Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL 2

Voting on: If Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL does not pass, adding the following list item to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages:

The "and" and punctuation in items 7 and 8 are to be modified as necessary.

If Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL does pass, replacing the New and Contemporary Latin item that it added with the one above.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL 2

1. Support per reasoning stated in my cast vote at Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Support - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Support this one. This, that and the other (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Mistrz (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Support The proportion of New Latin's texts available online is probably higher than anything but a constructed language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose for the same reason as before. Also, I think this vote is a bit unfair, since a similar vote had just failed with only slightly different wording. --WikiTiki89 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

   If you're going to be making accusations of unfairness, you'd best be honest about it. That vote has not yet ended, and even if no more votes are cast or changed, it will be closed as having no consensus, rather than failing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

   and this vote adjusts the proposal to take into account some of the concerns expressed by opposers of that vote, which is not an uncommon phenomenon (and seems desirable). - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose for the same reason as before. Latin after 1500 is neither a constructed language nor is it well documented on the Internet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose — Z. b"A. — 14:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose, it isn't a WDL. — Kleio (t · c) 19:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose — Slœtel (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Surely you jest. DCDuring (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   @DCDuring What makes you say that? This is already the way modern Latin is treated in practice at RFV; the goal of this vote is to codify existing practice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   Apparently modern Latin isn't treat so uniformly at RFV. Certainly this vote proves there's no consensus for doing so. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   I didn't seem uniform/settled to me. I just gave up waiting for it to be settled and created {{epinew}} so all inflection line templates could link to whichever language section (Translingual, Latin, or other) the whims of the "consensus" may favor for that purpose. I am fairly sure that any change in the current lack of consensus will require some level of pointless work for me.

   As is typical with vote proposals that affect entries, there is no mention of the work required to implement whatever changes may be required. DCDuring (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   Huh? No work at all is required to implement this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   Well, okay, one edit is required—an edit to WT:WDL to add the proposed text. Other than that, this vote doesn't actually change anything, it just reaffirms the way we already treat these entries at RFV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

   @DCDuring: This vote proposes to require 3 attesting quotations in use for inclusion of a Latin term with quotations only after 1500. I also don't understand what sort of work required you are talking of. Presumably, if this passes (an if), some currently included Latin terms will eventually fail RFV, if any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose. The case of Latin is a very special and complex one, and I don't think we should solve the matter with what looks like a hastily prepared vote to me.
   • What exactly do we mean by "Modern Latin"? Wikipedia gives it as a synonym of "New Latin", i.e. Latin from the late Middle Ages til the beginning of the twentieth century; but our entry New Latin says it includes Renaissance Latin and Contemporary Latin (don't know where the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries went in that definition...). "Latin, for words having quotations only after the year 1500" rather points to that second definition, apparently; fair enough but...
   • The situation between Renaissance Latin and Contemporary Latin is definitely very different. Yes, there's still a fair amount of contemporary Latin secular prose (and poetry) published today (several periodical, Latin translations of modern works, even a few books), and various enterprises promoting the use of Latin (Accademia Vivarium Novum, many Latin circles, the Finnish Latin news; although their respective objectives aren't always the same); but Latin is definitely not the tool of communication it was anymore.
   • Also, as someone who was once relatively well-acquainted with the world of Latinitas viva, I wonder what Internet resources you plan to use.
   • That said, this doesn't mean that I don't want to be stringent on what we will add here. I coined the term "corporisculptor" as a calque of bodybuilder (actually, "corporisculptrix", since I was translating in Latin the French feminine word bodybuildeuse), which was published in the Melissa journal a couple years ago; but I definitely wouldn't want to see it here unless I were sure it has taken off.
   • The continued use of Latin by the Catholic Church (Ecclesiastical Latin) and its promotion of the Latinitas viva (publication of the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, among other things) further complicates the picture. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

     Nothing depends on the term "Modern Latin"; it is just in the name of the vote, for lack of better ideas how to name the vote. The change in the policy is specified in terms of time range: "Latin, for words having quotations only after the year 1500". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

     The idea of the vote is fairly simple: For Latin after 1500, we are not so desperate as to consider a single use or single mention good enough. Basing the dictionary on singles is bad lexicography. For some languages or their phases, we are desperate enough to allow that kind of bad lexicography, albeit with the {{LDL}} badge of shame. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

     You speak of your coinage not taking off. With single uses allowed, new coinages are not required to take off to any degree; it suffices that they are made. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

     @Barytonesis: Pinging for the case you would like to respond, perhaps especially about the risk of terms not taking off being nonetheless included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose Agreed that contemporary Latin is not well-documented. Renaissance Latin alone would be a different story. Ligata (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

   This is a late vote. I removed it from the vote count. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No consensus: 10-7-0 (58.82%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)