Talk:Volapük

Missionality

New Age bearing, perhaps. Not sure about missionality. Blue (pester) 05:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we really going to turn "missionality" into a serious criterion? Shall we just delete the whole "Fun:" namespace now? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Esperanto has had a page since Dec '07, and is basically the same principle. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sed Esperanto estas multe bona, kaj la nova mundlingvo. Volapük estas sole la stupida ideo de stupida pastro. Tiel, esperanto estas OK para la wikio, kaj Volapük estas elen. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Missionality is already a serious criterion (why would we have a mission template if it wasn't?), but only in a very general sense. This article needn't be mission-tagged, though. Rescinding now. Blue (is useful) 04:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why this article was kept. Is there any point? Volapük may have been promoted as an international language ~100 years ago, but nowadays it seems people speak it just for fun.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto. Lojban. E-Prime. Volapük. Existing languages are probably on-mission. Languages created for a purpose are certainly on-mission. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Which 'two English words' - and did anyone consider the reforms Double Dutch? Anna Livia (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)