Talk:Lingua Franca Nova

The Conjugation Table: It seems really pointless to me. All verbs conjugate the same no matter whether it ends in "ar", "er", or "ir". Also, the conjugations are given in text above it.

Your thoughts?

I quite agree. I'm sure whoever put it there was well intentioned, but it gives the impression that lfn actually has three different classes of verbs and a full range of inflexions, which is, of course, not true. I removed it, but did separate the present/past/future sentences to make the simplicity more obvious.

I also removed the "our father" that seems to have been added by the same well-intentioned person. I don't think it is wise to compare lfn with esperanto or interlingua. It needs to stand on its own.

George Boeree

Why did you remove the our father?--Jondel 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia, it did not seem appropriate to present the language in any one particular religion. In the LFN wiki, there are a number of translations of texts, Old Testament, New Testament, Buddhist Sutras.... Anyone is welcome to add more in any religious tradition.

George Boeree

I removed the suggestions for the Greek alphabet. Because they are merely suggestions, they do not belong in an "official" overview of LFN.

George Boeree

Shouldn't the Greek alphabet suggestions still appear in this article? It is, after all, an encyclopedia. As long as it is clearly marked as a suggestion, and does not seem to be "set in stone."

King Hajj

Orthography section?

The section on pronunciation also contains some orthographic information (such as using k for c.) Should there be a seperate section for orthography? Or, perhaps, should the pronunciation section simply be retitled "Pronunciation and Orthography"? --24.23.48.248 09:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Total number of speakers

30 seems unrealistically precise. Wouldn't < 100 be a better alternative? Besides, does anyone have a reference for the number of speakers? MrTroy 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

30 is probably the number of members of the LFN Yahoo Group, though only a few of those members regularly post. Most, I would assume, are like me, and only read what others post.

In that case there are probably a lot more speakers. Many people regard mailing groups as outdated: I doubt every LFN-speaker is a member of the group. MrTroy 09:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the question arises, if they don't use LFN on a mailing list, where do they use it? How have they achieved fluency? I can't see a lot of messaging going on except among people who have previously extablished some kind of relationship via (e.g.) a mailing list.--CJGB (Chris) 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some write for the LFN wiki. But fluency in a language such as LFN can be easily achieved on one's own! Agricolaplenus

If speakers refers to the number of people who speak (converse in) the language, then surely the number is close to zero. Encoding text into an auxlang with the help of dictionaries and grammar rules is considerably different from actually speaking a language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.48 (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of r

The article states that the r is lightly trilled as in Spanish, i.e. /r/. However, in the samples ([1], [2], [3]), the r is pronounced as . It's not trilled. Are the examples wrong, or is the article? MrTroy 09:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Listening carefully to the three examples, I hear r, not [ɾ]. Agricolaplenus

Uicipedia/Yикиπедиа

Do any of you guys think that LFN has enuf speakers to warrant a Wikipedia?Cameron Nedland 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's why they have their own at http://lfn.esef.net/index.php/Paje_Prima . Once there the wiki there is complete, and there are more speakers, LFN might earn itself a place in the official Wikipedia.--Kinghajj 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LFN has as much if not more support than Novial which was recently accepted for its own Wikipedia. The difference is that as a newly-created language LFN has more to prove and they (we) are content to take their time. Wikipedia's not going anywhere so there's no rush. Mithridates 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of language

This article says the language is not copyrighted. I didn't even think a language could be copyrighted. Does anyone have a link which gives more information about this? Guyjohnston

Loglan was claimed to be copyrighted... AnonMoos 16:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

HELP making new account

I've been trying to make a new account at the non-Wikipedia LFN wiki for a few hours now, and I can't understand how to do so.

I click "Crea un conta o sinia per entra" and try to login, because that's my only choice. Then it says "use the form below to make a new account" and there is no form.

Page of reference: [4] Please help. Chuffable 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I left a message on the LFN group regarding this. There was quite a bit of spam for a while and the wiki was changed to only allow registered users to edit. I tried changing the login settings myself but I'm not all that proficient in MediaWiki. I'll write on your talk page when it's fixed. Mithridates 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Still nothing after two weeks. Is this at all a priority to you fellows? Chuffable 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I have to agree with Schaefer - this article badly needs respectable secondary sources that prove this language's notability. Most importantly, there needs to be proof of past or present usage. A wiki and a mailing list by themselves are self-referential and thus not an acceptable proof of notability.

Don't get me wrong: This language is really nice - it is pleasant to read and easy to learn and understand. It is also surprisingly easy to read in Cyrillic - the author did a great job adapting a Romance-based language to the Cyrillic alphabet. Its flag is very nice, too.

But without proper references this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Please add references. Otherwise it should be deleted. Sorry. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that having an ISO language code should be sufficient to keep LFN here. Kevins (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also assume that adding references to the several constructed languages portals that point back to LFN would help "legitimize" it? That should be easy for an LFN advocate to add to the article. If LFN is going to be removed, there are a ton of other constructed language pages that should also be candidate for removal. Kevins (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please bring further deletion-related discussion on the deletion discussion page. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

stress rule

Quoting the article:

1. Stress is on the vowel before the last consonant or, if that is not possible, on the first vowel. For example la casa de me tio ("my uncle's house") is pronounced "la CA-sa de me TI-o."
2. To make a noun plural, add -s if the noun ends in a vowel, or -es if the noun ends in a consonant. It never alters the original stress of the word.

2 contradicts 1: casas 'houses' is pronounced "CA-sas", not "ca-SAS" as would follow from 1. The statement of stress should be corrected to reflect that it applies only to the base form of the word. Thnidu (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this: Stress is on the vowel before the last consonant or, if that is not possible, on the first vowel. For example, la casa de me tio ("my uncle's house") is pronounced "la CA-sa de me TI-o." Plural vowels have the same stress as their singular counterparts. For example, la casas es bela ("the houses are beautiful") is pronounced "la CA-sas es BE-la." --24.10.63.237 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article issue templates

In this edit, Saizai removed the issue tags "notable", "primarysources", and "self-published" with the explanation that "claims of WP:NOT and WP:SPS were found to be wanting in the AfD." Please note that the AfD, in which the primary arguments for deletion centered on a lack of reliable third-party sources to established notability, closed without consensus. Until there is consensus that these issues have been resolved, the tags should remain. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LFN is notable enough I think, the fact it has an ISO code will say enough. Evenso the number of interwikis. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I can't see how the ISO page referenced, which contains not even one complete sentence of information on LFN, could be considered "significant coverage". If "Name: Lingua Franca Nova / Satus: Active / Scope: Individual / Type: Constructed" is considered significant coverage, then I'd love to see an example of what insignificant coverage would look like. -- Schaefer (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the ISO people BEGIN with the application, then go to the sources and investigate them. They are professional linguists. Many requests are denied. You should really become more familiar with a topic before you take up a crusade. I suggest that people who are involved in the constructed languages community are far better equipped to judge the value of articles in that domain. I don't judge Schaefer's articles or Amir's (though I might note that the stub for his Latin teacher, peace be unto her, contains no references at all). This business of being an "immediatist and deletionist," as Schaefer proudly declares, seems a far more biased orientation than anything some of us well-meaning language people might have. This is remarkably frustrating to me. I am 56, I have a PhD, I have been teaching for 30 years (including psycholinguistics), my language project is intended to revitalize discussion of an international auxiliary language.... and yet a simple article is repeatedly attacked by authoritarian types with no visible credentials. In the meantime, wikipedia is filled to the brim with garage bands, obscure local footballers, and porn actresses. I you want to improve the image of wikipedia, why not start with those? Or is the prospect of being overwhelmed by ignorant masses of angry fans too frightening? I used to love wikipedia. Now, not so much. Cgboeree (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments are not directed at persons, but at their actions. See WP:NPA Cgboeree (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First things first - Peace be upon her?! My Latin teacher is very much alive and well. I wrote that silly little article long before i learned Wikipedia's rules about referencing. I really should take responsibility about it and add better sources, but in the meantime, if you try googling her name, you'll find that she passes the notability test with flying colors. If you think that she doesn't, you are welcome to butcher that article with {{articleissues}} templates or nominate it for deletion.

Am i an "authoritarian with no visible credentials"? As for credentials - i don't have a degree yet, but i am studying for a B.A. in Linguistics, which is a tiny bit more than nothing at all. As for authoritarian - it's quite ridiculous to call me that, but one thing you and everyone on WP should understand is that on WP everyone is equal and no-one is authoritarian, and no-one can be authoritarian. No, not even the admins. Really. This site doesn't have an editorial committee or anything of that kind; this site doesn't have a group of "they", who decide what goes in and what stays outside. You decide. Wikipedia's policies and decisions are made by consensus and boldness of completely random people who simply give a damn.

I very much understand your frustration about footballers and porn actresses. I don't like this either. I don't go to a crusade against them, because there are experienced Wikipedians fighting excessive porn articles. Footballers are a mess too, not just because of their articles' repetitiveness and borderline notability, but because they create a lot of boring work for compulsive disambiguation links fixers like myself. I also speedily deleted one footballer the other day. I don't like the frequent attacks against bands articles, being a musician myself, but i deleted a few of those, too, and i won't dare to create an article about my band yet at least until we release an album.

I do go to a crusade against possibly problematic conlangs, because as a student of Linguistics, that's a subject about which i know a thing or two. There are sites that accept info about conlangs easily, such as LangMaker and Omniglot. Wikipedia is not such a site and i strongly believe that it shouldn't be. Wikipedia is that one site, which - i believe - should be obnoxiously anal about accepting novel ideas, even good ideas from well-meaning people. While Omniglot is a nice site for quick info about languages and writing systems, i don't accept it as an authoritative proof of notability about conlangs, because it's operated by one man, who admittedly accepts for publishing everything that he personally likes.

I said it before and i'll say it again - LFN must be one of the nicest IAL's that i encountered. C. George Boeree made a good job recognizing the weaknesses of earlier IAL's and creating a new IAL that is easy to learn (especially for people who happen to know Italian :) And i strongly believe that C. George Boeree is very serious about getting the language properly recognized in a mainstream way. But here's one problem: Who described it except C. George Boeree? Nobody i know of. It is a problem, because this article uses the copula "to be" many times, "describing" features of LFN - it is phonetically spelled, the vowels i and u are used to represent the sounds of y and w, the general word order is subject verb object, etc. I put "describing" in quotes, because that's not really a descriptive grammar, but C. George Boeree decision. (One could say that a conlang cannot have a descriptive grammar by definition; i would argue that today's Esperanto and Quenya grammars can be called descriptive.)

Now, what happens if C. George Boeree suddenly decides that the word order should be SVO, or that he does want to use y and w? Will the LFN community's reaction be the same as the Esperanto community's negative reaction to Zamenhof's proposed reform? Or will the community quietly accept it? And if it will quietly accept it - will this Wikipedia article just be rewritten to reflect this change?

It's too hard to predict the future in this case, because it's hard to say what the community is in the first place. The number of edits on a wiki or a number of subscribers to a mailing list are by themselves very weak pieces of evidence that describe a community, but this article doesn't have anything better.

This is just one of the many problem with a weakly-referenced article about a conlang. I like conlangs, but i am on a crusade against problematic conlangs articles, because their encyclopedic value is highly dubious, and they have potential to hurt both the encyclopedia and the language.

Also, a quick note about ISO recognition: ISO recognized Europanto as a "language spoken in the European Union buildings ... for use among members of the European Union". I argue that an organization that makes such a blooper and grants a language code to an obvious joke, long ago neglected by its own author, should not be trusted blindly.

P.S. Can anyone fix the account opening screen at the LFN wiki? Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Peace be upon her - I only meant that I wish her well. I found 37 references in google, which more than satisfies me as to her notability. But you say it yourself: I am welcome to "butcher" the article with templates? I wouldn't think of doing so.

Authoritarian - Here's the rub: You can block me from doing things - I can't touch you. Not all is equal in the happy land of wikipedia.

Footballers - But most of us don't care whether there are lots of articles on footballers or not. Let them have their articles - it makes wikipedia into something far more inclusive than the Britannica. But let us conlangers have ours, too.

Omniglot's "inclusionism" - Isn't that the same criteria used by an author of a book - one, for example, about conlangs? He or she will include what he likes.

The problem with describing a grammar of one-man language - Thank you for your kind words about lfn. Many people have participated in describing it in our independent wiki, and decisions about changes to the language are made on the basis of consensus. The language is quite stable, and changes at this point in time are simple matters of extending vocabulary to cover techical areas.

The possibility of reform - Yup. It happened only recently. After years of using "un person..." we finally decided it was easier to use "on..." Several of us were relieved, no one objected.

ISO recognition of Europanto and LFN - They were simply recognizing one of their own. Even linguists have a sense of humor.

Because of a crazy amount of spamming, we create accounts on request. No one has ever been denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgboeree (talk • contribs)

(As Sai says - interleaving comments is not so good. It's great for email, but not for wikipedia.)

Not all is equal - I can block you technically, but i need a good reason to do it. If i block you without justification, you can complain, and i'll be desysopped.

I didn't become and admin by inheritance or by having good connections. I worked for some time on improving the encyclopedia and when the time was right, i nominated myself and won. It's not too hard.

Being an admin is not a big deal.

Isn't that the same criteria used by an author of a book - Of course it is. The big book of Wikipedia is written by a community, and it usually doesn't like material which is based only on primary sources.

If anyone has the feeling that the community has become "deletionist" recently, then it is probably right, and it is certainly not just me. Compare this VfD from 2004 and this AfD from 2008.

I say that it's for the better - Wikipedia should be different from everything2. (That great site doesn't have an entry about LFN - how could that be?)

Many people have participated in describing it in our independent wiki - Well, that's the heart of the problem: a wiki. According to WP:SPS, open wikis are not acceptable as the only source. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This is a long-established policy.

Although, since you say that you only create accounts on request, it is not so open, which makes me think differently about it.

What do you know, i am starting to get convinced.

ISO recognition of LFN and Europanto - Hmm, but standards committees? :)

Yaroslav Zolotaryov should have tried harder at getting ru-sib recognized ... but considering his notoriously obnoxious attitude, maybe it's for the better that he didn't. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

First: I am removing the tags again. As I said in the edit comment, please do not re-add it unless something DEGRADES on those issues past the version as read by the AfD editors.

The AfD clearly showed consensus to keep. That it is listed otherwise is (AFAIK) because of Amir and/or Schaefer convincing a (fellow) admin to change the wording.

In any case, it was decided at that AfD. Unless something changes, or there was an issue with that AfD, that decision is final. If you don't like it, list it for DRV or re-AfD. But adding tags to an article claiming something that did NOT fly in the AfD is not acceptable, and I am willing to escalate this to Arbitration if necessary. If you revert this again, you will be breaking WP:3RR.

FWIW: I do not personally give a damn about Slovio or LFN. I don't personally like most auxlangs at all really. But I consider it notable and verifiable. I also consider notability as a requirement to be bullshit in full agreement with WP:NNOT, and I believe that primary sources are ABSOLUTELY acceptable for verification of simple FACTS about something (and not, perhaps, for things it would have reason to lie about).

As for what the language might be in the future, that is irrelevant. WP ain't a crystal ball, right? So when/if it happens, then we can add language to the article NPOV-describing the debate. (Just like, say, an article about French should discuss the efficacy of the attempts to regulate it, viz. 'balladeur' vs 'walkman'.)

This approach of deleting things instead of improving them, and otherwise tearing down the work of others, completely pisses me off.

Amir, you should not be deleting, nor otherwise acting as anything but just another editor, ANYTHING having to do with issues you have something to do with personally (like conlangs, about which you clearly have conflict of interest). If you do it again, I will file RfC for your admin powers to be removed. Please play nice. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sai, you are welcome to RfC me right now. But please, re-read WP:NPA first. If i shouldn't propose deletion of conlang articles because i have a "clear conflict of interest", then you shouldn't be editing conlang articles for the exact same reason. I'd say that it's a draw; if you still want arbitration or RfC, go for it.

You all seem to be taking AfD too seriously. AfD is not as final as you suggest. See Talk:Katamine for an extreme example (AfD it again if you want.) And see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis game for the other extreme.

LFN's AfD was clearly "no consensus" and not "keep". I didn't have to work hard to convince the closing admin that it was no consensus, because he said it himself and i just asked him to write it at the AfD, too.

Now, about the main problem: the {{articleissues}} tags.

Self-published sources, Primary sources - esef.net and lingua-franca-nova.net are self-published. Or primary, if you want to insist that Stefan Fisahn is an external publisher. It's not a big difference, because in the world of vanity press someone has to operate the machines. I am NOT saying that Stefan Fisahn is a mindless operator of machines or that LFN is "vanity" in the bad sense of the word, but it is, for the most part, a creative work of one man, that wasn't reviewed by almost anyone (see above for my opinion of the ISO code process). So it's a problem either way.

You say: "I believe that primary sources are ABSOLUTELY acceptable for verification of simple FACTS" - the Wikipedia community believes otherwise. Read and re-read WP:PSTS, please. I suppose that Boeree's LFN grammar would qualify as an "original philosophical work" as far as the bureaucratic PSTS definitions go, but in any case this a blatant primary source. It cannot be used in a descriptive way, because it describes little except Bouree's state of mind. You cannot compare this to French grammar, because countless prescriptive and descriptive peer-reviewed grammars of French were written by "official" authorities and by independent researchers.

As for the notability tag, you say: "I also consider notability as a requirement to be bullshit" - again, the community thinks otherwise. Saying that the AfD is a proof of notability, and then saying that community's opinion about notability is bullshit is a bit of fallacy.

One last thing: "This approach of deleting things instead of improving them, and otherwise tearing down the work of others, completely pisses me off" - all work in Wikipedia must adhere to a consensus. Working for consensus is improving and not "tearing down". All reverted and deleted versions are preserved. You may take them and publish them on langmaker, esef.net, wikia, everything2 or any other website which is not as anal as Wikipedia about notability and sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest with anything I've edited except Language Creation Conference, which I founded. It survived AfD, and my contributions to it have been purely NPOV-factual, which is perfectly allowable under the CoI guidelines.

You however have interest in topics which where have also acted as an administrator. I can't do this, because I'm not an administrator. WP:NPA simply does not apply. You violated the rules - which in this case are supposed to be absolute, not merely guidelines - about the use of your administrative power. I called you on it. This has nothing to do with you as a person - it's not like I'm calling you fat or ugly or stupid or irrational the like. (If anything, I've defended your good faith elsewhere, despite my complete disagreement with your actions and philosophy.) Claiming that it is is a red herring fallacy, appeal to motive.

I am warning you about this issue, rather than listing you for RfC right now, because that is the appropriate and polite thing to do. It allows you the chance to knock it off.

 

Now, on to the article "issues"...

Who publishes something is completely irrelevant. The real underlying question is that the things in the article be verifiable or verified.

Primary - or as you would say self-published - sources are the only possible root source of certain information - e.g. in this case, any grammar of the language. Every other source possible would simply ask that primary source and regurgitate the information, possibly with errors in the process. If you disagree, please name a way that a non-primary source would have more accurate and complete versions of this for the thing in question.

Some other information, like birthdates, number of speakers, etc., is externally verifiable. Where that's possible, by all means it should be done and sourced.

Yet other information, like popularity or importance to some field, is something that should only be gotten from third party sources, because someone with direct conflict of interest would have motive to be biased, even if they are presumed to act in good faith.

I HAVE read WP:PSTS, and I believe that you completely ignore the underlying logic (which I explain above) and the relevant exceptions in favor of interpreting it as a rule for the sake of itself.

Essentially, you are claiming that something needs a secondary source even when a secondary source would NOT be more accurate than the primary, and when the issue at hand is not something about which they have a real CoI.

Please try to remember that verifiability, and reliable sources OF verifiability, are about *facts*. If you believe that specific facts in this article or any other are inaccurate, then please be SPECIFIC about which those are.

 

I did not say that the AfD is "proof" of notability. It's proof that a claim of WP:NOT was rejected as insufficiently substantiated. As such, it should not be de facto claimed on the article.

I can simultaneously say that I believe the whole concept of notability as a criterion is bullshit. Please feel free to refer to a specific fallacy if you believe I have committed one, but I doubt you'll be able to. You, however, have committed fallacy of argumentum ad populum (falsely!) in justifying your implicit claim that WP:NOT is reasonable. I don't believe that it is, and moreover I don't believe that there really is consensus in its favor. If there were, then we wouldn't keep having contested AfDs, DRVs, etc. As such, by definition this is not a consensual issue amongst the editors interested in these articles. But even so, I am perfectly capable of discussing whether or not something is notable.

 

Finally - I suggest you not toss around the word "fallacy" unless you can substantiate it as something more than "I disagree with you". Name the syllogistically accurate fallacy or don't engage me in that kind of debate.

P.S. Whoever interleaved comments in Amir's response above, please de-interleave, sign, and put it in sequential order. Interleaved comments are harder to read overall. Thanks. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I did indeed make many edits of the article. They have never been promotional. Rather, they have been small additions of npov information or attempts to make the page easier to read. If this is considered a breech of conflict-of-interest rules, I invite anyone to alter any edits they find offensive in that regard. Cgboeree (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we address the tag issues

Sorry for the "interleaving." You guys have one hell of a lot of rules!

Here's what the tag now says:

This article or section has multiple issues:

• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since February 2008.
• It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest.

My question: How do we address these issues?

I read more of your guidelines, and I can't see how the article contains original research. The article is an accurate report of something which exists; it contains no original research. Neither does it contain any unverifiable claims. Everything in the article is easily verified by looking at the sources. If someone could point to lines in the article that contain original research or unverifiable claims, we could certainly try to correct them. Please understand that I am not trying to be facetious! I genuinely want this to be a good article.

I assume that the person with the conflict of interest is me. I guess I would have been smart to let others work on the article. But I don't really understand how conflict of interest applies here. Conflict of interest only arises when the interest someone has in the topic of an article distorts the information. Again, if specific instances of conflict of interest could be pointed out, something could be done about them.

I am gratified that the issue of notability has been dropped for now, and I sure hope it doesn't come up again. I would point out to anyone involved in editing Wikipedia that we live in a very different world of information than we did in the days of (e.g.) the Encyclopedia Britannica. Less and less information is concrete and more and more is fluid. Wikipedia, in fact, is a part of this change. This is what makes the net so wonderfully revolutionary! The net is profoundly democratic (in the sense of "of the people"). So notability can indeed be judged by things like "lots of people are interested," rather than "some corporation published it."

If Wikipedia abandons its open, accepting nature, you might as well sell it to Microsoft.

Cgboeree (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (damn - I keep forgetting to log in first! old-timer's disease, I guess)

I don't see how issue notability has been dropped.

From Wikipedia:Notability: "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Explanation of "trivial": "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial."

What reliable sources cover LFN non-trivially? Omniglot covers LFN non-trivially, but it is not reliable about conlangs in my opinion. A couple of books that were cited in the AfD discussion only mention LFN very briefly.

So, i don't see how the notability issue has been addressed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I like what it says at the top of the notability page: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (Emphases added) Cgboeree (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability for constructed languages is a difficult philosophical issue. If mailing lists, google hits and wikis are sufficient to establish notability, then any determined, fanatical individual can make his conlang "notable" merely by devoting a few months to maniacal online activity. Even a conlang that nobody is using could be made to appear notable by populating a mailing list with sockpuppets and making it look like a thriving community. We need an objective, verifiable list of criteria for notability. Evidence that people are routinely having spoken (or sign-language) conversations in the language. The existence of regularly scheduled radio broadcasts or podcasts over a period of ten years or more. The existence of substantial books written in the language about various topics. That sort of thing. Until we have objective verifiable criteria, notability of conlangs will be an endless and annoying debate! (Unsigned for Good Reasons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.48 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly.

There's Wikipedia:Conlangs, where such criteria were supposed to be established.

I don't really think that it's a very good idea to have special "notability criteria" for every topic, because then people will do the bare minimum to pass them, and because quantifying everything with hard cold numbers is just not the right thing, intuitively. But apparently this topic of conlangs may be special. It's that gray area between art and science, and it's quite modern and thus web-centric, which indeed makes it hard to look at it according to the older style of verification etc.

In this case of Lingua Franca Nova i assume good faith - i believe that Cgboeree's intentions are good. But assuming good faith is not enough by itself.

P.S. Being anon on Wikipedia is not supposed to be a good thing ... but reality proves the opposite. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for "endless and annoying debate." Leave the issue of conlang notability to those with interest and knowledge of the subject, as is done in pretty much every other interest area on wikipedia. The idea that one "fanatical individual" has attempted to make LFN notable by means of "maniacal online activity" and "sockpuppets" is downright paranoid. To end the debate, stop debating and start doing something useful. Cgboeree (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon user above didn't say that some tried to make LFN notable by maniacal online activity, but it may happen. That's why Wikipedia:Verifiability invalidates personal websites and open wikis as sources, and all sources on this article are personal websites and open wikis. (The only exception would be SIL, which is not really a source for the information in the article, but just an external link, which tries to establish notability, and IMO doesn't succeed.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion on the notability and verifiability of LFN. It is obvious that the conveniently anonymous comment is directed at LFN. Cgboeree (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the comment was not directed at LFN. Many participants in the LFN mailing list (Steve Rice, Rex May, Jens Wilkinson and others) are obviously real people and not sockpuppets; they have been participating in a variety of auxlangs for many years. My comment was an attempt to convince you, George, that there need to be some objective tests for notability. Being known within the tiny world of auxlang enthusiasts is not the same as being notable for inclusion in a general interest encyclopedia. Would you expect Encyclopedia Britannica to contain an article on LFN and other proposed auxlangs that are at the same stage of development?

Article status in Wikiproject Conlangs

Oh, one more thing: How does one up-grade the status from start-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgboeree (talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Assessment lists the classes. AFAIK, Sai Emrys and IJzeren Jan are the main maintainers of this Wikiproject, so i suppose they can decide something. Or anyone else can be bold.

In any case, i'd say that it can't be more than start, as it lacks a key element: reliable sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to join and tag 'em. My suggestion is that if you disagree with how an article is currently tagged, you a) be bold and just edit it (the tag is at the top of the talk page; see the template page for what variables it takes), and simultaneously b) be polite and announce that you've done so and your reasons for doing so on the Assessment page that Amir linked above. If anyone disagrees, then that would be the place to discuss it. The Assessment page also lists the standards for each categorization for both importance (to the project) and quality (to Wikipedia).

I marked this page as start-class, because of not a lack of reliable sources but a lack of better thoroughness / description / etc overall.

Take a look at the WP:CL page; it has a box with links to all WP:CL articles by quality & importance. You can compare against other articles that are B and A quality. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is me being bold

I thought I would try "being bold" (something mentioned a few times in all those tag rules) and delete the tags on the lfn article, until such time as someone can provide specifics. Cgboeree (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Being bold is about improving the encyclopedia. It is about not offering to help improve an article, but just improving the article. It is about not asking how to improve the article, but trying to improve the article.

You cite "occasional exception" as an explanation why LFN adheres to the Notability criteria. Well, the "occasional exception" thing at the top of the notability policy is a link to the Ignore all rules policy. This policy is very short, but it has a separate page with a detailed explanation, which says: "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged."

I'm sorry, but i don't see how the LFN article doesn't improve this encyclopedia. The website about LFN improves the Internet; LFN may some day improve communication between people; but an article about LFN here doesn't improve the encyclopedia. To me it's not just a cold rule - it makes a lot of sense, and in my opinion only this way Wikipedia can stay reliable and useful. You may argue that Pokemon articles don't improve the encyclopedia much, and there indeed are many discussions about it. LFN and conlangs in general are interesting and intellectual topics, but their notability is problematic.

Please don't cite the AfD as a proof of notability - the AfD closer said it himself: "no consensus".

Now, there's also a technical part to it. An article with the notability tag is added to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. There are editors who go over that list and decide what to do with those articles. (I do it every now and then when i'm bored, and, believe it or not, i usually remove the tag instead proposing deletion.) It's a very slow process, as there are still thousands of articles listed there. Now, you may be negative and say that this way i am trying to bring more deletionists here, so that they will delete the article, but if you try to be positive, then this way i am trying to gather more opinions and consensus.

I am not going to AfD this article again, but any way you turn it, the notability issue has not been addressed in a way that is customary to Wikipedia, so the tag should remain.

In any case, I urge you again to consider writing an article about LFN on Everything2, where no-one will raise notability objections. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like K in Kafka's The Castle. I give up. Cgboeree (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And a bit like K in "The Trial" as well. Thanks anyway, Sai. Cgboeree (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that you refer to The Trial.

It's been a while since i last read it, but IIRC, the bad guys there didn't ever bother to explain him what's the problem. At least i am trying to explain... --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a point of curiosity: How does 9 "keeps" vs 2 "deletes" constitute no consensus? Especially when the "deletes" define themselves as deletionists? Cgboeree (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia deletion discussions are discussions, not votes. (Hence, comments in deletion discussion are often called "!votes", "!" being the "not" operator in some programming languages.) So vote count is mostly irrelevant, even when it shows very clear victory for one of the sides.

Arguments in deletion discussions are supposed to be related to established policies. None of the "keeps" cited established policies but expressed dissatisfaction with them. Both "deletes" tried to demonstrate how the article doesn't adhere to policies. So i suppose that the closing admin saw that there are a lot of "keep" !votes and the "delete" !votes sounded convincing, but were too few. So he did bring vote count into his consideration and closed it as "no consensus". It could be a case for Deletion review, but the discussion here on the talk page is rather interesting for me.

I don't define myself as a deletionist. I do, however, define myself as someone who thinks that the current established policies on Wikipedia make a lot of sense. You may call that "deletionism", and i won't be too offended, but do keep in mind, that there are deletionists who are much more extremist than i am and would support deletion of just about anything. I'd call that trolling, but some people seem to appreciate that for some reason. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)