Wiktionary:Votes/2024-06/CFI for mainspace constructed languages

CFI for mainspace constructed languages
Voting on: Updating CFI for constructed languages in the mainspace. Proposal 1 creates a new guideline for mainspace constructed languages based around native speakers, while Proposal 2 limits mainspace constructed languages to Esperanto and Eskayan, the latter of which has been in the mainspace in a de facto manner. Both proposals would also update WT:WDL to remove Ido, Interlingua, and Volapük; however, Eskayan would remain a Limited Documentation Language. The following changes would be made to WT:CFI:

Proposal 1
 Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose.

Generally, constructed languages that have amassed a critical mass of native speakers and have a strong literary or oral tradition, decided through community consensus, are allowed in the main namespace. The current list of allowed constructed languages are the following:
 * Eskayan,
 * Esperanto.

All constructed languages are excluded from the main namespace except for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, 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.

Proposal 2
 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 Eskayan and Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, 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.

Rationale

 * In multiple discussions, it's been brought up how our current CFI for mainspace constructed languages is vague and misleading. We limit languages like Toki Pona to the Appendix, but allow Volapük with a significantly smaller userbase in the mainspace. This vote hopes to alleviate that issue by limiting mainspace constructed languages to Esperanto and Eskayan, as they are the only languages with a strong community consensus for inclusion currently. For more information about the discussion around Eskayan, see:.
 * As is, albeit gone under the radar, when looking at Ido, Interlingual, and Volapük, they are classified as Well documented languages, meaning that they are subject to the rule requiring three (3) cites from durably-archived sources before passing RFV. At the time of writing this:
 * Out of 6,633 Ido lemmas, only 127 of them have at least one quote.
 * Out of 2,253 Interlingua lemmas, only 22 of them have at least one quote.
 * Out of 2,590 Volapük lemmas, only 31 of them have at least one quote.
 * Looking at the above and going through some individual terms, a significant number, if not a majority, of terms would likely fail RFV and be deleted, if WT:ATTEST were to be fully enforced. This vote at least allows the work to be moved to the Appendix, where, according to WT:CFI, they'd only have to show one durably-archived use. This gives much more breathing room to those who want to continue working on the languages, rather than the de facto allowance they have right now.
 * Proposal 1 is more expansive, building upon the "native speaker" criteria that has been previously mentioned. This would give space in the future for another constructed language that fits the criteria to be included without necessitating a vote if it receives consensus, such as possibly palawa kani in the future. It also gives us a direct rationale to point to versus the this is how it's been rationale against including constructed languages like Toki Pona.
 * Proposal 2 is more restrictive, removing Ido, Interlingual, & Volapük from and adding Eskayan to the list we have currently. This means that any future additions would likely be subject to an additional vote, per precedent.

Procedure

 * If supporting the overall proposal, it is suggested that you vote either in favor of option 1 or of option 2. However, if you do not mind either option you may vote for both of them.
 * If you oppose both proposals, you may vote oppose for both.
 * If both proposals achieve consensus, the one with the higher support ratio will be implemented. In the case of a tie, proposal 1 will be implemented.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: TBD
 * Vote ends: TBD
 * Vote created: AG202 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2017-05/Simplifying CFI about constructed languages
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2018-02/Moving Lojban entries to the Appendix
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2020-12/CFI for appendix-only conlangs
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2021-02/Moving Novial entries to the Appendix
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2021-02/Moving Interlingue entries to the Appendix
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2024-06/CFI for mainspace constructed languages

Comments
Whats the point of documenting something in a slightly harder to find area? --166.109.26.64 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)