A committee member provided the following comment:
A constructed language without an ISO 639-3 code. --Millosh (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
"Wiktionary 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.
Lingwa de Planeta is artificial language created in 2010 that has been growing through the Internet. This media would make it possible to provide with a dictionary that unifies the existing ones in different languages as well as a means to help to spread the language.
For more information, please go to thew official website. --Chabi1 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being one of the active speakers of the language, I add my voice to the vote and inform that the request for the ISO 639 code has been made and the reply is being waited for. As for the spread of the language, there is a large community in facebook, and according to this facebook page more than 70 000 people have mentioned the language in their info as one they speak. The language is actively used in communication and translation. The translation of "Alice's adventures in Wonderland" is being published (Evertype, 2014. — ISBN 1-78201-071-5.) --Sunnynai (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I note that Evertype has also published an edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in Doug Ewell's private Ewellic script. It's not a high bar.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am very sceptical of the number of native speakers. Although I could say the same about Volapuk-MacRusgail (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very Strongly Oppose Just another IAL attempt that will go nowhere, and, if this becomes a Wiktionary (Which it will not) then languages like Ro, Spokil, and Glosa would need to be added, maybe even Wenedyk. Furthermore, LiDePla even lacks naturalism and æsthetics AND the useful 1 to 1 sound-letter correspondence, For ex. Even though Esperanto does not look naturalistic it has a very useful 1 to 1 letter-sound correspondance, unlike LiDePla, and on top of that, I could just go off and create my own IAL (As a Audtodidact I could probably create something better than LiDePla), and then ask if it can be a Wiktionary. Lastly LiDePla looks like Italian or French with English letters and sound correspondence. Probably one of the (If not The) worst IAL attempt(s) I have seen. Thank you, -EggSalt (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]