| | ::::: I think it's a bad precedent, and will vote against anything building on it. I see absolutely no point in us admitting languages that have no permanently archived sources; the only people who would care are linguists, and they probably have their own sources and would never trust Wiktionary.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | | ::::: I think it's a bad precedent, and will vote against anything building on it. I see absolutely no point in us admitting languages that have no permanently archived sources; the only people who would care are linguists, and they probably have their own sources and would never trust Wiktionary.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | :::::: I'm a linguist, so I disagree about not trusting Wiktionary. My hope is, indeed, that linguists specializing in endangered languages will welcome Wiktionary with open arms once a good framework is in place. |
| | + | :::::: Nobody has commented about changing the wording on the main page, so I'm about ready to modify the language there to reflect the discussion here. I believe that without the voting part of this proposal, any language community will be able to do the same thing the sign language community did and proclaim "clearly widespread use" as a main CFI. If nobody has a concern about that, I will go ahead. [[User:BenjaminBarrett12|BenjaminBarrett12]] ([[User talk:BenjaminBarrett12|talk]]) 18:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
