Talk:Language proposal policy

Archives of this page

---

2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010–2011 | 2012–2015 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 31 days.

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

RFC on conlang policy

Requests for comment/Amend language policy to ban new conlang Wikipedias is open and relevant to this page. Please share your thoughts there! Dronebogus (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the RFC was closed as rejected. --MF-W 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. MF-W 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Replace term artificial language with term constructed language

It says "If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto". Esperanto isn't an artificial language, it is a constructed language. See:

1. ISO 639 uses "Constructed" to refer to a member of the group they refer to has "Language Type" https://iso639-3.sil.org/code_tables/639/data?field_iso639_language_type_tid=36
2. en:Artificial language "This article is about languages that naturally emerge in computer simulations or controlled psychological experiments with humans. For planned or constructed human languages, see constructed language. For formal computer languages, see formal language." So the relevant article is at en:Constructed language.

A more precise term for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lingua Franca Nova, Novial and Interslavic is "planned language".

Suggestion: Replace "artificial language" with "constructed language". TutČas (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)