Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2020-04/Attestation of comparatives and superlatives

Voting on: Codifying whether comparatives and superlatives need to meet CFI's attestation criteria.

Option 1:

Adjectival and adverbial comparatives and superlatives can only be included if they are attested in the sense of CFI; it does not suffice that the base form is attested. Each comparative has to be attested, and each superlative has to be attested independently of the comparative. If a comparative or a superlative has multiple subforms (which happens in some highly inflected languages), the attesting quotations for the subforms can be pooled for attesting purposes.

Option 2:

For English and some other languages, adjectival and adverbial comparatives and superlatives can only be included if they are attested in the sense of CFI; it does not suffice that the base form is attested. For these languages, each comparative has to be attested, and each superlative has to be attested independently of the comparative; if a comparative or a superlative has multiple subforms (which happens in some highly inflected languages), the attesting quotations for the subforms can be pooled for attesting purposes. The list of languages to which this applies has not been determined.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/April#Vote: Attestation of comparatives and superlatives
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2020-04/Attestation of comparatives and superlatives

1. Support per rationale on the talk page. I may reconsider if someone provides convincing examples of words (in some language) for which the proposal would cause problems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Support I too had many of the concerns listed on the talk page, but those were all quelled by the responses to those concerns. A careful balancing analysis shows (to me, at least) that the pro-attestation position wins out marginally. Because this vote merely makes clear that comparatives and superlatives must be attested (i.e. that there is no difference between "requires attestation" and "can be challenged through RFV"), it is the sort of "closing minor policy gaps" that was advertised. Also as a result, I don't foresee too much new "busywork and tedium" that wouldn't already have been part of RFV. What this vote does do, however, is foreclose useless arguments "with continental editors that attestation is" not required. Imetsia (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support when option 2 fails. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Equinox ◑ 03:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Support although I agree with Lambiam that this should apply to all inflections. --Droigheann (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Oppose This would make it difficult to handle words that are not well-attested and creates a lot of busywork and tedium that doesn't meaningfully advance Wiktionary. If comparative forms aren't attested for a otherwise well-attested adjective/adverb, it can be handled on a word-by-word basis; for example, a (no comparative or superlative forms) label can be added beside the headword, or existence/rarity of the comparative/superlative forms can be discussed through RFV. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

   @Hazarasp: Can you give us some example words where this causes a problem? And if a base adjective is attested but a comparative is not attested, how do you know that the comparative exists? As for "existence/rarity of the comparative/superlative forms can be discussed through RFV", that is what this proposal is about: it is about placing the same attestation rigor on comparatives and superlatives as is placed on base forms, and the attestation rigor is conventionally handled via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose The wording “include” is unclear, and there is no real problem solved with making the rules even longer. Fay Freak (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

   The real problem is the above user suggesting on the talk page that some unattested comparatives can be included; or maybe I misunderstood what the above user was saying. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

   As for the clarity of "include" wording, the wording is approximately parallel to current WT:CFI wording:

   • "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”, subject to the following criteria"
   • "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic"
   • "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion"
   • Etc.

   --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

3. Oppose This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

   Mahāgaja, can you clarify whether you think comparatives can be included only if attested?

   The problem is that we have no clarity on whether comparatives are subject to the same attestation standards as base forms; there are people claiming that inflected forms can be included even if not attested, and comparatives are like inflected forms in some ways but not in other ways. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

   If the adjective is comparable, and if the language's method of creating comparatives and superlatives is beyond doubt, then comparatives and superlatives should be allowed even if not attested. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

4. Oppose I don’t see the need for burdening the CFI with this complication. If there is a real problem (which I doubt), it is a problem for all inflected forms, so then his compication addresses only a small part of the issue.  --Lambiam 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose No examples of any real problems are presented, so it looks like a solution to a problem that does not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose A solution in search of a problem, as others have said. Will only complicate the already time-consuming citation process without improving the overall quality or reliability of entries. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Support per rationale on the talk page. I prefer option 1, but if people want to play it safe, option 2 is also worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per my rationale above. Imetsia (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Oppose See my rationale above. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose The wording “include” is unclear, and there is no real problem solved with making the rules even longer. Fay Freak (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose See my rationale above.  --Lambiam 16:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose This is getting too vague, with languages unclear. RFV can deal with inappropriate addition of forms that are not used for major languages. For hard-to-attest languages we can just let for form pass, unless it is getting ridiculous, and then RFV can handle it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose "Some other languages" is too vague. --Droigheann (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per above. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Abstain: DonnanZ (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Both of these fail, with more opposing votes than support votes. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To test the hypothesis that comparatives can fail RFV, I created Czech morphologically plausible yet unattested comparative lumbálnější and sent it to RFV. The result of the RFV will be archived to Talk:lumbálnější. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)