On 25/01/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Rather, I believe in a reasonable compromise that retains the useful-to-the-modern-world "historical" and constructed languages, and keeps out those that aren't written anymore. And I know you have been an advocate of Latin Wikipedia. I would not call such a language "reconstructed", but rather, a living and evolving "classical language", with an active contemporary literature. And I do not believe Latin to be unique in this regard.
Comparing Volapuk to Esperanto is interesting in this regard. (Not considering the issues of concern about the Volapuk Wikipedia.) Volapuk is a conlang which is actually older than Esperanto and was designed to fill a similar need. However, Esperanto has retained its popularity and is actively used as an auxiliary language, with a reasonable number of speakers and an active community using and writing in it - whereas Volapuk has all but fallen into disuse. A Wikisource and Wiktionary in Volapuk would arguably be useful to the world, a Wikipedia not so much.
What do you think of the proposal for using the demonstrated notability of a language's contemporary literature (as demonstrated by a Featured Article on the subject in the English Wikipedia) as the criteria for the approval of a primarily-written language (such as the "historical" and constructed languages)?
I think it's a bit too subjective to make it a criterion, but it may be a useful indicator if such an article has reached some sort of quality status (e.g. FA or GA in en:wp) in a large natural language Wikipedia.
- d.