Wikipedia:Conlangs/Suggestions by Thomas Winwood

Suggestions by Thomas Winwood[edit]

A lot of the suggestions currently put forward bias unfairly towards auxlangs which are actually intended to be used by people here on Earth today, from what I've seen. For this reason I suggest the following:

Lexicon size (say, larger than 500 or 1000) - subject to reviewal by a panel composed of other conlangers (nobody can review a conlang better than another conlanger, although in the panel should be representatives of auxlang, loglang, artlang etc. communities). A lexicon is not something which biases towards any one type of conlang, so it's a fair review of the span of a conlang.
Translation of an approved text - this should demonstrate semantic, lexical and grammatical completion. To be decided by the same conlang panel. Again, doesn't bias in favour of any type of conlang.
Finally, the whim of the conlang panel should be given priority, to eliminate objection. The conlang panel's decision is final.

It might also be worth siphoning off all conlangs into a separate project. Then Wikipedia can simply block all conlangs, including Klingon and Atlantean and the rest. ThomasWinwood 17:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well Thomas, your suggestions are interesting, but I can't say I agree with them.

First of all, lexicon size. Frankly I think 500 or 1000 is far too little. Look here and convince yourself: we'd end up with far too many language. A number of 2000 or 2500 mentioned earlier would work better IMO.

Then your idea of a panel. I like that idea. But your idea that "the conlang panel's decision is final" is impossible to carry out. Wikipedia simply doesn't work like that! No, a panel of a few knowledgeable people that can give trustworthy advise would be A Good Thing, and I'd happily be part of it. But its decision can never be final!

Translation of an approved text. This is going much too far IMO. As if inclusion in Wikipedia was a primary target for the average conlanger! No, counting characters in texts in the conlang, that's one thing; picking "mandatory" texts to translate, that's another thing.

I don't really understand what you mean by "a separate project". You mean, something outside Wikipedia? Remember, there are already several conlang wikis around. If that's really what you propose, that's about the same as one massive VfD against áll conlangs represented here, something I'd strongly oppose!

Best regards, IJzeren Jan 20:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the idea of Wikipedia to have a reference that is of use to the interested non-specialist? Then, it would seem to me, that Wikibooks is the proper place for a textbook on the conlang, or for commentary that is of interest to specialists, and Wikipedia the proper place for summary articles that are informative to a wider readership. Robert A West 03:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree with that. Conlang articles definitey should not contain detailed grammatical descriptions (although some basic classificational info certainly won't hurt). That's what websites are for. Or Wikibooks, or one out of several wikis specialised in conlangs. --IJzeren Jan 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A minimum bar for lexicon size would disadvantage Toki Pona, which is notable for having 120 core words and only one open class (loan adjectives), unless common compounds are counted as lexical items. --Damian Yerrick 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. All criteria discussed are inclusive; they are not to be treated as requirements. Toki Pona obviously is a notable language, not because of its vocabulary size but because of other factors (# of speakers, good reputation, etc.). --IJzeren Jan 05:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]