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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l