Artificial languages equal rights

This opinion-gathering page has been superseded by the Language proposal policy.

Votes

Should all natural languages be allowed to start Wikipedias, regardless of number of speakers?

(this has no bearing on whether or not artificial languages are treated as equals to natural languages)

Yes

Node ue Is it really alright to exclude, say, Comanche, because it only has somewhere between 10 and 3000 speakers left? Denying a language a Wikipedia is like telling it it's worthless, as far as I'm concerned.
Eequor
Dalglesh 16:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) The exclusion of any language with few speakers (such as the one mentioned above) serves only to accelerate the extinction of it. Whilst allowing the language would at the very least create another record of it, were it ever to completely disappear
Johnleemk 13:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--Psygurd 15:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC), Why not? the web should really be large enough for even the smallest minorities IMO.
Hippietrail 17:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) — Wikipedia would be a great tool for language revival.
Arj 19:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
FZ 21:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) It seems easy enough to do, and can serve a useful purpose.
Jeshii 00:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) I agree with the langauge revival idea. Also, many future university students may thank us for what we do now.
68.235.229.80 03:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough 00:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) The only risk is unalloyed POV and the inability to de-scale the balancing mechanisms, VfD, sysops etc.
pne 14:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yes, I think that all natural languages should, in principle, be allowed to start Wikipedias. Though any new language will need a core of dedicated volunteers who'll provide initial impetus IMO (even if this core can be rather small).
Wellparp 11:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) The "empty" languages take up little space and can be a starting point for a vibrant community. Much to gain little to loose.
Seth Ilys 01:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sjc 05:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yes
66.238.96.243 07:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yes of course, forbidding Comanche would be silly. How many articles could we possibly get written.
Toby Bartels 04:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Of course. If we have inactive wikis (and we do), then we need a policy for them. But if the users of the language are capable of writing an encyclopaedia, then let them do so.
Samboy 09:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) A lot of natural languages are endnagered or extinct; what little Wiki can do to stop the tide of dying languages is a good thing.
de:Benutzer:Schuetzm 217.224.200.2 19:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andrevan 08:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Most smaller Wikipedias seem to work (as well as they can) Lussmu 21:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
20 Definetly they should be allowed to form, but like the cherokee project as one user put it (although i dont knowe 4 sure) its all a bunch a question marks, But if a project has just one article it's worth having because that one would simply encourage another, it will also be an invaluable resource in efforts to revive endangered languages.
Lankiveil 01:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't see why not.
Nadavspi 23:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) Why shouldn't they?
IFaqeer 00:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Absolutely.
de:Addicted 194.48.84.1 16:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
217.225.190.52 02:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
67.160.140.142 22:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) I don't see why this is such a big issue. If a language is so small, then it will hardly take up any resources at all in comparison to major languages like English and German. Plus, each language provides a slightly different view on the world as well as insight into knowledge itself. Every language lost is knowledge lost, and every language created is insight.
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) All languages are equal. Some languages, like Cornish, have very few speakers, but a lot of culture behind them. If somebody feels inclined to bear the burden of the cultural heritage of his or her language and join the Wikimedia projects, then who are we to bar them from it?
Joanot 05:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Every language is a point of view about the reality.[reply]
Taragui 10:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ILVI As long as they have ISO codes, why not? It adds culture and promotes minor language use in their communities. It enhances the gloabal appeal of Wikipedia. BTW I've been trying to get our developers to start a wikipedia subdomain for Ladino/Djuedo-espanyol there would be definite support for a minor language such as that. I say Yes.
Agari 16:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC) It promotes diversity.[reply]
Koavf 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Including Klingon is a waste. Let them go to Wikia or somewhere else entirely.[reply]

No

Why should these languages be allowed to start web pages for no reason? Most of them become moribund within months (if not weeks) and just take up space and represent wasted effort. I am aware that there is a Mongolian language wikipedia. There are in fact only 2,000,000 people who even speak the language and only 30,000 with internet access. As there are no .mn hosts in wikipedia it is unlikely that it is used by very many. Also, the Cherokee project has absolutely no articles and is mostly displayed as question marks. Nice.--68.95.130.24 03:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, I expect that there are some languages which have never been written and don't merit an encyclopedia. For natural languages with a written form which have had some basic level of uses, perhaps 10,000 over all recorded time, that seems OK. Jamesday 14:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It pains me to vote no, given my interests, but there are some languages which we should not host, for much the same reasons that we delete articles on non-notable individuals. Chameleon 10:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No (see: Talk:Policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages#Problems_with_current policy. -- Toytoy 04:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should Toki Pona and Klingon be treated absolutely equally?

(In other words: Should all decisions that affect one of them, like disallowing inter-wiki links to it, or even shutting it down, automatically affect both?)

Yes

Timwi 10:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Schnee 10:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
FoeNyx 11:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User:Zanimum June 1st, 2004 at 8:24 EST
Kzhr 12:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
N-true 15:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Marcos 15:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Eclecticology 15:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 15:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Jeff8765 22:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Requiem 1:22, 10 Jun 2004 (GMT-6)
Lethe 19:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mero 20:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wellparp 11:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) None of these should have a wikipedia. They divert energy from more "serious" projects.
Seth Ilys 01:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC). Once a Wikipedia in a particular is established, it should have equal status with all other Wikipedias, and such status should vary only depending on the level of activity on the wiki itself. -- Seth Ilys 01:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ausir 23:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ilyanep 15:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1. Previous IP was mine, thank you very much.
Chameleon 10:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) They should be treated equally in that all traces of them should be immediately deleted.
OK here's the thing tiny indiginous people's languages no matter how small and few are legitamate, and I think that so is Esperanto, but what separates it from Klingon is that it is a serious in use language, nobody goes to school to laern klingon or at the supermarket. It's from a TV show. But I dont know maybe their are some klingon little town that spouted up in texas or nebraska.
IFaqeer 00:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yes
de:Addicted 194.48.84.1 16:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) i don't know "toki pona" but all artificial languages should be treated the same
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No

Angela 10:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Danny 11:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Matt Crypto 11:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Baudelaire 11:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Arwel 12:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Pcb21 13:15, 1 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Suisui 12:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andre Engels 12:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Kpjas 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rholton 13:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Gerritholl 13:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
✏ Sverdrup 13:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
JFW T@lk 14:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Aphaia talk 15:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nnh 16:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Silsor 16:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
mav 17:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Maximus Rex 17:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 17:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
DanKeshet 17:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
pne 18:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
DJ Clayworth 14:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sj 20:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Eequor 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
172.194.63.160 23:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) No, why? They're different languages, let things about them be decided individually.
[[Dieter Simon 23:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)]]
Fennec 03:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
RoseParks 17:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Frazzydee 22:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Evan 22:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Diberri 23:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
UtherSRG 16:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--Fire 23:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze 03:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Jamesday 16:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) They should have common standards to meet, applied to all languages - and these each have different chances of passing.
David Cannon 03:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) Each should be treated according to its own merits.
Yann 19:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Profoss 03:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User talk:Badanedwa 01:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ronline 09:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) - grouping them together would be undemocratic, because they are bound to progress at different rates. Let them be separate.
Drbug 21:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) They have too few common.
BCorr|Брайен 12:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Node ue
Tigerattack 22 Jun 2004
Arj 19:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Finn-Zoltan 21:05, 23 Jun 2004
Jeshii 00:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--AndrewCates 12:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)AndrewCates
--68.95.130.24 03:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) Klingon isn't a real language and such languages have few people capable of reading them, much less searching the internet in them. it's also a waste of energy that could be spent developing articles in the user's native toungue, which far more people could benefit from.
User:The Inedible Bulk 03:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) -- You know this is just stupid. It's a waste of mysql space, bandwidth, and CPU power to support fake languages. Sure, you can have a page on them, and in that case it is fine. However, I don't want to be able to "Read this page in klingon". Unless of course a country forms with the official language of Klingon, I'd suppose.
66.238.96.243 07:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Just say no to Klingon.....Quaplah!
Andrevan 08:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lussmu 21:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nadavspi 23:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - all languages should be handled seperately, but treated equally: The same standard of sanity, neutrality, correctness and equality shoud apply to all languages: English and Klingon are equal insofar as they are unequal.
Joanot 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ILVI Do they have ISO codes? The requirements for obtaining ISO codes are reasonable and have to do with large texts, or translations, written in the language to demonstrate use. 66.65.207.44 23:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vacuum Unlike Esperanto, none of these languages has any real use. It just undermines our credibility as an encyclopedia.
Koavf 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Of course not.[reply]

invalid votes

Rich Farmbrough 01:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) This question isn't sufficiently clear.
- Should they have to meet the same standards (whateve they are)? Yes.
- Should they be trateated the same? Since they are not the same, probably no.

Should either or both of them be treated as equal to other, less artificial, languages?

This is a separate issue from that treated above and will need separate votes.

Klingon and Toki Pona should both be equal to all other languages

Eequor 23:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Burgundavia 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hashar 00:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cprompt 06:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nknight 07:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Chuck SMITH 08:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--142.166.96.37 10:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--OldakQuill 13:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Krik 21:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Jeff8765 22:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Frazzydee 22:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Juergen 05:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
UtherSRG 16:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze 03:12, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Jamesday 16:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) They should have common standards to meet, applied to all languages - and these each have different chances of passing.
Mero 20:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ronline 09:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) We should treat these language equally and encourage their growth.
Drbug 21:46, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) If they don't meet specific standards, sanctions must be applyed to all languages that don't meet these standards.
Lockeownzj00 21:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--172.150.62.122 17:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) If they meet the definition of a language, then they shouldn't be treated differently than other ones.
Johnleemk 13:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Arj 19:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seth Ilys 01:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC). See my comments on the above vote.
Thorfinn 19:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Unless they are really demanding to run from a technical point of view, I see no reason to deny these languages if someone wants to bother with them. They may be of some interest to linguists.
Toby Bartels 04:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Of course. If the users of the language are capable of writing an encyclopaedia, then let them do so. If they fail, then treat the failure like any other inactive wiki. KISS!
Andrevan 08:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lussmu 21:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IFaqeer 00:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yes
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Schmiddy 18:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC) If we were to set language standards, it would just make things complicated. We'd have to deal with disputes over what is an "artificial" language and what isn't (Esperanto, anyone). Having Klingon on Wikipedia just sets us apart from the mainstream drivel. While EB scratches away in their hundredth edition of the same crap, we can fill the demand for new and exciting ways to use Encyclopedias.[reply]

Only Klingon should be equal to all other languages

SimonP 14:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Roozbeh 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
pne 11:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Only Toki Pona should be equal to all other languages

Neither should be equal to other languages

Evan 22:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ambivalenthysteria 13:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Requiem 1:25 10 Jun 2004 (GMT-6) Non of them is an Internation Auxiliary Language so there is no need to take them as if the were
Yann 19:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Lethe 19:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andre Engels 14:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I do not agree with the presupposition that all other languages should be treated equal either.
User talk:Badanedwa 01:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) naturally, different is different. even broad classes are difficult to justify.
BCorr|Брайен 12:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Node ue 02:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) Artificial languages should be held to higher standards than natural languages. My requirements would only be the existence of a sizable community, as with even perhaps Klingon.
Hippietrail 17:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) — Why not have a user option which can show the links, but have them hidden by default?
Llywrch 04:58, 26 Jun 2004 -- I've never met Node ue, but she/he speaks for me.
Wellparp 11:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Samboy 09:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) A conlong should have some reasonable following to be listed here; 1,000 speakers sounds fair. Wiki already has enough problems with being in geek-fantasy land and not in reality (see the whole Micronations debate for a similiar issue).
Chameleon 10:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Esperanto is the only artificial language that should be allowed, and even the Esperanto version should only be allowed if it shows itself to be as active as other wikipedias.
\Mike 09:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) Only those conlangs should be allowed where:
1. The history of the language is old enough
2. There has been published a "significant amount" of texts. In particular, the vast majorityof this should be on other matters than (the own) language.
3. It is used (somewhere) in Real Life, on a daily basis.
  (Use your own definition of any vague statements in the preceding:)
Yardcock 17:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nadavspi 23:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) See \Mike's comment.
ILVI If a constructed language can get an ISO code then let it be treated the same as a natural language. The fact that it was granted an ISO code means that it has been able to put forth enough texts and translations to demonstrate substantial use. 66.65.207.44 23:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC) All false languages are equally useless, if'n you ask me.[reply]

Proposed thresholds for all language encyclopedias

Please indicate your support or opposition to the following proposed thresholds, to apply as a minimum requirement for new language encyclopedias. Proposals which do not meet these can still be started as wikibooks projects, to allow promotion of the language and building of an educational encyclopedia for students of the language until it becomes sufficiently popular to move into the encyclopedia space. Jamesday 11:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would support this proposal if I considered it practical, but I don't. Even a well-established artificial language like Esperanto cannot accurately count its speakers; estimates range from a few hundred thousand to as many as 30 million (Prof. Andrew Pawley, formerly of Auckland University [NZ]). Even a "natural" language is not really quantifiable; we have reasonably accurate figures for the number of native speakers of English, but estimates vary widely for the number of second-language users of English (is it 300 million? 700 million? 1.4 billion? You'll find all three figures - and others - cited in authoritative publications). If we cannot objectively quantify the users of well-established languages, we are wasting our time trying to do so for more recently created ones.

A more practical basis for comparison might be literary output. Esperanto has a large body of literature, as has Interlingua. There is no question, therefore, that those two are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I am not aware of any significant body of literature in Tokipona or Klingon. My POV is to treat the two latter "languages" as a bit of a joke, but I wouldn't want to impose that on people who believe in them. David Cannon 03:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If there should be a treshold, I would prefere the following: an output of new articels of at least 500 per annum. The number of speakers is a rather bad criteria; cultural value is not a function of numbers and just the small linguistic communities may badly need Wikipedia. (Montanesko 2004-07-14)

Overall support

Overall oppose

Node ue 05:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough 01:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) Assuming that some lone Sindarian speaker doesn't set up a million pages about randomly named elves and their familial relationships, I don't see that there shold be any restriction on the languages used for the Wikipedia(e). For example the number of Klingon articles will hardly amount to more than a few Megabytes per year. OK the utility of an article is related to the number of readers of the language, but in time that is hard to predict, further requests for translation and machine translation will ultimately fill all the gaps in the article/language matrix. However polyglots should be encouraged to watch articles in their various languages and reflect/translate/merge where appropriate. Let them all come.
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I agree with Rich Farmbrough's responce.

Current speakers

At least some number of current speakers, suggest 10,000 as absolute minimum, or the following recorded history threshold, either is sufficient to qualify. Please indicate your preferred threshold number if you have one.

Do you really think an other artificial language than Esperanto has more than 10,000 speakers ? Even Interlingua or Ido - that are the most spoken artificial languages after Esperanto - have only a few hundreds (even only a few tens). So it would mean only esperanto may have a Wikipedia; however we allready have Wikipedias in Interlingua, Volapük and an Ido Wikipedia is starting. Arno Lagrange ✉

Current speakers support

10,000 Jamesday 11:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10,000 Jallan 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10,000 Yann 19:06, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) This is a absolute minimum.
10,000 Lethe 19:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1,000 Krik 09:10, 15 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 Finn-Zoltan 21:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
100,000 (languages with fewer speakers probably wouldn't have enough internet users to warrant their addition)
1 even if barely fluent.
1,000 Lankiveil 01:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
10,000 Nadavspi 23:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2 - There should be at least one independent speaker able to attest fluency. --85.180.154.111 02:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current speakers oppose

Eequor 15:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
pne 11:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A-giâu 21:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) many languages fall below this threshold
Ronline 09:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
wikipedia is an internet project. count internet contributors, and internet readers. (unless potential offline or print users have requested it.) Badanedwa 21:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andres 20:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk 13:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hippietrail 17:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) — All Australian languages and most North American languages have fewer than 10,000 speakers
Seth Ilys 01:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC). Opposing on principle arbitrary standards.
Toby Bartels 04:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Of course not. If the users of the language are capable of writing an encyclopaedia, then let them do so. The policy that we need is what to do with inactive wikis.
Andrevan 18:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
0 what if a written form has remained, but the people and language is extinct, don't we owe it to them and us as a species to do everything in out power to preserve of linguistic roots/culture/historty
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - The number of speakers matters not. Heritage is everything!
Node ue 00:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Under any circumstances.

Speakers throughout history

If a language does not qualify through the number of current speakers, it can qualify through having at least some number of speakers of the language, totalled throughout (non-fictional) history. 10,000 default, please indiciate your preferred threhold.

Speakers throughout history support

10,000 Jamesday 11:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10,000 VampWillow 14:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) although will be difficult to verify!
10,000 Jallan 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10,000 Lethe 19:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1,000 Finn-Zoltan 21:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) I agree, a threshold like this will be difficult to verify; I would hope it could be simply a guide

Speakers throughout history oppose

A-giâu 21:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) this cannot be reliably estimated
Andre Engels 14:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Dead speakers are neither writers nor readers of Wikipedia, and thus no reason to be of influence.
Ronline 09:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) Again, I don't think this will work. Let's judge languages on their merits of progress and not on their speakers. You can have a 2000-article Wikipedia for a language that only has 400 speakers.
Badanedwa 21:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) ditto andre engels.
Eequor 21:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andres 20:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk 13:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seth Ilys 01:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC). Opposing on principle arbitrary standards.
Toby Bartels 04:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Of course not. If the users of the language are capable of writing an encyclopaedia, then let them do so. The policy that we need is what to do with inactive wikis.
Andrevan 18:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lankiveil 01:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) There is no reliable method, really, for telling.
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Node ue 00:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Initial participants

In addition to the use threshold, there should be a minimum number of initial participants committed to building the work. 5 default. Please indicate your preferred threshold.

Initial participants support

5 Jamesday 11:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5 VampWillow 14:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
20 Jallan 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Languages like Sumerian or Hittite or Proto-Indo-European or Ugaritic certainly qualify by number of speakers. But 5 doesn't seem enough to me to even start any reasonable encyclopedia in any language.)
5 Yann 19:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) Necessary but not sufficient. Yann 19:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5 \Mikez 09:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) (But it should be 5 quite dedicated - not just those who thinks they might need a break from the english RC for an hour here and an hour there...)
1 - an admin, capable with the language and sufficiently active to clean out all vandalism, spam, etc. or any combonation sufficient to that responsibility. Badanedwa 21:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1. It's just that simple. - Seth Ilys 01:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5 Andrevan 18:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1 Lankiveil 01:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1 committeed user/admin. Nadavspi 23:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2 for teamwork. --Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Initial participants oppose

Eequor 15:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Arwel 01:19, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- cy.wikipedia has about 5 active users now, after nearly a year, but it worked quite successfully in the early months with only 2 regular users.
Andre Engels 14:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) - most languages have started with just 1 or 2 active users. In particular the 20 named above is ridiculous - even German took a full year from the first active user to having 20.
Ronline 09:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) The Romanian Wikipedia now has around 5 active contributors and we've reached nearly 7000 articles! So I don't think that the number of contributors counts but rather the commitment.
Andres 20:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk 13:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hippietrail 17:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) — A small number of participants can be enough to get the ball rolling.
Arj 20:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Toby Bartels 04:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Of course not. We've already seen good wikis develop from small beginnings.
Yardcock 17:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Node ue 00:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ISO 639 code allocated

Many languages, including some constructed languages, have an ISO 639 language code (one or two three-letter ISO 639-2 codes and possibly also a two-letter ISO 639-1 code). Please indicate whether you consider the presence of an ISO 639 code necessary (no language will be considered for a new Wikipedia unless it has an ISO 639 code), sufficient (if a language has an ISO 639 code, a Wikipedia can be created for it, though it may also qualify based on other criteria if it has no such code), necessary and sufficient (only languages with ISO 639 codes will qualify for a new Wikipedia, and all such languages will qualify regardless of e.g. status as natural/artificial languages), or irrelevant.

For information on the criteria necessary for a language to obtain an ISO 639 code, see [1] [2] [3]. The most important criterion is that at least 50 documents exist in the language.

Does this mean that if someone creates upwards of 50 articles on MetaWikipedia in a given artificial language, this criterion is fulfilled? --Phil 14:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good question; I don't know what the ISO criterion for a "document" is. My naive guess would be "no". To find the true answer, you'd have to ask ISO, though (or your country's member standards body). pne 12:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since we see Wikipedia pages as pages, the ISO people will probably do so as well. I expect, however, that printing those pages, and entering each one separately into your local archive would fulfil the requirement. (Good question!) Aliter 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for your "sub-domain" comment, consider "roa-rup" and "minnan", neither of which has an ISO 639 code of its own but both of which have subdomains (in the first case, based on ISO 639 code of "parent" language + SIL code; in the second, based on common appellation and the RFC 3066/IANA registered code "zh-min-nan"). -- pne 12:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ISO 639 code necessary

Phil 14:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) there's got to be some way to actually identify the sub-domain of wikipedia.org
Lethe 19:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Timc 16:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ISO 639 code sufficient

pne 12:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Eequor 17:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A-giâu 18:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Arwel 12:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Arj 20:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Finn-Zoltan 21:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seth Ilys 01:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Samboy 09:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Who knows, someone may make a Wiki in an endangered language w/o an ISO code, helping preserve the language.
Andrevan 08:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ISO 639 code necessary and sufficient

ILVI The existence of an ISO code would mean that the language has been able to show at least 50 published documents (that is in print, although copies may be available online, but "in print" would be sufficient for establishing a wikipedia, of course these publications would be already in print outside of wikipedia articles, I would say. 66.65.207.44 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639 code neither necessary nor sufficient but a factor

Jamesday 16:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andre Engels 14:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) - ISO 639 is good as both necessary and sufficient for measuring the amount of usage, but it is bad in deciding what is a language and what is a dialect. I would like to consider some languages ISO 639 considers a dialect as being enough for a separate Wikipedia. I also would like to make positive exceptions for languages seemingly 'forgotten' in ISO 639-2, and negative ones for dead languages.
Arno Lagrange ? 17:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ronline 09:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) This issue came up at the Aromanian Wikipedia, which currently has no ISO code but has been launched at http://roa-rup.wikipedia.org, but we have applied for one. Therefore, I think Wikipedias with no ISO code should be made to apply for one if the language has chances of getting one. If it's just a dialect or an artificial language that is too small/abstract for a code, then the Wikipedia should be made taking into consideration other factors, such as those above (no. of speakers, etc.)
Chameleon 10:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) It's an important factor to take into account, with flexibility.
Lankiveil 01:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ISO 639 code irrelevant

Badanedwa 21:18, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) - no code + active contributions and use. code + no interest. both possible.
Node ue 05:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) - the ISO is not the judge of whether or not a language is "important" enough or "good" enough for something, and we shouldn't try to be either. If an ISO code does not exist, we can use the code supplied the language by the Ethnologue. If the Ethnologue does not list the language (really, how many Wikipedias are we going to be creating in the near future that do not have a code in the Ethnologue?), then we can use however many letters from the beginning of the language name is nessecary to distinguish it from other possible languages, and if nessecary the whole name (which would probably be easier in such a situation). Also, in many such situations, we could create our own registry based on more generalized ISO codes (ie, the ones that refer to miscellaneous languages that don't have codes but fit into a specific language family). I can think of at least 1 language with over 1 million speakers that is not included in ISO 639-3, and this language has a considerably large body of written literature and poetry. It is not mutually intelligible with the language which ISO would direct you to describe it as (especially when compared with Danish-Swedish-Bokmaal, but probably more equal with Frisian-Dutch-Platt-German) and has been relatively isolated for over a millenium, yet because of sociopolitical divisions, ISO tells you it is part of a different language. There are many languages with much smaller bodies of literature that are given their own ISO codes (such as Cherokee), or languages that are 100% for-sure part of another language (Moldavian and Romanian and probably Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian), or are at least possibly so (S-D-B). In my opinion, the ISO needs to devise a better system.
- The question is not predominantly what criteria to use to deny a language a Wikipedia, but rather to accept a language. That is, if ISO has allocated a code to an artificial language (which is what this page is about), should that be enough to allocate a Wikipedia to it on request without (much) further questioning? -- pne 11:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hippietrail 17:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) — ISO codes are too inconsistent. ISO merges some accepted languages, and splits some unaccepted languages.
Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - ISO 639 is and will only be a standard. Standards are made by beurocrats (trust me, I'm one of them).. and beurocrats get payed to be ambigious, and don't get payed to be thourough.
Joanot 05:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Same as Node UE.[reply]

Grand Unified Database Theory

There have been rumblings along the lines of unifying all the Wikipedias into one huge database, allowing a single logon and simplifying administration in some regards (although not in some others :-). If this were to occur, one assumes that it would make setting up a new language Wikipedia considerably easier. In this case, would people's opinions change?

Jeshii 00:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) I dunno about one big database for all the Wikipedias, but I really like to sign in once for the whole schebang. (I dunno if this is exactly the place to say this, but I will anyway.)
207.102.64.221 02:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- Firstly, I agree with Jeshii: it would be really nice to create an account only once. Secondly, I would not change my opinions about the above stuff (which I have yet to vote on), just for this reason. I can't see why anyone would. Maybe due to Performance Considerations?
Rich Farmbrough 01:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) This would be a step in the right direction. It would also allow smarter navigation for those of us (not me) cblessed with fluency in other languages - links to alternative languages articles could be enabled based on preferences.
No, it won't make it easier, so no, it won't change my votes. The wikipedias are already in one huge database file (actually two working as one, with all wikipedias mixed up). There are also rumors that the wikipedias will be more thoroughly split, so they aren't even on the same database server (because there are good technical reasons to do it - it makes it easier to handle higher loads). Single login is insignificant for this - it can be done whether the databases are combined or split. It also won't make it easier to set up new wikis. Type a command. Done. Same process either way. Jamesday 14:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about instead of one database for all wikis, just one database for all wiki logins? This way it'll allow you to login to each at the same time, while maintaining a lower load on all the other content databases (while, sadly, creating a lot of load on the user db, I would think)... BECAUSE I AM NOT LOGGED IN RIGHT NOW!
That's a likely way of doing it. The load from logins is insignificant. Jamesday 06:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I love this idea! This is exactly what we plan to integrate at EnterWiki - one user database for all the wikis, AND the forums and gallery if possible! This would fit the wikimedia project even better, as it has so many separate sections! -- _ℑilver§^ℑide 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a one logon page at the begining, and also the addition of a regular (non-editable) feedback page for questions, comments, complaints, suggestions, tips, FAQ, etc.

and aslo a translate button right next to the edit button would be very nice!

Aliter 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) No; I simply don't see the reason for limits.
Spm 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Unifying the languages would be a mistake - languages don't intermix well; but unifying the user accounts would be splendid.. bring it on!
Agari 16:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ... Oh, most certainly the one logon would be heavenly, and the translate button (although machine translators are still too horrible at it to be used :( ) But there would be the problem of some languages having the same "name" or title of the article. e.g. "France" is French and English for France... Maybe there could be a codish thing... like wikipedia.org/Fr:France and wikipedia.org/En:France Would it be logical, I think it would. :)[reply]