Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Set English

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Set English Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Set English)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language. Unfortunately, this language was invented by the proposer, and has no community, audience, body of works, or standard code. It is not established and has no native speakers. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Set English (— ISO—)
  • Editing community: (P), MSpota
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages:
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

One day I was bored so I made this language. I it's targeted to someone with autism, specifically those who have difficulty in lingual communication, but was made so that it's still easy to read and write to an English speaker. It's pretty simple, it take only a few minutes to learn. It is basically just comparing nouns to nouns. It uses set theory and logic symbols (sorry, I don't know the ascii codes): is a member of, is a proper subset of, is equal to,is not a member of, is not a proper subset of, is not equal to,intersection,union,if...then, all meaning the same thing as it does in set theory and logic. Additionally all English adjectives mean a thing of that kind in set English (for example:'red' means 'red thing'). I personlly have had success with this. It also would make translations a lot easier sense the grammar is so simple. I realize that this is an awkward request but this really works well. 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • I will pronounce myself not completely in favor until this language is clearly defined. As the user said, it will be targeted to a range of readers that would otherwise not be able to understand any other language. This might me targeted to someone with autism, but also to people who suffered a stroke, unable to write or speak, except for a couple of words or ideas, and that will find useful this new language. MSpota. 15:33, 1 February 2007 (GMT-6)

Arguments against[edit]

  • I'm afraid that I believe this is an absolutely superfluous request. —Nightstallion (?) 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unless your English variant gains notability, we don't accept languages that people just make up. --Gray Porpoise 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Hey, why not make a Martian wiki too?
  • Oppose--Absar 13:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Simple votes will be ignored in accordance with the Language proposal policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Reo On|+|+ 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) This is simple matter (with respect to creator of this language), not matching the spirit of new wikipedias. + and there are formal conditions missing - as links to incubator project, description of lang on wikipedia ...Reply[reply]
  • Oppose --Taichi - (あ!) 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC) : None hoax wikipedias...Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. What exactly is "Set English"? There are already regular and simple English Wikipedias. Your request does not seem convincing.--Jusjih 15:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Is this language even spoken by anyone? I can't see it working, sorry. --Majorly 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not a serious request, not an existing language. --ARBE0 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sure my comments are redundant now, but I vote oppose based on the fact that this is appears to be an unnotable constructed language. --Iamunknown 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General discussion[edit]

  • As
    • this is obviously a private conlang,
    • the proposal has gained no support at all and
    • no registered user has pledged to work on it,
  • why is it kept open? --Johannes Rohr 12:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It (and every other request) is waiting for the language subcommittee to get ready. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the available documents, I cannot but conclude, that this is going to be a lengthy and protracted process. It seems that the committee has an idea what it wants to achieve, but the question how to achieve it remains to be solved.  ;-) --Johannes Rohr 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]