Talk:Language proposal policy
{{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
Proposal to alter requisite for eligibility #4
(redacted, see: Talk:Language committee/2017#Proposal to alter requisite for eligibility #4)
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) Reply
For the record, the RFC was closed as rejected. --MF-W 22:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Reply
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:
- 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
- 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) Reply