Talk:Fictional language

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

(Moved to Talk:Artistic language)

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

Futurama Alien language 1

Not really a language as such, just a substitution cipher... AnonMoos (talk)

Agreed. Switched to Klingon. APL (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this article's erstwhile list

I have deleted the list of fictional languages this article used to have since it duplicated the purpose of List_of_constructed_languages#Artistic.2Ffictional_languages. The information is preserved, though; I have added all of the entries from this list to that one. (Should've made my edit summary clearer.) 4pq1injbok (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. CFD Category:Language_creators —Sai ¿?✍ 14:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fictional language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422160405/http://www.matessa.org/~mike/inter-comm.html to http://www.matessa.org/~mike/inter-comm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"group involvement" and native speakers

Typically they are the creation of one individual, while natural languages evolve out of a particular culture or people group, and other conlangs may have group involvement.

The phrasing here is kinda weird, is this implying that other conlangs may be created by a group but not fictional langs? This sentence seems to be trying to do two things at the same time: compare fictional langs to other conlangs, and compare conlangs (in general) to natlangs, which is confusing.

Fictional languages are also distinct from natural languages in that they have no native speakers.[1] By contrast, the constructed language of Esperanto now has native speakers.

The first part here seems like it's just copied from something describing conlangs in general, while the comparison with Esperanto implies that fictional langs specifically have no native speakers while other conlangs can have them. As far as I know, just like with Esperanto there was also a case of a native speaker of Klingon (a fictional language).

I think neither
a) whether they are created by an individual or a group, nor
b) whether they may have native speakers
distinguishes fictional langs from other types of conlangs, these traits are not relevant to the distinction. Both of these seem like they were taken out of context and originate from a text comparing conlangs to natlangs. The article should more clearly separate descriptions of what a conlang is in general (compared to natlangs) from descriptions of what a fictional language specifically is (compared to other conlangs). Tajoshu (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]