Archive/Featured Conlang/June Votings

I appreciate anything used to further improve my conlang(s). I have two questions. 1: What sections of the Quai'op page, for example, does Pacardian lack and need most? 2: In last month's voting, those who voted con for Chathan didn't criticize the lack of features, though the two articles have pretty much the same content. Is it more essential for a Romance language like Pacardian to have things like phrase building than a Germanic language like Chathan? --Isaac Bonewits 21:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pacardian
 * Con: After careful analasys, I have concluded that the Pacardian page is two-thirds just plain old dictionary with only word meanings. Use Contionary :) So for Pacardian I vote Con, sorry :( Your language is the least completed, while Quai'op is the most completed.Rostov-na-don 20:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Con: I agree with Rostov, it simply isn't complete enough. There are only conjuguation tables and vocabulary, pretty much nothing about how to build phrases, which is a very important part. ANT1INSECT 23:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Quai'op
 * Pro: The most intriguing thing was evidentiality (After careful analasys I have concluded that the soup is hot xD ) You have quite a few ways to express something, y'know? So, for Quai'op, I vote Pro :) I only have complaints about the staggering amount of things, but it's exotic, and has a balance, so it's plausible.Rostov-na-don 20:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro: I find that this conlang is very unique, and very nicely thought up. Visually, it is great. Even if it lacks vocabulary, I think it has something going for it, and it derserves to be featured. ANT1INSECT 23:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, he can use the Contionary :) Rostov-na-don 11:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Got a dictionary, too lazy to copy it onto contionary. I will though... Soon.—Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:59, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro: The language is somewhat strange, the page needs some more work, but there is something in it that makes me like it. Also, seems to be the most complete of the candidate languages. Panglossa | Talk 14:26, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro: Nicely done and very unique. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:08, June 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Zazt
 * I'll leave Zazt neutral, as it is in the middle Rostov-na-don 12:11, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro: For the same reason that I nominated Zazt, I'll vote it "pro". By the way, the creator of Zazt is NOT me (it's Oraton), therefore even though I nominated it it's not a self vote. ANT1INSECT 23:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is not a self vote The Emperor Zelos 18:02, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, true Rostov-na-don 11:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I recomend you wait before voting so we got more than 1
 * Kti
 * Con: The language is OK, but (no need to say) the page doesn't meet minimum requirements.Panglossa | Talk 15:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems like their hasn't been a vote on this for a long while. It's about time to switch Quai'op with something like Chathan.