A klingon wikipedia? isn't that from starwars? i don't think thats a real language... what's the point?
-Kit Langton
On May 18, 2004, at 9:40 PM, Timwi wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
I added Toki Pona since it was asked for several times without objections that I noticed,
Klingon was asked for several times. I don't notice enough objection to a Klingon Wikipedia (much less any arguments that actually make sense) to justify forbidding it. Obviously, there is more objection now because we're talking about it. Toki Pona was never mentioned anywhere before it came into existance, so obviously there was no objection.
Additionally, to have a Klingon Wikipedia doesn't do any harm. It doesn't force anyone to contribute. Most people who "oppose" the Klingon Wikipedia are merely providing arguments for not contributing to it. The only arguments that actually oppose the introduction of a Klingon Wikipedia are (a) copyright problems (which we've established numerous times isn't an issue) and (b) reputation problems (which is a really dumb argument for keeping Toki Pona).
So, we've put off any further 'young conlang' additions to the main Wikipedia project pending more conclusive resolution.
This is unsatisfactory. This is like saying Toki Pona got lucky because it was there first. I think that's an extremely lame excuse for keeping Toki Pona while disallowing Klingon.
Additionally, what is your definition of a "young" conlang? I'm pretty sure that Klingon is at lesat five times as old as Toki Pona.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l