Wikipedia talk:Conlangs/Criteria

Ranking my own languages

Of the amount of languages sketches I have myself created I can poins some languages in which I can say I am seriously developing. Most of them I do not expect to have wikipedia articles as, while they are notable for me, I do not expect to be notable for other people.

Biwa: an artlang with no speakers (not even fictional), no books published about or in the language (less so with ISBN), and none planed, and do not fullfill any other criteria. Anyhow I would not expect to see it on wikipedia, ever. Even if I pretend it to be one of the most beautifull conlangs (and therefor, posibly, influencian into the conlang community).
Chleweyish: a personlang with one speaker (and a very bad speaker), no book writen yet in or about the language and I do not expect to get an ISBN if ever. I expect to influence other languages with it but at a minor extend. No other criteria fullfilled and I would not like it to have an article in wikipedia.
Interlecto: Pretends to be an auxlang and has been redefined as an springoff backwards compatible with Lingua Franca Nova. Not speakers yet, but any speaker of LFN is an Interlecto speaker. No books published yet in or about the language. I expect it to be an influencial language and the auxlang that overcome all other... yet, as longer as I am not satisfied with the result none of the criterias should be met, and I do not expect it to be inlcuded in wikipedia.
Rithian: my first conlang before I ever knew that other people had a hobby of inventing languages. Was very developed but most of the original material was lost. Was a cryptolang. No speakers but back then I expected to get over the 500 figure and publish with it. As I am not really interested in recovering it, less so its pretentions, I do not expect to have an enty in wikipedia.
Lingua Franca Nova: Not an original project by me, and my contributions are minimal, but still a language I am interested in keep colaborating to. It already has an entry in wikipedia. Not sure if it gets the 50 speakers figure, but might be close. I do not if it has ISBN books in or about. Has already a useful corpus and it is the most serius attempt for a planed creole. It is notable in my opinion even if I am not sure if it meets Almafeta's criteria.
Tokcir: Originally known as New Generation Language (NGL), is neither an original idea by me. Even if not designed as auxlang it has been considered as one on discutions about auxlangs (as has been lojban). Some 5 or 6 speakers, probably more. A rich vocabulary, including an Ogden subset that should allow to speak about anything with just a minimal set. I am expecting to publish a grammar on it, compilating everithing that has been discused on it by several conlangers... there should be some published material in the language about non-language topics but I doubt they have ISBN. Not sure if it has been influential. In my opinion it deserves an inclusion on wikipedia.
Hangkerimce: A ficlang for the Hangkerim culture in the Zera universe. I hope to publish in and about it but until Hangerim, Zera, or Hangkerimce are complete enough by their author, and have a fanbase, it should not have an antry on wikipedia.

So, those which I think do not deserve an entry, would not according to Almafeta's criteria... but those that I think do deserve an entry does not fully met the criteria either. One of them already has an entry. The other is in Spanish language wikipedia: es:Tokcir.

— Carlos Th (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Tokcir definitely warrants an article. --IJzeren Jan 09:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :)) --IJzeren Jan 18:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So my set of criteria

Keeping Almafeta's original criteria, we could add:

Minor criteria
- Worked by at least two separate conlangers for a period of one year.
- A corpus that proves that can be effectively use for communication, even if not intented to be so by the author.
Major criteria
- Worked by at least ten separate conlangers for a period of two years, or by at least three separate conlangers by a period of five years.
Anti-criteria
- Veto by the author.
Anti-anti-criteria-criteria
- If the language is too notable, for example it has caused major controversy, has a great number of speakers, etc. the author cannot veto an article about the language.

The period criterium should be period of continous work. If a collaborative effort language is worked on for the first three months, then colaborations become scarse, untill it is dead before the first year and then somebody adds something five years later, then it does not fullfill the criterium.

The reason of the anti-criteria is that if the author deems that the language should not be notable, even if it meets two or all minor criteria the language should not be included. Of course, nobody can veto a notable subject to deserve an article in Wikipedia. — Carlos Th (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the "anti-criterion". A conlang author is welcome to vote Delete on articles about his own conlangs (as I would do if anyone created articles about my conlangs), but his vote should not get extra weight, any more than if he voted Keep. Of course, a conlang author is in a position to know more about his language than others, and if he thinks it non-notable he should say why; very likely this will influence other people's votes. No veto is necessary.

I am not sure how I feel about the period-of-time-worked criteria. They seem useful primarily as proxies for completeness; but why not judge completeness directly, by looking at the phonology/grammar description of the language, its lexicon and its corpus? Not many languages will rank high on "completeness" without having been worked on for a considerable time, anyway, but we shouldn't penalize the few that do attain a surprising level of completeness in less than two years.

A large corpus (texts totalling 100,000 words in the language, maybe?) should count as a major criterion, and a middling-size corpus (10-25,000 words?) as a minor criterion (that plus one other second-tier criterion establish notability).

Being worked on by more than one conlanger should probably count as a third-tier minor criterion (that and two other third-tier criteria will establish notability). --Jim Henry | Talk 02:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the "worked on by two separate conlangers over a period of one year" on the basis that most artlangs are made by one person (indeed, even the myriad Tolklangs excepting Animalic and Nevbosh would not come under that umbrella!). ThomasWinwood 11:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be an exclusive criterium (those which do not fullfill it would be excluded) but an inclusive criterium (those which do are candidates to be included). All minor criteria are inclusive criteria rather than exclusive. If we add some minor criteria aimed to artlangs this "collaborative" criterium does not harm.

— Carlos Th (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As I understand, the reason to oppose a criterium would be that it would include too many non-notable conlangs. — Carlos Th

As for the anti-criterion, I tend to agree with Jim Henry here. But I'm sure Wikipedia has some jurisprudence about this kind of things. In the Dutch wiki we recently had a local historian who wanted to delete a lemma about himself; the conclusion was, I think, that he was allowed to rewrite it.

As for the n-conlangers-worked-on-it-for-n-years: well, I can't say these figures really make me feel warm inside, but as an inclusive criterion they certainly won't hurt. Next question: how do you establish this number? What is the "minimum input" one must have given?

I think these minimum time worked criteria can indeed hurt: by allowing in non-notable, non-verifiable conlangs. Suppose a conlang has been worked on by two conlangers for a year (one minor criterion) and has a lexicon of 2,501 words (a second minor criterion). Is it therefore notable enough for Wikipedia? It depends -- at least on whether it's well known and information about it is verifiable from other sources than the conlang creator(s) themselves. If it's just a naming language used in these two conlangers' RPG universe, and there are no Google hits for it outside their site, Langmaker and a few Zompist BBoard postings, it's not notable or verifiable. --Jim Henry | Talk 20:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for Jim's proposed mininum corpus size (> 100,000 words = major criterion, 10-25,000 words = minor criterion): that works fine for me, and I'm strongly in favour of including it. --IJzeren Jan 09:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick point: If your conlang gets an article and you don't think it deserves one (which strikes me as unlikely - conlang fans, such as they are, tend to not to be that sort of bunch), you can always send it to VFD. If you say "hey, I made this up, and trust me, it isn't notable", the average VFD voter is going to take your word for it unless some other folks come in with pretty compelling arguments. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while digging in the archives I found one occurrence of a conlanger who voted for the deletion of his own language. But like it was said elsewhere, a conlanger can bring in his arguments and vote like any other wikipedian can, but he has no exclusive right to have an article about his work deleted. --IJzeren Jan 10:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]