Arguments to avoid in language proposal discussions
 | This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
When discussing the proposal for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project, certain arguments often come up that do not align with the language proposal policy. Sticking to the policy helps keep discussions objective and separate from political influences.
Arguments to avoid (against)
[edit]It is not a real language; it is just a broken form of this other language
[edit]The claim that a language is "not real" or merely a "broken" form of another is not a policy-based argument. Proposals are evaluated according to objective criteria: valid ISO recognition, sufficient linguistic distinctiveness, and the capacity to sustain a viable community.
Shared historical origin or perceived prestige is not relevant under policy. The question is whether the language meets the established eligibility requirements, not whether some consider it "broken" or "slang".
This language has a lot of variation
[edit]All living languages exhibit variation, including regional dialects, social registers, or differences in spelling and pronunciation. Such variation within a language is not a basis for rejection under the language proposal policy. The relevant criterion is whether the proposed language or variety is sufficiently distinct and mutually intelligible within its community. If variation is so great that it breaks mutual intelligibility, separate projects may be justified, consistent with ISO 639-3, SIL, Ethnologue, Glottolog, or other recognized linguistic authorities.
The speakers of this language also know this other language
[edit]Other languages spoken by the community are irrelevant to the eligibility of a language proposal, as far as the language proposal policy is concerned. While it's true that many speakers of a less-resourced language may also be bilingual or multilingual and speak a more dominant language, this does not justify denying them a project in their preferred language. Not all speakers are bilingual, and proficiency levels in the second language can vary significantly. More importantly, offering content in a user's primary or preferred language increases their ability to consume and contribute knowledge authentically and effectively. Users should have the autonomy to choose the language in which they wish to engage with and contribute to Wikimedia content, which is a core principle of accessibility and inclusivity.
This will cause division among speakers of this other language
[edit]Concerns that approving a language will "divide" speakers of another language are not relevant under language proposal policy. Proposals are evaluated based on objective criteria: linguistic distinctiveness based on ISO or comparable recognition, and the ability to sustain a viable contributor community. Speculations about political or social consequences, regardless of direction, do not affect a language's eligibility for a Wikimedia project.
Nobody I know will want to contribute to this project
[edit]Many languages begin with few editors because digital content and community involvement are initially limited. Wikimedia projects aim to help grow these communities by providing a space to create and share knowledge. A test project helps demonstrate genuine interest and the potential for contributors over time. Without such a trial, dismissing a language proposal based on current or speculative future contributor numbers is premature.
No official standardization of this language exists, so writing in this language is like original research
[edit]This argument fundamentally misapplies the "No original research (NOR)" principle found within Wikimedia projects. The NOR policy applies to content creation within an existing project (e.g., prohibiting editors from adding unpublished theories or personal analysis to a Wikipedia article). It does not apply to the establishment of a new language project itself or the collaborative process of developing a written standard. When a community proposes a project for a language with little to no written ortography, the community is free to adopt or develop a standardized orthography that works for them.
This is my own mother tongue and I am against a project in this language
[edit]This argument is based on personal preference, not policy. Often, someone making this claim is already proficient in another language and can comfortably use some of the other existing Wikimedia projects in that language. However, not all speakers of the language have that same proficiency, and many benefit from access to information in the proposed language. Similarly, the project will benefit from their contributions. The language proposal policy focuses on linguistic criteria, not personal preferences.
Arguments to avoid (in favor)
[edit]This language used to be the official language of a great empire
[edit]Historical prestige or former official status is not a valid reason to approve a language proposal. Wikimedia's language proposal policy requires that a language be currently living, meaning it has an active community of real speakers using it naturally in everyday communication.
We need a separate project because some users write this language in a different script
[edit]Having a different writing system does not justify creating a separate Wikimedia project. The language proposal policy treats languages, not scripts, as the basis for new projects. If a language is written in multiple scripts, those varieties are not eligible for separate projects. Instead, Wikimedia uses script converters (formerly called language converters), which allow readers and editors to switch seamlessly between scripts while editing within the same project. This avoids content duplication, prevents communities from being split artificially, and ensures that all contributors continue working in one unified project while still accommodating different writing systems.
This language deserves a separate project, because some other language has a separate project, too
[edit]The existence of a separate Wikimedia project in one language does not automatically entitle another language to have one as well. Before the language proposal policy was introduced, several projects were created that would not meet today's requirements for creating a new project. Examples are ancient languages, constructed languages without a substantial user base, "simple" versions of existing projects, and historical or otherwise alternative orthographies of existing languages.
This language definitely needs its own project
[edit]While this argument is not invalid in itself, it should never be used as an argument for submitting a proposal. Unless you are proficient in the language or, at the very least, maintain close contact with its native speakers, you should not propose a project just because you think it would be a nice idea to have one. After all, the viability of a project is determined by people who are both competent and willing to work on it.
Borderline arguments (may or may not be valid)
[edit]This language has only X speakers
[edit]The language proposal policy requires that a proposed project demonstrate the existence of enough speakers to sustain a viable editing community and readership. However, this requirement is not tied to any specific numerical threshold. Speaker population alone is not determinative: there are successful Wikimedia projects in languages with as few as roughly one thousand speakers worldwide.
Therefore, citing a single number of speakers is insufficient grounds to reject a proposal. What is required instead is a substantive argument showing why, in the particular case at hand, the language would be unable to form and maintain an active, sustainable contributor community.