Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-04/Well documented languages and constructed languages

Voting on: In Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, listing constructed languages explicitly. Thus, making the following edit, which only takes place in the last item of the numbered list:

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/April#Vote: Well documented languages and constructed languages
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-04/Well documented languages and constructed languages

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Support, I guess it wouldn't hurt. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. My rationale is on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Support PseudoSkull (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Support 2WR1 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Support – Makes sense to include the list, since it's not very long and saves users a click. — Eru·tuon 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Support per Dan Polansky's rationale on the talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose I think it would be better not to duplicate the list and instead make it more clear that the link points to a list. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   That would not help a hasty eye trying to find the word "Esperanto" on the page. And since the list hardly ever changes, the maintenance overhead is negligible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Which is why we should separate the handling of well-documented languages and constructed languages. Even if the same rules apply to them, it should be clear that they are separate things handled by separate policies. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   But that's a separate subject. The vote does not change any handling; it only helps the eye find "Esperanto" on the page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   But constructed languages don't really belong on this page. I think linking to their policy page is much less bad than listing them. --WikiTiki89 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   I don't see how it is any less bad. Currently, the page says: "The languages well documented on the Internet as provided on the Criteria for inclusion page are: approved constructed languages". The truth or falsity of that statement is not changed by the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   It's less bad because it points you to a policy page that has the correct information, without attracting too much attention by listing all the languages. So in order to see the list, you have to go the correct policy page. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Passed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  Edited Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)