Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
You are under the misimpression that I don't like Klingon *because* it is a constructed language. Nowhere have I said that. I have given actual reasons, including its lack of speakers, lack of literature, lack of significance, lack of educational use.
Indeed, but none of those--nor even the lot of them at once--are reasons not to have a wiki. Though if it *is* because it is a constructed language as well, then I can see the argument.
On the other hand, if your argument *is* "Our language is consideredlinguistically unimportant, functionally nonexistent, and educationallyuseless. It is thus all the more imperative that we produce a dictionaryin it" that's not a problem.
I'm sorry, that's not my argument. That was intended to be an example of how neutral your original statement actually was, in response to the idea that it was some kind of killing blow.
Inclusion guidelines are not prejudice; if you are against any vetting ofsupposed languages at all, I think you are fighting a losing battle.
What? I have been for inclusion guidelines for constructed languages through this whole discussion.
Wiktionary is not for promotion of your pet project, so this is beginningto sound rather like the sort of argument I hear when I delete some kid'sprotologism on Wiktionary, of some high school band on Wikipedia ("The worlddoesn't know about it/us yet; that's why we need an article!").
I'm sorry, I have no special interest in Klingon.
In fact, it *is* important that our work support educational purposes, and it'snot unreasonable to demand that.
Of course it's not unreasonable. But demanding our work support educational purposes has nothing to do with the matter at hand--unless you mean our work support educational purposes _only_, which is a statement with much more far-reaching consequences than the mere rejection of Klingon.
*Muke!