545:, the Big Boss of Langmaker, can tell us in how far this would be a reliable criterion. I'm not asking him to disclose the algorithms he uses, but I would like to know how useful in his opinion the result is; how easily one could manipulate the outcome; and in how far the outcome is influenced by people who might be looking for something completely different (I noticed for example that languages like "Gothic", "New English" and my own "Hattic" always score well, and I suspect that it because their names attract a lot of googlers). If you are reading this, Jeffrey, tell us this: if someone would, purely theorically, have a conlang called "Vagina". Would it become part of the Top-10, and if so, how quickly?
1259:
sizable corpus and/or several speakers besides the creator demonstrates completeness even if the phonology is vaguely defined and the lexicon looks sparse. -- Or maybe one of the minor criteria could be "completeness", which itself has several criteria (at least 3 out of of 4 or 5 completeness sub-criteria must be met, to meet the minor criterion of "completeness")? That was almost coherent... In short, among the various minor criteria some will deserve more weighting than others; any two of the weightier criteria will establish notability, or any three or more of the less weighty. Does that make sense? Or does it complicate things too much? I should get some sleep before I post again. --
1298:
significant total wordage. A language with several thousand words in its lexicon may not really be very complete if the only text available is a few sample sentences in the grammar document, and maybe the Tower of Babel story or the Lord's Prayer. On the other hand, a language designed for lexical parsimoniousness should not be penalized for its small lexicon, if the amount of text written in the language proves that this language is more powerful than its small lexicon would suggest. Corpus size counts extra if some significant part of was written by people other than the creator of the language.
463:: that's an dangerous one. There has been a period when the world was rather susceptible to the idea of a world language. All kinds of authors started building something Esperanto-like and could easily find a publisher to publish there ideas. Nowadays, I think such a thing is virtually impossible, especially when the subject is not an IAL but an artlang. Why would a publisher publish such a think if he knows in advance that he won't sell a huge number of copies? Even Tolkien couldn't manage such a thing; only now books are written about his conlangs.
85:
conlang articles should be deleted (although a generous few of them would let us keep an article on
Esperanto to merge all conlang articles to); on the other extreme, there are those who think how 'notable' an artlang is should not be criteria for exclusion, as opposed to its 'quality'. We need to set a bar somewhere, or else conlang articles (and conlang VfDs) are going to continue on without rhyme or reason.
415:. Nobody can of course be sure, but a huge number of those people have learnt the language nĂłt because they think it is important, or because they want to communicate in it, but because they are Star Trek fans. Another thing is that the "number of speakers" is terribly hard to establish: where do you get the info, and how well must a person speak the language for being qualified as a "speaker"?
28:
411:: like the others said, this can apply only to languages that were designed with the purpose of being spoken. In other words, IALs. True, there are some artistic languages that have some speakers, too. But IMO the number of Klingon speakers says as much about the importance of Klingon as the number of sold Star Trek T-shirts about the importance of
551:: By whom? When? Where? I have a website about Hattic, a naturalistic conlang with an entire quasi-history; it is never mentioned that the whole thing is fictional, and indeed I have stumbled upon people who thought the whole thing was real. But that is merely the result of how a language is presented, not how significant it is.
1744:) because they only consist of word lists or are described, with few or no examples shown, while the "masterpieces" can be so complete so as to be perfectly learnable by the sufficiently interested. This means the representation/layout of the sketched langs and the more complete langs need to be different. Compare the entry for
336:
your criteria would include
Klingon because some people have learnt to speak it, even though this is more due to the fact that it's part of the Star Trek cult than its inherent artistic merit, and exclude (what I consider to be) better conlangs whose creators are happy for their language's speakers to remain fictional.
577:: I don't really know the mechanisms behind ISO 639-3. But I have seen the list of conlangs listed there, and my impression is that someone just picked a few conlangs from the Internet during a spare few minutes. The list hasn't changed at all since a number of years, and I also noticed that the list contains both
853:
complicated, or it is beautiful in paper, but not so beautiful one would be inclined to learn it. In the case of
Verdurian, even though Mark Rosenfelder developed it over a large span of time, there aren't many speakers. This, however, doesn't mean it isn't a big name in the online conlang scene, because it is.
1382:; a thorough phonology description that treats of allophony and related issues; a lexicon of at least 2,500 words; a corpus of at least 25,000 words in the language by the creator, or at least 5,000 words in the language by people other than the creator. (Feel free to shoot at these specific numbers.) --
1845:
Would this be an appropriate venue for independent review, analysis and criticism of conlangs? Much of the discussion here has centered around the lack of verifiability for many articles about artlangs due to the fact that no one has written about them except their authors; this is partly due to the
1317:
it, it would likely (and rightly IMO) be deleted. Or take a more common hobby, such as music. We routinely delete articles on non-notable local bands, even though some of them probably have 20-50 people who know about them and see them from time to time at a pub or cafe. Furthermore, I don't speak
1182:
The idea expressed in
Almafeta's second paragraph is excellent, however it does not feel like the guidelines at the top of this page really allow that (the bias is too much towards auxiliary languages which are intended for use - few languages made for the maker's own amusement will ever gain so much
873:
Many conlangers dream of having a book published either about or written in their conlang. However, usually this is done via vanity publishers since such kind of books are usually not profitable. Mark has no books (with an ISBN) published, although he has several stories in CuĂŞzi waiting for a chance
524:
My two reaons for this criteria is so that (1) we can include the Langua Ignota, which otherwise wouldn't be notable despite being the first known conlang, and (2) so we can have a proper review on the auxlang surge of the late 1800s and pre-WWII 1900s, without an integral article being deleted every
430:
Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. That's like judging a good poem by the number of times it has been recited in public. Some conlangers (including myself, I should add) simply don't WANT their languages to be actually used by other people. For measuring an auxlang, the number of speakers/users
335:
Most of the criteria you propose are applicable only to
Auxlangs. Actual use, by anyone other than a fictional character, is irrelevant for artlangs. Personally, I would say that KĂ©len and Wenedyk, (both of which I've had the pleasure to translate) are finer examples of the art than Klingon. However,
1452:
FWIW, "notability" is an ever-elusive thing. Given the various motives people have for creating languages, from auxiliary languages, artistic languages, and cryptographic languages, I am not sure that we need a policy here that can be applied like an algorithm. I would prefer that conlang articles
1297:
We could set some criteria about completeness of the language's description - lexicon size, whether a certain list of basic questions about its grammar and phonology are answered, etc. I would also propose a minimum corpus size criterion: are there multiple texts written in the language, with some
498:
I would argue for leaving out the ISBN criteria entirely. Having an ISBN is no proof that a book is not from a vanity press (nearly all vanity presses supply ISBNs nowadays), and lack of an ISBN is no proof that it is vanity-press -- there may be a number of conlang-related books published between
1403:
My main problem with "outside of the creator's close friends" is that could be hard to define, on its face. How do you verify, say, in a VfD discussion, who the speakers are and what their relation to the creator is? The minima on completeness surely helps. But what are the factors of a conlang
1373:
OK... I see your point. Theoretically a language could have 10-20 speakers and still be extremely obscure, with scarecely anyone having heard of it outside its speaker community and their close friends. Still, in a minor criteria section of a policy (at least two of these properties, or at least
1316:
I guess that depends on the definition of notablity, which I grant is somewhat of an "eye of the beholder" problem. However, let's say I create a board game. I don't get it published or distributed. Me and 20 or so of my friends play it from time to time. If I created a wikipedia article about
1258:
We may need more than two levels of support... For instance, in judging a language's completeness, neither thoroughly defined phonotactics, nor thoroughly defined grammar, nor a largish lexicon, are enough by themselves to make a language complete; you really need all three; but the existence of a
1247:
Just about how the vote will go (that's a long way off, but it's good to get this set straight now): Each proposed rule will have its own level 2 heading, with the following level four headings: Minor, Major, and Oppose. If you vote Minor, you think it the supports notability but does not merit
1159:
I'm not sure that development time would be a good way of choosing whether a conlang is
Knowledge (XXG)-worthy or not. My conlang has been developed for years now, but no-one knows about it except for some forum users (and myself, of course). I think that Almafeta's "original suggestions" are very
445:
How do you measure the consumption of an artlang? A poem's notability could be judged by its publication, sales of the work in which it was published, its inclusion in anthologies, the existance of critical analysis... what criteria can be used to establish the notability of a language that is not
1419:
I originally had them at 10 and 100, not 50 and 500; however, this made the possibility of a conlang that is only spoken by one family (or one D&D group for that matter) being considered 'notable'. I arbitrarially bumped the numbers of speakers up by fivefold to make it require more speakers
1115:
One major problem with CONLANG, as it stands right now, is that it's too exclusive. The current webcomic standard for inclusion is 100 strips; this prevents every Tom, Mary-Sue, and Harry from using
Knowledge (XXG) to self-promote, but allows notable personal achievements to have Knowledge (XXG)
852:
The number of speakers will always be a problem. Number of speakers, like IJzeren mentioned, is not a true meter of a conlang's notability, since someone could have developed his conlang over a lifetime, had a lot of people know it, yet noone might have tried to learn it, either because it is too
1846:
fact that the zines devoted to conlangs died long ago and for the last few years we've had pretty much only the mailing lists and
Zompist Bulletin Board as venues for discussion of conlangs, which don't serve quite the same purpose as a journal publishing in-depth articles (like Rick Harrison's
1301:
I would also suggest that the minimum number of speakers in
Almafeta's criteria should be reduced. 500 speakers are certainly plenty to prove notability, but I think 50 are plenty even without one of the other "minor" criteria; having even 10 or 20 speakers is pretty notable for a naturalistic
84:
The purpose of this page is to form a consensus. Since the foundation of
Knowledge (XXG), a number of articles (almost 200) about constructed languages have been written, but not everyone agrees on how notable a conlang must be in order to be kept. On one camp, there are people who think all
940:
Sorry? If anyone has a low opinion about Langmaker.com, I'm certainly not aware of that. Jeffrey has been around very long and knows the world of conlanging better than anyone else, I'd say. In my personal view, Langmaker is a really excellent resource, the best in its kind. The Top 100 is a
1186:
I suggest therefore that the limits for conlang articles be set as extensiveness of lexicon, completion of phonology and morphology (a highly subjective distinction; I shall bring the topic up on a conlang forum and see what emerges there) and notoriety outside its "foster" environment (for
910:
Older doesn't always mean better. In the past, most people had no Internet, and hence could not know of other linguistic ways to do things. This doesn't mean that a conlang isn't good. Sindarin, for example, was mainly an Euroclone, due to Tolkien's not knowing about other languages, but it
365:
I don't think so - the ConScript Registry is not any sort of official registry, it's just two people (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and whatever gets submitted to them. Every single one of Herman Miller's languages is in there, for instance, and I don't think all of those are notable.
1523:, decide which ones each of us consider "worthy" of inclusion and then discuss why or why not just these languages should be in WP, thereby discovering inclusion-criteria that have already been used and whether these criteria are necessary or sufficient? Note that the list is divided into
394:
I agree that the current conditions are a little auxlang-oriented. But I am glad that Almafeta is at least trying to establish some objective criteria. Currently everybody can just shout "notable" or "non-notable" at will, and therefore I genuinely think we nééd those criteria badly.
927:
Langmaker's profiles are questionable. Langmaker (at least in my experience) isn't held in too high esteem by the online conlanging community, due to some conlangs in the Top 100 being either jokelangs or languages that have the dubious honor of being popular. Verdurian is in the Top
1248:
inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) on its lonesome; if you vote Major, you think it supports notability and merits inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) reguardless of any other factors; and if you vote Oppose, you think that it is not applicable or misleading. If nobody has any objections...
1272:
I would just say "having a through grammar" would be what we would vote on, and (assuming it is adopted) coming back to define what a 'complete grammar' is in the future in case that it becomes important to define what, exactly, a conlang's grammar should be capable of.
972:
Like IJZeren said, this depends not on the conlang but on how it is presented. Archeia, a ZBBer's conlang, was once mistaken for a real lang, to the point of being available as a language choice on monster.com, a job hunting site. Verdurian has had this kind of incident,
1453:
speak for themselves: if a language can be described in terms that make it "interesting" enough, and if the article that is written about it shows some sophistication and is otherwise encyclopedic, I would generally vote to allow such articles to remain.
499:
your 1950 cut-off date for "older than usual" and the time when ISBNs were universally adopted by professional publishing houses (mid-1970s, I think). As for minimum length, see below where I propose a minimum corpus size as one of the minor criteria. --
1183:
as bilingual speakers, let alone native ones). A key point here is that of permanence - how long has a conlang been around? If a conlang appears on Monday and disappears on Friday, obviously not enough time has passed for the language to be developed.
88:
The discussion originally ran from July 28 until August 28, 2005, with a vote on proposed criteria beginning August 28. At that point more people got involved, and some objected to the whole procedure. Renewed discussion has been taking place at
1145:, the suggested criteria include at least 33 weeks of 'active production' of strips, and at least 100 comics. This was seen as being sufficiently selective to prevent each and every brand new webcomic from making its own Knowledge (XXG) article.
591:: Question is: how does a language get a Knowledge (XXG)? Again, it seems to me that the number of users is decisive here. And even then, the whole thing seems to be rather prone to politicising (see the story of the Toki Pona wikipedia).
1148:
Should the criteria for conlangs be similar -- i.e., excluding all the innumerous conlangs that were created in one day's or one week's time, but allowing for efforts that have had a significant effort in development and 'finishing'?
465:
Furthermore, nowadays we have the Internet. Why bother going through hell by looking for a publishing house if you can easily self-publish your stuff in that way. Guaranteed no income, but conlanging is no way to become rich anyway.
420:
Not necessarially. Conlangs like Verdurian, Mango, and Talossan were created with one person in mind: the creator. Good conlangs attract speakers like good games attract players, even if they were designed with 'one person' in
1000:
On the Conlang list some while back (years, I think) there was a thread about conlangs that have turned up in language-choosing combo boxes on web forms. Classical Yiklamu was one, but I don't remember what all the others were.
620:
Good one... perhaps it would count as a major qualification if it influnced a language that was made notable with a major qualification, and a minor qualification if it counted as a language that was made notable with a minor
1191:, for instance, the foster environment is the Zompist.com domain and accompanying IRC chat and forum). The latter requirement eliminates any bias caused by the magnitude of the community immediately surrounding the language.
1333:
of them. Of course, just as there are hundreds of notable, record-contracted, hit-making bands I've never heard of, I'm sure there are many conlangs I've never heard of that are still notable in some way. I think
698:
Does this language play a role in a broader work of fiction, like movies, books of fiction, games or Internet-based projects (in other words, not only in books with an ISBN number about or in the language itself)?
1855:
It would make sense to publish the original research on various artlangs there in the conlang wikicity, and at some point later, if it seems warranted, do articles at Knowledge (XXG) for the most notable of them.
1776:
1489:
167:
556:
Some conlangs have been confused for real languages by governments or universities. (There was a big bruhaha when a professor 'discovered' a 'lost' Romance tongue, when it turned out to be just some Euroclone.)
906:, 1950 (post-WWII) was when the personal constructed language really exploded; there are only 78 known conlangs before then, and those should be considered notable for predating the 'conlang explosion.'
1290:
What about notability? Would a conlang that's trying to do something interesting and unique be notable despite lack of completion? (Though notoriety outside its environment might cover this.)
612:
wouldn't survive these points either, and undoubtedly many more languages wouldn't. What I miss is therefore some criteria that might apply specifically to conlangs of the artistic genre, like:
479:
to get published than back then. Lulu.com carries the heady cost of $ 150 to get a book with an ISBN, which is a pittance; however, the work required in your language prevents most incomplete.
1826:
There is room there to any constructed language and any detail of publications (from simple one paragraph article to complete grammars, translations and original works). OR is accepted.
171:- for discussion on what constitutes those qualities, whether and to what extent they are required for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG); including discussion on corpus size and lexicon size
245:
1237:
175:
1443:
I would like to note that #almea and the KutjaraWiki are not managed by or linked by any way to zompist. #almea hardly ever discusses Verdurian, and the Wiki is not run by Mark.
1378:
would make sense. Various minima for how complete the language is could also go in that minor criteria section. For instance, a grammar that treats of all the points on the
117:
689:
Difficult. Yet, it is a very important thing! This was just one way to say: ... and all conlangs that do not fit the criteria but can be considered notable for other reasons.
1504:
191:
1042:
Hardly. Is is estimated that 20.000 conlangers have internet access, however there is rarely an interest in learning eachother's conlang. Verdurian hasn't got 500 speakers.
608:
to a language's notability. But I can't accept that a language that does not fulfill them is therefore to be considered non-notable. Note for example that a language like
1686:
Languages seen as masterpieces in the conlanging community (actually: hardcore artlang subsection :) ) (I'll add to the list as I remember the names, it's getting late):
1166:
high grammar notability has to be respected in some way. But if a conlang is notable due to unique stuff, it will probably gain reputation, which would make it known. /
310:
The page was undeleted, however several people insist we can't call it a "vote". We can continue the discussion about procedure and terminology (vote or poll?) on the
135:) - a poll, or vote, or what-have-you, on which criteria are important and relevant. The procedure is being reworked after recent debate got more people involved.
17:
1116:
articles. A conlang policy should be similar -- but what does 'similar' mean in context of a constructed language? Languages don't exactly have storylines...
229:- The text of the previous poll/vote that after being deleted by a moderator was closed and rediscussed again (including the votes that already been issued).
343:
This conlang criteria won't let any conlangs through. All it will allow on Knowledge (XXG) will be auxlangs. Hence why I disagree that they should be used.
596:
Languages get Wikipedias by (1) having a large number of active speakers and (2) not annoying Jimbo Wales (see Toki Pona for a case in point, as you said).
1925:
354:
It's worth noting that some conlangs have Private Use segments carved out for their invented scripts (see the ). Should this factor into these criteria?
233:
94:
42:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
1829:
Note that the GFDL applies to the articles, not to the languages. Anyhow any language that was nominated to be in wikipedia would fit in Wikicities.
1728:
Furthermore, many of the listed conlangs, especially the fictional langs, are so incomplete as to not be usable for communication at all (exceptions:
199:
1801:
The idea with the project is to both define the policies regarding inclussion of artificial languages, and how these languages should be presented.
1795:
703:
Good idea, but mergists ("maximum topics in minimal articlecount and damn the readibility!") would merge all the conlangs into their parent topics.
978:
Really? Huh. Man, I wish we had an article about Archeia right now. I'd love to know more about this (and other) conlang-confusion instances...
564:: Frankly, I think the whole current set of VfDs regarding Brithenig, Verdurian, Wenedyk and others can be considered controversy too, isn't it?
1905:
183:
1202:
I haven't got any comments on your opinion at the moment, I'd just like to point out that the IRC channel #almea is in no way involved with
869:
the language. That prevents many small-press and unsupported languages (other than those who think it's a good idea) from having articles.
311:
90:
43:
894:
Maybe, but there's no real reason to write a book in a conlang that's not an auxlang, since conlangs are ever-changing, and never finished.
431:
is valid; but in the case of artlangs, the equivalent would rather be the number of people who have "consumed" it, and who appreciate it.
225:
1468:
1120:
Languages have storylines, if they're part of a properly designed conworld ;). However, maybe we shouldn't compare apples and oranges.
1765:
649:
Unfortunately, this is a bad one to note -- it's easy to use Langmake or some other wordlist program to transform Latin or Esperanto.
155:
287:
779:
By asking those who are knowledgeable. I know, it's not very objective or measurable, but most often it is how it works, though.
585:, which as far as I know is exactly the same language (or perhaps the same language in two different stages of its development).
160:
139:
125:
1920:
1816:
There are a few wikis on constructed languages. I am running one at Wikicities (which uses the same GFDL as Knowledge (XXG)).
1804:
Those interested can sign in the WikiProject at Spanish lanaguage Knowledge (XXG). You are also wellcome to start a similar
104:
1404:
that would lead to someone outside that circle of friends to use it? Those factors are probably indicators of notability. -
147:
1520:
804:
Nummy! Â :) Thank you for raising some of those points -- I was wondering what you had against some particular criteria.
107:, if you think only Esperanto should be mentioned on Knowledge (XXG)), with a sentence to describe the subpage's content.
1433:
Perhaps "notoriety outside of foster environment" would work here - spoken by 10 people outside of the creator and gang.
205:
209:) - Discussing whether or not languages created by J. R. R. Tolkien or another notable person are automatically notable.
213:
1547:
1532:
1210:. Your post was not implying that, but it might lead to misunderstandings. As mentioned by Cctoide, we rarely discuss
426:
Also, Klingon is notable for other reasons. Heck, how many other conlangs have translations of the Bible and Hamlet?
263:
131:
1724:
The rest: either I don't know about them/recognize them or I don't consider them as notable as those already listed.
848:
Has at least 50 speakers. Few constructed languages get to this mark; this would put it in the top 2% of conlangs.
1655:
1593:
1805:
645:
How complete is the language? (Frankly, this could disqualify most of the so-called "professional" languages)
569:
I mean outside of Knowledge (XXG). 'Causing controversy' is a general rule for inclusion in any article, but
1086:
Verdurian inspired quite a deal of conlangs and conlangers, but I'm not sure about the major conditions part.
1636:
Languages with communities (users and discussers), for natural reasons these have to be quite complete):
52:
35:
27:
542:
78:
1861:
1709:
1565:
1434:
1387:
1307:
1291:
1264:
1160:
good, and probably the ones I'd support the most, unless someone else comes with a good suggestion.
1075:
1006:
661:
True. But it does help to exclude 98% of all conlangs, which are really little more than sketches.
504:
367:
319:
295:
1791:
I am starting in the Spanish language Knowledge (XXG) in a WikiProject for constructed langauges:
1215:
1167:
484:
There should be a standard for the amount of internet text which would qualify as a book (such as
1874:
1553:
1496:
1211:
1192:
355:
1142:
1701:
400:
Agreed! Right now, conlang articles and conlang VfDs are going around without rhyme or reason.
267:- This is where we are structuring the voting page, to get it ready for the vote on the 28th.
1836:
485:
253:
218:
1318:
1203:
942:
794:
780:
752:
724:
662:
634:
582:
530:
432:
283:
238:
903:
735:
Has the language received any particular attention, for example in the media or the press?
578:
1895:
1857:
1753:
1513:
1383:
1303:
1260:
1002:
890:
the language about a topic other than the language itself. That shows that it's used.
500:
315:
291:
1914:
1421:
1348:
1335:
1274:
1249:
1150:
980:
821:
I shall comment Almafeta's proposition in italics, adapting it to a particular case,
805:
384:
268:
1379:
1038:
Has (or had) at least 500 speakers. That would put it in the top 0.5% of conlangs.
1833:
1444:
1128:
1102:
have happened with Toki Pona, but some kind of controversy ended up taking it away.
826:
609:
344:
250:
249:- a new proposal that avoids voting to the very last (and probably even then). By
1074:
Inspired a conlang that was notable by one of the major conditions. For example,
829:
143:- Regarding the suitability of the Babel Text as a test of constructed languages.
1454:
1405:
1357:
1339:
1207:
1079:
447:
1891:
1546:
Used in/important part of known fictional work (these should maybe be moved to
673:
What is the consensus of the conlang community about this particular language?
1667:
1605:
1697:
1693:
1675:
1671:
1625:
1188:
1059:
1055:
1051:
822:
716:
412:
1737:
1651:
1589:
1894:
a proposal for a peer-reviewed journal along the lines discussed above. --
1302:
conlang that was not designed (like most auxlangs) to be easy to learn. --
1222:
1174:
715:
If the mergists are looking out for work, let them start with merging all
1745:
1679:
1659:
1621:
1597:
1557:
1023:
519:: I can live with that. Although, see my comments to the previous point.
472:
1777:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Notability, verifiability, merit, completeness
1733:
1705:
1647:
1585:
1581:
1528:
1524:
1490:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Notability, verifiability, merit, completeness
1326:
920:
168:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Notability, verifiability, merit, completeness
1877:
1864:
1839:
1457:
1447:
1424:
1408:
1390:
1360:
1351:
1342:
1310:
1277:
1267:
1252:
1218:
1170:
1153:
1131:
1026:
was created by an Esperantist to ferment dissent in the Ido movement.
1009:
983:
945:
808:
797:
507:
450:
387:
347:
322:
298:
271:
1749:
1741:
1717:
1689:
1663:
1639:
1629:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1601:
1561:
720:
1338:'s criteria are a good standard for establishing that notability. -
1643:
1569:
763:
Can the language be considered the exponent of a particular genre?
604:: I think the most of the conditions Almafeta mentions can indeed
1820:
1729:
1713:
1577:
1573:
103:
If you can, please move comments or sections to subpages (e.g.,
1347:
Well... I don't. That's why I started this discussion. ^^;
1322:
22:
1538:
I don't care much for auxlangs at all, so to make an example
1374:
three of these properties...) maybe a minimum of 10 speakers
1066:
If I recall correctly, Verdurian has some characters in ISO.
246:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Towards consensus instead of polls
1533:
languages mentioned or used in a verified work of fiction
1238:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Artlangs, ficlangs, and loglangs
176:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Artlangs, ficlangs, and loglangs
195:
on lexicon size, peer review panel, required translation
179:— specific criteria suitable for those kinds of conlang
118:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Why conlangs should be covered
60:
919:
Among the 100 most popular conlangs, as determined in
751:
Not necessarily in the form of a controversy, though.
633:
And what if two languages influenced each other? :)))
192:
Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Suggestions by Thomas Winwood
16:"WP:CONLANG" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see
121:
Vitally important that the policy covers this aspect.
1479:
Lexicon properties that are evidence of completeness
34:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
1796:
es:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lenguas artificiales
1356:
Perhaps I should have said, they're a good start. -
159:- for enumerating a set of differential criteria. (
1908:on what verifiability means for conlang articles
237:- Some comments on the previous questionnaire by
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Constructed languages
1030:I can't really say. Verdurian hasn't, certainly.
187:on what verifiability means for conlang articles
964:conditions can be met, a conlang is notable:
844:conditions can be met, a conlang is notable:
234:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Alternative proposal
95:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Alternative proposal
8:
1892:http://conlang.wikicities.com/Talk:Main_Page
200:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Notability by Proxy
151:- for enumerating a set of common criteria.
1886:Peer-reviewed journal of conlangs proposal
383:I'm going to add my comments in italics.
161:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Conlangs/Differential
1094:Has a Knowledge (XXG). I mean, really.
184:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Sai's two cents
91:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Conlangs/Straw poll
911:nevertheless beautiful and interesting.
226:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Old straw poll
105:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Only Esperanto
1469:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Conlangs/Criteria
1376:outside of the creator's close friends
1766:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Differential
1420:than the creator's closest friends.
616:Has this language influenced others?
525:few weeks by some anti-conlang troll.
156:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Differential
101:Note: This page is getting too large!
7:
1760:Differential criteria due to purpose
288:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for undeletion
1484:Verifiability and Original Research
968:Been mistaken for a real language.
677:How could we even measure this one?
217:- Does use of a conlang in several
140:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Babel Text
126:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Straw poll
1022:Caused controversy. For example,
286:. I have entered a nomination on
282:This page was suddenly deleted by
241:and a proposal for an alternative.
14:
1926:WikiProject Constructed languages
1771:What makes a work of art notable?
767:Again, how would we measure this?
148:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Criteria
1232:Artlangs, ficlangs, and loglangs
902:Older than usual. According to
739:Counts as 'causing controversy.'
488:'s amazing grammar-in-AingeljĂŁ).
206:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Tolkien
26:
790:Food for thought, I would say!
214:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Relays
1505:/Suggestions by Thomas Winwood
490:I would say 128 printed pages.
264:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Votes
221:make it notable or verifiable?
132:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Votes
1:
1521:List of constructed languages
377:IJzeren Jan: My point of view
1848:Journal of Planned Languages
549:Mistaken for a real language
1756:21:08:54, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
1548:List of fictional languages
1519:Why not have a look at the
471:Nowadays, with places like
323:22:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
299:20:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
1942:
1878:17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
1865:23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
1840:21:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
1540:pour encourager les autres
1458:14:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
1294:17:21, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
1195:16:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
1050:Has an ISO code in any of
475:, I would argue that it's
358:11:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
272:13:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
50:
15:
1656:Languages of Middle-earth
1594:Languages of Middle-earth
1448:18:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1437:18:43, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
1425:18:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1409:21:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1391:21:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1361:18:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1352:18:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1343:18:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1311:17:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1278:17:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
1268:02:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
1253:22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1219:19:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1171:17:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1154:14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1132:15:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
1010:12:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
984:02:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
946:21:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
840:If at least two of these
830:15:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
809:13:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
798:12:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
508:22:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
451:23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
388:13:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
370:15:23, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
348:11:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
331:Comment by Pete Bleackley
1463:Ranking my own languages
960:If any of the following
815:
446:intended to be spoken? -
941:different matter, BTW.
461:Books with ISBN numbers
290:to get it undeleted. --
97:since about August 30.
1921:Inactive project pages
1223:Special:Contributions/
1175:Special:Contributions/
1782:Shameless advertising
1474:Notability vs. Merit
1380:Lingua Questionnaire
79:constructed language
1873:Sounds good to me.
1566:Codex Seraphinianus
886:has been published
865:has been published
1900:
1812:Second anouncement
1554:Atlantean language
1286:General Discussion
1078:directly inspired
816:Cctoide's opinions
562:Caused controversy
409:Number of speakers
219:translation relays
1787:First anouncement
1098:Heh. Again, this
539:Langmaker Top 100
71:
70:
1933:
1906:/Sai's two cents
1821:Conlang Wikicity
1204:Mark Rosenfelder
956:Major Conditions
874:to be published.
836:Minor Conditions
602:My point of view
517:Older than usual
284:User:Kim Bruning
163:for discussions)
63:
47:
30:
23:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1911:
1910:
1903:
1890:I've posted to
1888:
1814:
1789:
1784:
1773:
1762:
1517:
1500:
1495:Suggestions by
1486:
1481:
1476:
1465:
1455:Smerdis of Tlön
1288:
1245:
1234:
1139:
1112:
958:
838:
818:
723:personnages...
589:Knowledge (XXG)
543:Jeffrey Henning
405:A few remarks:
379:
339:Pete Bleackley
333:
113:
67:
66:
59:
55:
41:
21:
12:
11:
5:
1939:
1937:
1929:
1928:
1923:
1913:
1912:
1902:
1899:
1887:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1868:
1867:
1852:
1851:
1824:
1823:
1813:
1810:
1799:
1798:
1788:
1785:
1783:
1780:
1772:
1769:
1761:
1758:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1516:
1512:Suggestion by
1510:
1499:
1497:Thomas Winwood
1493:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1464:
1461:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1435:DenisMoskowitz
1428:
1427:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1292:DenisMoskowitz
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1244:
1241:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1197:
1196:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1161:
1138:
1135:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
957:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
933:
932:
931:
930:
916:
915:
914:
913:
899:
898:
897:
896:
879:
878:
877:
876:
858:
857:
856:
855:
837:
834:
817:
814:
813:
812:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
772:
771:
770:
769:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
744:
743:
742:
741:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
708:
707:
706:
705:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
682:
681:
680:
679:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
654:
653:
652:
651:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
626:
625:
624:
623:
621:qualification?
599:
598:
572:
571:
559:
558:
536:
535:
534:
533:
514:
513:
512:
511:
492:
491:
481:
464:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
438:
437:
436:
435:
423:
403:
402:
392:
391:
378:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
368:DenisMoskowitz
360:
359:
351:
350:
332:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
305:
304:
303:
302:
276:
275:
258:
257:
242:
230:
222:
210:
196:
188:
180:
172:
164:
152:
144:
136:
122:
112:
109:
69:
68:
65:
64:
56:
51:
48:
40:
31:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1938:
1927:
1924:
1922:
1919:
1918:
1916:
1909:
1907:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1885:
1879:
1876:
1875:Robert A West
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1863:
1859:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1838:
1835:
1830:
1827:
1822:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1811:
1809:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1786:
1781:
1779:
1778:
1770:
1768:
1767:
1759:
1757:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:Miapimoquitch
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1688:
1687:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1638:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1536:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1515:
1511:
1509:
1508:
1506:
1498:
1494:
1492:
1491:
1483:
1478:
1473:
1471:
1470:
1462:
1460:
1459:
1456:
1450:
1449:
1446:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1410:
1407:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1295:
1293:
1285:
1279:
1276:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1242:
1240:
1239:
1231:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1193:ThomasWinwood
1190:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1146:
1144:
1136:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1103:
1101:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1011:
1008:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
985:
982:
979:
976:
975:
974:
970:
969:
967:
966:
965:
963:
955:
947:
944:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
929:
925:
924:
922:
921:Langmaker.com
918:
917:
912:
908:
907:
905:
904:Langmaker.com
901:
900:
895:
892:
891:
889:
885:
881:
880:
875:
871:
870:
868:
864:
860:
859:
854:
850:
849:
847:
846:
845:
843:
835:
833:
832:
831:
828:
824:
811:
810:
807:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
791:
782:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
768:
765:
764:
762:
761:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
740:
737:
736:
734:
733:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
704:
701:
700:
697:
696:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
678:
675:
674:
672:
671:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
650:
647:
646:
644:
643:
636:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
622:
618:
617:
615:
614:
613:
611:
607:
603:
597:
594:
593:
592:
590:
586:
584:
580:
576:
570:
567:
566:
565:
563:
557:
554:
553:
552:
550:
546:
544:
540:
532:
529:Fair enough,
528:
527:
526:
522:
521:
520:
518:
510:
509:
506:
502:
496:
495:
494:
493:
489:
487:
482:
480:
478:
474:
469:
468:
467:
462:
452:
449:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
434:
429:
428:
427:
424:
422:
418:
417:
416:
414:
410:
406:
401:
398:
397:
396:
390:
389:
386:
381:
380:
376:
369:
364:
363:
362:
361:
357:
356:ThomasWinwood
353:
352:
349:
346:
342:
341:
340:
337:
330:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
273:
270:
266:
265:
260:
259:
255:
252:
248:
247:
243:
240:
236:
235:
231:
228:
227:
223:
220:
216:
215:
211:
208:
207:
202:
201:
197:
194:
193:
189:
186:
185:
181:
178:
177:
173:
170:
169:
165:
162:
158:
157:
153:
150:
149:
145:
142:
141:
137:
134:
133:
128:
127:
123:
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
108:
106:
102:
98:
96:
92:
86:
82:
80:
76:
62:
58:
57:
54:
49:
45:
39:
37:
32:
29:
25:
24:
19:
1904:
1889:
1847:
1831:
1828:
1825:
1815:
1803:
1800:
1790:
1774:
1763:
1727:
1539:
1537:
1518:
1502:
1501:
1487:
1466:
1451:
1442:
1375:
1330:
1300:
1296:
1289:
1246:
1235:
1214:at #almea. /
1163:
1147:
1140:
1126:
1119:
1099:
1097:
1085:
1065:
1041:
1029:
977:
971:
961:
959:
926:
909:
893:
887:
884:with an ISBN
883:
872:
866:
863:with an ISBN
862:
851:
841:
839:
820:
819:
803:
792:
789:
766:
738:
702:
676:
648:
619:
610:Parseltongue
605:
601:
600:
595:
588:
587:
574:
573:
568:
561:
560:
555:
548:
547:
538:
537:
523:
516:
515:
497:
483:
476:
470:
460:
459:
425:
419:
408:
407:
404:
399:
393:
382:
338:
334:
281:
262:
261:
244:
232:
224:
212:
204:
198:
190:
182:
174:
166:
154:
146:
138:
130:
124:
116:
100:
99:
87:
83:
74:
72:
44:village pump
33:
1806:WikiProject
1329:, but I've
1208:zompist.com
1080:Interlingua
943:IJzeren Jan
795:IJzeren Jan
781:IJzeren Jan
753:IJzeren Jan
725:IJzeren Jan
663:IJzeren Jan
635:IJzeren Jan
531:IJzeren Jan
433:IJzeren Jan
239:IJzeren Jan
1915:Categories
1535:already.
1503:(moved to
1076:Occidental
606:contribute
541:: perhaps
61:WP:CONLANG
38:reference.
36:historical
1896:Jim Henry
1858:Jim Henry
1834:Carlos Th
1775:Moved to
1764:Moved to
1754:Kaleissin
1702:Amman-Iar
1698:Brithenig
1694:Verdurian
1676:Brithenig
1672:Verdurian
1626:Syldavian
1514:Kaleissin
1488:Moved to
1467:Moved to
1384:Jim Henry
1304:Jim Henry
1261:Jim Henry
1243:Vote Note
1236:Moved to
1212:Verdurian
1189:Verdurian
1162:However,
1137:Webcomics
1060:ISO 639-3
1056:ISO 639-2
1052:ISO 639-1
1003:Jim Henry
823:Verdurian
717:Star Trek
501:Jim Henry
413:Star Trek
316:Jim Henry
312:talk page
292:Jim Henry
251:Carlos Th
1901:Sai's 2¢
1746:Babel-17
1680:Talossan
1660:Sindarin
1622:Newspeak
1598:Sindarin
1558:Babel-17
1529:artlangs
1525:auxlangs
1422:Almafeta
1349:Almafeta
1336:Almafeta
1275:Almafeta
1250:Almafeta
1151:Almafeta
1143:WP:COMIC
1141:Over on
1110:Problems
1024:Adjuvilo
981:Almafeta
806:Almafeta
575:ISO code
486:AingeljĂŁ
473:Lulu.com
385:Almafeta
269:Almafeta
111:Subpages
53:Shortcut
1734:Klingon
1706:Teonaht
1668:Khuzdûl
1648:Klingon
1606:Khuzdûl
1586:Kobaian
1582:Klingon
1445:Cctoide
1327:Westron
1319:Klingon
1216:Tehvata
1168:Tehvata
1129:Cctoide
882:A book
861:A book
827:Cctoide
345:Cctoide
75:conlang
1837:(talk)
1808:here.
1750:Quenya
1742:Quenya
1738:Láadan
1718:Tokana
1690:Quenya
1664:Quenya
1652:Láadan
1640:Baronh
1630:Pravic
1618:Nadsat
1614:Marain
1610:Lapine
1602:Quenya
1590:Láadan
1562:Baronh
1406:Satori
1358:Satori
1340:Satori
721:Tintin
583:Tceqli
477:easier
448:Satori
254:(talk)
203:( was
1752:. --
1331:heard
1325:, or
1100:could
1058:, or
973:IIRC.
962:major
867:about
842:minor
579:Ceqli
421:mind.
129:(was
77:is a
1862:Talk
1748:and
1730:Kesh
1714:Tepa
1644:D'ni
1578:Kesh
1574:Drac
1570:D'ni
1550:?):
1531:and
1388:Talk
1308:Talk
1265:Talk
1206:and
1164:very
1007:Talk
928:100.
581:and
505:Talk
320:Talk
314:. --
296:Talk
93:and
1670:),
1608:),
1323:Ido
1127:--
719:or
1917::
1860:|
1856:--
1850:).
1832:—
1740:,
1736:,
1732:,
1716:,
1708:,
1704:,
1700:,
1696:,
1692:,
1678:,
1674:,
1666:,
1662:,
1654:,
1650:,
1646:,
1642:,
1628:,
1624:,
1620:,
1616:,
1612:,
1604:,
1600:,
1592:,
1588:,
1584:,
1580:,
1576:,
1572:,
1568:,
1564:,
1560:,
1556:,
1542::
1527:,
1386:|
1321:,
1306:|
1263:|
1082:.
1062:.
1054:,
1005:|
1001:--
923:.
888:in
825:.
793:--
503:|
318:|
294:|
81:.
73:A
1712:/
1658:(
1596:(
1507:)
1225:)
1221:(
1177:)
1173:(
256:.
46:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
