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

Same as for Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL just that the terms "New Latin" and "Contemporary Latin" are abandoned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@User:This, that and the other: Are you happy with the wording of the proposal? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

if Modern Latin is not to continue being treated as a WDL, the question arises whether it is to be treated like other Latin (as an extinct language), or as a LDL. I have created Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-06/Modern Latin as a LDL or extinct language to (hopefully) answer that question in the event this vote fails. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think if this vote is closed as "no consensus" (as currently seems likely to happen), then the status quo (in which modern Latin is treated as a WDL but without the practice being formalized in policy) continues, right?

If the vote actually fails, then I agree we should stop treating it as a WDL, and in that case the new vote seems like a good idea to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, but even if this vote shows insufficient consensus to formalize the status quo in the the particular language this vote proposed, it may still be sensible to hold a vote to check if there is consensus to change the status quo to treating modern Latin as either an extinct language, or a LDL. Perhaps there will be consensus for one of those things, or perhaps there will be no consensus for either (which would undercut any efforts by the minority of users who oppose the current status quo to argue that a no-consensus result in this vote should result in a change to one of them). But I am fine with putting off the other vote indefinitely if we continue to handle things at RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Calling the treatment of modern Latin as a WDL the status quo doesn't actually make it the status quo. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Correct. The fact that we've consistently required modern Latin to have three citations, and that a majority can be seen to agree with this, is what has made it the status quo. For example, the status quo is to treat Serbo-Croatian as one language, even though the only vote on the matter failed. But please try to split a Serbo-Croatian entry into B/C/S/M... :p - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

But that isn't a fact. Since the introduction of the LDL/WDL distinction, we have not consistently required modern Latin to have three citations, and there is certainly no evidence that majority agrees with doing so. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

On Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL 2, it can be seen that a majority of users agree with requiring three citations for modern Latin, even if that majority is insufficient to pass the particular formalization of the practice that this vote proposed.
This isn't the first time there's been disagreement about what the status quo was with regard to something; in the various votes on allowing entries for attested romanizations for Russian and other languages, the people who thought they should be allowed felt that that was the status quo, and the people who felt they were not allowed felt that was the status quo.
In the vote I drafted — on which I solicit feedback from those who support either of those proposals — users may demonstrate that there is consensus to treat modern Latin as either an extinct language or a LDL. Otherwise, I imagine the existing practice as supported by the most users will continue, as happened with romanizations of Russian, which AFAICS continue to be excluded despite the aforementioned people opining that they were/are allowed. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply