User talk:N-true

Thank you for the comments. I knew they were forthcoming.

1. There has never been any agreement to use these so-called "standardized templates" on Wiktionary. Using the language names themselves in the edit box makes life a lot easier for future editors. It should also also make language names more findable through the use of the search function. If I am editing an article I generally tend to replace these codes with the actual language name, and, in the absence of a community understanding on the issue, intend to continue doing so.
2. If your additions and corrections to the translations were removed, that was not the intention. The order of things was also changed, and some items were even removed for no apparent reason. When I started to edit the article I tried to maintain these changes, but because of the other issues having such a massive effect saving them became an unworkable task. I apologize for this inadvertent effect. I see no harm in maintaining regional dialectical variants in a language. If the Arabic speakers of Morocco and Riyadh have a different word for something that should be noted. Having separate lines for this does not imply that we somehow consider the dialects to be different languages, anymore than we consider British and American English to be different languages. Removing the linking brackets from some transliterations probably makes sense. There has been some discussion about using romanizations as article titles under some circumstances with a mixed result that would allow for this in some circumstances, but that has never reached the level of someone deciding to do the work.
3. The "yellow" boxes were the result of some discussion for ways of eliminating the numbered references in translations and finding a more compact way of presenting long lists of translations. I have no attachment to the very specific yellow colour. In working on lead I left an experiment of having this in three columns, and that too seems workable. I don't worry too much about having the columns of equal length; anyone who feels aesthetically offended by this is free to make the minor edit. For the very short translation lists I agree that it's a waste of time. A useful rule of thumb might be to apply the boxes when the list is too long to see without scrolling. Eclecticology 22:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Klingon

Hi André. Klingon, like all but a few constructed languages that have seen very wide use (Esp'o, Ido, Volapük, etc), is not included in the main namespace of Wiktionary. Klingon terms can be added to the appendix, like Appendix:Klingon/paq. But I think as far as Wiktionary goes, our need for e.g. Jinghpaw is far greater than for Klingon! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that there was such a rule. It's quite a pity, though. — N-true (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, some line has to be drawn so that not just anyone's constructed language can be in the main namespace, and we also have a very nebulous legal situation to consider when it comes to publishing a comprehensive Klingon dictionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)