Talk:Talossan language

Untitled
Well this sure beats List of things beginning with Q. User:Wetman.

VfD

 * Delete. A stub about the fictional language of a fictional place. RickK 02:33, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * That's a very popular and famous conlang. It's spoken for a large micronation, with many members who create words for it. Talossan is perhaps best known for having probably the largest vocabulary of any non-auxiliary conlang -- well over 10,000 words, perhaps 15,000 if I remember correctly, all based on Romance language word roots. It's well-respected and aspired to across the conlang community for its large vocabulary, and is probably also the best-known example of the micronational language genre of conlang. Keep. Wiwaxia 02:43, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this information (including the fact that it's a conlang, which isn't even mentioned) could be added to the article? RickK 02:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Done -- Stephen Gilbert
 * Delete. Only 2,130 hits on Google, barely even shows up on the net.  Daniel Quinlan 02:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * Put down your crack pipe. 2,130 hits on google->Keep.  dave 08:09, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) - agree Andre Engels 12:31, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Del. --Wik 04:05, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * I've bumped into this numerous times over my web-surfing years. It's a real and prominent artificial language, probably more so than Toki Pona.  No reason to delete. -- VV 05:49, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because a language has few speakers doesn't make it insignificant. Kricxjo 23:30, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've heard of it before; it likely has as many speakers as other minor constructed languages. But please, no longer historic sagas for the so-called micronation... -- Stephen Gilbert 00:04, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Three votes to seven so I've taken this off VfD. Angela 00:24, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

On 31 Jan 2005, this article was again nominated for deletion. The result was ambiguous. See Votes for deletion/Talossan language for a record of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
It's a bit late now, but I just realized that in that vote I cast in November I confused Talossan with Taneraic. V V 07:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link
A bot on the Dutch Wikipedia just came to the conclusion that the first of the links, http://my.execpc.com/~talossa/glhetg.html, is dead. Is that a temporary thing or should it be removed from the article? &mdash;IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij  22:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan, I think it’s permanent — Shm Jay, who is also a Talossan.


 * I have removed that link as it will never links to a page in the future since its editor, BEn Madison, has (hopefuly) cut his links with Talossa. --Elistir 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Using What to do when a reference link "goes dead" as guidance, I replaced the dead link with a link to an archived version. Also, since Wikipedia apparently frowns on links to message boards, I replaced both forum links with links to each Talossa's language reference page. PubliusFL 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research
the article does not cite any independent sources that confirm the notability of the langauge and correctness of info about it. An article with sources only from language developers/fans is qualified as original research. `'mikka (t) 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, imho the article should be deleted after all. Especially as it shows no sign of improving. It can always be recreated with proper references. dab (&#5839;) 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Would this link help..?
I guess it counts as an independent source?


 * It certainly does. Thank you for that! &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a list of artificial languages composed by a real academic, Dr Richard Kennaway of the University of East Anglia. Richard Kennayay's Constructed Language List It looks like the page was last updated in 1997, so the links are not all correct, but the information looks spot on.--Wyattt 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the list is just that - a list. And most of the entries on that list are clearly not notable.  The article as it stands does assert notability, and the Wired article substantiates the key elements of the article.  But it'd be nice to have another reliable source cited. PubliusFL 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger into Talossa
See Talk:Talossa. PubliusFL 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (I edited the above to redirect to the right section of the talk page) - Aagtbdfoua 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section Not NPOV
Talossan counterarguments heavily needed. F.ex.: "The use of too many unnecessary accents and letter combinations." Being a Swede used to lots of funny accents, I would say that if Talossan has an improper number of accents, the number is too few, not too many. (Säm cöłd bë säd ab8t Ëŋliſ, if anywun gäv it a propʀ þåt!) If they seem to be unreasonable, there's certainly some etymological reasons for their existence. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno, the rest of the article isn't very NPOV, particularly the following paragraph: Talossan is one of the best-known artistic languages on the Internet. It garners perennial interest and respect from online conlangers and conlang aficionados. Of particular interest to them is its large vocabulary -- with over 28,000 words in its official dictionary, it is one of the most detailed fictional languages ever invented. Dewrad 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say let's move the NPOV marker so that it refers to the entire article. Saying that Talossan is very naturalistic doesn't seem very neutral to me (I also disagree strongly, as it doesn't strike me as a bit naturalistic), and I feel reluctant to calling it a Gallo-Romance language, I'd rather say that it is *inspired* by such languages, or designed to give a Gallo-Romance feel, as the words are just made up at random without any historical logic connecting it to this family. To be honest I wouldn't even want to call it a true a posteriori language either, but that's just me. Aszev 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "as the words are just made up at random without any historical logic connecting it to this family." This is not, in fact, true.  A set of rules for incorporating new words derives them according to their source language barring incumbent Talossan examples.  I do agree that the article is not very NPOV, in all honesty; it is in need of a linguistics expert, perhaps, to determine its language family and naturalism?--Agbdavis (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * -Quote: "has served to remedy" is an absolute statement. Is there irrefutable proof that this is true? A more neutral approach might be to take example from the previous bullet by stating that someone asserts that the Arestada "has served to remedy" that problem.
 * -Also understand that neither bullet cites sources, nor are any persons referenced who have made such assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.95.118 (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Arestada
I just added the post-arestada translation of the Shelley poem, along with a tidbit about the fact that the arestada happened-Aashalom (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

El Grishun
I added the flag of the language to the page. Aashalom (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Is that the flag of the language or just the CÚG? 82.37.28.137 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Added; the table of Romance languages
Aashalom (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange vs Unusual
strange letter combinations Perhaps 'strange' should be changed to 'unusual' or 'unorthodox'? EoinMahon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)