Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus and attestation

Rationale
While Wikisaurus is in a separate namespace, it is just a part of Wiktionary focused on semantic relations such as synonymy and hyponymy. As one of the main contributors to Wikisaurus, I do not wish it to become a dumping ground. If the attestation criteria used in the mainspace are deemed too stringent for some purposes, they should be relaxed in the mainspace, with terms attested to a lesser degree or in a less stringent manner carrying a warning box or the like; such a thing is already done with. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Rephrase?
I think the real purpose of this proposal is to say "links that can't ever be made blue should not be there at all". So it doesn't necessarily have to do with Wikisaurus alone. Am I right? 17:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not about links only. I do not want unlinked unattested terms either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Common practice
It has been my practice for some time to haphasardly remove redlinked terms from Wikisaurus as unattested, and to remove terms that are bluelinked but do not have the requisite sense in the mainspace. I did it because it made sense to me, and because various discussions showed at least limited support for keeping only attested items in Wikisaurus. The practice was inspired by and possibly other edits. I think it would be nice to give redlinked terms in Wikisaurus a fair chance in RFV; my practice was to just delete them as unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)