Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 2

• Voting on: add this new option to the list of verification methods in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation:

4. For terms in extinct languages: usage in at least one contemporaneous source.

(with the existing list's punctuation and placement of "or" being changed appropriately, and a with <ref> to this vote being added at the end of the new list element).

For reference, the current list is this:

“Attested” means verified through

1. Clearly widespread use,
2. Usage in a well-known work, or
3. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

• Vote starts: 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23.59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky 13:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/November#Wiktionary:About_Ancient_Greek.23Attestation

  Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Attestation_of_extinct_languages

  Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2010-12/Attestation_of_extinct_languages

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 2 - discussion about this vote

1. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Caladon 09:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Support —CodeCat 10:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
4. Support BigDom 14:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. --Vahag 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
6. Support per my comment at ].​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
7. Support —Ruakh_TALK 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
8. Support - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC) (Liliana has a good point, but msh210 has a good counterpoint.)
9. Support Dan Polansky 07:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
10. Support --Anatoli 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose this will likely lead to the abolition of all exceptions for RFV matters, making several languages plain unattestable due to their nature. -- Liliana • 11:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

   I genuinely don't understand this comment; consider using the talk page if you wish to explain at length. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

   You seem to be worried that this will lead to more exclusion. (Right?) But it only adds a criterion for inclusion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

   The point is that until now, there hasn't been a rule on how to treat extinct languages, and everyone agrees that the current CFI are unsuited for that, so every sysop can decide on his own by common sense.
   Once this rule is established, I fear people will say "but it says in the rule that only uses count, and no works in that language have ever been published, it has only been mentioned in other sources, so let's delete all words and ban the language from Wiktionary". -- Liliana • 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

   You're probably right that people will say that, but you (and I) can point them to the talkpage of the vote that led to this one, where the discussion clearly led to the removal of "mentions" from the to-be-added criterion only because of concerns about particular circumstances, which don't include the circumstance that a language is attested only by mentions.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Passes 10-1-0. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)