Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-12/Banning Lojban entries

Banning Lojban entries

 * Voting on: banning the Lojban language from mainspace entries, thus restricting it to an appendix as with other constructed languages. This would also entail changing WT:CFI as follows:


 * These languages have an apparent consensus (All have ISO 639-3 codes):''' Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Novial, Volapük


 * At present another 13 of the 7000 languages in the ISO 639-3 list are constructed languages. Words in 9 of those languages have not yet been approved for inclusion in the English Wiktionary. These are Afrihili, Blissymbols, Brithenig, Dutton World Speedwords, Glosa (Interglossa), Kotava, Láadan, Lingua Franca Nova, and Romanova. The remaining four are prohibited (see below).


 * There is no apparent consensus for including these additional languages which do not have an ISO 639-3 code: Ceqli, D'ni, Delason, Ekspreso, Europanto, Glos, Jakelimotu, Kyerepon, Latejami, Latino sine Flexione, Linga, Romanica, Sasxsek, Suoczil, Tceqli, Toki Pona


 * There is consensus that languages whose origin and use are restricted to one or more related literary works and its fans do not merit inclusion as entries or translations in the main namespace. They may merit lexicons in the Appendix namespace. These languages include Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish (the first three do have ISO 639-3 codes), as well as Lojban (which also has an ISO 639-3 code)


 * Rationale: Lojban is mainly famous because of theoretical exercise, but it does not have widespread usage outside of an online community. Lojban words would likely fail the attestation criteria of CFI. This differentiates Lojban from languages such as Esperanto, Ido or Interlingua which have both a sizable literature and are used in everyday life situations.


 * Vote starts: 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23.59, 08 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Liliana • 21:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:BP
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-12/Banning Lojban entries

Support

 * 1) Hmph. I should have taken the time to check over this proposal before its vote started, and said something. I do not like the proposed change to CFI, as it indicates that Lojban is a language "whose origin and use are restricted to one or more related literary works and its fans", which is not really the case. (The "literary" bit, in particular, is not really true.) Aside from that, I support. So here's my vote: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] I prefer a change to the CFI identical to that proposed except that it also removes the word "literary". If enough people agree with me (and indicate as much) below, then that can pass. Otherwise, I support this proposal as is. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  I agree with msh. --Bequw → τ 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Prosfilaes 11:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support The main point for me is that it isn't a language intended for serious use; it was made to test a theory. Sure, some people use it to communicate, but some people also use Klingon and Quenya; that's what the appendix is for. The existence of a Lojban Wikipedia is irrelevant,  as they have a different policy on the matter (should we ban Ancient Greek because they don't allow an Ancient Greek WP?). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Vahag 13:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  Robin 19:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC) Line item oppose the fourth bullet point's characterization of Lojban, and I agree with msh about striking "literary". But I approve of those first three bullet points.
 * The first three are already in WT:CFI. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose . If Lojban is to be excluded, the edit to CFI that introduces the exclusion should be well designed. A possible suitable formulation has been proposed at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2011-12/Banning_Lojban_entries by Prosfilaes. This formulation adds Lojban to the second bullet point rather than to the fourth bullet point. However, unlike the proposal made in this vote, the proposal by Prosfilaes may be trying to do too many things in one edit, and should possibly be reduced so that the only thing it does is move Lojban from the first bullet to the second bullet, and add "These may be approved if evidence of multiple, durably archived, independent works in the language is shown" to the second bullet. Removing the word "literary" from the fourth point--as proposed by other voters above--harms the purpose of the fourth point, which was to single out the narrow class of languages that originate in literary works and declare them consensually excluded. Moreover, as long as the voted-on proposal contains specific wording of an edit to CFI (which it better should, IMHO), each supporting vote is formally supporting that wording, even if the comment made alongside that vote explains that the voter prefers other wording. It is only upon informal reading that the supporting votes could be read otherwise. To see the proposed edits as diffs, see  and ; the diffs are not perfect, as they are made against a slightly dated version of CFI, but they serve the purpose I think. --Dan Polansky 10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving Lojban to the second bullet point is bad. That says "not yet been approved", which is quite different from "specifically banned". I myself am a bit ashamed that nobody bothered to improve the wording, and myself I'm unsure on how to make it better - maybe a fifth bullet point is needed just for Lojban? -- Liliana • 11:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point a bit, but it seems it is dealt with in a vote linked from the section for constructed languages, as I explain in the following. The second point says "Words in 9 of those languages have not yet been approved for inclusion in the English Wiktionary." Down below in the same section, there is a reference to Votes/pl-2010-12/Clarification of language inclusion, a vote that says this: "Voting on the principle that, for languages that are not natural languages, to be included each must have consensus for approval. (The alternatives are that only a majority is required, or that consensus is required for disapproval and otherwise approval is tentative.) The impact of this vote is clarification that the following constructed languages will not be included as they have not yet achieved consensus for inclusion." Thus, if we move Lojban to the second point, it will be excluded from Wiktionary until consensus about its inclusion changes. I admit that the linked vote is messy by its failing to indicate a specific change to CFI, thus being merely linked from CFI. --Dan Polansky 11:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding the sentence "Lojban (ISO 639-3 code 'jbo') should be excluded" to the second bullet point or as a new third bullet point is an okay option, IMHO. --Dan Polansky 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Should keep it in mind for a future vote, if there will be one. -- Liliana • 16:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose.  Searching through Meta's List of Wikipedias, one can find that all of the languages in the first line of the proposal each has its own Wikipedia.  So does Lojban: Lojban falls in the 1000+ category along with Novial and Interlingue.  None of the languages in the other lines (including the second and fourth lines) have their own Wikipedias, though a couple have their own Wikias.  If Lojban words do not merit inclusion in WT's mainspace, then the jbo.wikipedia should probably be shut down and be moved to its own Wikia, just like Lingua Franca Nova and Klingon.  (In other words: let's be consistent.)  &mdash;AugPi 14:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposals for closing projects is open to everyone. -- Liliana • 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, this is not a necessary condition, and most languages included here don't have their own Wikipedia. Lmaltier 21:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  The basic principle of the project is all languages. If you don't like this language, just don't add entries for it. Of course, personal languages designed by a single person and not used by anybody should be excluded, but it would be better to define general rules dealing with this issue. Lmaltier 21:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose, per our slogan/basic inclusion principle. By my understanding, Lojban is used for communication, and is thus a language. --Yair rand 08:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not used for communication nearly as much as Klingon, especially if we're just counting real life communication.--Prosfilaes 11:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, Klingon should not be excluded. Lmaltier 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I invented my own language and got an ISO code for it (hint: it's piss easy) would my language be included here too? -- Liliana • 21:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's easy. Many natural (or constructed) languages have no ISO code yet. Don't think you're more clever than ISO. Lmaltier 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh it is. Romanova is an invention by a single bored person and he managed to get an ISO code for it! -- Liliana • 21:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Romanova, except that we describe it as a language, and that http://wiki.verbix.com/Languages/Romanova doesn't describe it as created by a single bored person. But just try the same yourself. You'll get nowhere. Lmaltier 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  Metaknowledge 16:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Personally, Lojban annoys me for many reasons, but I still believe that the more languages, the better - including conlangs. And yes, I would certainly support other conlangs with large vocabularies and some speakers moving into the main namespace, including the likes of Klingon. Metaknowledge 16:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose: Wiktionary's stated goal is all words in all languages. While of course it's debatable what is notable enough to be considered a "language", I think Lojban  meets the threshold. (I can't speak for the others.) There is a Lojban Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc., as well as an internet community. It's a fairly serious language project, not something random created by a "bored person". Another point: If we are excluding languages that do "not have widespread usage outside of an online community", then Volapuk (and probably Novial) should not be included either, since it has barely two dozen speakers with any degree of fluency. Tempodivalse  [talk]  21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Novial and Volapük are historical languages and thus use different standards. As discussed in the prelude to this vote, Novial really lived between 1930-1943, and no one here really knew how much durably archived material was made and archived at that time. Volapük, on the other hand, had a fairly solid historical run. w:Kosmopolan and Volapük: A monthly journal of the world language are a couple journals with decent text in the language. Its life may have been short, but it burned bright.--Prosfilaes 01:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A fair point, I hadn't considered the historical aspect of Volapuk. Nevertheless, I am somewhat familiar with Lojban's history, and I think it meets the language notability threshold; it arguably has now almost as much history and community as Occidental and Novial once did.
 * The issue of noteworthiness notwithstanding, Lojban is not "restricted to one or more related literary works and its fans". Unlike the other conlangs enumerated in the last bullet point, it wasn't taken out of fiction. Grouping it with things like Klingon would be misleading. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails 5–8. The status quo remains in effect. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)