Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-02/Wikification of language names in Translation sections

• Voting on: Changing the following sentence on WT:ELE#Translations:

The language names of regional languages, dialects and recognised artificial languages may be wikified, but in general, language names are not to be wikified.

to the following text:

The names of languages which are expected to be well-known among English speakers are not to be wikified, while language names which may not be known to the average person or are potentially subject to confusion are to be wikified. Details and a list of affected languages are listed on Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification.

• Vote starts: 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 24:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Vote created: Prince Kassad 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#WT:ELE.23Translations

1. Support Yair rand 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Bequw → τ 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Support.​—msh210℠ 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Daniel. 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Support —Ruakh_TALK 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Support. Looks good; thank you for the vote! --Dan Polansky 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Kassad, learne Inglish. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Support —Stephen 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Support --Anatoli 01:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Robert Ullmann 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose This still means that in long lists, like on water, most will be wikified anyway. So I don't understand why we don't just link all of them. I also don't think that this is specific enough for a vote. We'll just need another one to decide exactly what languages will and won't be linked. Didn't notice the subpage lol. But even seeing that, I don't think most of the languages in the second list are really that well-known at all except among people interested in languages and linguistics. It's just too subjective. — opiaterein — 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   I agree that most of the languages in the "Other commonly known languages" aren't well-known and should be linkified, but I think the way to address that is to move them from that list to the "Languages always wikilinked" list, rather than to start wikilinking even French and Spanish. —Ruakh_TALK 20:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   If we're already going to be wikifying more than 90% of the language names, I don't see why it's such a horrible thing to just do all of them. — opiaterein — 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose EncycloPetey 03:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC) The proposed wording is ungrammatical. In any case, the wikification of languages in the Translations is handled by template control and by AF, so what ELE says isn't particularly pertinent. It would be better, if we're going to make a change, to allow for such an explanation so that new users don't worry about the linking at all. --EncycloPetey 03:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing the grammatical error: where is it, please? The wikification is handled by templates and Tbot (and AF too?), yes, and a modification so people needn't worry abuot it would be vastly better than the one currently proposed, but this vot'es started already and the current ELE is plain wrong, so I think this is worth voting in (unless there is in fact a grammatical or other error).​—msh210℠ 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

   Dunno if this is what EP is referring to, but the fourth word should be "languages" rather than "language". —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

   Surely we can just change it without restarting the entire vote? I mean c'mon, let's not beat ourselves over the head with bureaucracy. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

   Haha, because we're not doing that already. — opiaterein — 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

   Changed to "languages". If anyone specifically prefers that ELE have a typo in it, speak now. :P --Yair rand 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose I am particularly discontent with the phrase expected to be well-known among English speakers (supposedly native English speakers is meant). Wiktionary is a free dictionary written in the English language, but that does not infer shaping it after what the average English speaker considers well-known. Exempli gratia, the average Eastern-Europæan speaker is undoubtedly aware of major languages from this region such as Kalmyk or Karelian, but this does not mean we must link them because of their significant distance from and unfamiliarity in the anglophone world. It would be useless for all Eastern Europæan readers who are a considerable amount of our regular users (and readers obviously). In the same way, some languages which are considered well-known in the English-language world, are completely obscure to an average (Eastern) Europæan like Navajo which I myself encountered for the first time in my life a year ago. In a nutshell, shaping the criterion of whether something is well-known or not after the average native English speaker is what discourages me from supporting the proposal because of its regional subjectiveness. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think we should wikilink any language names. It distracts from the actual words being discussed.

   That is not what the vote is about. This vote is about making ELE reflect standard practice, instead of saying that "regional languages, dialects and recognised artificial languages" should be wikified. --Yair rand 17:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Abstain  If there are concerns with the wording, then, unfortunately, the proposal is too fresh to be entered permanently into our guidelines. How about linking all languages and context labels with a less obtrusive type style? —Michael Z. 2010-03-29 15:58 z

• Passes 11-4-1. --Yair rand 02:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)