Talk:Klingon Language Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deletion request anyone?

This page has been deleted for the following reason:

  • 22:22, 30 July 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Klingon Language Institute" ‎(CSD A7 (Group): Article about a club or group that does not assert significance)

It is my opinion that this page and/or this group DOES assert significance indeed.

This same discussion has been closed already on the German discussion page of this article in german, and it was decided that this article is significant enough:

So merkwürdig das auch ist. Die Klingonische Sprache ist aus guten Gründen WP-relevant, weil sie mit großem Abstand die am weitesten entwickelte erfundene Sprache ist (von Esperanto mal abgesehen) und einen ISO-Sprachcode hat. Dann ist aber auch die weltweit größte Organisation zur Förderung dieser Sprache relevant (Verhältnis ähnlich wie das Goethe-Institut zur deutschen Sprache. --ThePeter 19:04, 26. Jan. 2007 (CET)

Translation:

It might sound weird, but the Klingon Language is indeed WP-significant, because it is one of the most developed constructed languages (besides of esperanto), and it has got an ISO-language code. Therefore the world's largest organization who promotes the language is also significant (same relationship as the Goethe-Institut has towards the german language). -- ThePeter 19:04, 26. Jan. 2007 (CET)"

Feel free to discuss here anyway ;-) -- LLieven (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Significant speakers

I might not be a grammarian, and I do recognise (as far as I can) Jyrki Kasvi as a Finnish politician. But having attempted the klingon slogan of his page, I am doubting whether his knowledge is of real significance here... 8-) Qa'pIn (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Significant" does not necessarily imply that the speaker knows the language well. This politician is mentioned because he is a public figure. Jonathan Webley (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Klingon languages is a child category of all other relevant categories, so double categorization is not needed. See Wikipedia:Categorization. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. My fault, I apologize. Thanks for the information. -- LLieven (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)