Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Conlangs/Old straw poll

< Wikipedia:Conlangs


This is where people's opinions will be recorded. Discusion about the straw poll itself should be directed to its talk page. Do not discuss the criteria here.

There are three possible opinions for each section:

  • Support (Minor): Indicates notability, but does not merit inclusion on its own. 2-3 minor criteria merit inclusion.
  • Support (Major): Indicates notability, and merits inclusion on its lonesome.
  • Oppose: Should not be used for determining conlang's notability; leads to false results, abusable, et multiple cetera.

Please preceed your opinions with a #, so it will be easier to count the number of people supporting or opposing each option.

There are a couple of different possible ways of counting the expressions of opinion; see the discussion on the talk page for more details. The originally-proposed method (see talk page for its criticism) of doing this was:

First, Support and Oppose opinions will be counted; whichever has consensus will be considered community opinion. Then, if Support was chosen, whichever type of Support has more opinions in its favour (minor or major) will decide. In case of a close poll, the poll in question it will be extended for another seven days.
Note that only registered user's opinions will be recognised; opinions of non-registered users will be ignored, even from IPs with many edits, because there is no way of knowing how many people an IP address represents.

Has 10 speakers

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. IJzeren Jan 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - for auxlangs[reply]
  2. Jim Henry | Talk 14:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kgaughan 16:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:38:59, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. IJzeren Jan 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - for non-auxlangs[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 17:00, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  5. IINAG 13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alr 03:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alarm 15:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rob Church Talk | Desk 19:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Metropolitan90 00:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ashibaka (tock) 18:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has 30 speakers

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 14:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Rob Church Talk | Desk 19:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:53:02, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. IJzeren Jan 09:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kgaughan 16:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Qimmiq 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (even five speakers are remarkable)[reply]
  6. IINAG 13:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alarm 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has 100 speakers

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alarm 15:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC), if and only if only fluent speakers are counted and the claim is supported by verfiable sources[reply]
  2. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kaleissin 08:53:37, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  4. IJzeren Jan 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jim Henry | Talk 14:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kgaughan 16:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  9. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  10. IINAG 13:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has 300 speakers

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alarm 15:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC), if and only if only fluent speakers are counted and the claim is supported by verfiable sources[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:54:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 14:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  6. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Rob Church Talk | Desk 19:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. IINAG 13:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has 1000 speakers

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:54:10, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 14:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alarm 15:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC), if and only if only fluent speakers are counted and the claim is supported by verfiable sources[reply]
  6. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Qimmiq 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Idont Havaname 19:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Using the same caveat as Alarm gave.)[reply]
  9. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Smerdis of Tlön 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC): opposed generally to making number of speakers a criterion for yea or nay. Verifiability problems are at their most problematic here.[reply]
  2. Near-impossible to establish, especially if wanting to know the level of fluency. It seems like a justification to keep way too many RPG-languages. / Peter Isotalo 06:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A book has been published about the language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Alarm 15:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if by someone other than the conlang's creator)[reply]
  3. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry 14:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if by someone other than the conlang's creator)[reply]
  5. Kgaughan 17:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  7. BovineBeast 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. IINAG 13:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 14:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if the only book is by the conlang's creator)[reply]
  5. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alarm 15:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if the only book is by the conlang's creator)[reply]

A book with an ISBN has been published about the language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Penelope D 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kaleissin 08:41:10, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  5. IJzeren Jan 10:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  8. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

edit
  1. Jim Henry | Talk 14:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ISBN is irrelevant to determining professional vs. vanity press)[reply]
  2. Alarm 15:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (as per Jim Henry)[reply]
  3. Kgaughan 17:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ditto)[reply]
  4. Idont Havaname 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ditto)[reply]
  5. Metropolitan90 00:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC) (ditto)
  6. Peter Isotalo 15:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Books are too easy to publish.[reply]

A book has been published in the language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Jim Henry | Talk 14:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if the only book is by the conlang's creator)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (If by someone other than the conlang's creator)[reply]
  3. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:42:09, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Only if the proposition that the book actually is in that is verifiable by ordinary WP standards. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jim Henry | Talk 14:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if by someone other than the conlang's creator)[reply]
  6. Kgaughan 17:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alarm 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (if the only book is by the conlang's creator)[reply]
  4. Idont Havaname 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ditto)[reply]

A book with an ISBN has been published in the language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Penelope D 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  5. Only if the proposition that the book actually is in that is verifiable by ordinary WP standards. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  7. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Jim Henry | Talk 14:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ISBN is irrelevant to determining the book's nature and quality)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (As per Jim Henry)[reply]
  3. Kgaughan 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ditto)[reply]

Was created before 1900

edit

Can be verified on Langmaker.com.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Metropolitan90 05:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 14:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kgaughan 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Intangir 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Qimmiq 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alarm 15:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was created before 1950

edit

Can be verified on Langmaker.com.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. IJzeren Jan 10:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jim Henry | Talk 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Qimmiq 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  5. Alarm 15:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Can be verified on Langmaker.com.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  4. IJzeren Jan 10:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jim Henry | Talk 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  7. Intangir 18:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  9. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abusable. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alarm 15:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (The number of pageviews on one single website is not relevant in itself, and is also abusable.)[reply]
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Peter Isotalo 15:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Ridciculously disfavoring to any language that isn't closely tied to Tolkien or RPGs. / Peter Isotalo 15:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Can be verified on Langmaker.com.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (hesitantly)[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abusable. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jim Henry | Talk 14:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alarm 15:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (The number of pageviews on one single website is not relevant in itself, and is also abusable.)[reply]
  7. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Been mistaken for a real language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kgaughan 17:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jim Henry | Talk 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (this may say more about the carelessness of the people making the mistake than the nature of the conlang)[reply]
  3. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alarm 15:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Irrelevant, but also way too vague. By anyone, in any situation? Verified by what source?)[reply]
  5. Metropolitan90 00:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC) (impossible to verify as per Alarm and Jim Henry)
  6. Peter Isotalo 15:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Ridiculous.[reply]

Caused controversy

edit

Languages that fall under this category include Adjuvilo and Europanto.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jim Henry | Talk 15:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (any significant controversy will be independently verifiable)[reply]
  6. Kgaughan 17:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Metropolitan90 15:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Peter Isotalo 16:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Any controversy is not notable.[reply]

Has an ISO code

edit

The appropriate ISOs are ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, and ISO 639-3.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IJzeren Jan 10:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

edit
  1. Jim Henry | Talk 15:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (as someone noted on one of the talk pages, ISO is not very discriminating in their selection of conlangs)[reply]
  2. Kgaughan 17:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ISO code != notable)[reply]
  3. Qimmiq 17:00, 29.8.2005 (UTC)

What? Where's the page?

Inspired a notable conlang

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Intangir 18:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Qimmiq 18:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (A mention in the article of the notable language, and a redirect to that article, is sufficient.)[reply]

Has a Wikipedia

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Metropolitan90 15:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC) Note -- as of the time of my vote, the numbering of votes under Support (Major) and Oppose is confused. See below.

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  5. IJzeren Jan 10:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - But how about language that HAD a wikipedia?[reply]
AFAIK only Toki Pona had a Wikipedia and lost it, and it is notable and verifiable by any of several other criteria. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Abusable. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why abusable, arj? --IJzeren Jan 12:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would create incentive for people who want to promote their own conlang (that are not includable by other criteria!) to go through the process of establishing a new Wikipedia, for the sole purpose of being eligible for an article on en:. This would be disruptive to Wikipedia. arj 13:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jim Henry | Talk 15:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- Any conlang that has a real chance of getting a Wikipedia must have a fair number of speakers, and would therefore be notable and verifiable by other criteria anyway. But as arj points out, this might lead to more frivolous attempts to start Wikipedias for conlangs with few or no speakers besides the author. Of course, Wikipeda content would count along with other text toward the corpus size criteria.[reply]
  3. Alarm 16:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Largely irrelevant as a criterion in itself. Also creates unhealthy incentives for Wikipedia creation.)[reply]
  4. Intangir 18:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- The inverse of this should be a criteria for giving a conlang a wikipedia. A conlang should already have established its notability to the community before it should be given a 'pedia.[reply]
  5. Qimmiq 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Peter Isotalo 15:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC) This is self-referencing. Wikipedia is not a sign of notability of Wikipedia.[reply]

Has caused active discussion

edit

"Active discussion" can be defined later if need be, but generally includes mention in multiple conlang mailing lists by people other than the author, and/or critical review.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kgaughan 17:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Qimmiq 18:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (though I prefer the more specific version of this criterion, below)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alarm 16:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (I don't think that "mention" in mailing lists are enough to merit Wikipedia inclusion for any other types of articles.)[reply]
  2. Peter Isotalo 06:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Absolutely not. Nerdchat (the same thing we're doing here) does not count for any notability except to the immidiate paricipants. / Peter Isotalo 06:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least N independent discussions of the language

edit

There exist at least N extended discussions of the language (books, magazine articles, webpages, mailing list postings...) by authors other than the creator(s) of the language. If you support, specify a value for N and the average value will be used if this criteria passes. (Please see Wikipedia:Conlangs/Alternative proposal#At least N independent discussions for a possible refactoring of this criterion.)

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. N=5. Almafeta 06:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N=5. IJzeren Jan 10:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. N=3 (3 is "research") Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  4. N=2 arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. N=2 Jim Henry | Talk 15:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. N=3, but mailing lists don't count as they're too easily gamed. Kgaughan 17:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. N=3, Qimmiq 18:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. N=4, Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alarm 16:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Mailing list discussions are not enough for notability. Also abusable, as they can be "staged".)[reply]
  2. Peter Isotalo 06:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC) As per Alarm. It's wide open to abuse by fans. / Peter Isotalo 06:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has a complete grammar

edit

The exact definition of "Has a complete grammar" can be defined later, if it is needed.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IJzeren Jan 10:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kgaughan 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (though how do you define "complete"?)[reply]
  6. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Qimmiq 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC) (no language has a complete grammar, not even English)
  2. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jim Henry | Talk 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (too vague, and not sufficient for verifiability anyway)[reply]
  3. Alarm 16:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Irrelevant for notability, since the grammar could in theory be carbon-copied from another real or constructed language. Also to vague and probably unverifiable.)[reply]
  4. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was created by J.R.R. Tolkien

edit

See Wikipedia:Conlangs/Tolkien for discussion.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Intangir 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- This may not be the best way to state this criteria, but however it is stated Tolkien should qualify.[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Zaintoum 04:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - I would support this if it could be generalised into something like "Was created by someone who ...", but using individual names in criteria is IMO nonsense.[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- I agree with IJzeren Jan.[reply]
  5. Alarm 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (as per IJzeren Jan)[reply]
  6. Kgaughan 17:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (great and all as his work is, booksales and fame don't automatically mean notability).[reply]
  7. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Tolkien's work will qualify on other grounds.[reply]
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Peter Isotalo 06:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Anything concocted by Tolkien is not per se notable.[reply]

Was created by Marc Okrand

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Intangir 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IJzeren Jan 10:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - I would support this if it could be generalised into something like "Was created by someone who ...", but using individual names in criteria is IMO nonsense.[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- I agree with IJzeren Jan.[reply]
  5. Alarm 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (as per IJzeren Jan)[reply]
  6. Kgaughan 17:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (ditto)[reply]
  7. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has a sufficiently large vocabulary

edit

A 'sufficiently large' vocabulary means one that's large enough to carry on normal conversations. Also include in your opinion what a 'sufficiently large' vocabulary is; if approved, the average (rounded to two significant figures) will be used to determine what 'sufficiently large' for our purposes is.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N=2500. IJzeren Jan 10:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. N=800. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. N=2000, though computer generation (except maybe for protolanguage roots) doesn't count. Kgaughan 17:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. n=500, Qimmiq 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. N=2000 Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. N=20000. IJzeren Jan 10:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. N=1000, Qimmiq 18:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alarm 16:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Irrelevant for notability. Also note that vocabulary can be computer-generated.)[reply]
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Metropolitan90 00:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Has been used in professionally published media

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  4. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit
  1. IJzeren Jan 10:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (although I'd rephrase this as: Plays a significant role in ...)[reply]
  2. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- I agree with IJzeren Jan.[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) According to IJzeren Jan's rephrase.[reply]
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Oppose as phrased, since one single sentence might be considered enough. Might support if wording called for an extensive amount of text or repeated use.)[reply]

Actively supported/developed

edit

As per WP:COMIC, this means that any language that has been developed and used for a certain notable amount of time is notable. How much time can be defined later if need be.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  4. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Qimmiq 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Jim Henry | Talk 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (too vague, and doesn't demonstrate verifiability or notability)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (As per Jim Henry)[reply]
  3. IJzeren Jan 07:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC). As per Jim Henry. I already have quite some difficulties with the word "used".[reply]

Has an extreme grammar or vocabulary

edit

This covers extreme logical, artistic, or philosophical languages (like Ro).

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC), given that "extreme" means innovative.[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Qimmiq 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. IJzeren Jan 10:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - I don't see how extremity can add to notability.[reply]
  2. Jim Henry | Talk 15:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (If notably extreme, it will generate active independent discussion and be includable by that criterion.)[reply]
  3. Alarm 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Too vague, and not notable in itself, as per Jim Henry's reasoning.)[reply]
  4. Metropolitan90 15:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Peter Isotalo 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC) As per previous voters.[reply]

The language can be used to define its own grammar

edit

One common test of completeness is whether the language can describe itself.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  4. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zaintoum 04:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Qimmiq 10:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Penelope D 05:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC). I think this is extremely hard to verify.[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (But the grammar-in-the-language would count toward corpus size criteria.)[reply]
  4. Alarm 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Peter Isotalo 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Languages with ridiculously simplified grammar are obviously favored. / Peter Isotalo 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The language can translate the Babel Text

edit

Another common test of constructed languages is whether or not it can translate the Babel Text (Genesis 11:1 to 11:9). See Wikipedia:Conlangs/Babel Text for discussion.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 10:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC). I'm against imposing any text here, including the Babel Text or the Pater Noster. Many short-lived conlang projects consist of little more than a Babel text.[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alarm 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Clearly not notable in itself.)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The language has a unique script

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Qimmiq 10:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (one step towards completeness)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IJzeren Jan 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC). On the other hand, I think the same rules might as well apply to scripts.[reply]
  5. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jim Henry | Talk 15:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alarm 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Metropolitan90 05:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is associated with a well developed conculture

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Qimmiq 10:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (one step towards completeness)[reply]
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC), as longer as the conculture deserves wikipedia inclussion by its own merits.[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the conculture is verifiable by its own, put it in. But that does not automatically make the language verifiable. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC) — I agree with arj.[reply]
  4. Alarm 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (As per arj.)[reply]

Sets itself challenging artistic goals, and achieves them

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 10:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) See Kélen for an example, but note that the article needs expanding.[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IJzeren Jan 10:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jim Henry | Talk 15:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alarm 16:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has been used in at least 5 translation relays

edit

See Wikipedia:Conlangs/Relays.

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 10:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 10:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC). Translation relays prove the usability of a language, not its notability[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (but the translations count toward corpus size, of course)[reply]
  4. Alarm 16:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (As per IJzeren Jan)[reply]
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least 10 original texts are published in the language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. IJzeren Jan 12:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC). If this means that translation are excluded, yes.[reply]
  2. Qimmiq 10:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jim Henry | Talk 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (too vague re: length of texts)[reply]
  4. Alarm 16:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Too vague re: length of texts and form of publishing. A web page with haikus by the conlang's creator?)[reply]
  5. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least 20 original texts published in the language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IJzeren Jan 12:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC). 20 minimum, but I'd prefer to set the standard a little higher. Ah, by "original" you mean that translations are excluded? In that case we should perhaps define "text" a little closer. Can two sentences be consider a text, too?[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 10:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Jim Henry | Talk 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (too vague re: length of texts)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Too vague re: length of texts and form of publishing.)[reply]
  3. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has a public corpus of at least 10,000 words

edit

One long text or a hundred short ones, or anything in between.

Support (minor)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 11:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC). However, I don't think we should fetch this is a number of words. Just consider that the Pater Noster consists of ca. 30 words in Greenlandic and ca. 65 in French![reply]
  3. --Kaleissin 12:38:11, 2005-08-29 (UTC) (Moved due to discussion of the meaning of this criterium) Most natural languages would fail this, and apart from that I agree with IJ. Jan above. Besides, polysynthesism rules.
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (I agree that word count is problematic with polysynthetic languages, but without a specific word count we're left with "has a fairly large corpus" or something even vaguer.)[reply]
  5. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Maybe "equivalent in translation to 10000 words of English" would be fairer.[reply]
  7. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (major)

edit
  1. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Qimmiq 10:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alarm 16:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Not notable in itself. If the corpus has been created by a large number of users or has generated notable discussion the language might be notable.)[reply]

Has a public corpus of at least 100,000 words

edit

Support (minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Intangir 18:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 11:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC). But see my remark above; I think we better use some Fingerspitzengefühl here.[reply]
  3. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
  4. Kaleissin 12:40:57, 2005-08-29 (UTC) Moved, see comment at Has a public corpus of at least 10,000 words
  5. Jim Henry | Talk 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Pjacobi 21:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Qimmiq 10:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alarm 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Not notable in itself. If the corpus has been created by a large number of users or has generated notable discussion the language might be notable.)[reply]
  2. Peter Isotalo 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Compound-heavy languages with plenty of prepositions and particles are favored over non-compunding languages that are agglunitive, i.e. Swedish-esque languages would probably reach this limit before those similar to Japanese or Turkish.[reply]
Not necessarily. The way I see it, the spirit of criteria like this one is more important than the precise details. Obviously, you are right about the distinction between compound-heavy languages and non-compounding languages, and I agree with you that this difference should be taken into account when judging a language. The same goes, of course, for corpus size. On one of the discussion pages I mentioned the example of the Pater Noster: in Greenlandic, the texts counts less than 30 words, while in Toki Pona the very same text counts close to 90 words (IIRC). It would of course be ridiculous to assume that that would make the corpus of Toki Pona three times bigger than that of Greenlandic! Like I said, it's the spirit that counts, and let's not forget that all these criteria need to be applied with a lot of common sense on the part of those who use them.
By the way, Peter, it might have escaped your attention, but this vote is actually closed. You can of course continue to participate (and your input is certainly valued!), but in your place I'd rather wait until we reopen the vote (with a new form, see Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw poll). --IJzeren Jan 19:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstates plausible historical derivation from a natural language

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  3. Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - demonstrates linguistic sophistication that renders a project noteworthy.[reply]
  4. Qimmiq 11:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit

Oppose

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 11:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC). This undoubtedly make the language more interesting, but not necessarily more notable.[reply]
  3. Does not contribute to verifiability. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alarm 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Metropolitan90 05:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC) (a conlang could be derived from a natlang with minimal changes without being notable)

Demonstrates plausible historical derivation from another conlang

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Qimmiq 11:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almafeta 06:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Does not contribute to verifiability. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IJzeren Jan 12:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC). See above.[reply]
  5. Jim Henry | Talk 15:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alarm 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contributes to the notability of another conlang

edit

Support (Minor)

edit
  1. Kaleissin 08:52:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  2. Butsuri 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Qimmiq 11:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --PeteBleackley 10:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC) If A is notable in part because it inspired B, this is certainly a point of interest towards B, although I think there would have to be other points of interest to merit B's inclusion, so I put it as a minor.[reply]

Support (Major)

edit
  1. Almafeta 06:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Penelope D 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Alr 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IJzeren Jan 11:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC). But I'm not really clear what is meant by this. If a conlang X is a great language that has inspired many other languages, including conlang Y, that undoubtedly adds to the notability of conlang X. So in a way conlang X owes part of its notability to conlang Y. But does that make conlang Y more notable? I'd like to hear if I misunderstood this point; if so, I'll happily change my vote.[reply]
  3. I don't understand this. Doesn't seem to contribute to verifiability either way. arj 12:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jim Henry | Talk 15:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC) -- This seems to be a vaguer form of "inspired a notable conlang".[reply]
  5. Alarm 16:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Almost impossible to interpret. How should this be measured? Might possibly merit inclusion in the article on the more notable conlang, but not an independent article.)[reply]
  6. Kgaughan 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carlos Th (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conlangs/Old_straw_poll&oldid=1079086472"