Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-04/Disallowing appendix-only languages

I see that the discussion has come to be about inclusion versus exclusion, which is not what seemed the most glaring aspect to me. I have yet to hear what the benefit of having lemma appendices is. When a word passes the LDL requirements, we add a note, or, as a way of telling our readers "take this with a grain of salt". At e.g. Appendix:Lojban/cmavo or Appendix:Lojban/æ'µobli, there is nothing at all to indicate that the content of the page is more or less reliable than that found in mainspace. Noone but those intimately familiar with the way en.wikt is run would stand a chance of understanding why some languages are in appendices while others are not. Metaknowledge said that it's a way of "saving our content", but that's absurd: if we want to keep them, we can change the rules so we keep them in mainspace; if we don't want to keep them, we can delete them.__Gamren (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind the LDL status is that some languages see little written use. A word could be used widely in speech but only recorded in a couple dictionaries. Constructed languages work the other way around: someone compiles a dictionary and coins lots of new words, and then people may use those words (or not). If we afforded languages like Lojban LDL status, we would have to let in words that might never have actually been used in speech. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we wouldn't have to do that. CFI says that for each LDL, "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". If there are no such materials, then the criteria would simply become: one use. Additionally, the current system is laxer than LDL. But you're still not answering my question: what is gained by having something in Appendix vis-à-vis having it in mainspace?__Gamren (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The editing communities might not respect such a rule. If you had proposed such a rule, I might have considered supporting it. Instead, you created a vote that was doomed to fail by consigning the content to deletion. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If people add unverifiable (to be defined) material and don't stop when told to, they can be banned. No different than other languages.__Gamren (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you be fine with keeping these words/languages in the Appendix namespace if we had attestation criteria there too? --Per utramque cavernam 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would still think it's pointless, but I do think there should be attestation criteria.__Gamren (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be. I don't like having constructed languages in the mainspace (except Esperanto) and have voted to get Lojban out of there, but that doesn't mean "everything goes" in the Appendix namespace. Per utramque cavernam 14:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the rationale for moving to the appendix was that they would not survive WDL criteria. Since the vote did not specify any alternative criteria, "anything goes" seems like a reasonable interpretation. That's my primary frustration.__Gamren (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we can still go back to the BP and ask for a clarification of the policy (in fact, I'll do that later today). I don't think MK's idea was to exempt all these words from being subject to any attestation criteria. Regardless of their placement, which is a separate question, I'm sure he'll agree that all words should be attested one way or another. The real question is: how stringent should the criteria be? Per utramque cavernam 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * : Beer_parlour/2018/June. Per utramque cavernam 07:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)