Talk:Pan-Slavic language

Translations

Could someone translate the examples in this article? Thank you Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Fiat Lingua

@S Marshall:, regarding this edit: since I am the author of the article in question, I will not revert, but let me please point out that you have clearly misunderstood the nature of Fiat Lingua: the sentence you quoted ("we will accept anything conlang-related") simply refers to its scope. It does not change the fact that it is a peer-reviewed journal ("All articles are subject to editing and review."]). My article was reviewed by David J. Peterson (the editor-in-chief), prof. Jessie Sams and a third person whose name I can't remember at the moment. In addition, the article contains no less than 142 references, so that practically every statement comes with evidence.

For the rest, I agree with you with regard to editorialising. The way Slovio has been propagated by its author is utterly untruthful, but that does not mean that it doesn't have its merits: it is quite a complete and workable language, it has been subject to various academic research, it was the first Slavic-based conlang that had anything like a following (ca. 15 users is still more than most other auxlangs can boast), and it plays a significant role in the early beginnings of Interslavic. It definitely deserves an adequate and neutral description, which would include these facts, but also mention the political aspect and the propaganda. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

'by 2021 its user community had grown to over 15,000 people'

That's a very clever way of suggesting that there are 15 000 people who actually use it, as opposed to 15 000 people who liked its Facebook page or whatever.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Pan-Slavic language → Pan-Slavic languages – There is no single language under this name. It is rather a category of languages, such as Slavic languages, Germanic languages, etc., which titles we always pluralize. --Altenmann >talk 05:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)} — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are also several international auxiliary languages (Esperanto, Volapük, etc.), but the article title is still singular. Zacwill (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Singular is misleading in this context, enough to override WP:SINGULAR. Many Wikipedia articles are named "X languages". Jruderman (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unlike Slavic languages, etc. Rather like international auxiliary language. Do we have to pluralize the latter because there is more than one? If international auxiliary language isn't a categor, why is this? Srnec (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. I tend to agree with Zacwill and Srnec that this is more like an international auxiliary language. In fact, naming this in the plural might breed confusion by suggesting it is a language family like Slavic languages, Germanic languages, etc. At best there is a weak argument for WP:PLURAL but on balance I find the effect is not an improvement. To the extent the status is confusing, I would suggest editing the lead to make it clear what these languages are rather than change the title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.