Constructed languages Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the page. For an archive of the discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_Deletion/Zompist.com.

Yay for Zompist.com! I bet Janko Gorenc's number collection is bigger though. --Finlay 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a request for merging this article and the Language Construction Kit's article with Mark Rosenfelder's article. I did not know that there had been a rather lengthy discussion to delete the article. After reading it I conclude that the merging is necessary, the three articles repeat themselves quite a bit. Vale, Lcgarcia 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the sentence "Although small in comparison to other forums such as Gaia Online, it is generally known throughout the conlanging community.", what is the relevance of Gaia Online? I don't see that it has anything to do with conlanging. Is it just meant as an example of a large forum? If so, this sentence seems a little out of place.

Also, "The Zompist Bboard is a great place for those who are new to conlanging, ..." seems non-NPOV.68.115.21.42 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[removed complaints by anonymous users; see WP:NOTFORUM —Soap— 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're entirely correct. -Ink Pudding 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the mention of Gaia Online is out of place -- I actually read the article on it just to figure out why it was mentioned. In any case I don't think it's needed: most people don't need an example of a large forum, and those who do should probably find some by a Google search or through the forums article.

I don't think there's anything wrong with "a great place for those who are new to conlanging", though. I see it as expressing the view that expertise is not seen as needed. There's a big difference between (say) a mathematics forums and a mathematics forum which is a good place for those new to methematics. Conceivably, Zompist.com could be open only to those with considerable experience; that is isn't is noteworthy. I wouldn't object to a rewording, if that was seen as necessary, but I think that the fact that the site is open to those without experience is noteworthy. --CRGreathouse 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm removing the link to the Polish pdf file. It isn't relevant to an article on English language website. It may be worth inlcuding the link on the Polish version of wikipedia, not not the English version.

Rhialto 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The website was discussed in Le Monde and it:Il Corriere della Sera ([1]), as well as at least one book I know of (although with an incorrect URL), for which I can dig the reference if you wish me to. I believe this is enough to fulfill criteria #1 of WP:WEB. Circeus 02:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article needs references. Right now, nothing passes WP:WEB or WP:V. --- RockMFR 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since others may find the newspaper mentions above difficult to find, here's the dates: March 8, 1998 in Corriere della Sera and February 21, 1998 in Le Monde. Both are articles on the site rather than blurbs or mentions in a list. Zompist 05:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, the LCK is also available in German besides the mentioned languages, here: [2] 87.168.228.40 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the AfD discussion for more information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (3rd nomination). There are some sources for Verdurian, but I believe it would fit better as a section of this article, as the sourcing is too weak for it to stand alone. Fences&Windows 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the point of the AfD if we're just going to ignore its result and replay the debate on a talk page? I didn't vote in the AfD (although I did vote in the previous one), but the AfD was meant to be the final means of settling the debate and now here we are going on as if it never happened. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the AfD was in fact redirect to Zompist.com. In my understanding, a redirect does not rule out a merge; Redirect from merge is a category, after all. Cnilep (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the AfD was actually no consensus, with Ron Ritzman boldly deciding to Redirect as non-admin closer. The no consensus was partly as I withdrew my nomination due to feeling that there were just enough reliable sources presented - and they need using in the article. Fences&Windows 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support merge. Verdurian language may or may not be notable, but either way it doesn't need its own article when it can be covered perfectly well as a subsection of this one. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge. Verdurian language is notable in and of itself as an example of a conlang. --TheLoneAmigo (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]