DTLHS (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I can see both reasons to support this and reasons not to, but at the end of the day, I don't have any strong opinions. If the header does end up being abolished, I'd like to ensure that our (limited at the moment) coverage of Old Latin's differing phonology/morphology/lexical stock is maintained (maybe by labelling pronunciations/senses/forms as "Old Latin" using Template:a and Template:lb when appropriate). --Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * “When appropriate” is the key here. Distilling a second language is the most brutal way to mark peculiarities, that, if the distinction isn’t absolutely obvious, constantly forces to make considerations that one otherwise wouldn’t do, and which isn’t even of much use at the end, as it explains little whether we call something Old Latin or not. One can be specific when one is confident, but it has proven pestering that one can do less and handles the business in a less practical way because of a menacing concept of Old Latin in front of the way, as for example that according to some one cannot quote Plautus to prove Latin, which isn’t an idea that one would naturally acquire. Fay Freak (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  I can't tell without doing a research, and hopefully all the supporters did their homework. Superficially, there is nothing strikingly wrong about the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Decision

 * 8-0-2, passes. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 18:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is anyone interested in executing the mandate of this vote? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)