[Wiktionary-l] Klingon Wiktionary closed

[Oldak Quill]

On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl <n9502784 at students.meduniwien.ac.at> wrote:
> What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's mission do serve then Esperanto,
> Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
> You might want to lock all invented languages then.
> The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a
> reason for closing that wikt.
> Please have a look at the statements here
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
>
> The reason to reopen it is:
> It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries
> of that kind.
> Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this
> wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented
> languages sites not closed.
>
> Thanks,
> best regards,
> Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
>
> Brion Vibber escribió:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
> > the Klingon-language Wiktionary, http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
> >
> > As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such a
> > site (it would have been automatically created alongside the Klingon
> > Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was closed.
> > As soon as I was notified of its existence I put up the notice that it
> > would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
> >
> > The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
> > was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
> > http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
> >
> > It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
> > purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be better
> > hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the Klingon Wikipedia ended up?
> >
> > If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
> > hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.

Well, it turns out Klingon has an ISO 639-2 and an ISO 639-3 code too.
If it is recognised as a language by the ISO, why are we rejecting
their right to have a project?

ISO 639 as the basis for the existance of language projects has been
constant used to justify the Belarussian turn of events. Aren't we
acting with double standards to consider ISO 639 all-important for one
language but suggest this is not important for another.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)