Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-04/Well documented languages and constructed languages

Well documented languages and constructed languages
Voting on: In Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, listing constructed languages explicitly. Thus, making the following edit, which only takes place in the last item of the numbered list:

The languages well documented on the Internet as provided on the Criteria for inclusion page are:

...
 * 1) Chinese, Japanese, and Korean;
 * 2) Standard Indonesian, Malay, Tagalog, Thai and Vietnamese; and
 * 3) approved constructed languages.  Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, Volapük, and any other constructed language indicated as approved at Criteria for inclusion

This page may be modified through general consensus. ...

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/April
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-04/Well documented languages and constructed languages

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I guess it wouldn't hurt. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . My rationale is on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  PseudoSkull (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  2WR1 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  – Makes sense to include the list, since it's not very long and saves users a click. — Eru·tuon 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  per Dan Polansky's rationale on the talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I think it would be better not to duplicate the list and instead make it more clear that the link points to a list. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would not help a hasty eye trying to find the word "Esperanto" on the page. And since the list hardly ever changes, the maintenance overhead is negligible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why we should separate the handling of well-documented languages and constructed languages. Even if the same rules apply to them, it should be clear that they are separate things handled by separate policies. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's a separate subject. The vote does not change any handling; it only helps the eye find "Esperanto" on the page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But constructed languages don't really belong on this page. I think linking to their policy page is much less bad than listing them. --WikiTiki89 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is any less bad. Currently, the page says: "The languages well documented on the Internet as provided on the Criteria for inclusion page are: [...] approved constructed languages". The truth or falsity of that statement is not changed by the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's less bad because it points you to a policy page that has the correct information, without attracting too much attention by listing all the languages. So in order to see the list, you have to go the correct policy page. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)