Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/Proto- languages in Appendicies

• Voting on: Confirming that reconstructed languages (Proto-Indo-European et al) are to be Appendix: entries.

  • That WT:CFI state explicitly that terms in reconstructed languages do not meet CFI.
  • That WT:CFI point to the various Appendicies (perhaps via Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms), stating explicitly that the Proto- languages and terms are permitted there.
  • That all etymologies referring to PIE et al use template {{proto}} which will format the links to the appendicies and also provide a way to identify these entries. (Special/Whatlinkshere, or adding a category or categories to the template as desired.)
  • That there are normally no redirects from the main namespace to these entries.

  This is essentially codifying what we have been doing to date.

• Vote ends: 22 January 2007
• Vote started by: Robert Ullmann 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Discussion: For some time now, PIE entries (and, e.g. Proto-Germanic, Proto-Uralic, etc.) have resided in the Appendicies, with references from the etymologies of various words. This is appropriate, as they are conjectural reconstructions, not actual words that can meet CFI. (The issue arises because one otherwise valuable contributor has begun trying to move these entries into the main namespace. For some background, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#*men-, User talk:Dbachmann, User talk:Robert Ullmann, Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Indo-European, and here at WT:VOTE. The preceding vote is about removing PIE entirely, which is apparently not the common view; the common view seems to prefer the status quo pro ante: that PIE (et al) belong in the Appendicies.)

1. Support Robert Ullmann 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Jeffqyzt 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Kipmaster 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Connel MacKenzie 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Existing practice for a long time. I'd prefer the eradication of proto forms, but this may become a workable compromise. So far, it has not worked flawlessly.
5. Support Versageek 17:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC) as long as copyright concerns about the material are properly addressed.
6. Support Williamsayers79 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Seems to be the best way forward on PIE.

   Support DAVilla 20:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC) although there's a point unsettled. Even for etymologies I think we should emphasize cognates over proto forms. The exact spellings of the latter is more an academic issue that would be subject to change of opinion, even if the ones that are agreed upon are mostly correct, though we could never really know if that's true, could we?

7. Support Beobach972 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC). I support the proposal that PIE and other such roots be placed in the Appendix: namespace (Beobach972 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)).
8. Support EncycloPetey 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Suggest we have a coordinating page for this.
9. Support —Stephen 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support henne 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC) But only if sork is made from the promises above: clearly link to the Appendix in WT:CFI and also mention it in the etymology section of WT:ELE.
11. Support SemperBlotto 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose RSvK 19:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC) The current method makes it hard to look up these roots, their cognates, and their derived forms. I'd like us to come up with some method that makes these forms easier to create and look up. While they are reconstructed, many of them have been around a long time now. The Wiktionary structure makes it easy to make any needed corrections as they come along.
3. Oppose Ncik 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Abstain DAVilla 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Redirects from the main namespace should be permissible, to Appendix:PIE#*root or Appendix:ETAL#*root, as this is an easy way to find the entries, if there isn't a problem with Wiktionary mirrors. Even so, I'm not certain how name conflicts would be resolved, e.g. a collision between a PIE root and what else is out there? Maybe if they redirected directly into a Reconstructed: namespace there wouldn't be any conflicts. But why keep a separate namespace which would be difficult to maintain, instead of just letting them in the main space as we do with Phrasebook entries?

   Or if a redirect isn't possible, would it be permissible to soft link from ]? DAVilla 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Abstain Widsith 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Abstain Tohru 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) A solution just like one for rhymes might be desirable; i.e. not in Appendicies but in another namespace.

• Approved: 11/2/3 — Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms updates, WT:CFI will refer to it. Robert Ullmann 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical note:

• This vote was superseded by Wiktionary:Votes/2015-09/Creating a namespace for reconstructed terms. (it states that reconstructed terms are to be in the Reconstruction: namespace) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)