User talk:BenjaminBarrett12/scratch2

Old cruft

Two things: please see my userpage, which has examples in more than just Tok Pisin now (so this needs to be updated), and you have a typo of 'Amenian' for 'Armenian'. Otherwise, I think it looks good, although perhaps the bit about the community voting to exclude languages from the 'sparsely documented' category should just be implied. Thanks for all your work on this --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! And you even found my draft page, LOL. I'm really excited about this and will add those other words you kindly provided. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing can be hidden on a wiki... but creepiness aside, it's awesome that there's somebody out there (besides me) who is really interested in this sort of thing! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha! I was pleasantly surprised to see all the "yes" votes on the last proposal as flawed as it was. My hope was to try to do something like this on Wiktionary in another year or two, but the Diitidaht inquiry in the Beer Parlour got me fired up. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never started a vote, so I'm glad you did. I've added a lot of words in languages like Tok Pisin that I know can't be attested by our present CFI, so I wanted to make sure they won't be deleted. They all have one or two citations, so they would be set. As for yes votes, I think it's just the view of "better half of something than nothing at all". --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Amharic

I'm not sure if Amharic should be excluded. I have very little knowledge about it but resources are extremely poor. I would take it out from the list for now, if there are no objections. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I just posted the list to the proposal talk page and then took Amharic out. We can add it back in if there is a concern. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

New responses

I know I'm biased - but it looks to me as if the reconstruction will go through more easily if paired to the new language batch. Again, I'd like to get the community to voice their concerns, and that could take a week or so. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we'll do it that way, then :) What do you think about the use of "but not including" in the Exclusion List. Is that too confusing? --BB12 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine. The only thing I'm worried about is someone like EP going over it quickly, not noticing that a whole lot of languages are excluded, and voting against it. It's happened before. Thus a strong blurb will go a long way for this one. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know EP. As for a strong blurb, what are you thinking of? --BB12 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

EP = EncycloPetey. I'm not exactly sure, but I'm imagining a bold sentence above the voting section that says something like Note: yada yada restructuring has caused the yada yada, but this has no effect on the languages expressly listed in the Exclusions section. Maybe we don't need it; it just seems like a good idea. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I want to look more at African and Asian languages today and hopefully put it in the BP mañana. --BB12 (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Optime! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a link to the actual 8th Sched.? It's on p. 330 here. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Links like that can go dead. I feel safer with Wikipedia. A couple thousand languages more have been added. Still more to come.... --BB12 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Still need to address Altaic, Uralic and Turkic. Any other language families? --BB12 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Finno-Ugric, too? I thought all that stuff was either undeserving or already endangered. Except maybe some of the Turkics, but I thought I suggested that a while back. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric evidently falls into Uralic, the latter having been adopted as a wider term.

The Inclusion and Exclusion Lists now line up with each other, so individual exclusions should be under the same number as the corresponding item in the Inclusion List.

I added Azerbaijani to the Turkic line in the exceptions list. I feel sure about that one, but what do you think about the national langauges Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Turkmen, and Uzbek? They all have a fighting chance for exclusion, but I'm not sure. Also, is Pashto (a language unwritten to a woeful extent) covered? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about that. Is Azerbaijani findable online? I'm not sure about the others... Pashto is Indo-Iranian, so it's included.

For the record, the pages I'm using are w:Language isolate, w:List of language families and, next, w:Mixed language. I think that's essentially the universe of languages, no? --BB12 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, for Yiddish, which you said should perhaps be excluded, there are two languages: Eastern and Western. Western is not listed in the UNESCO Atlas, but Eastern is. Any opinion on this? I have none. --BB12 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so for Azerbaijani, but I haven't checked. By the bye, you need to stop adding languages like Jarawa that are clearly endangered, since they're already covered. As for Yiddish, I only know of one standard form. I'll do some research. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that Yiddish business is just an artificial division among dozens of dialects on a wide continuum. I think around here we use {{yi}}, but I'm not sure. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't know of any Tungusic languages that are not already endangered. Do you? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The only endangered languages (like Jarawa) I added are those not in the UNESCO Atlas. As for w:Tungusic_languages, I didn't check them for that, thank you. I looked, and those on the Wikipedia page in red (i.e., without an article) are not in the UNESCO Atlas, so my inclination is to keep them. --BB12 (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but does Ethnologue also claim that those redlink languages exist? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It turned out they were dialects, so I deleted that family. Also, it looks like you added some endangered languages back in. Is that what happened? --BB12 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a feeling on Tungusic. Yeah, I added Jarawa & Co. back after your explanation of why you put them in.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I'll take a look at the list again, tomorrow, but I think it's pretty much ready to post on the BP. --BB12 (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well documented languages

Thanks for those changes. Albanian isn't a Google search language, so I left it out. Good on the Norwegian; I wasn't sure how that is handled. I'm not comfortable with Min Nan because it has such a broad meaning. Does Hokkien have adequate material online? I have to run right now. Can you elaborate on the fictitious material issue? I have to think about Dacian. It doesn't work neatly. --BB12 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The material isn't fictitious; the community for those languages is. There are a few languages where the entire community is me. Listing sources, which sometimes only provide a handful of terms, is work without payoff. Conversely, listing sources that cannot be trusted as sole sources (and the reasoning behind that) would fix the problems we saw in Prussian and Siberian (ask Liliana for more on that), and it would help with languages like Samoan, where we need to point out that the leading copyright-free Samoan dictionary has an unusual orthography and should only be used to verify terms found elsewhere.

Hokkien is almost certainly available online! Most of Taiwan speaks it, and a good deal of mainlanders as well (I think in Fujian province especially, but I don't feel like looking it up). As for Dacian, I think it would be a shame to leave it out. Perhaps there can be a clause about extinct languages only known through mentions. I don't think that Dacian is the only one - check Illyrian and Classical Taíno. There might be enough of these to warrant such a clause. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the Arabic languages

Is this supposed to cover each and every Arabic dialect, from Moroccan Arabic down to the obscure ones like Uzbeki Arabic? Surely it should be enough to just include Standard Arabic and Maltese? -- Liliana • 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC) (addendum: and Moroccan Arabic too)

Yeah, you're basically right; I just didn't want to wade through them. Since you've asked: Standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Levantine Arabic, Maghrebi Arabic, Iraqi Arabic, and Maltese (which is basically a different language) are the ones that I think deserve the exemption. Is it worth listing them (and do you agree with my ad hoc list)? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The ad hoc list is fine but it has one major loophole: For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum. For all other spoken languages, only one use or mention is adequate. See the problem? A living language needs only one mention, but as soon as the last speaker dies, uses are suddenly needed. That is a problem that I hope will be addressed before the list goes live.
As for Arabic, Maghrebi Arabic is a collective term and I think ISO doesn't have one code for it. Do you want it to encompass all Arabic Maghreb dialects (Moroccan, Algerian and Tunisian)? -- Liliana • 23:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Arabic, so I want to comment just on the loophole issue. I'm still planning to draft a new proposal for a vote (because it will be controversial) to loosen the requirement on extinct languages as well. DP insisted on dropping extinct languages for the vote, so I did that, but I would like to pursue it once this is in place. In the meantime, languages do not go extinct very often. Eyak is the most recent one, I think. If the extinct language vote does not pass, we can still deal with this issue at that point. --BB12 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at what I put in the previous thread; this would be a strong argument to improve the mention capability of extinct languages. The only problem there is, for example, Latin terms only used in dictionaries for etymologies that have no evidence of ever having existed.

I was just listing the varieties of Arabic as I think of them, not as how ISO does. I consider Maghrebi Arabic to be the type spoken in traditional Ifriqiya: east of the Atlas, west of the Nile. It can encompass Moroccan, I suppose, although it's a continuum any way you look at it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So your list would essentially be: Arabic {{ar}}, Maltese {{mt}}, Moroccan {{ary}}, Egyptian {{arz}}, North Levantine {{apc}}, South Levantine {{ajp}}, Iraqi {{acm}}, Algerian {{arq}}, Tunisian {{aeb}}, Libyan {{ayl}}. Am I getting this correct? -- Liliana • 23:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, South Levantine too. It should be stressed, however, that I'm no expert, and your decision is likely as good as mine. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of these sound good. Iraqi I'm not so sure about, haven't seen too much Iraqi Arabic around, but the rest is okay. -- Liliana • 23:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the list, leaving out Maltese and Iraqi but adding everything else. What do you think? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds okay. -- Liliana • 17:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian

Any particular reason this is not a "well documented language"? Last time I checked, Macedonian is very much alive on the Internet. -- Liliana • 23:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I will add it right away, thank you! --BB12 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Extinct languages

I don't see an easy way to slide Dacian in, so my thought is to leave it out until the extinct vote, which will be to make extinct languages subject to the same rules as limited documentation languages. I hope that will be acceptable to Latinists and Grecians.... --BB12 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above - it will be hell for Latin. I hate to say it, but we may need exceptions (i.e. Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Egyptian, and the like) to the mentions for extinct languages vote. These languages have extensive literature and preserved inscriptions, and don't need mentions. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. All the more reason to put extinct languages off to a later vote. I'm sorry about Dacian, but I don't think anyone is waiting with bated breath on it :) --BB12 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Extinct mentions and Yiddish! Always, always more policy! I have to go and study classical indirect discourse or Thai personal pronouns or something just so I don't go crazy from all this. How you stand it I can't imagine. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I went crazy about five weeks ago when I realized it would NEVER end, so it's no longer an issue. --BB12 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Or just go for the obvious way, and require a list of valid sources for every language making use of this rule, like what's done for the living languages. -- Liliana • 11:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

But I'm trying to flip that on its head. Listing is an annoyance when material is spread out through so many sources, so I'd rather we list sources that are not allowed as sole sources by the language communities. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

With many extinct languages, that might be a good solution. Ancient Greek and Latin probably have too many, but for many languages, writing up a list of all the sources and a template for each might be really efficient. --BB12 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but for Latin and Ancient Greek, allowing mentions wouldn't help anyway. So, we just make a list of exceptions ({{la}}, {{grc}}, {{egy}}, {{sa}}, {{enm}} and maybe a few more European ones) and otherwise let extinct natural languages in. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

West Frisian

Code Cat told me that s/he is not sure about how widespread West Frisian is on the Internet. My inclination is to leave it out unless someone wants it in. --BB12 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's best; I was just worried about him voting against this on one language's account. On another note, did you notice that Luxembourgish is under the exemption now? I hope that's the best course. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I briefly considered Luxembourgish, but it's not an official language in the EU, so I decided to not worry about it. I think it would be good to mention it along with West Frisian when the list goes on the BP. I'll try to come up with some others as well. --BB12 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have time, you could ask the only person around here who cares about Luxembourgish, User:BigDom. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourgish is relatively uncommon on the Internet apart from official websites. -- Liliana • 11:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Then that works out. Thanks! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll post this on the BP in a couple of hours. --BB12 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Conlangs

Somehow, we all forgot about conlangs! I think that all conlangs that Wiktionary allows in the main namespace (Template:eo, , Template:jbo, and a couple more) should be in the exceptions list, and thus not get the exemption. Does anyone disagree? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I really wasn't interested in dealing with them, but now that you mention it, they should be addressed. The CFI says that Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial and Volapük are approved and that some others are iffy or prohibited. I think they should fall under the scope of one use or one mention because of their nature. I guess this proposal covers them, then, but it should be made explicit. How about changing

For all other spoken languages

to

For all other spoken languages (including approved constructed languages)

--BB12 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that if a conlang is approved, its words should have to be approved like a well documented language. It's too easy to make hypothetical forms in Ido or Volapük, and I think this dictionary is essentially about language as it is really used, not language as we might wish it was used. The truth is that Esperanto's conjugation is really comfortable and simple, but it's not very much used - and I don't really want to protect those terms. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of the prescriptive manuals and dictionaries, which are the sources for the language. It would seem those should be included, but your point makes perfect sense. Any way to resolve this? --BB12 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, the sources should be the small but enthusiastic groups of users. These languages are not like Klingon or Sindarin, where speakers are wary of coining words that aren't canon; Esperanto especially has undergone major changes due to usability concerns (Ido was originally reformed Esperanto). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How about if I just add a final list item that says "Approved constructed languages" then? --BB12 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. I hope everyone else agrees, or at least is OK with it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Posted!

This is now on the BP at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#New_update_to_languages_with_limited_documentation. Thank you both for all the hard work! --BB12 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just made a change, from "When considering exclusion" to "When making a change to this list." I hope that's okay. --BB12 (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I bet we'll get more criticism anyway (I have a feeling it won't be as easy as consensus, as I may have said before). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)