The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-23. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete; default to keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The Conjugation Table: It seems really pointless to me. All verbs conjugate the same no matter whether it ends in "ar", "er", or "ir". Also, the conjugations are given in text above it.
Your thoughts?
I quite agree. I'm sure whoever put it there was well intentioned, but it gives the impression that lfn actually has three different classes of verbs and a full range of inflexions, which is, of course, not true. I removed it, but did separate the present/past/future sentences to make the simplicity more obvious.
I also removed the "our father" that seems to have been added by the same well-intentioned person. I don't think it is wise to compare lfn with esperanto or interlingua. It needs to stand on its own.
George Boeree
Why did you remove the our father?-- Jondel 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
In the context of Wikipedia, it did not seem appropriate to present the language in any one particular religion. In the LFN wiki, there are a number of translations of texts, Old Testament, New Testament, Buddhist Sutras.... Anyone is welcome to add more in any religious tradition.
George Boeree
I removed the suggestions for the Greek alphabet. Because they are merely suggestions, they do not belong in an "official" overview of LFN.
George Boeree
Shouldn't the Greek alphabet suggestions still appear in this article? It is, after all, an encyclopedia. As long as it is clearly marked as a suggestion, and does not seem to be "set in stone."
King Hajj
The section on pronunciation also contains some orthographic information (such as using k for c.) Should there be a seperate section for orthography? Or, perhaps, should the pronunciation section simply be retitled "Pronunciation and Orthography"? -- 24.23.48.248 09:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
30 seems unrealistically precise. Wouldn't < 100 be a better alternative? Besides, does anyone have a reference for the number of speakers? MrTroy 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If speakers refers to the number of people who speak (converse in) the language, then surely the number is close to zero. Encoding text into an auxlang with the help of dictionaries and grammar rules is considerably different from actually speaking a language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.48 ( talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the r is lightly trilled as in Spanish, i.e. /r/. However, in the samples ( [1], [2], [3]), the r is pronounced as . It's not trilled. Are the examples wrong, or is the article? MrTroy 09:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Do any of you guys think that LFN has enuf speakers to warrant a Wikipedia? Cameron Nedland 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
LFN has as much if not more support than Novial which was recently accepted for its own Wikipedia. The difference is that as a newly-created language LFN has more to prove and they (we) are content to take their time. Wikipedia's not going anywhere so there's no rush. Mithridates 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This article says the language is not copyrighted. I didn't even think a language could be copyrighted. Does anyone have a link which gives more information about this? Guyjohnston
I've been trying to make a new account at the non-Wikipedia LFN wiki for a few hours now, and I can't understand how to do so.
I click "Crea un conta o sinia per entra" and try to login, because that's my only choice. Then it says "use the form below to make a new account" and there is no form.
Page of reference: [4] Please help. Chuffable 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Schaefer - this article badly needs respectable secondary sources that prove this language's notability. Most importantly, there needs to be proof of past or present usage. A wiki and a mailing list by themselves are self-referential and thus not an acceptable proof of notability.
Don't get me wrong: This language is really nice - it is pleasant to read and easy to learn and understand. It is also surprisingly easy to read in Cyrillic - the author did a great job adapting a Romance-based language to the Cyrillic alphabet. Its flag is very nice, too.
But without proper references this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Please add references. Otherwise it should be deleted. Sorry. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please bring further deletion-related discussion on the deletion discussion page. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the article:
2 contradicts 1: casas 'houses' is pronounced "CA-sas", not "ca-SAS" as would follow from 1. The statement of stress should be corrected to reflect that it applies only to the base form of the word. Thnidu ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, Saizai removed the issue tags "notable", "primarysources", and "self-published" with the explanation that "claims of WP:NOT and WP:SPS were found to be wanting in the AfD." Please note that the AfD, in which the primary arguments for deletion centered on a lack of reliable third-party sources to established notability, closed without consensus. Until there is consensus that these issues have been resolved, the tags should remain. -- Schaefer ( talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the ISO people BEGIN with the application, then go to the sources and investigate them. They are professional linguists. Many requests are denied. You should really become more familiar with a topic before you take up a crusade. I suggest that people who are involved in the constructed languages community are far better equipped to judge the value of articles in that domain. I don't judge Schaefer's articles or Amir's (though I might note that the stub for his Latin teacher, peace be unto her, contains no references at all). This business of being an "immediatist and deletionist," as Schaefer proudly declares, seems a far more biased orientation than anything some of us well-meaning language people might have. This is remarkably frustrating to me. I am 56, I have a PhD, I have been teaching for 30 years (including psycholinguistics), my language project is intended to revitalize discussion of an international auxiliary language.... and yet a simple article is repeatedly attacked by authoritarian types with no visible credentials. In the meantime, wikipedia is filled to the brim with garage bands, obscure local footballers, and porn actresses. I you want to improve the image of wikipedia, why not start with those? Or is the prospect of being overwhelmed by ignorant masses of angry fans too frightening? I used to love wikipedia. Now, not so much. Cgboeree ( talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments are not directed at persons, but at their actions. See WP:NPA Cgboeree ( talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
First: I am removing the tags again. As I said in the edit comment, please do not re-add it unless something DEGRADES on those issues past the version as read by the AfD editors.
The AfD clearly showed consensus to keep. That it is listed otherwise is (AFAIK) because of Amir and/or Schaefer convincing a (fellow) admin to change the wording.
In any case, it was decided at that AfD. Unless something changes, or there was an issue with that AfD, that decision is final. If you don't like it, list it for DRV or re-AfD. But adding tags to an article claiming something that did NOT fly in the AfD is not acceptable, and I am willing to escalate this to Arbitration if necessary. If you revert this again, you will be breaking WP:3RR.
FWIW: I do not personally give a damn about Slovio or LFN. I don't personally like most auxlangs at all really. But I consider it notable and verifiable. I also consider notability as a requirement to be bullshit in full agreement with WP:NNOT, and I believe that primary sources are ABSOLUTELY acceptable for verification of simple FACTS about something (and not, perhaps, for things it would have reason to lie about).
As for what the language might be in the future, that is irrelevant. WP ain't a crystal ball, right? So when/if it happens, then we can add language to the article NPOV-describing the debate. (Just like, say, an article about French should discuss the efficacy of the attempts to regulate it, viz. 'balladeur' vs 'walkman'.)
This approach of deleting things instead of improving them, and otherwise tearing down the work of others, completely pisses me off.
Amir, you should not be deleting, nor otherwise acting as anything but just another editor, ANYTHING having to do with issues you have something to do with personally (like conlangs, about which you clearly have conflict of interest). If you do it again, I will file RfC for your admin powers to be removed. Please play nice. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I did indeed make many edits of the article. They have never been promotional. Rather, they have been small additions of npov information or attempts to make the page easier to read. If this is considered a breech of conflict-of-interest rules, I invite anyone to alter any edits they find offensive in that regard. Cgboeree ( talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the "interleaving." You guys have one hell of a lot of rules!
Here's what the tag now says:
This article or section has multiple issues:
My question: How do we address these issues?
I read more of your guidelines, and I can't see how the article contains original research. The article is an accurate report of something which exists; it contains no original research. Neither does it contain any unverifiable claims. Everything in the article is easily verified by looking at the sources. If someone could point to lines in the article that contain original research or unverifiable claims, we could certainly try to correct them. Please understand that I am not trying to be facetious! I genuinely want this to be a good article.
I assume that the person with the conflict of interest is me. I guess I would have been smart to let others work on the article. But I don't really understand how conflict of interest applies here. Conflict of interest only arises when the interest someone has in the topic of an article distorts the information. Again, if specific instances of conflict of interest could be pointed out, something could be done about them.
I am gratified that the issue of notability has been dropped for now, and I sure hope it doesn't come up again. I would point out to anyone involved in editing Wikipedia that we live in a very different world of information than we did in the days of (e.g.) the Encyclopedia Britannica. Less and less information is concrete and more and more is fluid. Wikipedia, in fact, is a part of this change. This is what makes the net so wonderfully revolutionary! The net is profoundly democratic (in the sense of "of the people"). So notability can indeed be judged by things like "lots of people are interested," rather than "some corporation published it."
If Wikipedia abandons its open, accepting nature, you might as well sell it to Microsoft.
Cgboeree ( talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (damn - I keep forgetting to log in first! old-timer's disease, I guess)
Notability for constructed languages is a difficult philosophical issue. If mailing lists, google hits and wikis are sufficient to establish notability, then any determined, fanatical individual can make his conlang "notable" merely by devoting a few months to maniacal online activity. Even a conlang that nobody is using could be made to appear notable by populating a mailing list with sockpuppets and making it look like a thriving community. We need an objective, verifiable list of criteria for notability. Evidence that people are routinely having spoken (or sign-language) conversations in the language. The existence of regularly scheduled radio broadcasts or podcasts over a period of ten years or more. The existence of substantial books written in the language about various topics. That sort of thing. Until we have objective verifiable criteria, notability of conlangs will be an endless and annoying debate! (Unsigned for Good Reasons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.48 ( talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion on the notability and verifiability of LFN. It is obvious that the conveniently anonymous comment is directed at LFN. Cgboeree ( talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: How does one up-grade the status from start-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgboeree ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I would try "being bold" (something mentioned a few times in all those tag rules) and delete the tags on the lfn article, until such time as someone can provide specifics. Cgboeree ( talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel like K in Kafka's The Castle. I give up. Cgboeree ( talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And a bit like K in "The Trial" as well. Thanks anyway, Sai. Cgboeree ( talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a point of curiosity: How does 9 "keeps" vs 2 "deletes" constitute no consensus? Especially when the "deletes" define themselves as deletionists? Cgboeree ( talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed two of the three tags because they do not appear relevant to this article at this time. The information is accurate, and there is no evidence of bias. Inasmuch as notability appears to still be a concern of some, I have left that tag. Agricolaplenus ( talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Thanks, Amir, for cleaning up the references. I removed the article on myself (though desperate for third party references!) because it is embarrassing and only mentions lfn briefly. Cgboeree ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
With the addition of an article by Richard Harrison in the new journal Invented Languages, we can safely remove the remaining tags on Lingua Franca Nova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.216.178 ( talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have some minor problems with the romanization (or should I be saying the page's sounds matching to the Greek letters?). For instance "B/β" sounds more like a "v" than a "b". Another thing is "Χ/χ" is on the board twice. I fixed the miniscule Hi and was not challenged about it, now I was wondering if I could be given permission to fix the table. Kostantino888Z ( talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Any universal or local meanings of the rainbow ? (I'm not from the States (where the language was invented, it seems) so I'm not sure if it's not some local cultural reference to it. 24.203.68.10 ( talk) 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is far too long. It almost contains the entire LFN reference grammar, and is currently about the longest entry on any language (let alone an auxlang - see e.g. the articles on Esperanto and Interlingua). If it were called "LFN grammar", ok, but this is supposed to be an article on the language, not a complete drill-down. I would therefore boldly suggest to do a major clean-up, and also add sections on comparing it to Esperanto and Interlingua (the most well-known and the most well-known Romance auxlang, respectively) and perhaps also to its major source languages, and have some "Reception" and/or "Critisism" section etc. Currently, the article is very unencyclopedic. Jalwikip ( talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article has been flagged because of my involvement in the development of the article. Although I did not write the original article, I have indeed contributed extensively to its development (as have others), in an effort to make it as informative as possible. For obvious reasons, I am very fond of LFN. However, I have tried to be as neutral in POV as possible. If anyone has any specifics that I might address, I welcome your comments. Thank you! Cgboeree ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In response to the remaining issues tags:
Would not only it be extremely hard for speakers of Portuguese and Catalan to never do vowel reduction (e.g. even though unstressed and not strongly nasalized [aN] isn't really hard, I can't naturally make my [ãN] not become about as raised as [ɜ̃N], be it English, Spanish, French or Japanese, especially in the case of the central or open vowel and if it is stressed)? IMO even Spanish speakers would think it to be extremely boring to use [e] instead of [i] in the case of the word e ("and") thoroughly.
Something you can't also expect from native speakers of said languages is to people not lenite voiced bilabial, dental and velar stops to fricatives or approximants in their respective positions (it is so natural, intuitive and imperceptible that Brazilians don't know they have it, even though I can easily hear that they do the bilabial and dental cases in unstressed position). Also you can't expect complete lack of palatalization of coda sibilants in Portugal, of dental stops in Brazil, and of both in Rio de Janeiro in a language they would admit as auxiliary and naturalistic rather than foreign (especially the last two ones, that palatalize English, Spanish...). I think it should be made clear if the phonology is tolerant to individual speech characteristics that come out of the speakers' native languages, or is it more dictative on the issue like Esperanto, especially if LFN's creator spoke about it. Lguipontes ( talk) 23:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is this language better than existing languages like, say, interlingua?
Can anyone add a paragraph or even a sentence to say why this was invented when Interlingua already existed? Or why someone would choose to learn LFN over Interlingua? Thanks. Great floors ( talk) 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a bad source for total speakers... DemonDays64 ( talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There has been great reluctance to set up Wikipedias for artificial languages other than Esperanto (a Toki Pona Wikipedia slipped through in the early days, but was then removed), so I'm curious how this particular language got its own Wikipedia... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-23. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete; default to keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The Conjugation Table: It seems really pointless to me. All verbs conjugate the same no matter whether it ends in "ar", "er", or "ir". Also, the conjugations are given in text above it.
Your thoughts?
I quite agree. I'm sure whoever put it there was well intentioned, but it gives the impression that lfn actually has three different classes of verbs and a full range of inflexions, which is, of course, not true. I removed it, but did separate the present/past/future sentences to make the simplicity more obvious.
I also removed the "our father" that seems to have been added by the same well-intentioned person. I don't think it is wise to compare lfn with esperanto or interlingua. It needs to stand on its own.
George Boeree
Why did you remove the our father?-- Jondel 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
In the context of Wikipedia, it did not seem appropriate to present the language in any one particular religion. In the LFN wiki, there are a number of translations of texts, Old Testament, New Testament, Buddhist Sutras.... Anyone is welcome to add more in any religious tradition.
George Boeree
I removed the suggestions for the Greek alphabet. Because they are merely suggestions, they do not belong in an "official" overview of LFN.
George Boeree
Shouldn't the Greek alphabet suggestions still appear in this article? It is, after all, an encyclopedia. As long as it is clearly marked as a suggestion, and does not seem to be "set in stone."
King Hajj
The section on pronunciation also contains some orthographic information (such as using k for c.) Should there be a seperate section for orthography? Or, perhaps, should the pronunciation section simply be retitled "Pronunciation and Orthography"? -- 24.23.48.248 09:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
30 seems unrealistically precise. Wouldn't < 100 be a better alternative? Besides, does anyone have a reference for the number of speakers? MrTroy 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If speakers refers to the number of people who speak (converse in) the language, then surely the number is close to zero. Encoding text into an auxlang with the help of dictionaries and grammar rules is considerably different from actually speaking a language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.48 ( talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the r is lightly trilled as in Spanish, i.e. /r/. However, in the samples ( [1], [2], [3]), the r is pronounced as . It's not trilled. Are the examples wrong, or is the article? MrTroy 09:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Do any of you guys think that LFN has enuf speakers to warrant a Wikipedia? Cameron Nedland 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
LFN has as much if not more support than Novial which was recently accepted for its own Wikipedia. The difference is that as a newly-created language LFN has more to prove and they (we) are content to take their time. Wikipedia's not going anywhere so there's no rush. Mithridates 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This article says the language is not copyrighted. I didn't even think a language could be copyrighted. Does anyone have a link which gives more information about this? Guyjohnston
I've been trying to make a new account at the non-Wikipedia LFN wiki for a few hours now, and I can't understand how to do so.
I click "Crea un conta o sinia per entra" and try to login, because that's my only choice. Then it says "use the form below to make a new account" and there is no form.
Page of reference: [4] Please help. Chuffable 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Schaefer - this article badly needs respectable secondary sources that prove this language's notability. Most importantly, there needs to be proof of past or present usage. A wiki and a mailing list by themselves are self-referential and thus not an acceptable proof of notability.
Don't get me wrong: This language is really nice - it is pleasant to read and easy to learn and understand. It is also surprisingly easy to read in Cyrillic - the author did a great job adapting a Romance-based language to the Cyrillic alphabet. Its flag is very nice, too.
But without proper references this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Please add references. Otherwise it should be deleted. Sorry. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please bring further deletion-related discussion on the deletion discussion page. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the article:
2 contradicts 1: casas 'houses' is pronounced "CA-sas", not "ca-SAS" as would follow from 1. The statement of stress should be corrected to reflect that it applies only to the base form of the word. Thnidu ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, Saizai removed the issue tags "notable", "primarysources", and "self-published" with the explanation that "claims of WP:NOT and WP:SPS were found to be wanting in the AfD." Please note that the AfD, in which the primary arguments for deletion centered on a lack of reliable third-party sources to established notability, closed without consensus. Until there is consensus that these issues have been resolved, the tags should remain. -- Schaefer ( talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the ISO people BEGIN with the application, then go to the sources and investigate them. They are professional linguists. Many requests are denied. You should really become more familiar with a topic before you take up a crusade. I suggest that people who are involved in the constructed languages community are far better equipped to judge the value of articles in that domain. I don't judge Schaefer's articles or Amir's (though I might note that the stub for his Latin teacher, peace be unto her, contains no references at all). This business of being an "immediatist and deletionist," as Schaefer proudly declares, seems a far more biased orientation than anything some of us well-meaning language people might have. This is remarkably frustrating to me. I am 56, I have a PhD, I have been teaching for 30 years (including psycholinguistics), my language project is intended to revitalize discussion of an international auxiliary language.... and yet a simple article is repeatedly attacked by authoritarian types with no visible credentials. In the meantime, wikipedia is filled to the brim with garage bands, obscure local footballers, and porn actresses. I you want to improve the image of wikipedia, why not start with those? Or is the prospect of being overwhelmed by ignorant masses of angry fans too frightening? I used to love wikipedia. Now, not so much. Cgboeree ( talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments are not directed at persons, but at their actions. See WP:NPA Cgboeree ( talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
First: I am removing the tags again. As I said in the edit comment, please do not re-add it unless something DEGRADES on those issues past the version as read by the AfD editors.
The AfD clearly showed consensus to keep. That it is listed otherwise is (AFAIK) because of Amir and/or Schaefer convincing a (fellow) admin to change the wording.
In any case, it was decided at that AfD. Unless something changes, or there was an issue with that AfD, that decision is final. If you don't like it, list it for DRV or re-AfD. But adding tags to an article claiming something that did NOT fly in the AfD is not acceptable, and I am willing to escalate this to Arbitration if necessary. If you revert this again, you will be breaking WP:3RR.
FWIW: I do not personally give a damn about Slovio or LFN. I don't personally like most auxlangs at all really. But I consider it notable and verifiable. I also consider notability as a requirement to be bullshit in full agreement with WP:NNOT, and I believe that primary sources are ABSOLUTELY acceptable for verification of simple FACTS about something (and not, perhaps, for things it would have reason to lie about).
As for what the language might be in the future, that is irrelevant. WP ain't a crystal ball, right? So when/if it happens, then we can add language to the article NPOV-describing the debate. (Just like, say, an article about French should discuss the efficacy of the attempts to regulate it, viz. 'balladeur' vs 'walkman'.)
This approach of deleting things instead of improving them, and otherwise tearing down the work of others, completely pisses me off.
Amir, you should not be deleting, nor otherwise acting as anything but just another editor, ANYTHING having to do with issues you have something to do with personally (like conlangs, about which you clearly have conflict of interest). If you do it again, I will file RfC for your admin powers to be removed. Please play nice. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I did indeed make many edits of the article. They have never been promotional. Rather, they have been small additions of npov information or attempts to make the page easier to read. If this is considered a breech of conflict-of-interest rules, I invite anyone to alter any edits they find offensive in that regard. Cgboeree ( talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the "interleaving." You guys have one hell of a lot of rules!
Here's what the tag now says:
This article or section has multiple issues:
My question: How do we address these issues?
I read more of your guidelines, and I can't see how the article contains original research. The article is an accurate report of something which exists; it contains no original research. Neither does it contain any unverifiable claims. Everything in the article is easily verified by looking at the sources. If someone could point to lines in the article that contain original research or unverifiable claims, we could certainly try to correct them. Please understand that I am not trying to be facetious! I genuinely want this to be a good article.
I assume that the person with the conflict of interest is me. I guess I would have been smart to let others work on the article. But I don't really understand how conflict of interest applies here. Conflict of interest only arises when the interest someone has in the topic of an article distorts the information. Again, if specific instances of conflict of interest could be pointed out, something could be done about them.
I am gratified that the issue of notability has been dropped for now, and I sure hope it doesn't come up again. I would point out to anyone involved in editing Wikipedia that we live in a very different world of information than we did in the days of (e.g.) the Encyclopedia Britannica. Less and less information is concrete and more and more is fluid. Wikipedia, in fact, is a part of this change. This is what makes the net so wonderfully revolutionary! The net is profoundly democratic (in the sense of "of the people"). So notability can indeed be judged by things like "lots of people are interested," rather than "some corporation published it."
If Wikipedia abandons its open, accepting nature, you might as well sell it to Microsoft.
Cgboeree ( talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (damn - I keep forgetting to log in first! old-timer's disease, I guess)
Notability for constructed languages is a difficult philosophical issue. If mailing lists, google hits and wikis are sufficient to establish notability, then any determined, fanatical individual can make his conlang "notable" merely by devoting a few months to maniacal online activity. Even a conlang that nobody is using could be made to appear notable by populating a mailing list with sockpuppets and making it look like a thriving community. We need an objective, verifiable list of criteria for notability. Evidence that people are routinely having spoken (or sign-language) conversations in the language. The existence of regularly scheduled radio broadcasts or podcasts over a period of ten years or more. The existence of substantial books written in the language about various topics. That sort of thing. Until we have objective verifiable criteria, notability of conlangs will be an endless and annoying debate! (Unsigned for Good Reasons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.48 ( talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion on the notability and verifiability of LFN. It is obvious that the conveniently anonymous comment is directed at LFN. Cgboeree ( talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: How does one up-grade the status from start-class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgboeree ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I would try "being bold" (something mentioned a few times in all those tag rules) and delete the tags on the lfn article, until such time as someone can provide specifics. Cgboeree ( talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel like K in Kafka's The Castle. I give up. Cgboeree ( talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And a bit like K in "The Trial" as well. Thanks anyway, Sai. Cgboeree ( talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a point of curiosity: How does 9 "keeps" vs 2 "deletes" constitute no consensus? Especially when the "deletes" define themselves as deletionists? Cgboeree ( talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed two of the three tags because they do not appear relevant to this article at this time. The information is accurate, and there is no evidence of bias. Inasmuch as notability appears to still be a concern of some, I have left that tag. Agricolaplenus ( talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Thanks, Amir, for cleaning up the references. I removed the article on myself (though desperate for third party references!) because it is embarrassing and only mentions lfn briefly. Cgboeree ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
With the addition of an article by Richard Harrison in the new journal Invented Languages, we can safely remove the remaining tags on Lingua Franca Nova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.216.178 ( talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have some minor problems with the romanization (or should I be saying the page's sounds matching to the Greek letters?). For instance "B/β" sounds more like a "v" than a "b". Another thing is "Χ/χ" is on the board twice. I fixed the miniscule Hi and was not challenged about it, now I was wondering if I could be given permission to fix the table. Kostantino888Z ( talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Any universal or local meanings of the rainbow ? (I'm not from the States (where the language was invented, it seems) so I'm not sure if it's not some local cultural reference to it. 24.203.68.10 ( talk) 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is far too long. It almost contains the entire LFN reference grammar, and is currently about the longest entry on any language (let alone an auxlang - see e.g. the articles on Esperanto and Interlingua). If it were called "LFN grammar", ok, but this is supposed to be an article on the language, not a complete drill-down. I would therefore boldly suggest to do a major clean-up, and also add sections on comparing it to Esperanto and Interlingua (the most well-known and the most well-known Romance auxlang, respectively) and perhaps also to its major source languages, and have some "Reception" and/or "Critisism" section etc. Currently, the article is very unencyclopedic. Jalwikip ( talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article has been flagged because of my involvement in the development of the article. Although I did not write the original article, I have indeed contributed extensively to its development (as have others), in an effort to make it as informative as possible. For obvious reasons, I am very fond of LFN. However, I have tried to be as neutral in POV as possible. If anyone has any specifics that I might address, I welcome your comments. Thank you! Cgboeree ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In response to the remaining issues tags:
Would not only it be extremely hard for speakers of Portuguese and Catalan to never do vowel reduction (e.g. even though unstressed and not strongly nasalized [aN] isn't really hard, I can't naturally make my [ãN] not become about as raised as [ɜ̃N], be it English, Spanish, French or Japanese, especially in the case of the central or open vowel and if it is stressed)? IMO even Spanish speakers would think it to be extremely boring to use [e] instead of [i] in the case of the word e ("and") thoroughly.
Something you can't also expect from native speakers of said languages is to people not lenite voiced bilabial, dental and velar stops to fricatives or approximants in their respective positions (it is so natural, intuitive and imperceptible that Brazilians don't know they have it, even though I can easily hear that they do the bilabial and dental cases in unstressed position). Also you can't expect complete lack of palatalization of coda sibilants in Portugal, of dental stops in Brazil, and of both in Rio de Janeiro in a language they would admit as auxiliary and naturalistic rather than foreign (especially the last two ones, that palatalize English, Spanish...). I think it should be made clear if the phonology is tolerant to individual speech characteristics that come out of the speakers' native languages, or is it more dictative on the issue like Esperanto, especially if LFN's creator spoke about it. Lguipontes ( talk) 23:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is this language better than existing languages like, say, interlingua?
Can anyone add a paragraph or even a sentence to say why this was invented when Interlingua already existed? Or why someone would choose to learn LFN over Interlingua? Thanks. Great floors ( talk) 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a bad source for total speakers... DemonDays64 ( talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There has been great reluctance to set up Wikipedias for artificial languages other than Esperanto (a Toki Pona Wikipedia slipped through in the early days, but was then removed), so I'm curious how this particular language got its own Wikipedia... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)