Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Volapük Wikipedia 2

< Proposals for closing projects

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.

The proposal for closing vo: is rejected and the project will be kept open.

Not only is this Wikipedia edition not thriving, it will not thrive, ever. The number of Volapük speakers was allegedly 20 at the turn of the millennium, and while the internet may have facilitated some degree of linguistic revival the point is that this is a language that’s been teetering on the edge of extinction for most of its existence. There are only 23 active users, and that includes bots and new accounts. 99% of the admittedly large amount of content is bot-generated garbage and/or one-sentence stubs. It’s time to start systematically closing down vanity wikis in constructed languages nobody speaks, starting with this one. Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support closure – I highly doubt a constructed language with only 20 speakers could ever find itself useful. (I also hope you don't mind that I fixed some of the interwiki links) --SHB2000 (t • c) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote – turns out I was misled by the number of speakers (see comment on FB groups). --SHB2000 (t • c) 10:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now going to oppose. Per Britannica: "hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts studied Volapük and published books and periodicals in the language." I only supported on the basis of relying on OP who claimed there were only 20 speakers, but this source makes it absolutely clear that it has a solid base. --SHB2000 (t • c) 11:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: Studied. Past tense. That was like a century ago. Right now the “solid base” is generously maybe a few hundred. I honestly think it’s like a few dozen but we’re just throwing around guesses based on Internet activity; in any case 99+% of those speakers are second generation, online only. Dronebogus (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like someone is on a killing spree here. This idea is so preposterious that at first I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it. But anyway, to get things straight, let me address your arguments one by one:
    • ...not thriving... – How many Wikipedia editions actually are thriving? And since when is being thriving a criterion for the right to exist? And what do you mean by "thriving" anyway?
    • ...will not thrive, ever... - How do you know? You have a crystal ball or what?
    • ...The number of Volapük speakers was allegedly 20 at the turn of the millennium...' – Apparently so. And?
    • ...some degree of linguistic revival... – That's right! Even though nobody would consider Volapük a serious candidate for an international auxiliary language anymore, it still has a solid base. There is a reasonably active group on Facebook with currently 541 members, many of whom know Volapük to some degree. The fact that Volapük after 145 years still has a small but active community also amounts for something, doesn't it?
    • ...teetering on the edge of extinction for most of its existence... – And yet, there have always been people working hard to keep the language alive. From 1932 to 1962, the Volapükagased pro Nedänapükans has been appearing once a month, and since 1989, the Vög Volapüka has been appearing every month as well, never skipping a single month and resulting in 100 pages of text in Volapük each year.
    • ...only 23 active users... – Just like Romansh, Papiamento, Ewe, Ossetic and a few other languages. Looking at the List of Wikipedias, Volapük plays somewhere in the middle league. More importantly, there are quite a few users with hundreds of serious edits, some of them with over 10,000 edits (including myself). Not being active on a daily base does not mean that a person is not active at all.
    • ...99% of the admittedly large amount of content is bot-generated garbage... – This statement only proves that you don't know what you are talking about. There has been a point in history when the number of articles jumped from ca. 5,000 to slightly over 110,000 due to the use of bots, placing the Volapük Wikipedia in the Top 10 in terms of number of articles. At its peak, 89% of the articles were bot-generated. The resulting shitstorm ended with the community decision that both the bot-generated stuff and the project itself were allowed to stay, but no more bot-generated articles were allowed. In 2022, I've spent almost half a damned year reviewing every single bot-generated article and manually deleting 96,000 of them. This means that currently no more than one third of the remaining articles were generated by a bot — less than in the editions in Chechen, Malagasian and those Philippine languages, just to name a few. Besides, let me remind you that bot-generated articles are not necessarily garbage.
    • ...and/or one-sentence stubs... – If you ask me, I would much prefer one article of ten sentences than a hundred with one. But who am I to forbid people writing them? As long as they are written in correct Volapük and match the criteria for a valid stub as used on my home wiki (Dutch), meaning that it gives at least two relevant facts, I see no reason to delete them. Besides, many Wikipedias in smaller languages are loaded with extremely short articles, some of them empty, filled with one word or image, or being nothing but a template. Besides, what you fail to mention is that thousands of articles are neither bot-generated nor oneliners. In addition, there are quite a few articles about the rich history of Volapük itself.
    • ...vanity wikis... – Sounds like a personal attack against those who work on them, so I better ignore this point.
    • ...in constructed languages... – A language is a language, whether constructed or not. Period.
    • ...nobody speaks... – You're contradicting yourself. One sentence earlier, you wrote about a "linguistic revival" yourself. In other words, this is simply not true.
    Summarizing: I strongly oppose this proposal, because the assumptions it is based on are either false or irrelevant. I could agree with a proposal for closing a project that simply never took off, but that is clearly not the case here. Several people, including myself, have spent months of their lives working on this edition. The very thought of throwing away all of it, for reasons that essentially boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is nothing short of offensive. I sincerely hope nobody is going to even consider this seriously. IJzeren Jan (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry you have sunk an inordinate amount of time into maintaining a Wikipedia edition with no practical use, but I’m going to ignore your appeals to emotion. I’m not going to meticulously address everything you just said but I stand by this nomination: we don’t need Wikipedia editions for languages nobody speaks as a first and primary language. Especially not a constructed language spoken by a negligible percentage of the population. If Volapük is acceptable why not Klingon, Quenya, Ancient Greek, Hieroglyphic, Phyrexian? Yes I support deleting Volapük Wikipedia, just like Pennsylvania German, Lingua Franca Nova, Interlingua, Church Slavic, Gothic, Pontic Greek, Novial, and a bunch of other language editions that are either extinct, mutually intelligible with a much larger language edition, or not used in everyday life. Wikipedia is designed to get free knowledge to as many people as possible, not act as a hobby for enthusiasts of obscure languages. There are other Wikimedia projects where you can teach people these languages, and other platforms to host encyclopedias in these languages. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand you correctly, you acknowledge that every single counterargument I've written is correct, in other words, that none of the arguments you've been using are true. Instead, you come up with a new argument: that editions in dialects or endangered languages – whose speakers are bilingual practically by definition – are useless because these people already have access to some larger edition anyway, and therefore, editions in such languages have no right to exist. Following that logic, the same goes for at least half of all editions we currently have, not only the examples you mentioned, but also Croatian, Bosnian, Latin, Sanskrit, Esperanto, Frisian, Nynorsk, Yiddish, Low Saxon, Occitan, Ligurian, Sardinian, Udmurt, Bashkir and many others. Obviously, there are people who find it important to generate content in these languages. Of course, it's your prerogative to like or dislike whatever you want, but how do these editions bother you? Why not leave them be? IJzeren Jan (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t acknowledge anything about your arguments, I just didn’t contest them for the sake of effort and time; put words in my mouth. I also specifically didn’t point out Latin, Bosnian, Croatian or Esperanto because those are large, active wikis; despite their arguable lack of practical usefulness there’s not a W:WP:SNOWball’s chance in hell of deleting them. But yes I do think that all ausbau language editions are inherently not useful (and in fact would no longer get approved); and yes I think all endangered/extinct/constructed language editions are also not useful because they are not how people learn and communicate. Finally, having dozens of unnecessary language editions is not harmless— all the man-hours sunk into these “fluff” projects nobody gains any practical benefit from could be spent improving major projects millions of people need and use every day. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, here we have it: man-hours sunk into something you don't like are a waste of time. Fortunately, there are many people who think differently, for whom linguistic diversity is an important element of preserving human culture and keeping the world an interesting place. Something worth fighting for, even if there are people who don't give a fiddler's fart, and definitely something worth spending time on. Who are you to decide what is useful or not? And what makes you think the same people would be doing something more "useful" once their language is gone? That's my point: let people decide for themselves what is useful or not. If collecting userboxes and creating redirects is your idea of spending your time usefully, then be my guest; I am certainly not going to start crusading against them. Even so: scribbling down a few lines, like you did above, is easy. But if you really deem it necessary to wipe out years of work done by others, you might at least take the time to do some research first, and if you think acknowledging a few simple facts is a waste of your time, then you shouldn't have started this thing in the first place. IJzeren Jan (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can go and write stuff in Volapük somewhere other than Wikipedia. That’s all I’m saying. But Wikipedia isn’t a language preservation service. That’s not its job. Answer this: do you think even one person uses Vukiped to learn about something other than Volapük? Because if not it’s objectively failed its purpose as an encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know and neither do you. Again, you are making assumptions that are based on prejudice rather than facts. Fact is that the main page has about as many visitors as the editions in many other languages (for example: Amharic, the national language of Ethiopia, or Tatar, the second-largest language of Russia). Who can tell what these people are looking for, and if they find what they are looking for? IJzeren Jan (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to support the creator of the proposal here. Volapuk cannot be compared to national languages. Amharic currently doesn't have the infrastructure, but long term I could see a Wikipedia prospering. Same deal with Tatar, though their language has less speakers than Amharic so few know about the Wikipedia. Volapuk cannot prosper, it's a conlang that's maintained by an extremely small group of enthusiasts, without any potential growth outside of "oh well, this can be a hobby, so it exists, I guess". It's not even like Esperanto in that there's a large hobbyist community from which you can pick people interested in maintaining a project that truly requires dedication like a Wikipedia. The Volapuk Wikipedia is stuck in perpetual-stub status similar to wikis like Pitkern - Norfuk and Nauru. This is not sustainable at all. If you look backwards, there was a similar situation with Toki Pona, another conlang that had a similarly disfunctional, perma-stub Wikipedia. It was shuttered pretty decisively. --176.104.110.11 01:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like a better argument for the actual educational value of Vukiped besides “you can’t prove someone doesn’t find it useful!” Just like I can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist— the unfalsifiability of Bigfoot doesn’t he does exist. Dronebogus (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's you who is making a claim here, aren't you? Of course I cannot prove that these 500 visitors a day find it useful, just like you cannot prove that the visitors of, say, the Albanian or Tatar editions actually find them useful. Obviously, I can only speak for myself here. And personally, do peruse it sometimes for looking up something unrelated to Volapük itself. IJzeren Jan (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with the comparison of languages spoken by millions to a conlang with no usage outside of minuscule hobbyist circles. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Conlang wikis are a big mistake. The only language that is constructed and has potential for a long-term, viable wiki is Esperanto. All the other conlangs are almost always on the verge of dying out, spoken by very few enthusiasts who will probably never pass the language to their children. As is, I think the Wikimedia Foundation is wasting it's resources on vanity projects instead of tapping into actual languages that have millions of speakers yet underdeveloped Wikipedias that could be a huge boon for those communities, like in Africa, for example. --176.104.110.11 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Volapük like Novial, Ido, Esperanto and Interlingua are no conlangs, but international auxiliary languages. They serve the goal faciliating international communication and make by its easy structure information available for speakers with different language background. Conlangs in the way you mean are either created for fun or for artistic purposes like Klingon. So international auxiliary languages should stay at Wikipedia. The Volapük Wikipedia reprensents in no way a problem or burden for the Wikipedia project. Just the opposite... Valodnieks (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concerns, but Volapuk does, in fact, fulfil the definition of a constructed language. It didn't arise out of natural changes from a previous language. It was built from scratch. Speaking of the whole "it doesn't represent a burden"... yeah, vowiki is a burden at this point. Kinda. I don't think there's a strong enough community to actively prop up the Wikipedia, as is. Granted, the article count is slightly higher than cases like pihwiki or nawiki, but it still doesn't change the fact that the wiki is very rudimentary and mostly consisting of stub articles. As much as I don't agree with the way the proposer framed this, there is a bit of truth there. It's one thing to know Volapuk and be a Volapuk enthusiast; working on a Wikipedia is a whole another level. And there simply isn't a userbase for vowiki, nor is there content. Speaking of the old texts, that's probably more suited for a Wikisource rather than Wikipedia. Old literary bodies of text don't imply continuity. --176.104.110.11 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needlessly antagonistic proposal. As long as the content is actually written in the language it claims to be, and as long as the wiki is not so abandoned that it is wasting the time of global sysops and the SMWT, neither of which seems to be true, there's no point in closing. * Pppery * it has begun 18:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a Wikipedia in a language with no practical use not inherently a waste of time? Dronebogus (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my comment more carefully: I said wasting the time of global sysops and the SMWT. If regular editors and admins of a wiki want to do what you consider to be a waste of time then more power to them. * Pppery * it has begun 01:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having to prop up a vanity project for enthusiasts of an obscure conlang used by ~20 people is a waste of time (and more importantly resources) for the Foundation and community at large. If letting people use Wikimedia for whatever they like is harmless, why don’t we abolish scope requirements on Commons? Or w:wp:NOTWEBHOST on Enwiki? Dronebogus (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whose time and what specific resources are being wasted? That point is fundamentally missing here. * Pppery * it has begun 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The whole nomination is subjective as showed. The main closure point is repetitiously said "waste of time" which is nothing but a personal attitude belittling the language usage at all. Grigoriy Korotkih (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeVolapuk is leaving language now, which can serve for communication and for spreading of knowledge. There are good articles in Vükiped, there are articles with valuable facts. This is good, that 20-30 speakers do not try to write as more new articles, as possible, but Vükiped is growing step by step, and it would be wrong to prohibit for Volapükists to write new articles in the encyclopedia. Morozof (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In addition to the other arguments given about Volapük being very much alive and well, languages as old as Volapük have unique sources of info that remain untranslated. E.g. the archives of Occidental/Interlingue which is now 100+ years old have helped shed some light on Switzerland and Sweden during WWII. Volapük has similar content that goes back even further and it's that interaction between Wikipedias that keeps it from being a big-language-perspectives-only club. Mithridates (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I firmly support Wikisources in any languages with a large enough body of texts, and translations on modern-language Wikisources. What does Wikipedia have to do with this?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing a language's active Wikipedia and then asking them to stay around to help with things like transcribing on Wikisource and translating Volapük historical sources into English for article references would be an incredibly weird thing to ask. Mithridates (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was making texts for Project Gutenberg before there was a Wikipedia, and I'm now an administrator for Wikisource. If you want to talk about offensive, we can talk about the implication that Wikipedia is something worthwhile and recording the world's written heritage in Wikisource isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try again so you can see what I mean. I'm not talking about the relative value of one Wikimedia project over another.
    There is a group of people that edit the Volapük Wikipedia and also edit in other languages, add to Wikisource, and enrich the articles on Volapük and its speakers with access to sources that nobody else can read. If their Wikipedia is closed down one day, why would they stay around just to take care of the other tasks? And what's the guarantee that a book they have transcribed or article in another language they've worked on is also nominated for deletion because of reasons like lack of server space and the Wikimedia foundation shouldn't have content for a language "that doesn't even have a Wikipedia"? Do you see where I'm going with this? Mithridates (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no edits to the Volapük section of Wiksource in the last 30 days, and it doesn't seem that anyone has added new content in the last 15 years since Smeira stopped editing. Nobody is doing those other things, so they're red herrings. What's the odds a book I have transcribed in English will have to be deleted because of lack of server space due to the Volapük Wikipedia? They're the same type of irrational fears.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having c. 20 active users is not a reason to close a Wikipedia. Apart from that everything I read was just prejudice towards the language itself. kekobi (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Volapük has still active community, yes, much smaller than e.g Esperanto but still there are journals and groups online, only 20 active users shouldn't be the reason for deleting whole project. Rakso43243 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you were recently harassing me on my talk page with frivolous accusations of cultural genocide. And I’ve created three, one I immediately closed. And I think this should be obvious but you can’t ban someone for something wholly unrelated on an unrelated wiki. If you keep with the personal attacks and ad hominem I will be forced to start a formal complaint against you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing is in no way tolerable, but your aggressive way in discussion and insisting on your opionion creates obviously not a constructive atmosphere and that is harmful for the whole Wikipedia project. Valodnieks (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some jerk was harassing me is unequivocally wrong; you don’t need to preface it with implication that I brought it on myself. Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's no policy against languages with few speakers, nor against artificial languages. Vowiki is functioning well and doesn't cause any problems for others. So what's there to be gained from deleting it? And what's with that whole condescending, patronizing attitude anyway? Nüm bal (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Volapük is a language which has a rich tradition and history bigger than Esperanto. The so called arguments are nothing but a bunch of prejudices against constructed languages. Wikipedia is a democratic project and the idea of a neutral world language fits in it. Volapük Wikipedia has an active community and it is functioning. Numerous articles are real articles and not just bot generated content. There are forums in internet with more than 500 people like Facebook groups etc., so not just 20 people. Valodnieks (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not generally for kicking sleeping dogs; I wouldn't argue to open this Wikipedia, but I wouldn't have started a deletion request. However, IJzeren Jan, at Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Interslavic, said "Being one of the original authors of the language, I can of course only support this proposal." I would expect and hope that the Tatar Wikipedia is driven by Tatar speakers, and Cornish Wikipedia is driven by Cornish speakers, people writing it for their community and their family. I'm really skeptical of the value of a Volapük Wikipedia where the major editors list 14 languages on their User page and Volapük as vo-2.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's easily explained. My native language is Dutch and I am ¼ Frisian. At school I learnt English, French, Latin (6 years), German and Greek (5 years). I've always kept my Latin kind of alive, but most of what I knew about Greek has moved to some dark corner of my brain. I lived and worked 1½ year in Luxemburg, where I spoke German and French on a daily base, but my French is rusty: I can read a book in it, but I wouldn't be able to write a text without the help of a dictionary. I am a professional translator and interpreter of Polish, and I speak it at home, too. I studied Russian for a year at the university, and I read enough books in Ukrainian to know the basics of it. In Esperanto, I am an eterna komencanto, but I know the grammar and I can read it without much problems. Same goes for Novial and Interlingua. In other words: level 3 means that I can have a conversation about any subject or write longer texts without checking a dictionary; level 2 that I can have a simple conversation or write a text with the help of a dictionary; level 1 that I've been learning it actively, that I know (most of) the grammar and that I can understand a written text, but I wouldn't really be able to use it actively (anymore). I haven't even listed languages that I can read (like Afrikaans, which any Dutch person can easily understand). Nothing out of the ordinary for a professional linguist, I'd say. IJzeren Jan (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think we really need Wikipedias in languages only used by professional linguists as one of a dozen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at my global edits, you'll notice that this is not "one of a dozen". The only languages I've done some serious work in here are Dutch and Volapük. IJzeren Jan (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the Closing projects policy, projects that are proposed to be closed are classified as one of two types: "Regular language editions which don't have content or existing content is insignificant. (Note that small/inactive wikis do not generally cause harm if they stay open: automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past.)" and "Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial, questionable or in another way uncommon." Thus, the criteria for closure are insignificance, harm, and controversy, but the proposal introduces two new ad hoc criteria of potential ("this Wikipedia edition not thriving, it will not thrive, ever") and artificiality ("It’s time to start systematically closing down vanity wikis in constructed languages nobody speaks"), neither of which are intended or anticipated by the Closing projects policy.
Furthermore, the original proposal has failed to demonstrate the grounds for which the Volapük wikipedia should be closed even according to its own ad hoc criteria, let alone Wikipedia's Closing projects policy. If we were to follow the latter criteria objectively, then according to the first criterion (insignificance of content) we would be obliged to close down 222 other projects that have less content; according to the second criterion, we would have to demonstrate that the Volapük wikipedia causes harm by staying open, perhaps through spam; according to the third criterion, we would have to demonstrate that the Volapük wikipedia has invited controversy by including questionable content or by deviating from the common norms of Wikimedia in some demonstrable way. Given that there are several thriving Wiktionaries in planned or constructed languages, such as Bahasa Indonesia, Modern Hebrew, Esperanto, Simple English, and Nynorsk, the criterion of artificiality is evidently not sufficient to justify closure. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this here would have to be addressed first, and I don't know a good reason why it hasn't. Retsamys (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Esperanto is the only true constructed language on that list. The others are all standardized varieties of organic languages. Really, most languages are artificially regulated to some extent in order to be manageable. Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree, and in any case, this is a minor cavil. Esperanto is made of bits and pieces of what you call "organic" languages. These languages (I could have added Turkish as well) are made of bits and pieces of what you call "organic" languages. All of them were patched together onto a frame in a way that made them look and behave like your "organic" languages, but they all have to be laboriously learned. Yes, all of them have "native speakers" now (including Esperanto) but that doesn't change the fact that all of them are very different from natural languages. They only appear natural in retrospect; in each case, when they were first introduced, speakers of the source languages from which they were developed were horrified (Isaac Bashevis Singer, for example, famously referred to Israeli Hebrew as "a soulless Esperanto"). Turkish is probably the most Esperanto-like of them all (read Geoffrey Lewis' The Turkish Language Reform: a Catastrophic Success) even if, coincidentally, its orthography is essentially Volapükic (what other language uses those umlauts, the j for /ʒ/, and the c for /dʒ/? Only Volapük did at the time, and we can probably assume that Turkish linguists like Halil Kâmil are responsible). What you call "standardization" is a form of linguistic engineering and its principles are really no different from that of language construction, particularly language construction of the more naive sort. Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very true! Many people wrongly assume some kind of binary distinction between natural and artificial languages. However, some languages usually considered natural are arguably more artificial than some constructed languages, and in any case, there is a large grey area between both extremes. What's interesting though, is that for some reason the label "constructed" seems to compel lots of people to have a – usually negative – opinion about a language. With regard to this, let me quote a fragment from an article by Claude Piron (he writes about Esperanto, but the same goes for any other constructed language as well): "[...] many of those questioned display every sign of emotional involvement. Some react enthusiastically, fervently. But the majority are patronising towards Esperanto, as though it were obviously childish. The person concerned makes it clear that Esperanto is not to be taken seriously, and his tone is disdainful, ironic or humourously condescending towards the "simple souls" who take it up. If, in order to get a control reaction for comparison, the researcher asks the subject to give his or her opinion about Bulgarian or Indonesian in the same way, he gets quite a different response. The subject takes about a minute to recount in a perfectly neutral tone of voice everything he has to say about them, usually that he knows nothing. The contrast is astonishing. [...] Why is he aware of his incompetence in the one case and not in the other? Presumably languages such as Bulgarian and Indonesian are seen as belonging to the realm of facts, while Esperanto is felt to be a proposal. Facts are bowed down to. Faced with a proposal, it is felt necessary to give a yes or a no and then defend that point of view."[1] This discussion is a pretty illustrative example. IJzeren Jan (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the careful scientific analysis viewpoint, but it really starts to become a problem when it blinds people to functional real-world things. Can Hebrew or Turkish be classified as conlangs? Yes. But for one, they're less conlangy than Esperanto; the goal was not a new language, but a revitalized old language. For another, they're national languages that have been spoken for almost a century by native speakers, sometimes by monolingual native speakers (in significant numbers). Even if someone discovered that Turkish was somehow a completely de novo language unrelated to Ottoman Turkish, that would still be a linguistic reclassification, not a functional one in reality. As Jan points out, Turkish is a fact, Esperanto and Volapük are proposals. For the purposes of this discussion, Volapük more so than Esperanto; Esperanto a language with tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of speakers, current literature and magazines (some that aren't about the language), etc. could get a Wikipedia on general principles, whereas Volapük as a (functionally?) extinct language with possibly no fluent speakers is like the w:Tuscarora language, without the cultural weight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there are significant real-world things to consider, including sheer numbers. You could say that quantity has its own quality.
That said, it appears to me that the reasons for closing the Volapük Wikipedia and even the advocates of this proposal are far outnumbered, at least for the moment, and this is yet another real-world consideration (to the extent that this space maps onto the real world). Furthermore, the present proposal hasn't addressed any of the guidelines in the Closing projects policy and therefore lacks a clear mandate.
Would I advocate for Volapük to become, say, the official working language of the EU? No, probably not; in that context it lacks a clear mandate and sufficient popular support. Would I advocate to close the Volapük Wikipedia? Again no, in this context that proposal rather obviously lacks both as well. Chuck Haberl (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
1. There is a failure to objectively demonstrate the closure criteria set forth by Wikipedia is met.
2. There is value in preserving this wiki, as the first largely popular auxiliary language it has cultural significance. It provides a source of information and look into the past that can not be gained elsewhere.
3. It is in use and not harmful or questionable material, rather the opposite supporting the bringing together of all people.
4. What is to be gained by closing it?
Seth 2600:1002:A012:27A3:F0A1:B819:B7B1:B066 17:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Though I don't have a personal connection to it, I cannot see any reason to close the Volapuk Wikipedia. Volapuk is the original IAL, predating Esperanto, and has a small but loyal following. There is evidence of recent activity. By the way, this page isn't even well organised like the one for the Novial Wikipedia is, it is a mess. I had trouble seeing how to add my comment. I would be surprised if the people running Wikipedia can even make sense of this page to make a decision either way. Idojc (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a keep argument. I can publish a book in Phyrexian, doesn’t mean it’s getting a Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This fact opposes to your statement, that Volapük is one of "constructed languages nobody speaks". If someone can write a whole book in a language, this language is in active use (so someone can use Wikipedia in this language). I also can refer to this translated book in the National Library in St. Petersburg (and other libraries have it, including the National Library in Wien): https://primo.nlr.ru/permalink/f/df0lai/07NLR_LMS021955519 Morozof (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are books written in languages nobody speaks. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you mention that manuscript? Unlike Voynich Manuscript, Volapük Wikipedia has well-known language code. Yes, there are many paradoxes in the case of ever FOREIGN language (and IAL is a foreign language for all). Native language is used by its speakers in speech, and then (sometimes, many languages have no writing systems) in reading and writing. IAL — in the contrast to this case — primarily has written form, and then is used in speech. I live in such place, that I use English only in written form, and I often read articles in English Wikipedia, when I need some information. In such manner I can use Volapük Wikipedia for searching of information. (And I don't want to write about inner speech during reading.) And why do you think, that nobody speaks Volapük? There are documented cases of conversations in Volapük (in XXIth century too), and you can search "Volapük paspiköl" in Youtube. Morozof (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed at how the creator of Volapük managed to invent a language that was almost equally hard for everyone to learn; egalitarian if nothing else, especially since most IALs are extremely biased towards Romance languages. But that’s all neither here nor there. Dronebogus (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Volapük Wikipedia seems in my impression to be one of the more active ones among small Wikipedia projects (yes, surprisingly!), so I don't see what's to be gained from closing it and alienating enthusiasts. I'm presuming it doesn't take significant server resources or money for WMF, neither does it seem to require a lot of work or actions from Wikipedians outside of the Volapük Wikipedia community. It also seems factually inaccurate that a large share of the articles is bot-generated (which however, was the case for a long period).
I also strongly oppose implications that I see here and in the other recent proposals that Wikipedia ought not to run Wikipedias in smaller languages. Any Wikipedia which is run by say at least 2-5 somewhat active, sensible contributors, which doesn't require much external work, could be made good quality (but not large), I'm thinking – and unless there is a lot of vandalism doesn't pose any problem even if "sleeping" or in hiatus. A Wikipedia in a small language, on the other hand, can be valuable for a shrinking language, supporting keeping it alive and possibly even growth – and within reasonable limits, supporting linguistic (and cultural) diversity like this is and should be a side goal of the Wikimedia projects. If a project could be deleted just because "they all speak the bigger language (or languages) X anyhow", that would mean contributing to the process of language death. Flinga (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment IDK why Dronebogus brought up "rate of vandalism" as a possible criteria for a project closure. GSR is monitored round the clock since GS long overcome critical editorial mass. Yes, looking globally there is a lot of vandalism happening on every project, however this statistically does not correlate to rate of vandalism on a single local project. Also, what's the limit on project having too much daily vandalism? 1, 2, 5, or 100 deleted pages per day/week/month? Completely unreliable criteria to judge on such important matter as a project closure. A09|(pogovor) 19:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dronebogus has an assumption that the worthiness of a language is directly tied to the number of first language speakers and its competitiveness as one of the large global languages. I completely disagree with this. Volapük is a historically significant and living language with an active wikipedia. Period. He can disagree with this and call Volapük a frivolous and novelty language. Per this discussion, there are people that do not agree and the hostile nature of his arguments really turn me off. SMBisbee (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a question of “beauty” vs. cultural utility vs. actual utility. English has actual utility since millions use it in everyday life all over the world and millions more understand it as a lingua franca; Maori has cultural utility because it is instrumental to the identity of an endangered ethno-cultural minority; Volapük has neither, so the only reason for it to have a Wikipedia edition is the notion that it has some kind of intrinsic worth from its existence. You’re free to think that, but I’m also free to argue against it. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Beauty"? The beauty of a language is subjective. Cultural and actual utility would be using and interacting with the language in a meaningful way with its speakers, literature, and history. Yes, English has more utility in the modern world, but would that be a reason to wipe less successful languages off of Wikipedia? Yes Maori is tied to an ethno-cultural minority, but would it's only value be connected to its cultural relevance to that community? Maori is a living language with art, literature, human relationships, and history. Just that alone should be enough to include it on Wikipedia as long as it would have the support to keep the project active. Speakers and learners of Volapük do believe that it has intrinsic worth. Why else would people spend thousands of hours of their time in a language that would never financially reward them. If someone doesn't see the value in international auxiliary languages, then don't learn them. I see no need to stomp out the hard work of others just because someone has prejudices against constructed languages (calling them frivolous and a novelty). If nothing is broken with the wiki and it is still active, this proposal is just a waste of time. SMBisbee (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this seems to be significantly straying from the closure policy, unless I'm mistaken? You seem to be arguing that it never should have been created, which is lovely but shouting into the abyss (because it's already been amended), instead of that it should be closed. Both of your central arguments are explicitly refuted by the Closing projects policy:

Not meeting the current Language proposal policy requirements is not a valid reason.

and

Inactivity in itself is no valid reason

You seem to be hotly debating the philosophy of the conlangs on Wikipedia more than anything else, which is covered by the first. Could you explain according to what specific criteria you believe Volapuk Wikipedia meets the Closure policy? This is seeming like a pointless and fruitless argument happening in the wrong place. Frzzl (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per others, particularly argument by Ijzeren Jan; all of my comments on the Novial page apply here. This is deletionism for the sake of deletionism, on a not-very-strong arguement, where your responses feel more like a vendetta against IALs than a case for why Wikimedia shouldn't use resources on hosting this individual project. Also, like my comment on the Novial discussion, the project has some value as part of Wikipedia tradition, harms no one, and has fundamental value in being a high-quality account of the history of Volapuk. Frzzl (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that always will appear someone that wants to learn the language and make kontributions. Closure of Volapük Wikipedia would be a violence against those who would like to collaborate. Joao Xavier (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Volapük_Wikipedia_2&oldid=26931124"