Draft talk:Viossa

As per the deletion discussion in April 2026 ([1]), I moved this article to my user space out of the main article space. According to [2] I am supposed to remove the deletion notice, but the editor will not let me do this. Please note that this was not an oversight but a logistical edit issue outside my power to fix. If anyone with perms could please remedy, that would be lovely. JezzaHehn (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Apparently, this is what has happened, judging by logs and discussions:

• Original Viossa article was created
• Original article was translated to Interlingua
• Original article moved to Draft:Viossa
• Interlingua article translated back to English.

I am not sure if the article became better in regard to notability guidelines. MonX94 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd say that Viossa is fairly notable in the conlang sphere, and we do have reliable sources.

TypistMonkey (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Please include them, the article is in dire need. I think we can keep some of the questionable sources for now, but let's try to phase them out as soon as possible. CVDX (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Phase out sources!? WOW!! How about you go pay Associated Press to do a story about Viossa before you think about restricting sources! My goodness 14.2.163.29 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Late to the party here, but I would like to speak to the notability of the language by Wikipedia standards. The history and current state of the language were presented in detail by two different people at the Language Creation Conference, in year 8 of the conference (2019) and more recently in year 11 (which was 2025). The Viossa community is exceptionally active on Discord, with over 100,000 messages sent in February alone, of which over 62,000 were in Viossa-only channels. (Please note that these numbers are WP:OR on my part and are not suitable for the article itself, but I wanted to give a scale for readers here on the talk page; additionally I want to acknowledge that as a moderator of the Viossa community I am implicitly biased so feel free to take my opinions on notability with an appropriate grain of salt.) The larger and more important question is how many of the citations in the article itself quality as WP:OR and which are in line with general WP:Notability or any of the topic-specific Notability guidelines. Cheers, JezzaHehn (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Things like explaining how pronouns work, or translating 'jaa', and so on are all against one of the main rules of the language -- learning through immersion rather than having grammar and vocabulary explained/defined in English or another language. The act of doing so is called uwaki and is forbidden in the community.

I'm not sure what wikipedia's convention is on following cultural practices, especially given that Viossa is a constructed language so the culture around it is artificial. However, I'd argue that the article should *not* contain uwaki content since it undermines the principles that allow the experiment to work in the first place, and the culture around Viossa might be constructed, but it's still real. GamerAJ1025 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@GamerAJ1025 Hello! I think this article does not necessarily go against Viossa's rules; you can take a look here [3] under "1: No translation" where it says: "Outside of the teaching-learning cycle, we also make an exception ... for academic translations (such as for a formal research paper)." As Wikipedia articles are basically summarizations of these secondary sources, I believe it also falls under this exception.

Also, you just kinda translated "uwaki" lol. Cheers! x RozuRozu • ^tea _cups 03:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Small note that as per WP:Translation, Viossa specific jargon should be avoided entirely in article translations, to ensure understandability for English readers. The same principle applies here on talk pages. "The English text should be understandable to a wide audience, so use everyday English expressions rather than jargon or foreign expressions. It may be necessary to add material explaining terms or cultural concepts unfamiliar to English-speaking readers." Furthermore, translating Viossa for academic and artistic purposes has been generally accepted and welcomed by the Viossa community across its history. The prohibition on translation is only for people engaging with the immersive learning framework by which the language is taught. Scholarly discussion about the language is fine. JezzaHehn (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Viossa Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Viossa Flag 3x2.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Draft-Class Linguistics pages
• Low-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Draft-Class constructed language pages
• High-importance constructed language articles
• WikiProject constructed language articles
• Draft-Class language pages
• Low-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles