This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why are there so many Volapük Wikipedia articles if there are only 20 speakers? Surely the number 20 is wrong?
It can happen with a few very active Volapük speakers that have created an incredible amount of stubs (you can see that most of those articles are incredibly short). --JorisvS (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's quite a lot of literature in Esperanto, both original and translated. Now Volapük's popularity was quite ephemeral, but has any literature in it been published? Probably yes, and if so, I think the article should mention that. Steinbach (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure if and how this much (or little) literature should have its place in the article, but the latter seems to be in need of a revamp anyway, since people assigned it B and C classes. Steinbach (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Either Ramón y Cajal himself wrote his book in English (in which case it was dreadful, in places verging on the incomprehensible), or else it has been translated here from some other language (and the translation suffers from the same problems). Even the title of the cited work contains the non-existent English word 'Advices' ('advice' has no plural form in English, so this is an overliteral translation from Spanish 'consejos' or French 'conseils').184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Conflict between English and Danish Wikipedia articles
The Danish article mentions as a possible reason for the decline of Volapük "Esperantos fremkomst i 1887. Det er dog en tvivlsom forklaring, for selv om esperanto er langt lettere at lære, var der næsten ingen volapük-foreninger der nåede at skifte til esperanto" ("The rise of Esperanto in 1887. However, this is a dubious explanation, for even if Esperanto is far easier to learn, there were almost no Volapük clubs that managed to switch to Esperanto"). But the English article says more or less the opposite: "Another reason for the decline of Volapük may have been the rise of Esperanto. In 1887 the first Esperanto book (Unua Libro) was published. Many Volapük clubs became Esperanto clubs." Both statements can't be true, but I've no idea which one of them is. I've put a similar comment on the Talk page for the Danish article. There may of course be similar conflicts with other language versions of the article - it all depends on who copied whom! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)