Talk:List of loglangs and quasi-loglangs
I think we should (eventually) put the info on languages in a big table, in one section. The table would include one or more columns for characteristics. Then in another section, we could create another table of the characteristics, and then list the languages that have that characteristic simply by name, in other words a reverse mapping.
I have too many nitpicks to list here, but I'll mention one. I am not sure that "Loglandic" and "Loglan-influenced" groupings are too useful. In one sense, nearly all of these languages have some kind of influence from Loglan, either directly or through Lojban. In another sense, only Lojban was crazy enough to maintain such a complicated (but undeniably signature) system for forming base words, compounds and borrowings, making the two LoCCans a rather small closed family.
I don't think that table would be of much use. We'd quickly run out of space — either for the characteristics or for the subject loglangs.
I agree that, on second thoughts, the ‘Loglandic’ category doesn't much sense. On the other hand, there's no useful way of grouping loglangs in such a way that ever bundles more than two together. (Loglan & Lojban, Gua\spi & Toaq, Xorban & X-1, ?). But if all we get by keeping the current categorization is a false sense of familiarity, then yes, I'd break it up into finer pieces.