454:
fewer fluent speakers than
Esperanto, and is thus less notable than Esperanto," or even, "This has fewer fluent speakers than Klingon, which has the fewest fluent speakers a conlang can have and still be notable, so this is not notable,") and another entirely to let them piggy-back on one another ("Klingon is notable, and Zlaygon demonstrates a plausible natural evolution from Klingon in the 33rd century if atomic warfare had annihalated humans in the 20th century, therefore it's notable").
529:, can circumvent that. I believe the base assumption should be that 0 personal languages, 0 alternative languages, 0 micronational languages, and 0 fictional languages are notable, as they are all, by design of not being intended for use as speech, inherently non-notable, and the burden of proof is on the language to demonstrate that it has acquired significance
506:
noted, applying this criterion on artlangs is complaring apples with oranges. The ultimate purpose of the kind of music that they play in supermarkets (at least here in the
Netherlands) is to make clients relaxed, quiet, walking slowly and buying a lot; you also don't measure the notability of Bach's
453:
Basically, I think we should judge conlangs in isolation, and not allow them to use other languages (natural or constructed) or other ideas (a famous creator, as with
Tolkien, or a notable concultural association) as crutches. It's one thing to judge conlangs in relationship to each other ("This has
202:
This is IMO not how "notability by proxy" should work. Although I tend to be rather inclusive, I really don't think every fart made by a celebrity warrants an article. Just like I'm not happy with hundreds of articles about individual personnages from LOTR, I also have my doubts about several of the
38:
I would also add (probably as a minor criterion): being created by a person or organization who has already created a language that meets the (major?) criteria for inclusion; for example, I'd say J.R.R. Tolkien's minor languages are "notable by proxy" and probably worthy of inclusion, and similarly
320:
We essentially invented a language for
Parseltongue. We dealt with a linguistic expert from Oxford University, and I discussed with him the sound and the feeling I wanted to get out of Parseltongue. He went back and created an alphabet for Parseltongue, enabling us to translate any English phrases
482:
when the main article gets too long, so that subdivision into smaller articles would be warranted. Furthermore, I think there should be a relationship between the significance of the book/movie/conculture/whatever, the significance of the conlang used within it, and question whether a wikipedia
441:
I have seen it suggested that a constructed language should be considered worthy of inclusion because "it influenced another, notable conlang" or "was influenced by another, notable conlang". And I look at that, and I don't understand it. After all, it's not this language that people are
474:
First of all, things like "influenced another, notable conlang" or "shows plausible historical evolution from another, notable conlang" are not listed under "notability-by-proxy" at all. Someone proposed those criteria, and I've grouped them under "reputation" (influence) and "uniqueness"
524:
If no-one speaks artlangs, and no-one is intended to, how can any of them be notable? The point I'm trying to make by "overestimating" the number of speakers is that at most an infant's handful of artlangs belong, because use is what makes a language notable, and only exceptionally rare
246:(article deleted) and including proto-languages and the like. Some of these languages are highly elaborated, others less so. But much as I am in favour of the keeping the article about Verdurian, I wouldn't favour articles about Mark's other languages. Much rather I'd like to see the
309:. It's a borderline case, really. When Harry speaks it, other just hear him hissing, while Harry himself still thinks he is speaking English. Besides, like most fictional languages it's little more than the few "samples" that we have. But look at the following info from Langmaker:
128:
any conlang with an actual corpus of significant outside commentary that can be verified, even if it has *zero* speakers and a tiny vocabulary. The question should be whether an article can be constructed that is NPOV, non-OR, verifiable, and properly sourced. Of course, if the
394:
vanity. The existence of other articles that may be less notable is evidence of the way things are, whereas policy talks about the way things should be. (I've been working on some of the itty-bitty
Tolkien articles since I got here. It's an uphill struggle. People keep making new
339:
I don't know how to understand this. If I get Mr. Columbus right, he got himself an alphabet that enabled him to translate into P. How can an alphabet do that? The only explanation I can think of is that
Parseltongue is rather some kind of code (substituting every consonant with
415:
Agreed on all fronts. Although there's one accent I'd like to put differently: I find the question whether a subject warrants an article far more interesting than the question who wrote it. But then, vanity is a concept that is often abused; according to the article about
398:
It does sound like the movie version of "Parseltongue" is a code for
English, not a language. That actually makes it kind of interesting, although I think the information would probably go with information about the movie so long as it remains unique to the movie.
445:
While we're at it, I've seen the association with a notable conculture suggested as something that should earn a conlang an article. And again, I disagree completely. At best, the conlang then is something of a "minor character", as covered in
270:
As far as I know, most of the
Tolkien language articles are fairly non-controversial. In most cases, there is plenty of verifiable information, much of which has already been added to articles here. Most of the really-excessive-looking links at
548:
As for miscategorizing things as notability-by-proxy, I look at those two proposed criteria as involving transfer of notability from one language to another, making them notability-by-proxy issues. Even if they're listed under reputation or
358:(itty-bitty indeed) isn't even mentioned there! But of course, I agree with you that Tolkien's world is undeniably, inherently notable. But does that automatically render even the minorest personnage or other detail, notable too? Look at
378:... honestly, I can't see the point or value of such articles. But then, they don't disturb me either, so I leave them in peace. Then why should articles about highly detailed conlangs that were published on the Internet disturb others?
158:
They are very commonly searched for, both because he was one of the first conlangers and because he was the author of the Middle-Earth series of books. Even his 'childish' languages like
Animalish have people interested in
107:. There is a corpus of scholarship, pro and con, about Tolkien's linguistic efforts, and every one of his languages (including the ones only seen in fragmentary form) has been discussed by multiple scholars. This is
253:
In short: I don't mind including the
Tolkien criterion in the vote, but I'm absolutely going to vote against it. OTOH I favour the "notability by proxy" idea, but I'd like to see that properly defined first.
286:
The Verdurian example is not really all that comparable. Tolkien's invented world is undeniably notable. His languages are notable, not just as conlangs, but for appearing in it. -
230:
As for the "families of languages with natural evolutions" argument: the problem is that there are many such languages. To me, that sounds more like an argument for one central
79:
I agree, not every minor language by Tolkien could have enough written to merit a full article, but under the current criteria even an article covering briefly all such
442:
speaking/studying/writing in/admiring as a great work of art. It's the other one, the notable one! How is that notability supposed to transfer? Just don't get it.
162:
They are complex... he didn't create stand-alone IALs, he created families of languages with natural evolutions. It would be difficult to just merge them all.
275:(an article which does exist already!) don't point to articles on the languages involved. I agree that some of the itty-bitty articles are a bit too much (
185:
It might, however, be better writing to combine, say, Rohirric and Hobbitish into one comprehensive article and then create redirects as needed.
333:
Well, I used it in the film, not in real life. If I ever start speaking in Parseltongue in real life, it's time to have myself committed!
242:
is notable. Now Verdurian is not a stand-alone language either: it belongs to a huge family of languages, all spoken on his conworld
499:
483:
article is justified. An conlang that is perhaps mentioned in a major book but doesn't play any role of significance in it (like
314:
We know that Daniel Radcliffe had to learn Parseltongue for this movie. How did you handle this language of snakes in the movie?
283:
had a language!), and Tolkien's non-Middle-earth-related languages belong in a general article on his language work.
204:
550:
462:
498:
by it is unfair, because these languages were never created in other to be spoken at all! In fact, it matters for
351:
272:
219:
to the list would IMHO be exploiting the fame of Mr. Tolkien to unacceptable proportions. Does the article about
231:
133:
writes the article, it might properly be deprecated as POV, OR and so on, but that is true of nearly any topic.
417:
144:
46:
207:. If you ask me, wikipedifiable are only those items that play an important role within notable works (
80:
57:
17:
87:
43:
327:
Did you pick up on it at all? If so, do you ever use it? It would be sweet to yell in snake -- LOL!
487:) or so) does IMO not deserve a separate article. But I think no one disputes that a language like
495:
390:
In my opinion, it primarily has to do with whether the information is verifiable, and verifiably
186:
141:
553:
511:
465:
424:
410:
385:
297:
261:
215:). Okay, even the minor language can with a little goodwill be qualified as notable; but adding
189:
177:
90:
70:
23:
216:
67:
447:
359:
508:
421:
382:
354:
article point to articles where no language is even mentioned. I think that's not good. And
258:
235:
165:
Most of his languages have full grammars and vocabularies, and the few that don't have good
124:
On reflection, as someone who votes to delete more often than not, I think I would vote to
420:, it is not necessarily vanity when a person writes something about his own creation. --
450:: it can have a section in an article shared with other topics, but not one of its own.
503:
224:
220:
174:
212:
64:
478:
Secondly, on the poll page I've noted explicitly that notability-by-proxy works
400:
287:
494:
Thirdly, please don't overestimate the "number of speakers" criterion. Judging
375:
239:
84:
40:
484:
371:
355:
276:
542:
526:
363:
227:
warrant articles about all other individual compositions he ever wrote?
534:
280:
173:
I think we could easily do at least a page on every Tolkien language.
60:
can be listed the minor languages without a separate article for each.
538:
491:, on which the entire LOTR is practically built, deserves an article.
488:
367:
208:
541:
did), or otherwise picking up cultural or technical relevancy, as
247:
243:
234:
article. Look at the recent votes for deletion: we concluded
103:
Not at all, and the reason has nothing to do with notability
475:
respectively. Personally I'm opposed to both of them.
169:
that they don't have full grammars and vocabularies.
525:circumstances, like acquiring the iconic status of
471:Hang on, Engineer, you are confusing a few things.
154:I think this should be a major criteria, because:
507:works by the effect they have in supermarkets. --
344:or something similar). Just guessing of course!
533:through accidentally picking up speakers (as
8:
350:. Yep, I noticed that lots of links in the
39:for other works by famous conlangers. —
267:Is Parseltongue even a conlang? Really?
437:Opposition To All Notability-by-Proxy
7:
31:
500:international auxiliary languages
83:might be considered deletable. —
24:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs/Tolkien
554:05:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
461:form of notability-by-proxy.
205:Category:Middle-earth language
1:
512:07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
466:00:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
574:
425:13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
411:13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
386:06:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
298:02:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
262:09:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
190:21:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
178:18:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
145:02:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
457:As such, I am opposed to
352:Languages of Middle-earth
273:Languages of Middle-earth
232:Languages of Middle Earth
91:19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
71:23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
52:I am not sure about this
47:15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
33:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Conlangs
203:languages listed under
279:, anyone? guess what?
551:The Literate Engineer
531:to the world at large
463:The Literate Engineer
88:talk (la.wiktionary)
44:talk (la.wiktionary)
321:into Parseltongue.
54:notability by proxy
496:artistic languages
250:article restored.
81:Tolkien languages
58:Tolkien languages
22:(Redirected from
565:
408:
331:Chris Columbus:
325:LIVEJessicaMae:
318:Chris Columbus:
295:
236:Mark Rosenfelder
56:. In a list of
27:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
439:
404:
307:Re:Parseltongue
291:
200:
152:
36:
34:Muke's criteria
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
546:
517:
516:
515:
514:
492:
476:
438:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
396:
379:
345:
337:
336:
335:
329:
323:
316:
301:
300:
284:
268:
225:Bolero (Ravel)
199:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
171:
170:
163:
160:
151:
148:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
112:
96:
95:
94:
93:
74:
73:
61:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
555:
552:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
513:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
486:
481:
477:
473:
472:
470:
469:
468:
467:
464:
460:
455:
451:
449:
443:
436:
426:
423:
419:
414:
413:
412:
407:
402:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
384:
380:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
343:
338:
334:
330:
328:
324:
322:
317:
315:
311:
310:
308:
305:
304:
303:
302:
299:
294:
289:
285:
282:
278:
274:
269:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
255:
251:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
197:
191:
188:
187:Robert A West
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
176:
168:
164:
161:
157:
156:
155:
149:
147:
146:
143:
142:Robert A West
132:
127:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
110:
109:verifiability
106:
102:
101:
100:
99:
98:
97:
92:
89:
86:
82:
78:
77:
76:
75:
72:
69:
66:
62:
59:
55:
51:
50:
49:
48:
45:
42:
25:
19:
530:
479:
458:
456:
452:
444:
440:
405:
391:
347:
341:
332:
326:
319:
313:
306:
292:
256:
252:
229:
213:Parseltongue
201:
172:
166:
153:
140:
130:
125:
108:
104:
53:
37:
549:uniqueness.
509:IJzeren Jan
422:IJzeren Jan
383:IJzeren Jan
259:IJzeren Jan
150:My thoughts
376:Moriquendi
348:Re:Tolkien
312:Question:
198:My opinion
85:Muke Tever
41:Muke Tever
504:Kaleissin
502:only. As
240:Verdurian
65:Carlos Th
543:Newspeak
527:Newspeak
364:Bregalad
217:Animalic
175:Almafeta
535:Klingon
448:WP:FICT
360:Galvorn
167:reasons
131:creator
539:Quenya
489:Quenya
485:Aulëan
418:vanity
401:Aranel
395:ones.)
372:Khamûl
368:Sharku
356:Aulëan
288:Aranel
277:Aulëan
209:Nadsat
105:per se
68:(talk)
406:Sarah
293:Sarah
248:Almea
244:Almea
221:Ravel
159:them.
16:<
545:did.
537:and
480:only
281:Aulë
126:keep
459:any
409:")
392:not
296:")
238:'s
223:'s
403:("
381:--
374:,
370:,
366:,
362:,
290:("
257:--
211:,
63:—
399:-
342:Z
111:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.