Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-06/Placement of well documented languages

Placement of well documented languages
Voting on: Moving well documented languages from Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages directly to WT:CFI as follows:

Old state of Number of citations:

For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:


 * the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention,
 * each entry should have its source(s) listed on the entry or citation page, and
 * a box explaining that a low number of citations were used should be included on the entry page (such as by using the template).

New state of Number of citations:

For languages singled out below, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:


 * the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention,
 * each entry should have its source(s) listed on the entry or citation page, and
 * a box explaining that a low number of citations were used should be included on the entry page (such as by using the template).

The languages requiring three quotations in use for attestation are as follows:
 * 1) Albanian, Basque, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian (Nynorsk and Bokmål), Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Scots, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, and Ukrainian;
 * 2) Armenian, Azeri, Georgian, Hebrew and Turkish;
 * 3) Modern Standard Arabic;
 * 4) Afrikaans, Swahili, Xhosa and Zulu;
 * 5) Bengali, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu;
 * 6) Chinese, Japanese, and Korean;
 * 7) Standard Indonesian, Malay, Tagalog, Thai and Vietnamese; and
 * 8) Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, Volapük, and any other constructed language indicated as approved at Constructed languages section.

This is a vote on the placement of the list of languages, not on the contents of that list.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/June
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-06/Placement of well documented languages

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my rationale at the talk page. Let us abandon the phrase "Well documented language" and make everything more simple for the newcomer. Furthermore, I see the direct placement in CFI to be only modified via a vote as a further benefit; the modifications of Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages do not necessarily reflect general consensus or it is unobvious that they do. For a recent instance,  removed Tagalog, referencing a RFV discussion for the purpose, which is really unfortunate; Beer parlour discussion should be a minimum. It should not be all that easy to change policies; if there is a consensus, a vote will pass, while bringing the proposed change to attention of a broader audience. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . We originally chose not to have it be in CFI so that it could be modified flexibly by consensus among editors for any given language. This mechanism has been successful in the past. Along with moving it, this proposal would also remove the ease of changing it in the future. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  -Xbony2 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Metaknowledge. Also, I disagree with Dan Polansky and think that it is useful to have a term for this group of languages. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki89: Are constructed languages (Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, ...) well documented on the internet, by your lights? Should they be part of Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, as they currently are? Should we require 3 attesting quotations for constructed languages? The proposal allows us to require 3 attesting quotations for languages that someone considers not well documented on the internet. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think constructed languages should be covered by a separate policy, even if all it says is something like "Constructed languages require the same number of attestations as well-documented languages" (with a link to the well-documented languages policy). I do not like the way we have it now, where the two are somewhat conflated. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  Also per Metaknowledge. --Victar (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Metaknowledge. DCDuring (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I support moving the list onto the page WT:CFI, and probably dropping the name, which has caused some issues before, when a language is arguably well-documented but not accessibly so, or is not necessarily copiously documented but also not copiously used (e.g. constructed languages), etc. But if there are concerns that doing that will make the list less flexible, I guess those concerns need to be addressed, though I thought we had a vote that allowed for policies like CFI to be updated based on consensus in discussions in e.g. the BP and not just via votes. (I remember one user asking what would happen if some stick-in-the-mud tried to object to all discussions to force everything to be done by vote, and an admin replying that given how feisty this site's users including admins are, such a person would probably get blocked.) I also find it a bit weird for CFI to "offload" a criterion of inclusion to another page specifically to make that criterion more susceptible to change. - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @- -sche: As I pointed out, Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages is now being updated without a Beer parlour discusssion, with a mere RFV discusson. When there in fact is consensus, a vote is not all that much of a burden; whereas votes do have the property, unpleasant to many, of blocking changes that do not really have consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Decision

 * Failed: 2-5-1 (28.57%). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)