User:Amire80/Notability (languages and writing systems)

This is currently an unfinished draft essay. One day i may propose it as a policy. You may edit it as you wish.

I am collecting experiences about these issues, so i haven't made up my own mind yet completely. --Amir E. Aharoni

Languages and writing systems are important subjects that need to be covered in any encyclopedia. However, there are sometimes cases when a language-related topic may be disputable or outright unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This essay tries to map these cases.

I am not the first one to think about this, but go figure - i might do something good out of it. See: Conlangs.

Definitions for this document

 * Natural language - A language which is not constructed; a language which evolved within a community of speakers with possible limited language planning. - influence through educational correction
 * Language planning - Influence on speakers of a language by means of law, media and education, often promoted by governments or activist groups. This may include reforms in acceptable spelling and grammar, introduction of new words, change of alphabet or introduction of a new alphabet to a language which has not previously been written.
 * Constructed language - A language that was created by a person or a group either completely from scratch (a priori) or using some lexical or grammatical from other natural or constructed languages.
 * Living language - A natural or constructed language which is used at the time of writing by a community of speakers of any size for communication in speaking, writing or signing. This may or may not be the speakers' native or first language.
 * Dead language - A language which is not used at the time of writing by any community of speakers.
 * Special use language - A language, which is constructed or dead, but is used in practice only in special cases. Examples may include Latin and Ge'ez, which are used only for liturgical (religious) purposes.
 * Pidgin - A language with a limited vocabulary which is a mixes elements of several other languages, usually for purposes of simplified business communication.
 * Creole - A pidgin, which has developed and is (or was) spoken as a native or first language by an established community of speakers.
 * Native or first language - The first language that a person learns in childhood. Note: Sometimes people say that the traditional language of their nationality is their native language, even if their first language is different and if they don't know that traditional language. For example, a person of the Udmurt nationality may say that his native language is Udmurt, even if he mainly speaks Russian and only learned Udmurt at school. This usage is discouraged and the suggested term is "traditional national language".

Merger vs. Deletion
(from Talk:IPA2 - is it still blue?)

I thought about it a bit, and i think that i would prefer deletion over merger, unless better sources are found.

Someone's own proposal for a Latin orthography should reside on one's own website. It deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia if:
 * It was actually considered by a regulatory body of the language. (Merely presenting it for consideration is not enough.)
 * It is used in practice by academics for writing grammars, dictionaries or research works about the language.
 * It is used for personal writing between speakers of a language that find it easier to type in Latin than in the traditional script.

In any of these cases the name of the script should be used by anyone except the script's creator. So for example, if a script called S for a language called L is invented by an academic called A1 and is used by writers W1 and W2, but they don't mention anywhere that the script is called S, then the script should be described in the article about language L, but the name S should not be used. What i mean to say is that this way the article establishes a link between the writing system and its supposed creator without proper sources. I hope i made myself clear.

If "IPA2" is merged to an article about the Latin orthographies for Persian, then this will establish IPA2 as a legitimate proposal for a new orthography, while in fact it is little more than a website with a misleading name. (Correct me if i'm wrong!!!)

For a description of a similar problematic case, which resulted in deletion from Wikipedia, see the story of İQTElif.

I have nothing personal against those articles or their creators. If someone can prove me wrong - please go on.

Notability
(From Romanization of Persian)

Hello,

I am trying to improve the coverage of the Persian language here. I don't know the Persian language much, but i have a linguistic background, an besides, no-one except me is doing it.

I am currently concerned with the issue of a Latin alphabet for Persian. Three proposals for a new Latin alphabet are discussed on Wikipedia: "UniPers", "IPA2" and "EuroFarsi".

UniPers seems to have the best coverage. However, on Wikipedia there are strict guidelines about the notability of a given subject. Sometimes it happens that enthusiasts of a subject will edit the article about it, while the subject itself is not notable outside a narrow group of people and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. For a writing system to be notable for an encyclopedia it should be used by a considerable group of people. Being described on one website is not enough. This is not a written guideline, but that's what i deduce from Notability.

So - does anyone here use UniPers or know people who use it?

There is very little information about IPA2, a.k.a Pársik Except a link to its own website, PersianDirect.com. I haven't found that it is used anywhere except that website. (If you search Google for "IPA2 Pársik", you will mostly find information copied from Wikipedia.) I proposed it for deletion. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

There's no information about EuroFarsi in Wikipedia and there's only a link to http://www.eurofarsi.com/. I could also find some info about it on Google, but it is hard for me to understand it, as i don't know Persian well. Do you know whether there are people who actually use this system? Or is it just a small group of dedicated people? --Amir E. Aharoni 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)