Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 3

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Attestation of extinct languages 3[edit]

  • Voting on: allowing language-specific exceptions to the attestation rules of the CFI to be added to the language's About pages. This would entail adding the following at the end of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation:

Certain languages may allow exceptions to the attestation rules to be made for entries in that language. These can be found on the About page of every language. A collective list of attestation criteria per language can be found on the page Wiktionary:Attestation criteria.[1]

The ref is to be inserted following the practice with Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Sourced policies.

The to-be-created page Wiktionary:Attestation criteria would include a list of languages for which an exception to the CFI exists, together with a short description and a link to the About page for further information. To prevent new or anonymous users from adding arbitrary terms, the page would be fully protected.

Dummy references section[edit]

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 3
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 30 June 2011

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel 13:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    Language-specific exceptions to the attestation rules already de facto exist. Japanese romanizations are a big example. --Daniel 13:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support OrenBochman 13:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dan Polansky 09:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Language-specific exceptions or modifications of attestation rules can be placed directly into "Attestation" section of WT:CFI. In its effect, this proposal moves attestation criteria into a non-voted region of regulation, including the "about" pages of languages. Apart from the concern with non-voted changes to CFI, I see no benefit in distributing attestation criteria to several pages, as long as the length of the criteria does not surpass thousands of words; current "Attestation" section has some 160 words. --Dan Polansky 09:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC) mainly because Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 2 hasn't finished yet, and I want to see, if that passes, how well that works. It might make the proposals here obsolete. In other words, I think you've jumped the gun and shot yourself in the foot. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    For that matter, it hasn't started yet either. So you're not opposing the proposal itself, but only the order the votes run in? -- Prince Kassad 13:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    I'm picking my favorite of the two. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Late oppose per Dan P. DAVilla 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I agree with allowing individual languages to have special CFI in some cases, but WT:CFI should specify the general parameters. Something like "this is a poorly-attested ancient language, one citation is enough" is very different from something like "this language has an official Academy, endorsement by which is enough". —RuakhTALK 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Decision[edit]

  • No consensus 3-2-1. --Yair rand 00:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)