[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Fri Oct 20 22:40:09 UTC 2006

I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't use 3-letter codes that belong to
other languages.

When people propose to use codes that belong to other languages, it's out of
ignorance, not malice.

However, to be able to use bat-ltg instead of lat-ltg is a different debate
-- "bat-ltg" doesn't belong to another language, and it likely never will.

Mark

On 20/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is
> the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what
> language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the
> all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given
> by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please
> explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the
> acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to
> do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use
> either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to
> use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
>
> It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some
> method behind the madness.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > ScottL wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> ScottL wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an
> >>> official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that
> >>> language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should
> >>> not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several
> constructed
> >>> languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those
> >>> should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a large
> >>> swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our
> >>> other criteria.
> > From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
> >
> >> the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the
> POV
> >> is can be reasonably supported.  Which means it should still be a case
> >> by case thing.
> >>
> >>
> > Absolutely.  That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting
> > point.
> > .
> > Ec
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.