Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-08/Extinct Languages - Criteria for Inclusion

Should mentions be contemporaneous?

I think they should be. The mention should have been written by someone who could have heard it from a native speaker of the language. This allows us to avoid things like lists of Gothic words for modern concepts, which I doubt we'd want to include. —CodeCat 10:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My inclination is to leave that to the community of editors. They can, for example, create a template that says, "This word is from a list compiled by Héloïse, a scholar in the twelfth century. Although this word is cited in later works, no actual use of it has ever been found." (I am making up the Heloise example.) Works must be approved before being cited for single-mention.

As to modernized words, shouldn't those be listed as "Contemporary X," along the lines of w:Contemporary Latin? --BB12 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplicates failed vote

This is a duplicate, or an attempted duplicate of the already failed vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages. Of course that's over a year ago, so simply 'trying again' seems like a good enough reason to propose this vote. But I will oppose it for the same reason; it's not beneficial to have terms only included as 'mentions'. I understand that this is to get more words to meet CFI, but the fact that attestation don't have to convey meaning, may not be used in the intended language means that people won't need to know what they mean based on context (because there isn't any) and meanings may be hypothetical as mentions do not convey meaning, allowing Wiktionary editors to simply guess, or even worse, they may be forced to guess if there is no known meaning for a word. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That problem is not exclusive to words and phrases with only mentions though, nor do all words and phrases in mentions have that problem. The Vandalic phrase froja armes (mentioned in a Latin text) means "Lord have mercy" without a doubt, because it has a perfect cognate in Gothic frauja armais. Meanwhile, the interpretations of countless inscriptions in various languages are still not settled, even though such inscriptions would be uses and not mentions. Words from such inscriptions would thus be allowed on Wiktionary, allowing or forcing editors to guess in just the way you said. So, there may be good reasons for excluding mentions, but this isn't one. —CodeCat 11:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's two! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? —CodeCat 11:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Mglovesfun means it's two reasons.

This proposal is a follow-up to the Well Documented Languages and Languages with limited documentation proposals that passed. This proposal was prompted by the desire to include Dacian, a language known only by mentions as noted at Attestation of extinct languages: Use or mention. Although similar to the failed Attestation of extinct languages vote, this has an important difference: It requires single-mentions to have a disclaimer (such as the {{LDL}} template).

Also, when it comes to extinct languages, it is particularly desirable to include mentions because extinct languages are by their nature fixed, and therefore every word, used or merely mentioned, is valuable because it exists in the permanent written record. --BB12 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The same is true for living languages mind you. Living languages aren't fixed, but words/terms that have existed in the past won't stop existing. And yes I realize we can 'disallow' mentions if we deem the source isn't good enough, just for me any mention isn't good enough because by definition a mention doesn't convey meaning. If it did, it would be a use, not a mention! Thus a reader will never have to understand a word that is mentioned, because it never appears in any context. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you think Dacian should be handled? --BB12 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"If the sole sources are uses"

And if they are not all uses? This part confuses me. —CodeCat 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an addition by Msh210 that I have undone. I think it was a good faith edit, but it changed the meaning of policy too much, and rather ambiguously, as well. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! For some reason, I had given that change a pass. I should have been more diligent in reviewing. --BB12 (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it was in good faith. I don't think it changed the proposed policy at all (with our current list of languages well documented on the Internet). Moreover, I think it is less confusing than the reverted-to version, which does not make apparent that "languages well documented on the Internet" includes only living languages, and less ambiguous than the reverted-to version, which leaves open what's required of an extinct language later determined to be well documented on the Internet.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If they are not all uses then "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" applies.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference, Msh210, is that in your version, single uses for extinct languages are subject to the other three requirements. In the current version, they apply only for single mentions. It is true that it's not immediately apparent whether extinct languages are included in the well documented languages; that's something the reader has to figure out by looking at the list. I also agree that the wording is not simple, but I could not figure out another way to do it. I would gladly welcome something simpler! --BB12 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, MK wrote this proposal, but it is my wording that I think it confusing. --BB12 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)