Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages
Attestation of extinct languages
[edit]- Voting on: adding "or" to the end of the numbered list in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation, and adding this element (source code given):
# For terms in [[#Extinct language|extinct languages]]: usage or mention in one contemporaneous source.
and adding the following subsection at the end of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation:
Extinct language
[edit]Extinct languages are natural languages which have no native speakers and are not passed to children anymore. ISO groups these languages under the labels extinct, ancient and historical. As the vocabulary of an extinct language is by definition fixed and not subject to change, and the language itself may only be fragmentarily attested, lesser requirements for attestation are made for terms in any of these languages.[1]
The restriction to contemporaneous sources is meant to exclude reconstructed terms listed in modern dictionaries. It also serves to exclude modern printed texts written in ancient languages.
The ref is to be inserted following the practice with Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Sourced policies.
Dummy references section
[edit]- Vote starts: 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23:59, 9 June 2011
- Vote created: Prince Kassad 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion:
Support
[edit]Oppose
[edit]
Oppose because of the issue with mentions discussed on the talkpage. It's a shame, because it's otherwise a good change to the CFI: but that's a problem bad enough that I think I need to oppose the whole. I'd probably support if "or mention" were omitted.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)- Oppose. Just a single "mention in one contemporaneous source" is not enough. DAVilla 04:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Annoyingly so, the wording is way off in my opinion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Abstain
[edit]
Abstain due to the issues raised on the talk-page. There are plenty of extinct languages for which it doesn't make sense to include words based only on mentions in foreign-language texts. —RuakhTALK 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)- Abstain Dan Polansky 10:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC) I abstain and am inclined to oppose for the fear that the single mention allowance includes too much. I have no specific examples of where it does include too much, but I am far from confident that it does not. Other than that, I support the change to "attestation" section, and would like to do away with the new "Extinct language" section.--Dan Polansky 10:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Decision
[edit]Fails. Nobody supported the proposal. --Daniel 22:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)