Re: ceqli

Garth:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:50:39 -0600, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@...>
wrote:
> >
> >>I just wrote a "Ceqli language" article for Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > Why not provide a link to it -
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceqli_language - so that the
> > lazy-but-interested can simply click it?
> >
> > Also, I see it's already been listed on "Votes for deletion" less than
> > 26 hours after it was first created. (
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/temp#Ceqli_language_.26mdash.3B_Add_to_this_discussion
> > or http://xrl.us/ceqliwpvfd )
>
> Yeah, Wikipedia really isn't the place for stuff like that. Unless a
> conlang develops a community of speakers, or is used in a published work
> of fiction, or makes some sort of impact beyond simply existing that
> would make it an encyclopedic topic, it really doesn't belong on
> Wikipedia. Some editors are quick to put anything that looks like a
> vanity article on VfD.
My first reaction on seeing Philip's mention of the VfD status was
annoyance at encountering yet another instance of the insufferable
and ignorant disdain with which conlangs are widely treated. (I'm
deeply shocked to discover -- if I understand correctly -- that
it was placed on VfD by Tristan, a member of our own community!
There's a slang expression that escapes my recollection, that
means "to be a homophobic homosexual", a conlang analogue of which
I am reminded of here.) It seems entirely likely and reasonable that
somebody with an interest in invented languages should look them up
in an encyclopedia. The only objectionable thing I can find in the
article is its punctuation (or perhaps I should say "it's
punctuation"). As for Garth's explanation, Ceqli itself is a
published work, so its use in a published work of fiction should
not be criterial, and Ceqli does have a small community of
supporters; the spokenness of a language is not a necessary
condition for its being of interest.

I've added some remarks to this effect to the VfD page.

--And.

Replies