Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-07/Adding descendant hubs

Adding descendant hubs
Voting on: Adding one of the following sections to WT:CFI between Idiomaticity and Translation hubs.

Proposal 1
Attested terms that would otherwise fail the criteria of inclusion may still be included if they contain at least one inclusion-worthy descendant that is not a or two inclusion-worthy descendants of any kind.

Proposal 2
Attested terms that would otherwise fail the criteria of inclusion may still be included if they contain at least two inclusion-worthy descendants.

Procedure
Under both proposals, descendant hubs may be created if there are at least two descendants. Under proposal 1, descendant hubs may additionally be created if there is just one non-pseudo-loan descendant. The additional constraint (non-pseudo-loan-hood) was chosen so that pseudo-loans don't inadvertently cause the creation of a large number of attested but otherwise uninteresting and linguistically unrelated SOP entries. The constraint is not active if there are at least two descendants, not even if they are both pseudo-loans because such descendant hubs would be comparatively very rare and because they are, in fact, interesting: they increase discoverability of the other pseudo-loan(s).

As per usual, the proposals need to reach a supermajority of 2/3 to be accepted. If both proposals are accepted, the one with the higher support to oppose ratio is implemented. If their ratios are equal, proposal 1 is implemented.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote created: &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Talk:специальная военная операция
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2022-07/Adding descendant hubs

Support

 * 1) . &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 08:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Megathon7 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  What’s the point of including SoP frases with only one descendant? I can understand leaving  with its gazillion descendants, but what is the value of the entry if there’s only one? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * специальная военная операция happens to have two inclusion-worthy descendants but if it had only one, it would still be an interesting entry that I'd want to have because of its etymology (detailing when exactly it was created and for which context) and its inclusion-unworthy SOP calque descendants (e.g., many others). &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Skiulinamo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) . I don't feel strongly enough to oppose this outright but find it very difficult to imagine situations where it would be useful. If there's only a single descendant extra details about the etymology can just be added at that entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I think this might be useful if the descendants themselves stand up to CFI, much like how translation hubs work. As far as I can tell that's not included in this. If that is not part of the proposal, I don't really see the point in recording a bunch of calqued phrases that are literal within a given context. Vininn126 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this might be useful if the descendants themselves stand up to CFI This is required for it to be a valid DHUB. The vote text says the descendants have to be "inclusion-worthy" which means they have to stand up to CFI. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) . —Svārtava (talk) • 07:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  as my second choice. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 08:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) . —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) . A solid proposal. Inclined to vote abstain on option 1, but I'll give myself some more time to think about it. AG202 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per the brief discussion above. Vininn126 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  Even though ‘special military operation’ is an entirely unexceptional phrase and I hope that this policy doesn’t lead to its creation, it’s justified because of cases like hoc anno. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , as long as not meeting the criteria for inclusion doesn't include not being attestable. There are pseudo-loans (as mentioned on the discussion page), where a phrase is "borrowed" from a language without actually existing natively in that language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  --Skiulinamo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  See first abstain. Vininn126 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Decision
Proposal 1: 3-2-1 No consensus.

Proposal 2: 7-1-0 Passed. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)