Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Lingua Slovio" differant
Content deleted Content added
m →deletion at en: ~ |
|||
Linea 19:
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
* ''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.
Linea 28:
:I agree that it does merit a Wikipedia page, if only just. The character of Mark Hucko should be irrelevant (Gothic Chess has an article, even though Ed Trice is at least as bad as you say Hucko is). Hopefully we don't make such a big deal of 'reliable sources' as English does, though.
:I don't believe I've included anything here that could be thought of as propaganda, and surely here it will stay neutral. I suppose Slovianski can also have an article, if anyone cares to write it. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 04:28, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
::The link should work now; I made a typo in the url.
::As for reliable sources, I'm not entirely in agreement with myself. I think the criteria used at wp.en are basically okay, but the bad thing is that in problematic cases an article should be given the benefit of the doubt, while in reality it's mostly up to the closing moderator. Wikipedia is an international project, so if a subject is notable in f.ex. Poland, that means it's notable in other editions by definition, too, but what makes things harder is that the Polish edition can use different criteria or have diferent ways of applying the same criteria. Sometimes I get the impression that wp.en is so choked with articles already, that lots of people can't think of anything better to do than sticking tags on existing articles, submitting them for deletion etc.
::As for the definition of a linguist... Well, I'm surprised by the MWCD definition, because it would mean that about 80% of the entire population of the Netherlands would be linguists! In that case I'd like to know the definition of a psychologist: a person who has a certain understanding of the human mind? Whatever be the case, if you write in an article that somebody is a linguist, this will make it appear that the person in question either has a degree in linguistics, or works as a linguist professionally. Nobody really knows what kind of job it is Hučko's doing, but whatever his education is, it's certainly not linguistics. [[Usor:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] 10:26, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
| |||