Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-06/Modern Latin as a LDL or extinct language

Modern Latin as a LDL or extinct language
Voting on: clarifying the status of Latin from after the language ceased to be spoken.

Votes/pl-2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL 2 appears to show insufficient consensus to formalize the treatment of modern Latin as a WDL, raising the question of whether there is consensus to treat Latin (from after the language ceased to be spoken natively; for example, a citation from 2016) as an extinct language (undifferentiated from Classical Latin), or alternatively as a LDL.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL 2

Oppose treating modern Latin as an extinct language

 * 1) . This seems like a very bad idea to me. The guidance in CFI for extinct languages is intended for, well, extinct languages, not languages in which new works are still being produced. If I'm reading CFI correctly, this option would open the door to entries for any modern Latin coinage used anywhere online, even in a non-durably-archived source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above, although perhaps a sui generis status could be adopted.--Sigehelmus (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Sigehelmus. Vatican Latin, Medical Latin, Legal Latin, taxonomic Latin all need reconsideration eventually. If they lack the essence of "Language", that doesn't mean they should be excluded or subject to the rules that apply to more typical languages. DCDuring (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on treating modern Latin as an extinct language

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  I oppose treating modern Latin differently from Classical/Vulgar/Late/Medieval Latin. It's all one language. Either the language as a whole is extinct, or it isn't. If we are going to treat post-1500 Latin differently from pre-1500 Latin, we should give it its own language code. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  -Xbony2 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose treating modern Latin as a LDL

 * 1) . I think I can understand why someone might support this option, but I prefer the current practice, in which modern Latin is subject to the same three-citation minimum as WDLs. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  See my comment above. DCDuring (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on treating modern Latin as a LDL

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  I oppose treating modern Latin differently from Classical/Vulgar/Late/Medieval Latin. It's all one language. Either the language as a whole is an LDL, or it isn't. If we are going to treat post-1500 Latin differently from pre-1500 Latin, we should give it its own language code. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  -Xbony2 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Decision
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * extinct language = failed (0-3-3) (0%)
 * LDL = failed (0-2-3) (0%)