On Jan 30, 2008 12:24 PM, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> As for Wikipedia: it is useful to many (not particularly to me); but it is
> not The Authority and indeed is prone to mistakes and partisanship. I fail
> to see why they're being so snippy about an article on Conlanging, which is
> certainly a hobby/pastime/art/whatever that has been pursued in interesting
> ways by a few known people in the past, and-- thanks especially I guess to
.......
> No need to mention specific conlangs/conlangers. But there should be links
> to the various compendia-- Langmaker springs to mind, but it's hardly a
I don't think there's ever been any serious proposal to delete the main
article on "Constructed language" or the more specialized articles on
different kinds of conlang (though there has been discussion about
splitting or merging or renaming them in various ways; for instance
there used to be a "Philosophical language" article which became
a section in an "Engineered language" article). The debates are mostly
about deleting or keeping articles on conlangs which are well-known
within the conlang community but unknown outside of it.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm