The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
"Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
Strong Support - --Katxis (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As a fluent speaker who has published a translation of Alice in Wonderland and written a daily news blog in Elefen for over three years, I support this proposal. Sajmĉjo (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Strong support - much activity! many editors! Basil dunwoody (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Language name = elefen -- Muctesuar (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Strong Support - Surely one of the finest constructed languages. Xabadiar (talk) 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. My point of criticism below is clearly being addressed. One-sentence stubs have been massively deleted or expanded. The random page option shows that the average page length is becoming better. Therefore, I no longer have any valid objections. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Support It has an active community. TerranBoy (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that really matters is whether a project is viable or not. I'd much rather have a well-functioning Wikipedia project in a language with no native speakers at all than a project in a language with millions of speakers that is still unable to become anything more than a small collection of oneliners. I believe LFN has already demonstrated that this project has the potential of becoming a bigger success than many of the already existing projects, so why not? IJzeren Jan (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
While I'm not in essence opposed to a Wikipedia LFN, I would like to see some more constructive edits. As it looks now, most activity is the creation of three sentence stubs, often with a single table. It would be way better if users concentrated on the creation of a few articles with substantial contents than on ten million practically empty pages. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but today I've been adding articles from the Wikia and I forgot there were stubs most of them. I will be deleting those ones and leaving the ones with more content. Most of our content is more than stubs and we've been working for more than six months on this project on a daily basis. Of course, there will be some stubs but most of our articles have more than three lines, templates and images so they are rather complete in my opinion. As I said, I will delete the smaller stubs and I will add content to the others. --Katxis (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, good. As I pointed out: it is a concern I have and I hope to retreat my criticism when there is improvement :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Exactly how is another conlang constructive? This is what happens when someone edits Wikipedia to promote their English-based conlang. And, we all know about the story of Yaroslav, the Russian conlanger gone mad. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Your argument has no point. We are not the ones to blame for the attitude of other Wikipedian. --Katxis (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It is. But while I've marked this as "approved" already, the fact is that I had forgotten to put a notification at Talk:Language committee. It's there now, but you probably shouldn't create a phabricator task until next Friday. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)