Category talk:Constructed languages

Category:Constructed languages
Overly specific. -- Prince Kassad 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was rather surprised that it was a topic category. I was expecting it to contain subcategories for each constructed language on Wiktionary. Yes, delete. —CodeCat 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fairly weak delete. Since we have no rules on the matter, my personal opinion is we are better off without it than with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge entries up into Languages, natch. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for this category as a list of constructed languages, but there's nothing wrong with keeping it to include also topics that relate to the construction of languages, if there are any such words. I'm fine with deleting it too until such a scenario presents itself. DAVilla 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm revisiting and strengthening my opinion. We are a multilingual dictionary. Almost anything related to language we should keep, whether it's tonal, signed, extinct, whatever. If these are valuable to us as a community then they could be to the end user as well. DAVilla 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:ta:Constructed languages
Category:Constructed languages is not a topic category, it is a language family category, much like Category:West Germanic languages. The contents of these categories should be moved to Category:fr:Languages and Category:ta:Languages. Similary, the entries in Category:Constructed languages should be moved. --Yair rand (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Category:ja:Sign languages which previously survived this process. Split Category:All constructed languages from Category:Constructed languages per Category:All sign languages and indeed, Category:All languages. On a personal note, I wouldn't mind deleting these are they're unlikely to contain many entries, but we kept the sign language categories, so it would be silly to delete these. Unless we nominate them too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But see . -- Prince Kassad 22:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

RFM discussion: July 2016
This family category is being treated as if it were also, simultaneously, a topic category. No other family category I can find does this. What should we call the topic category when we split it off? - -sche (discuss) 14:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose renaming the top-level (non-language-specific) topical categories to something that avoids clashes like these. —CodeCat 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, perhaps we could name the topic category "Artificial languages". But yes, a general solution is desirable. what do you have in mind? A "topic:" prefix? - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems ok, though not all topical categories are strictly topical. Perhaps this is an opportunity to more clearly distinguish topical and set categories. —CodeCat 19:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, sorry; I forgot that that very subject of "topic:" and "set:" had been discussed in the BP. for now I am just going to solve the specific issue by renaming to "Artificial languages". - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)