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

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Simplifying CFI about constructed languages[edit]

Voting on: Simplifying WT:CFI#Constructed languages as follows:

Old text:

Constructed languages

Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose. In general, such languages, particularly languages associated with works of fiction, do not meet the basic requirement that one might run across them and want to know the meaning of their words, since they are only used in a narrow context in which further material on the language is readily available. There are specific exceptions to this general rule, listed below, based on consensus of the Wiktionary community; Esperanto, for example, is a living language with a sizeable community of fluent speakers, and even some native speakers.

Some individual terms from constructed languages have been adopted into other languages. These should be treated as terms in the adoptive language, and the origin noted in the etymology, regardless of whether the constructed language as a whole meets the criteria for inclusion.

Languages that are not natural languages must have consensus to be included.[1]

  • At present, several other languages have ISO 639-3 codes and are classified as constructed languages. Three are prohibited (see below); the remainder have not yet been approved for inclusion in the English Wiktionary.
  • There is consensus that languages whose origin and use are restricted to one or more related literary works and its fans do not merit inclusion as entries or translations in the main namespace. They may merit lexicons in the Appendix namespace. These languages include Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish (the first three do have ISO 639-3 codes).[2]

Even when rejected for treatment as a language for purposes of this Wiktionary, a single article about the name of that language may be acceptable.

References:

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Clarification of language inclusion
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-04/Fictional languages

New text:

Constructed languages

Constructed languages have not developed naturally, but are the product of conscious effort in the fulfillment of some purpose.

All constructed languages are excluded except for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, and Volapük.

Some individual terms from constructed languages have been adopted into other languages. These should be treated as terms in the adoptive language, and the origin noted in the etymology, regardless of whether the constructed language as a whole is included.

Languages originating from literary works should not be included as entries or translations in the main namespace, consistent with the above. However, the following ones should have lexicons in the Appendix namespace: Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon, and Orcish.[1]

References:

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-04/Fictional languages

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support[edit]

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Makes sense. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support For a rationale, see the vote talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support It is to the point and removes a lot of useless banter. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The old policy basically said nobody will ever see words in constructed languages, which is not true. --IAmAmillion
    Struck as ineligible to vote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I guess… Mistrz (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I approve of removing clutter.__Gamren (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support New version says everything that needs to be said. - [The]DaveRoss 13:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support The new version is much more concise and to the point, while still retaining all the pertinent information. BigDom 16:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose on the basis that it omits the rationale: "In general, such languages, particularly languages associated with works of fiction, do not meet the basic requirement that one might run across them and want to know the meaning of their words...". This helps the first-time reader to understand why the policy exists. Otherwise, people might think we are purists with an arbitrary dislike of constructed languages. This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing, I don't think the policy should contain a rationale. For another thing, the rationale seems to be incorrect: Constructed languages do not differ all that much from poorly documented natural languages in their ability to contain words that people once in a long while run across. It surely is quite possible for people to run across a word in a constructed language, although rarely so; but then, the same holds true of very rare English words: since they are rare, people only rarely run across them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too much useful information has been cut out. --WikiTiki89 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can be more specific, this may help draft a follow-up vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess mostly just the second sentence of the first paragraph, which others have already mentioned. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The 2nd sentence seems false as per my response to TTTO above: you can run across words of constructed languages, even if rarely so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It should have been corrected, but not removed. --WikiTiki89 18:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected to say what? (I don't think a policy should contain a rationale, but that is a separate argument.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain why constructed languages do not meet CFI. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and what is the specific explanation that you have for the reader, to be placed to CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain. Some of what has been cut could be useful in clarifying what constitutes a constructed language and how we handle them, but I'm ambivalent as to whether it stays or not. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Passed: 9-2-1 (81%). Edited WT:CFI accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Simplifying_CFI_about_constructed_languages&oldid=46821287"