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)