Talk:Comunleng

It looks strange that a constructed language is presented as better than other. It's not neutral at all : that's propaganda. Arno Lagrange 17:35, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some constructed languages *are* better than others. The article shouldn't say if Comunleng is better than another language unless we can back it up by citing a source; a person, a study; a magazine, etc. Feel free to edit any parts of the article that disagree with you. When I edited what was there, I was concentrated mostly on importing content from the Spanish version of the article. (No easy task since I don't speak Spanish well!) --cprompt 18:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No fully developed conlang is *better* than another. Some conlangs are better for some purposes. Esperanto is useful as a European interlanguage, and so is Interlingua. Klingon is useful as an exercise in circumlocution and agglutinativity, and in that sense is not only an extremely concise language in many respects (jupna'wI'vaD jIjatlhqa'taH means I resume continuously speaking to my true friend), but also useful to the learner of other languages. But constructed languages that are badly managed *are* worse, because you are limited in what you can communicate. You are correct on that point.

I don't feel able to edit the article because I don't write english (nor spanish) well enough. I only said that's not neutral. How scientifically present a language not making comparison with other ("it's easier", "it's less rigid", ...) ? We begin discuss that with Miguel Romero Schmidtke in my french talk page about his spanish version of the article (es:Comunleng). Arno Lagrange 14:24, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't read your discussion with Miguel since I don't know French (although I am learning Esperanto.) I'll see what I can do to make the article more netural. I don't know if there's any real scientific evidence about Comunleng...but I'll try to change the article so that the reader knows that phrases like "less rigid than Esperanto" is only an opinion.

--cprompt 23:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We are continuing the discussion with Romero and I moved it to Comunleng et espéranto. Thanks for having change the sentence in a more neutral form. Mr Romero did the same in the spanish version. Sorry that you can't french. I encourage you learn esperanto : it's easier than french :-) Arno Lagrange 11:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Eventually Back to VfD

On May 22, 2005, this article was placed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Comunleng. The outcome was no consensus. It is my contention that this article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for encyclopedic notability or verifiability. I would like to suggest a two week period during which the following issues be answered, otherwise, either I or some other editor will place this article back on VfD for having failed to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

• Verifiability, (please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research)
  • Who is the author(s) of this language?
  • What source can be given for this language's existance, other than a source that ultimately leads back to Wikipedia?
• Notability, (please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not)
  • Approximately how many people speak this language?
  • Approximately how many people have heard of this language, from a source that does not lead back to Wikipedia?

func(talk) 16:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule about how frequently articles can be submitted for VfDs? I thought I read that if an article survived a VfD, you had to wait three months before resubmitting it unless there was evidence of vote fraud in the original VfD. Almafeta 22:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just looked for policy on this, and couldn't find any. Doesn't matter anyway, I'm removing this page from my watchlist, I don't care any more. Everyone and their uncle can and should create their own little conlang and post it to Wikipedia, all 6 billion of us on Earth. func(talk) 04:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)