Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of speakers[edit]

The first suggested, and best-known, criterion that can make a language notable is its number of speakers, either now or in the past. Keep in mind that it is pretty hard to get reliable data about the number of speakers of a language; even the creator of a language himself probably won't be able to tell precisely. Besides, it's hard to establish the actual proficiency of a speaker.

Since no one is likely to argue that a language with a million speakers is not notable, "oppose" is not an option here. Therefore, please specify how many speakers can warrant inclusion of the language on its own (MAJOR), and how many speakers can warrant inclusion of the language in combination with other criteria (MINOR).

Note that only a few artificial languages have a number of speakers higher than 100, and no more than three have a number of speakers higher than 1000.

Major criterion: has/had N speakers[edit]

How many speakers are required to merit inclusion of the language on its own? Please specify N.

  1. 1000. --L33tminion (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 1000. --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 5000. The 5000 interested or affected people threshold has been used for other areas, I see no reason to seek a different level here. Caerwine 03:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 100. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC). Any higher figure would be pointless, since only four or five languages would exceed this figure, and they would qualify for inclusion for other reasons, too.[reply]
  5. 5000, as Caerwine says. There are between 100,000 and 3,000,000 speakers of Esperanto, so 5% of the lower figure seems a reasonable guideline. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 50,000 unless significant on the world stage in some other way (e.g. Michael Jackson's secret language). --Victim of signature fascism 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 1000. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 50 Any Conlang that has a following should be noted, we should make a list of all conlangs and where there from --Kylehamilton 08:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor criterion: has/had N speakers[edit]

How many speakers are required to warrant inclusion of the language in combination with other criteria? Please specify N.

    1. In a sense, having a language that exists without any speakers is itself kind of interesting and thus notable... Voyager640 22:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 5000. But other aspects of notability might overcome a failure to meet this threshhold. I'd use this as a "kill" criterion if the language isn't otherwise notable (for its creator, its place in conlang history, etc.). | Klaw Talk 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 10. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC). Again, very few languages would actually qualify using a relatively low number.[reply]
  4. 50, 000. --Victim of signature fascism 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's absurd. Constructed languages shouldn't have higher standards for inclusion than natural languages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 500. Any language with more than 500 speakers represents a notable community. However this isn't a critical criterion as per L33tminion in Oppose below. BigBlueFish 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Have your say here if you don't think number of speakers should be a criterion in determining notability of a constructed language.

  1. Having few or no speakers would not exclude a langauge from being notable. (Hypothetically, a constructed language could be of academic significance in terms of philosophy of language, linguistics, or the like without having any fluent speakers.) --L33tminion (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with L33tminion. — Daniel Brockman 10:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think the number of speakers should have anything to do with determining a language's notability. First of all, there's no good way to get these figures. For the smaller constructed languages the only people who are going to have any sort of information on how many speak the language is going to be the organization of the language itself, which is definitely not an unbiased source. In addition, the number of speakers is irrelevant anyway. There are many many natural languages in existence that are definitely notable but which have no more surviving speakers. Besides, constructed languages are generally written in academia and it's very frequent that, although nobody speaks the language, it influenced other post-dated languages or created new schools of thought. Just because nobody speaks it currently does not mean it had a big influence, hence making it notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hard to establish and not a good indicatior. Zocky 11:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with Zocky. The estimates for Esperanto, Interlingua, and Ido are the sheerest guesstimates. An inclusion criterion should be something concrete. Maximum number of conference attendees would work. Still, there are historically significant conlangs (Novial, Idiom Neutral) that have never had much of a movement behind them.--Chris 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The number of speakers shouldn't have a bearing on the notability of a conlang, for the reasons stated above. Snurks T C 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, on grounds of verifiability GeeJo (t) (c) 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not of importance--BirgitteSB 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Completeness[edit]

The second criterion that has been suggested is completeness. The question is: can the completeness of a language contribute to its notability?

Completeness can be measured by using three criteria: lexicon size, a complete grammar, and a substantial number of texts written in the language to prove its expressive capability.

Please specify first whether you think completeness should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. Yes. I think this is a very significant factor. It would be easy for me to say I have created a language called "Samian" (not to be confused with Samoan); it is not-so-easy to come up with a full grammar, phonology, phonetic set of sounds, and lexicon. Samboy 00:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. Languages exist for communication. A language should be sufficiently developed that it could be of use, unless some other very significant factor (such as use in a successful work of fiction) creates an exception. Durova 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. It's what distinguises a genuine conlang from a collection of random sounds in a sci-fi series. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Significant--BirgitteSB 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. --L33tminion (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caerwine 03:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While this is certainly an important factor in deciding whether the language is worthwhile learning, I don’t think we should blindly include an article on a languages just because it is “complete”. For example, it is pretty easy to take a set of basic words, make up translations for them, decide on a basic sentence structure, and voila!, you have a brand new complete constructed language. To merit an encyclopedia article, however, I think your language needs to have some additional interesting properties. — Daniel Brockman 10:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I will agree that it should be a minor consideration to the extent that languages that are complete generally had more time put into them than those that aren't, and thus are of somewhat more notability. I think this criteria should be used primarily to differentiate between legitimate academic constructed languages and crap made up for a scifi show that never had a linguist anywhere near it. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Kylehamilton 08:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If a language is notably incomplete then it is not worth its own article. BigBlueFish 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. It's too difficult to define "completeness" of a language. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. Absolutely not. It is easy to come up with a full grammar, phonology, phonetics, and lexicon - you just need to keep it simple. I am a professional academic in the field of comparative linguistics.--Victim of signature fascism 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. We're establishing notability, not usability. Zocky 11:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second question is: how is "completeness" established? If you have voted SUPPORT, please specify which of the following conditions must be fulfilled to qualify.

Completeness is easy (but fuzzy) to figure out by a linguist, the two rules are: One, it has to be functional, every basic construction must be considered (comparison, conditions, facts, hipotesis, the list is finite, I just don't know it yet). And two it has to have a productive vocabulary. That is about 500-800 words i guess.

A complete grammar:[edit]

It has been suggested that this criterion could be verified by using the "Lingua Questionnaire".

Yes[edit]

  1. --L33tminion (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Samboy 00:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely an necessary requirement, but not a sufficient requirement. Caerwine 03:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jamie 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Durova 06:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) As above, necessary but not by itself sufficent.[reply]
  6. Agreed. This is necessary but not sufficient. Voyager640 22:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is a must. Even "popular" fictional languages that lack grammars aren't worthy of entries. | Klaw Talk 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Again, absolutely. A language with no grammar is not formally a language, surely? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes Very neccessary--BirgitteSB 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. MINOR. Not enough by itself --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The guidelines given are very biased to specific types of languages, i.e. if a difference is denoted between quoted speech and direct speech. You know what? It'd be very interesting to make a language that didn't have such a distinction. The guidelines given are very "civilized"-biased and would fail many clearly notable real life natural languages. Also, it's very biased against alien languages that may be totally different from what we're used to. Granted, we haven't run into any aliens (yet?), but there are interesting scifi languages that don't adhere to our biased human views of what a language should be. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon size[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.

  • It sounds like the average you're planning on taking is the mean. Please don't; that's arbitrary and is screwed up by voters at the extremes. (What if someone voted "a billion"?) Take the median instead, because this is a perfect example of where Median Voter Theory should apply. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary size can be established relatively easily by perusing Langmaker. There seems to be consensus that we discount:

  • computer-generated vocabulary
  • "virtual" vocabulary (10 prefixes, 10 suffixes and 100 word roots do not make 10,000 words)
  • real-world vocabulary in superset languages (if you create an artificial slang to a natural language, the lexicon of this language is not included).

Please specify N. If you pick 0, that means that lexicon size is not a requirement for completeness.

A vocabulary of at least N words[edit]

  1. 0 --L33tminion (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 1500 words unless the language is clearly domain specific. It doesn't matter how the words have been created. The exception being a language with clear notability (e.g. A lot of Tolkein's stuff didn't have 1500 words) Samboy 00:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. N irrelevant --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Somewhere in the four figures, unless notable for inclusion in a well-known artistic work. Durova 06:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 2500. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unimportant if the grammar and number of speakers criteria are met (in my view anyway), otherwise should be at least 5,000 unless there is some independent source of notability (e.g. Tolkein). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. Several notable languages, e.g. Tolkein's, have minimal amounts of words. What about "the first ever language to be discovered with only 10 words". It would certainly be notable, because it has so few words. --Victim of signature fascism 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 0. I think finding a language with a very small lexicon would in itself be extremely notable, especially if that language was able to express the entire range of ideas that it takes English tens of thousands of words to do. Hell, at the most basic level computer languages only have a lexicon of two but they're still notable. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 0. We're establishing notability, not usability. Zocky 11:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 0 I agree with Cyde Weys --Kylehamilton 08:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 0--BirgitteSB 17:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. 850 -- variety enough to have an expressive language Basic English. quantity enough to be able to see its relations (differences and commonalities) with other languages. And i fully disagree with Cyde Weys: no, binary currents do not make a language, just as pulling strings 1x (for hello) or 2x (for my) or 3x (for name) or 4x (for is) or 5x (for ActiveSelective) etc... etc... does not make a language! -- ActiveSelective 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus size:[edit]

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

Has a public corpus of at least N words[edit]

Please specify N. If you pick 0, that means that corpus size is not a requirement for completeness.

  1. 0 --L33tminion (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 10,000 words Samboy 00:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1,000 Caerwine 03:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. N. Irrelevant. --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 5,000 words Jamie 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 2500 words (which is three or four pages of text in some magazines). Durova 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 5000 words. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. substantially more than 5,000,000 words. This is equivalent to five entire novels. --Victim of signature fascism 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 0. It's conceivable a language could be constructed that is so complex that nothing could be written using it. See Malbolge (Hello World doesn't count). This isn't inherently a measure of notability, though. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 0. A better indicator than vocabulary size, but a constructed language could be notable for other things. Zocky 11:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 0 As per above. BigBlueFish 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness[edit]

The third criterion that has been proposed is uniqueness. In other words, if an artificial language has some particularly remarkable features that make it stand out between others, can that fact contribute to its notability?

The following factors have been proposed that can make a language unique: an extreme grammar or vocabulary; a unique script; plausible historical derivation from another language; achieving challenging artistic goals.

Please specify first whether you think uniqueness should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. Definitely an important criterion for determining notability. Voyager640 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "if an artificial language has some particularly remarkable features that make it stand out between others" is exactly the same as stating that "if an artificial language is notable". Indeed, the requirement is a bit pointless to have in addition to notability. --Victim of signature fascism 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Since it sets a new direction within conlanging, or the boundaries of conlanging. -- ActiveSelective 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. Artistic notability is one form of notability. --L33tminion (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Historical plausibility holds weight. If someone constructed a syncretic version of Icelandic and Aleut based on the hypothesis of Vikings settling Canada I'd be impressed.Durova 06:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Isn't unique just another way of saying notable? I'll rate this a positive minor criterion - if a language is unique that does help it in terms of notability but not being unique shouldn't hurt it. Hell, Ido is almost entirely derivative of Esperanto, making it very non-unique, but it is definitely notable. Hell, it made Today's Featured Article! My votes for "yes" for the following means of determining uniqueness, such as "an extreme grammar or vocabulary", reflect this same type of "positive criterion". --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. once again I find myself agreeing with Cyde Weys --Kylehamilton 08:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC) A lot of conlang creators create a fancy script or odd/extreme grammar to make their language look good, but it says more about their artistic views than about the notability of the language itself. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Impossible to define. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too wishy-washy a criteria. Caerwine 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose --Burbster 16:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC). In my view, this says more about the quality of a conlang, but not much about notability. A truly high-standard language would quality for other reasons, too.[reply]
  7. This is a really bad criterion. Everything is unique in some ways. Zocky 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any distinct language must be in some way unique, so this means nothing--BirgitteSB 18:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have voted SUPPORT, please specify for each of the following whether it can make a language unique or not.

An extreme grammar or vocabulary:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. L33tminion (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Voyager640 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cyde Weys votetalk 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Kylehamilton 08:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- ActiveSelective 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Completeness or notability matters, but not this. Samboy 00:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N. Irrelevant --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My measure for what to exclude is this: what could six bored teenagers foist upon the world during a summer vacation? Durova 07:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Burbster 16:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sets itself challenging artistic goals, and achieves them:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. L33tminion (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Voyager640 22:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cyde Weys votetalk 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Kylehamilton 09:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- ActiveSelective 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Completeness or notability matters, but not this. Samboy 00:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N. Irrelevant. (EDIT: this was mine Requiem the 18th(email) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Doesn't matter at all.

Demonstrates plausible historical derivation from a natural language:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. Cyde Weys votetalk 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kylehamilton 09:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Completeness or notability matters, but not this. Samboy 00:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N --Requiem the 18th(email) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrates plausible historical derivation from another conlang:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. Cyde Weys votetalk 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kylehamilton 09:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Completeness or notability matters, but not this. Samboy 00:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. N. Requiem the 18th(email) 03:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publication[edit]

The fourth criterion for notability is the question: has it been published? Or, more precisely, have books been written about or in the language, have articles been written about it in the popular or scientific press, etc.?

Please specify first whether you think publication should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all. If you think ISBN numbers, sales figures and the like should be a factor too, please make note of that in a comment.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC) If books have been written in or about the language and fit Wikipedia's criteria for being a notable book, it adds to the language's notability. (IIRC sales figures play a role in that criterion) - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Also, this is a significant criterion because the information about the language in the article has to be verifiable. --L33tminion (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Of course, "publish" can include being part of a science fantasy or fantasy story or book published by a major book publisher. Samboy 00:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If at least three books have been published in or about the language by three different authors, it's notable enough for inclusion. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, as per l33tminion & Mgm (EDIT this was mine Requiem the 18th(email))
  6. Per the above. Durova 06:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per the above. --Burbster 16:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, since it is quite hard to write a decent article on a non-documented language. (unsigned by Nazgjunk)
  9. Absolutely a major criterion. And I'm opposed against making any more subtile distinctions regarding ISBN numbers, vanity press, sales figures and the like. Published = published. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Clearly a major criterion if restricted to published in rather than published about. Languages are for communication, if they have never been used for that purpose they are not languages--Captdoc 17:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Verifiablity is clearly the major criterion, as for everything else. Zocky 12:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, a major criterion. However, now that anyone can self-publish his own conlang with extreme ease, we need to restrict this criterion. I'd like conlangs to have books written in or about them, or to have attracted attention in academic publications. — mark ✎ 15:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Without published sources, the article is impossible to verify. GeeJo (t) (c) 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes--BirgitteSB 18:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. King of Hearts | (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. It's entirely possible to develop a constructed language that is entirely oral in nature, thus nothing about it is published. There are a large variety of natural languages that were oral in nature ... I say "were" because they're mostly dead to us now. But I can conceive of a constructed language being very notable without there being a way to write it down. Of course, writing an article on it might be difficult ... maybe just relegate it to Spoken Wikipedia only?  :-/ Cyde Weys votetalk 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Cyde --Kylehamilton 09:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation[edit]

The fifth proposed criterion for notability is a set of factors that can be grouped under the header "reputation". They deal with questions like:

  • How widely known is the language?
  • How much attention has the language received?
  • What influence has it had on other conlangs?
  • Has it caused any significant controversy?

Please specify first whether you think reputation should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Average Earthman 23:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC). This would seem logical, after all Wikipedia is intended as a reference for people interested in a subject. So a conlang that is widely known and attracts media attention (er... Klingon?) shouldn't necessarily need academic references. However, the requirement should be widespread and sustained attention, not the odd 'colour' article that newspapers do on eccentrics now and then to fill the space. Average Earthman 23:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would specify that this should be satisfied by either popular or academic attention. --L33tminion (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would think this the single most important criterion when dealing with conlangs. One has to consider conlangs in general as works of art, as auxiliary languages are rather pointless to invent. Put it this way -- you'd obviously have an article about Guernica or the Mona Lisa, but Nude Study #4 by Joe Blow, NYU art student, is in all likelihood not worth an article. Same goes for conlangs -- Esperanto, Klingon, Tolkien's languages, Volapuk, yes. Brithenig, maybe. But I wouldn't write an article about the Romance conlang I created in 11th grade -- it would be utterly pointless. Haikupoet 03:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samboy 00:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per above Requiem the 18th(email) 03:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A good means of distinguishing notability from pet projects in search of attention. Durova 07:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If a conlang has acquired a certain amount of fame, that should merit inclusion on itself. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree with Jan above. -- ActiveSelective 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. "Reputation" by itself is a murky concept, but I support the inclusion of some of the criteria listed below. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes as minor to back up other criteria--BirgitteSB 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • A conlang's reputation should proceed from other criteria, not be a criterion in itself. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, if you have voted SUPPORT, please specify which of the following can make the criterion reputation valid:

The language is in the Top-100 of Langmaker.com:[edit]

Langmaker.com is the most extensive resource about constructed languages available on the Internet. One of its features is a Top-200 of most popular conlangs. Note that this subcriterion can be gamed by the creator(s) of the language, although it would require some considerable effort.

Yes[edit]

  1. As long as the language has a complete grammar, morphology, lexicon, phonology, and list of phonetic sounds. Then this counts as "minor" support (there are a lot of non-notable languages on that list, but it does count. Top ten counts more, of course) Samboy 00:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above Requiem the 18th(email)
  3. I'd say this is sufficient, but not necessary. Voyager640 22:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Well, why not? --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. works for me --Kylehamilton 09:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- ActiveSelective 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Notability is not a popularity contest. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That list is far too inclusive - there are "personal" conlangs on there ranked well into the top 50, some of which don't even appear to be actively spoken or supported. It's not a useful criterion. | Klaw Talk 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am concerned, there are other important criteria for notability than just being actively spoken or supported. Artistic languages are rarely meant to be spoken by anybody. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, per Angr and Klaw. — mark ✎ 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see what a somewhat arbitrary list has to do with Wikipedia. Snurks T C 01:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. That list may be POV and should not be included as part of Wikipedia criteria. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The language has caused controversy:[edit]

Languages that fall under this category include Adjuvilo (created by an esperantist in order to cause a rift within the Ido movement) and Europanto. This could also include languages that have been mistaken for a real language.

Yes[edit]

  1. ...
  2. Yes, if the controversy was widespread. Requiem the 18th(email) 03:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyager640 22:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, per Requiem. I'd also like to exclude the Six Bored Teenagers, BTW. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC) No. People often try to create controversy to get attention. It's not the other way around.
  2. Samboy 00:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'll call this the Six Bored Teenagers Standard. Durova 07:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Controversy is too strongly linked to just creating attention for its own sake.
  6. No, per Mgm and others. — mark ✎ 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The languages produces at least N Googlehits:[edit]

Excluding Wikipedia and clones. First, we perform a simple google search for the name of the language; when that search also points to pages that are completely unrelated, we should google for "CONLANG NAME" + "AUTHOR'S SURNAME"; if the search result is dominated by wikipedia and clones, we should google for "CONLANG NAME" (+ "AUTHOR'S SURNAME") "-wikipedia". Searching for "CONLANG NAME" + "language" should be avoided, the search would neglect texts in other languages than English.

Yes[edit]

Please specify N. The average value (rounded) will be used it this criterion passes.

  1. 10,000 Google hits. Samboy 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 100,000 Google hits. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 500. Vorlin is one of the most famous conlangs and it gets about 509gg. Requiem the 18th(email) 03:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 500 would do. If there are reasons to be suspicious about these 500 (if, say, 90% of it are self-spreading sites like Wikipedia and DMOZ), the number can be raised. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 1,000 hits. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 1,000 hits -- ActiveSelective 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Quality, not quantity. Remember: Six Bored Teenagers. Durova 07:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kylehamilton 09:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No Googlr has too much bias--BirgitteSB 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There exist at least N extended discussions of the language:[edit]

This includes books, magazine articles, web pages, mailing list postings by authors other than the creator(s) of the language.

Yes[edit]

Please specify N. The average value (rounded) will be used if this criterion passes.

  1. 10. Who would seriously be trying to "game the system" with the only purpose to have his conlang qualify for inclusion in WP? BTW, the average Bored Teenager wouldn't even be able to initiate such a discussion or participate in it, so what are we talking about anyway? --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is like asking, Why would anyone become a hacker? or Why would anyone plant a vanity article? I've known bored teenagers who created entire MMORPGs for the sole purpose of stealing other players' passwords on established MMORPGs. Inventing a hoax language and exploiting weak inclusion guidelines is considerably simpler. Constructed languages appeal to an overlapping demographic. Durova 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Too easy to game the system. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Six Bored Teenagers. Durova 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Burbster 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Damn hard to count (and what the heck is an extended discussion? We've got to find a definition for that one first, before using it as an argument. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This makes no sense--BirgitteSB 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There exist at least N extended discussions of the language in edited sources:[edit]

This includes books, magazine articles, online peer-reviewed journals, moderated newsgroups, etc. by authors other than the creator(s) of the language.

Yes[edit]

Please specify N. The average value (rounded) will be used it this criterion passes.

  1. 100. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 10. Requiem the 18th(email) 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 10. Durova 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Unhackable.[reply]
  4. 2. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 60 will do. — mark ✎ 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 10--BirgitteSB 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. ...

Received attention in the popular/scientific media:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --L33tminion (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. , with the proviso that it is sustained interest (newspapers and news programmes can sometimes struggle to fill all the space - stories on eccentrics released on a slow news day may result)Average Earthman 09:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Samboy 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. with Average Earthman's proviso. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Average Earthman. (this must be the last time i forget to sign)Requiem the 18th(email)
  7. Yes, per the above. Durova 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, without the proviso made by Average Earthman: in my view, this is making things more complicated than necessary. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. I'm sympathetic to AE's proviso, but I wouldn't know how to measure it. — mark ✎ 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. ...

Inspired other notable conlangs:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --L33tminion (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the proviso that there's enough that can be said about the language to turn it into a decent-sized article. Otherwise, it's better to include it in the article about the inspired conlang. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. No conlang could do this without already meeting other notability criteria. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above. Requiem the 18th(email) 03:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has established notability inside of the conlanger community:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. Voyager640 22:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- ActiveSelective 17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Too difficult to define. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As said above: "No conlang could do this without already meeting other notability criteria" --Requiem the 18th(email) 04:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per requiem. — mark ✎ 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has established notability outside of the conlanger community:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. wich is synonymous to notability... --Requiem the 18th(email) 04:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed with Requiem. A conlang that no one outside the conlang world knows is simply not notable. This is a great way to thin the stand of conlang articles. | Klaw Talk 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- ActiveSelective 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Description is too vague.
  2. I'll say. Isn't that what we're trying to do know, figure out how to determnie whether a conlang has established notability outside of the conlanger community? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Six Bored Teenagers. Durova 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is known as the exponent of a particular conlang genre:[edit]

Yes[edit]

  1. Yes. It's not like we have hundreds of different genres anyway. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. Such an example also helps to understand the genre and the conlanging, even if the genre itself only contains 2 or 3 maybe-maybenot-conlangs.

No[edit]

  1. ...
  2. Requiem the 18th(email) 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is part of a well-known piece of written fiction:[edit]

A lot of conlangs are created as part of works of fiction, like Elvish in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings or Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time and are extensively documented. Where verifiable and referenced such articles should be included. (see also the seperate criterion "Notability by proxy")

Yes[edit]

  1. Yes. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --L33tminion (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Samboy 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Requiem the 18th(email)
  5. Yes, although I'd set the bar for the language somewhat higher than the bar for the parent fiction. I.E. Star Trek and Lord of the Rings conlangs are known to millions. A book that barely met Wikipedia's minimum for notability - not likely. Durova 07:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Burbster 16:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. But there should clearly be a relationship between the notability of the medium and that of the language. A conlang that plays a central role in a not-too-well-known work of fiction would merit inclusion, a conlang that plays a minor role in an extremely-famous work of fiction too. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Kylehamilton 09:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes--BirgitteSB 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. ...

Year of creation[edit]

The sixth possible criterion for inclusion is that the language is older than usual. According to Langmaker.com, 1950 (post-WWII) was when the personal constructed language really exploded; there are only 78 known conlangs before then.

78 is undoubtedly an underestimate. --Chris 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify first whether you think the oldness of a language should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. Yes. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. --L33tminion (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - a conland surviving beyond its original creator suggests something more than one obsessive's hobby Average Earthman 09:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Averange Requiem the 18th(email) 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the above, also Six Bored Teenagers-proof. Durova 07:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Weren't there any Bored Teenagers in the 19th century? ;) --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they were too busy getting themselves fired as Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone operators to anticipate Wikipedia. Durova 01:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Average Earthman, Durova. — mark ✎ 15:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes because it sugests sustainability--BirgitteSB 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- ActiveSelective 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. ...

If you voted SUPPORT, would that apply to languages created before 1950 or to languages created before 1900?

Created before:[edit]

Before 1900[edit]

  1. ...

Before 1950[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --L33tminion (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Requiem the 18th(email) 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Durova 07:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISO code[edit]

The seventh criterion is whether the language has an ISO code in any of ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3.

Please specify whether you think this should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. This indicates significant notability Samboy 00:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Requiem the 18th(email) 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. --L33tminion (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durova 07:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The short list of conlangs on ISO 639-3 appears to have been picked completely randomly. But as a minor criterion, it would do. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are five conlangs with their own ISO 639-1 code (this will not change). These five and three others have their own ISO 639-2 codes. All other artificial languages have the ISO 639-2 code art by default. ISO 639-3 is still in its draft format, and SIL, who is the registering authority, is not really interested in conlangs. This may account for their list of 24 conlangs being rather odd (it was mostly lifted from Linguist List). Pressure has been put on SIL to correct a number of shortcomings in its codes, but we're not yet sure what they'll do with this bunch of conlangs. That's the background to the codes, and it's all rather confused. Therefore, I cannot really see this becoming a major criterion in the near future. --Gareth Hughes 13:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Gareth. — mark ✎ 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes--BirgitteSB 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. ...

Notability by proxy[edit]

The eighth, and last, criterion for possible inclusion is whether a constructed language can owe its significance to the overall importance of its creator (for example, J.R.R. Tolkien), of the medium where it is used (for example, Harry Potter), to the notability of the conculture it's associated with, etc. This criterion would apply only when the main article about the author or the medium is getting too long, so that spinning off their minor conlangs as separate articles is justified; having several stubby articles about closely related items is undesirable.

Please specify whether you think notability by proxy should be a major criterion, a minor criterion, or not a criterion at all.

Support (major)[edit]

  1. Mgm|(talk) 09:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC) I see this as a majorly important form of reputation (see above).
  2. --L33tminion (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Requiem the 18th(email) 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Durova 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (but with respect to the conditions mentioned above)[reply]
  6. Yes--BirgitteSB 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Support (minor)[edit]

  1. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. ...

Last question[edit]

Now that we have determined which of the nine criteria can be counted as major criteria, as minor criteria or shouldn't be counted at all, we must establish under which conditions a conlang warrants its own article. Since a MAJOR CRITERION is defined as a criterion that justifies inclusion on its own, how many of the minor criteria need to be fulfilled for inclusion?

1 major or 2 minor[edit]

  1. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 10:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. King of Hearts | (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- ActiveSelective 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 major or 3 minor[edit]

  1. Yes--BirgitteSB 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

1 major or 4 minor[edit]

  1. ...
  2. --Requiem the 18th(email)
  3. Durova 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise, namely ...[edit]

Please specify.

  1. A minor criterion is sometimes enough for to merit inclusion on its own (depends on which criteria is fulfilled and the extent to which and manner in which it is fulfilled). --L33tminion (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ditto on L33tminion. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with L33minion and Cyde sometimes something might be minor but it is still important--Kylehamilton 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throw out this "straw" poll and use common sense[edit]

  1. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Solicitation[edit]

Thank you for participating! If you have any comments to this poll, please leave them here.

Discussion of this page is in progress at Wikipedia talk:Conlangs/Straw poll. Comments here would be counter-productive.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw_poll&oldid=1136101196"