| Wiktionary:Votes/2012-03/CFI for Endangered Languages Mar 31st 2012, 07:20 Oppose: | ← Older revision | Revision as of 07:20, 31 March 2012 | | Line 41: | Line 41: | | | #: I appreciate the vote and the feedback. I agree the durable requirement needs to go in. If this vote passes, I will immediately draft a new vote adding that in. If not, I will re-draft with that included. For endangered languages, I often forget that most people don't see them because I see them everywhere: in the paper, on the Internet, in my community. Depending on who you ask, there are about 3000 of them in the world. Off the top of my head: [[Ainu]] (northern Japan), [[w:Jeju dialect]] (South Korea), [[Ditidaht]] (mentioned in the Beer Parlour), [[Makah]] (mentioned on the discussion page), [[Salish]] and [[w:Lushootseed]] (Washington State), [[Crow]] (US), [[Cornish]] (England), [[Irish]], [[Quechuan]] (South America), dozens of languages in [[w:Australian Aboriginal languages|Australia]], [[Maori]] (New Zealand) and [[Hawaiian]]. [[User:BenjaminBarrett12|BenjaminBarrett12]] ([[User talk:BenjaminBarrett12|talk]]) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | #: I appreciate the vote and the feedback. I agree the durable requirement needs to go in. If this vote passes, I will immediately draft a new vote adding that in. If not, I will re-draft with that included. For endangered languages, I often forget that most people don't see them because I see them everywhere: in the paper, on the Internet, in my community. Depending on who you ask, there are about 3000 of them in the world. Off the top of my head: [[Ainu]] (northern Japan), [[w:Jeju dialect]] (South Korea), [[Ditidaht]] (mentioned in the Beer Parlour), [[Makah]] (mentioned on the discussion page), [[Salish]] and [[w:Lushootseed]] (Washington State), [[Crow]] (US), [[Cornish]] (England), [[Irish]], [[Quechuan]] (South America), dozens of languages in [[w:Australian Aboriginal languages|Australia]], [[Maori]] (New Zealand) and [[Hawaiian]]. [[User:BenjaminBarrett12|BenjaminBarrett12]] ([[User talk:BenjaminBarrett12|talk]]) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | | #: There is no list of terms currently excluded because editors simply add terms from endangered languages and languages without strong written traditions without citations. If they were all sent to RFV, few would survive, but as a community we choose to ignore them instead of removing legitimate words, which would run counter to "all words in all languages". That is the problem that this vote can solve. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup> 02:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | #: There is no list of terms currently excluded because editors simply add terms from endangered languages and languages without strong written traditions without citations. If they were all sent to RFV, few would survive, but as a community we choose to ignore them instead of removing legitimate words, which would run counter to "all words in all languages". That is the problem that this vote can solve. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup> 02:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | − | #:: My complaint is that I have not a single term that would newly be included, and not a single quotation that would make the term includable. Examples of languages do not cut it for me; I need examples of ''terms'' and ''their prospective attestations'' according to the new rule. Discussing a rule in the abstract without dealing with specific examples is less than advisable. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 07:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | + | #:: My complaint is that I have not a single term that would newly be included, and not a single quotation that would make the term includable. Examples of languages do not cut it for me; I need examples of ''terms'' and ''their prospective attestations'' according to the new rule. Discussing a rule in the abstract without dealing with specific examples is less than advisable.<p>If a real problem with endangered languages is demonstrated, the likely solution for it would be a restoration of something like "Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or" in [[WT:ATTEST]], a bullet point that was removed in {{diff|11266241|10533483}}. But again, in order to restore the bullet point, we need a list of example terms with their academic references to see what we are talking about. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 07:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''', for drafting reasons. It removes the clause for extinct languages which I like. If there were a vote to add an exception for poorly attested languages without removing the exception for extinct languages, I'd support it, if the wording were unambiguous enough. This wording isn't unambiguous enough for me, and it fails my first criterion anyway. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''', for drafting reasons. It removes the clause for extinct languages which I like. If there were a vote to add an exception for poorly attested languages without removing the exception for extinct languages, I'd support it, if the wording were unambiguous enough. This wording isn't unambiguous enough for me, and it fails my first criterion anyway. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | | | #: Thank you for the vote and the feedback. The issue of extinct languages is complex. As mentioned on the discussion page, [[Makah]] recently became extinct according to the definition of having no native speakers. There are many other such languages, such as [[Manx]], for example. Such languages fall somewhere between endangered and extinct, so I was trying to make sure they did not fall through the cracks. Also, the contemporaneous requirement for extinct language attestation puzzled me because it seems to rule out citing scholars for attestation. Nobody on the discussion page could say why it was there, so I tried to incorporate extinct and endangered languages together. I would welcome a reason to try to separate out long-extinct languages and keep the contemporaneous requirement if a way could be done that doesn't exclude languages that have recently gone dormant. [[User:BenjaminBarrett12|BenjaminBarrett12]] ([[User talk:BenjaminBarrett12|talk]]) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | #: Thank you for the vote and the feedback. The issue of extinct languages is complex. As mentioned on the discussion page, [[Makah]] recently became extinct according to the definition of having no native speakers. There are many other such languages, such as [[Manx]], for example. Such languages fall somewhere between endangered and extinct, so I was trying to make sure they did not fall through the cracks. Also, the contemporaneous requirement for extinct language attestation puzzled me because it seems to rule out citing scholars for attestation. Nobody on the discussion page could say why it was there, so I tried to incorporate extinct and endangered languages together. I would welcome a reason to try to separate out long-extinct languages and keep the contemporaneous requirement if a way could be done that doesn't exclude languages that have recently gone dormant. [[User:BenjaminBarrett12|BenjaminBarrett12]] ([[User talk:BenjaminBarrett12|talk]]) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | | |
沒有留言:
張貼留言