Wikipedia talk:Conlangs/Straw poll

message: Hello! I have just replaced the old poll text by a new one, based on my original alternative proposal. Please review, correct my English and my other errors! --IJzeren Jan 14:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New poll form

message: I have significant objections to this proposal. They are discussed at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Alternative proposal#Please consider dropping the voting, it's probably a waste of time. / Alarm 19:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing proposal in its entirety 

message: I think this poll is too long and has too many criteria. --MacRusgail 13:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I've only just stumbled across this debate in the past couple of days, but my thoughts:
* Number of speakers and/or works composed in the language clearly denotes notability, for the same reason that the popularity or widespread use of any subject connotes notability.
* Completeness, in my opinion, is irrelevant when it comes to notability. Completeness may be indicative of widespread use (which is a useful indicator, but you can look at it directly rather than using completeness as an indicator), but it could also just mean that one guy has made it a labor of love. (I'm all for labors of love, but it takes more than that to merit an encyclopedia entry.) On the flip-side, I can think of many examples where incomplete conlangs could merit notability. For example, Vulcan (last time I checked) is an incomplete conlang (unlike Klingon), but its significance to Star Trek makes it notable.
* Uniqueness doesn't seem indicative of notability in any way, IMO, for similar "labor of love" reasons. (However, it's possible that a conlang could be notable for no other reason than creating a linguistic approach which was picked up by other conlangs which have notability themselves. Or by influencing the conlang community as a whole. But I'd consider that a secondary effect which would fall under Reputation.)
* Publication I agree with Mgml's logic on the straw poll page.
* Reputation. I agree with the logic of Average Earthman on the straw poll page, with my additional thought (above) that influencing the conlang community would be a notable form of reputation.
* Year of Creation. This would appear to fall under Reputation, IMO. Those older conlangs, by their very nature, have a reputation and influenced the conlang community as a whole.
* Notability by proxy. Being used in a notable way clearly connotes notability. Although I'd argue for a more intuitive description and broader category of Notable use
* Last question. The answer to this is entirely dependent on how many major criteria we end up with. Including it in this poll will only result in a meaningless result, IMO. Justin Bacon 15:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Thoughts 

message: Would deserve at least a redirect to that person's article, or similar.  I'm thinking particularly of Boxen and Tolkien's childish languages, but I'm dsure there are more.  The same would apply to fictional conlangs, Newspeak for example. Rich Farmbrough 15:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages created by notable people. 

message: Revisiting the poll I find mixed responses to my voting rationale.  To state things cogently, one of my primary concerns is to protect Wikipedia against vanity languages.  Constructed languages appeal to a particular demographic.  People who enjoy Star Trek and Lord of the Rings often have technical expertise, youth, and time on their hands.  Internet trolls do engage in elaborate plans to disrupt legitimate online activities.  It makes sense to consider this while Wikipedia establishes rules for including online languages.  
I have known teenagers who created entire MMORPGs for the sole purpose of stealing other players' passwords on established MMORPGs.  It takes considerably less effort to construct a conlang vocabulary of a few hundred words, spam some message boards, and create a fake trail of Google hits with the appearance of controversy. To my understanding, Wikipedia's aim is to include only academically and culturally significant conlangs.  Durova 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six Bored Teenagers 

message: Why not start paring the list of conlang articles on Wikipedia? We can identify the least worthy article, AfD it, and once (if) it's deleted, move on to the next one. When we can't find another to delete, we're done. It's easier than a complicated set of rules, and it achieves the goal of removing non-notable and vanity conlangs. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's only productive if your only goal is to drastically reduce the number of articles in the section. It won't produce any guidelines for determining whether a conlang that doesn't appear in Wikipedia is worthy of being added, it will privilege conlangs that happen to be popular among established Wikipedians, and it will send a message to the conlang community not to contribute any new content to Wikipedia. I understand that it's slower and more complicated to come up with guidelines, but doing so addresses the long-term quality of the section, not just the short-term bloat. Cnoocy 03:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your initial assertion is way off. The goal is to find the line dividing conlangs that should stay and those that should go, and this represents good way to find it in a practical manner rather than the abstract manner we're shooting for here. Furthermore, it's equally likely that very few conlang articles will be deleted. AfD requires a high bar for deletion, and there are a lot of editors on this page who are suggesting a low bar for conlang inclusion. After a few articles have gone through AfD, we can look back and see what variables seemed to be present on articles that stayed and absent on articles that were cut. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I misunderstood your intentions, and I apologize. I had the impression that you were advocating deleting as many as possible, and declaring the issue settled. I do, however, think that your suggestion is just another way of conducting a straw poll, and one that will discourage possible new Wikipedians by sending the message that notablility is arbitrary.Cnoocy 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, although your apology was not necessary. Although I'm generally a deletionist, my only strong feeling on conlangs is that vanity conlangs (Durova's "six bored teenagers" point) should be deleted. Should Babm, an obscure, never-spoken conlang with no historical descendents or significance have an article? I don't know. On the one hand, Wikipedia's not paper; on the other, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think that if we talk it out over specific articles, rather than an abstract class of articles, maybe we'll find we're all better able to articulate our views on what conlangs belong in Wikipedia. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion