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

Rationale
This leads to simplification, in my view. As a result, the user of CFI does not need to click to another page; the information which languages require 3 quotations is essential, and should better be directly on the CFI page.

Furthermore, it avoids making any claims about languages requiring 3 quotations, e.g. whether they are "well documented languages on the Internet". Thereby, it helps implement the idea that regulations should constrain descriptions to the minimum and contain prescriptions, instructions to take an action.

This may have a future impact on whether we may require 3 quotations for Latin after 1500. But it is only a stepping stone and does not directly impact Latin; in fact, it has no policy impact. In future, if someone makes a further proposal to let Latin 1500+ require 3 quotations, voters can still chose to oppose and require only 1 quotation, for whatever reason. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

List of languages
I've edited the vote so it doesn't spell out the list of languages, but simply says it will be moved from WT:WDL directly into WT:CFI. There are a number of reasons why it's better not to spell out the list of languages: for one thing, it helps keep people from voting based on whether they agree or disagree with the languages on the list, and it hopefully helps keep people from arguing that this vote which is titularly about placement should also be considered to bind which languages are listed. The list itself is not-infrequently updated, without votes or even big discussions, e.g. as recently as last week, and it's conceivable that it might be updated even during the course of this vote, if people determined as they did for Tagalog (last week) that something should or shouldn't be listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An even better solution, which could be done either in conjunction with a version that doesn't spell out the list of languages or a version that does spell out the list, would be to say outright that the vote is about the placement of the list, not the content of the list (which, as noted, changes). This would most clearly avoid the issues outlined above, and help prevent the debate over how many quotations are required for Latin affecting this vote. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and therefore, I have reverted. The voter should get a clear idea of how the result will look like. A disavantage is that the voter has to compare the text with the existing text in Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. Since what the vote does is only move the languages from one place to another (as it says at the very beginning), a disagreement about the list should give no occassion for oppositon.
 * Any change that takes place in Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages before the vote starts can be added later via another vote; that should be easy as long as the change was actually supported by consensus.
 * Can someone please undo the removal of Tagalog from Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages? I disagree with that removal, and a RFV is hardly a venue in which to collect consensus about editing of that list of languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages page says: 'This page may be modified through general consensus. To make a request to add or exclude a language, go to the Beer Parlour and click the "+" tab at top to input your request.' That suggests even the page itself does not envision RFV as the sort of venue in which to seek general consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for adding "This is a vote on the placement of the list of languages, not on the contents of that list" again; this cannot harm and reinforces what the vote is about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: In an edit summary, you say: "shoe-horns in a change to the treatment of Latin": Can you clarify? The vote's treatment of Latin is exactly the same as in Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages: Latin is not mentioned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)