Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Lingua Slovio" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 12:
::Easy PC, it was just a question (that you'll notice I asked ''after'' I cleaned up this page). We have often deleted a page not because en: did, but because we didn't like self promotion. I don't care one way or another about Slovio, but I figured someone else might. --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 06:00, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
:::"English Wikipedia's 'standards' are totally irrational and we should not feel bound to follow them." Yes, yes! I'm for retaining this article on the basis of Gabriel's and Mucius's citations. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 08:50, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to address this issue with a few remarks. When it comes to the deletion debate at wp.en, I have to admit that I was wrong and that Amir was right. In his nomination, Amir made a few interesting observations: in spite of the huge number of Google hits, except for numerous references on blogs and in fora, virtually all references to the perceived notability of Slovio could be traced back to Mark Hučko himself. He was right about that. All I can say now is that Mark Hučko has successfully managed to make many people (including myself) believe that his project is notable. Now I know that most of what is written on the Slovio main page should be taken with a huge grain of salt: all these so-called "Slovio-klubis" all around the world, the fan mail (most of it quite obviously written by the same person), the false suggestion that numerous companies are using Slovio, the "World Slavic Congress" that has proclaimed Slovio the one and only language for inter-Slavic communication, etc. That goes also for the assumption that Slovio would have a huge community of speakers. If you look at the Slovio forum and the Slovio mailing list, you will quickly find out that Slovio's "community of speakers" is in fact very tiny: three, four, possibly five people, plus a few interested bystanders. In the years 2002-2005 there may have been a few more, but nothing even remotely close to the hundred or more claimed by Hučko c.s.<br>Secondly, the number of Google hits in itself is not a criterium for notability. Especially in this case: Slovio has articles in many wikipedia editions and these have a way of multiplying themselves. Besides, "slovio" is also a word in Serbian/Croatian, which makes the result even less reliable. As for the "active forum": well, Gabriel, I have to disagree with you here. About 75% of all threads on this forum are about you, me and/or Slovianski; Slovio is rarely used (except by one person) and rarely discussed. If this forum can be the measure of anybody's notability at all, then it's certainly not Slovio's.<br>
In terms of Wikipedia criteria, notability is defined by reliable, independent, third-party sources. From that point of view you can't say that Slovianski is a much less notable conlang than Slovio. It used to be, obviously, but things have changed in the meantime. Just look at [http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/press.html this] for a list of Slovianski references. Slovio has a few references as well, of course, but to a much smaller degree. Now, I have always argued that you can't expect a constructed language to get the same kind of media attention as, say, a pop group, and therefore I still believe Slovio would meet the inclusion criteria. Muke's first link to a book found on Google books doesn't really count, IMO, because it really only mentions Slovio as the name of a website where Jan Herkel' is mentioned. But Tilman Berger's [http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/tilman.berger/Publikationen/BergerPlansprachen.pdf ''Vom Erfinden Slavischer Sprachen''] certainly does. Besides, worth mentioning are the following two links:
* [http://www.ahistoria.pl/index.php/2010/03/jezyk-ktory-maja-zrozumiec-wszyscy-slowianie/ Ziemowit Szczerek, ''Języki, które mają zrozumieć wszyscy Słowianie''] (Ahistoria.pl, February 2010)
* [http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/tilman.berger/Publikationen/BergerPotemkin.pdf Tilman Berger, ''Potemkin im Netz. Slovio und die Pseudo-Panslawen''] (this one is especially interesting, because it's an article in an absolutely reliable source dedicated exclusively to Slovio, but it simultaneously questions the notability of its subject)
A few things, however, need to be rectified:
* ''It's further notable for being the first Slavic interlingua and therefore inspiring others like Slovianski.''<br>It is not true that Slovio is the first Slavic-based auxlang. See [http://steen.free.fr.slovianski/constructed_slavic_languages.html this list]. Also, I can assure you that Slovio was no inspiration for Slovianski at all. Just try to find a single reference that proves contrary - you'll find that nobody but Hucko c.s. has ever said that.
* ''Surely it's more worthy that a private fictional project like Lingua Venedica''<br>Depends how you define "worthy". Slovio is a private one-man auxlang project, Wenedyk is a private one-man artlang project. Both have inspired other languages, both have generated some media attention. If you mean "worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia", then it's obvious that objective, reliable, third-party sources are the thing that matter here. And like I said, I believe Slovio has enough of these to warrant inclusion. But I also believe we need to be careful about the content, because several of the other Slovio articles in wikipedia are too much based on Slovio propaganda and contain wrong information.
* Also, the comparison between Slovio and Interlingua isn't a fortunate one. Slovio uses Slavic words, but its grammar is completely synthetic, and has more in common with Esperanto than with Interlingua.
* ''"[...] quae a glottologo Marco Hucka anno 1999 proposita est"''<br>Mark Hucko is nót a linguist. That fact is even referenced to in "Potemkin im Netz", as well as in an article in the Slovak magazine "Život" (from 2005, IIRC).
Regards, [[Usor:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 20:41, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
| |||