Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Simplifying CFI about constructed languages

Rationale

The current text should better be simplified without change of the actual policy. I hope to add more detail later. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Some added detail: First, the policy text should get to the point as fast as possible. Second, the policy does not need to talk about consensus. It does not need to say that a certain kind of languages must have consensus in order to be included; it suffices that the policy excludes all constructed languages except for allowed ones, taking advantage of the fact that the list of allowed constructed languages can be expanded only via consensus, specifically via CFI-modifying vote. I made other simplification as well, and leave it without comment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

List of excluded languages

Why would we leave the following sentence in: "Languages excluded as per above include Ceqli (Tceqli), D'ni, Delason, Ekspreso, Europanto, Glos, Jakelimotu, Kyerepon, Latejami, Latino sine Flexione, Linga, Romanica, Sasxsek, Suoczil, Toki Pona, and others."? The list of constructed languages for which there is no consensus for inclusion is uncountable, and these are not such special languages that they deserve mention in our policy. I think removing this sentence would be an additional improvement. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought about removing the list when I created the vote. I decided to keep it to give a more extensive idea of what we mean by a constructed language, and to make the CFI location findable for anyone using the language names as search keywords. On the other hand, the list of included languages already gives such an idea. On a related note, e.g. google:"Suoczil" finds close to nothing so I wonder where that name comes from. I have removed the list as proposed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A further note: Based on Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Clarification of language inclusion, it seems the list I kept in the new proposal and that is now removed is a list of languages without ISO 639-3 code. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Place for expansion

If the proposed text is changed to not imply that no new constructed languages may ever be included even when consensus arises (probably not going to happen, but still), I will wholeheartedly support.__Gamren (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gamren: I don't think we can expand the text at this stage of the running vote. I think it goes without saying that CFI can be changed as a result of consensus, and such a change can either expand or contract the list of constructed languages allowed. The CFI contains plentiful references to votes that modify CFI, some of them rather substantially; thereby, the CFI reader should gain the proper impression about the modifiability of CFI. I don't see any place of the proposed text that implies "that no new constructed languages may ever be included even when consensus arises". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"All constructed languages are excluded except for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, and Volapük.", where perhaps "suggests" would be a better word. But sure, have my vote.__Gamren (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)