Wiktionary:Votes/2010-03/All ISO 639 codes to meet CFI as Translingual entries

• Voting on: All ISO 639 codes (which represent languages such as en and eng) to automatically meet CFI irrespective of use as Translingual ({{mul}}) entries.

This is after a number of ISO 639-1 codes failed WT:Requests for verification. This was controversial, as there was much debate over what counted as a citation, and whether anyone had actually tried to cite them or not. ISO 639 codes are very widely used in the Wiktionary almost literally every page, and thousands upon thousands on templates. Therefore readers will see them used

• Vote starts: 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 24:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Vote created: Mglovesfun (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#Straw Poll: Inclusion of unattested identifiers

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-03/All ISO 639 codes to meet CFI as Translingual entries

1. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Support I've already said why, in the discussions. -- ALGRIF talk 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Support, but not because we use them a lot. We should include them because they have clear meaning, just like any abbreviation or symbol. --Yair rand 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Support EncycloPetey 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Support —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Support because we currently use them in our content — but I think we should stop using them in our content. —Ruakh_TALK 23:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Pharamp 12:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose Ƿidsiþ 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I'd have to oppose, on reflexion. Partly because I am a bit ambivalent about "translingual" sections anyway, and partly because I can't see why we shouldn't be able to verify them normally -- or if not, why they should get preferential treatment just because it's unattested jargon we happen to make use of.
2. Oppose  Let's not slide in to prescriptivism. Codes belong in appendices. And with not a single attempt to verify any of these according to our CFI, this looks like lazy prescriptivism. —Michael Z. 2010-03-29 15:43 z
3. Oppose Daniel. 16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Bequw → τ 16:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

   I also see no justification for the stated approval requirement of 60%. This is both too low (votes of this format generally require ⅔ - ¾ support) and disallows for the discretion of the closer (which is useful if the vote is particularly contentious). In general, a vote creator does not get to set this requirement and this should therefore be changed. --Bequw → τ 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

   I agree. I've removed that now. —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

   I put "does that seem reasonable", apparently it is, so yeah, suits me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Abstain Equinox ◑ 16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with "we should include it because we use them a lot". Equinox ◑ 16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Abstain Conrad.Irwin 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC) As Equinox, I think I'd agree with inclusion of these, but I want a proper reason.
3. Abstain Dan Polansky 18:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• 7-4-3, no consensus. --Yair rand 05:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fails, note that only entries that fail RFV should be deleted directed - every entry has a chance to be attested before being deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)