Talk:Conlang/Types

Initial content
I tried to explain as best as I could (after all, it's not such a big issue to explain) but I feel I fell seriously short, especially on my definition of Loglang. Circeus 17:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I fleshed it out but the article still needs work IMO (This is Ingolemo BTW, I can't log in here). &mdash; preceding comment added 13:30, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Too many examples?
IMO, this page is not supposed to be a list of conlangs. The examples given are only there to emphasize the differences between the types of conlang, and I think that two or three examples are sufficiant to do this. -- Ingolemo 13:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I support that. While the added material is much better than my feeble attempt, I do think it could use more paragraph divisions. Also, I believe we'd ideally want to limit ourselves to a few exemples that can be linked to as to provide actually accessible exemples, especially in the Artlang section, where it makes little sense to repeat in the list some languages mentionned in the upper section...--Circeus 21:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to break up the paragraphs, but in a whole book on conlangs we'd want to have our list of conlangs somewhere, wouldn't we? 24.4.127.164 23:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with some of the recent removals, and the reasoning given (if they don't have a Wikipedia article they should be listed here either). For one, some of the Wikipedia links were bad but the articles do exist (I've added one of them back).  Two, in the nature of things personal languages are probably not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia; but should we list no examples here?  Wikipedia does talk briefly about several personal languages in the text of the article on Constructed language, even though none of those languages have nor will probably ever have their own article - I mean Taneraic, Vabungula, and so forth.  I'll leave it up to others whether gjâ-zym-byn deserves a mention here (although it has an article in the Esperanto Wikipedia, in spite of my nominating it for deletion).


 * I do agree that we don't want the list to get too long, and that the list was probably a bit too long before Ingolemo's recent deletions. --Jim Henry 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was mostly just trying to justify my trimming of the list and didn't mean to delete any of the more notable conlangs. If the wikipedia authors feel that a particular conlang is notable enough to mention there (whether in it's own article or not) then I have no objection to it's inclusion here. --Ingolemo 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics
We can share data between this and the linguistics department at Wikiversity, since a lot of the introductory material is pretty complementary. -- Spack 15:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything particular in mind? --Ingolemo 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(imported from Talk:Conlang/Relex) Page adds nothing to Conlang that wikipedia cannot provide
This page doesn't fit into the rest of the structure of the Conlang Wikibook. I'd like to either try to make it fit in (by reorienting it towards a How to avoid making a relex-like goal) or redirect to Relexification. Opinions? - Ingolemo &mdash; preceding comment added 15:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP article is about linguistic term relexification, not conlanging term relex. Moreover, the fact that the conlanging term has a somewhat different meaning is, reasonably, not mentioned in the lead of the WP article, so that sending Conlang readers there would probably leave them misunderstanding what a relex is.  Even if we sent them directly to the "Conlangs and jargon" section of the WP article, that section is, again reasonably, not tutorial for conlangers.  I've tried to adjust this page so that it is about the conlanging term, and tutorial for conlangers.


 * All that said, this is still the only page in the Wikibook (that I know of) that has no fixed place in the outline. Having just significantly adjusted the page, though, I'm inclined to give it some time to settle in in its new form.  Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've integrated relexes into Conlang/Types (here). Pi zero (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

TAKE is no longer a fauxlang
Since the mention of fauxlangs was added, the author of TAKE has decided the fictional timeline was too limiting, and divorced the conlang from it. So TAKE should be removed from that section. (I'd do so now, but must dash, so am noting it here instead.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Taken care of; didn't remove it, but noted the change. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

history merge
I've (finally) history-merged the old Conlang/Relex page; the content merge took place several years ago (as noted in a talk thread above, which I just now merged). The downside of history merge is that there's no easy way to tell which revisions in the merged history belong to which of the original pages; but the history of the other page is pretty short, so here it is (I didn't bother to prune the unimportant stuff).

--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Natrualistic
Nowadays naturalistic conlangs are a much-discussed class. They should have a section somewhere on this page. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)