Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Clarification of language inclusion

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Clarification of language inclusion

[edit]
  • Voting on the principle that, for languages that are not natural languages, to be included each must have consensus for approval. (The alternatives are that only a majority is required, or that consensus is required for disapproval and otherwise approval is tentative.) The impact of this vote is clarification that the following constructed languages will not be included as they have not yet achieved consensus for inclusion. The ISO 639-3 code is shown when it exists:

Afrihili (afh), Blissymbols (zbl), Brithenig (bzt), Ceqli, Delason, D'ni, Dutton World Speedwords (dws), Ekspreso, Europanto, Glos, Glosa/Interglossa (igs), Jakelimotu, Kotava (avk), Kyerepon, Láadan (ldn), Latejami, Latino sine Flexione, Linga, Lingua Franca Nova (lfn), Romanica, Romanova (rmv), Sasxsek, Suoczil, Tceqli, Toki Pona

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 28 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus required for language inclusion

[edit]
  1. Support. Although I don't think it's ideal, it is important to have some certainty with something so fundamental. This does reflect status quo in my opinion. DAVilla 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support.--Prosfilaes 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support the current version (which only affects constructed languages). —RuakhTALK 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bequw → τ 06:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Ruakh (16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)).​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support DCDuring TALK 12:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Gauss 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majority required for language inclusion or exclusion

[edit]
  1. I'm going to add and support this option as I think it makes the most sense in general, given for instance Ruakh's example of language grouping. DAVilla 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus required for language exclusion

[edit]
  1. This option makes sense as well, since it falls under the principle that entries are to be included unless there is consensus for deletion. Support. DAVilla 16:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all options

[edit]
Oppose Despite the vote title, this actually seems very unclear to me. Is it only intended to cover constructed languages? Or does it presuppose that there's already a consensus for including all natural languages? (In the latter case, I wonder how this would affect cases of language splittism vs. mergism? What if neither Serbo-Croatian, nor B/C/S, can be shown to have consensus?) —RuakhTALK 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, sorry for not commenting until now. I was out of the country, and didn't see it. —RuakhTALK 05:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually meant to apply to all languages. There isn't a consensus for including all natural languages, not as language headings anyway. But you bring up a good point. I will rewrite the vote. DAVilla 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. The general rule is all words, all languages, this is a founding principle of the project. I agree that this rule must be clarified. But I would first define some general and clear rules automatically allowing inclusion for almost all languages (I've already proposed such criteria elsewhere), and an approval vote should be required only for languages not meeting any of these criteria. Remember that consensus is the rule, and in many cases, votes cannot lead to a consensus. Unfortunately, everybody is aware of this fact. Lmaltier 08:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What you propose is fine, and I even feel I'd support it, but it's outside the scope of this vote. Furthermore, your approach is the same, clarifying which of the languages are to be included, and all others to be banished unless they are bestowed some mercy, but only by consensus, as a mere half in favor would not grant any special status. DAVilla 16:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I think constructed languages which have an ISO code should be automatically considered approved. The others, which are not included in ISO, should need explicit approval. -- Prince Kassad 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What you propose is fine, and I even feel I'd support it, but it's outside the scope of this vote. Furthermore, your approach is the same, clarifying which of the languages are to be included, and all others to be banished unless they are bestowed some mercy, but only by consensus, as a mere half in favor would not grant any special status. DAVilla 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
If anything, this vote reminds me that in general people cannot think abstractly votes are always more practical than abstract. DAVilla 18:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Clarification_of_language_inclusion&oldid=12578907"