[Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

Fri Oct 20 23:07:39 UTC 2006

   As long as that last bit about still being able to use other codes if 
the standard does not supply one.  The only point I was making (and I 
think it came from a misunderstanding of your position) is that what 
code you use for a language has no place at all (even a little) in a 
discussion about the merit of having a wikipedia in that language.

   If the standard CAN be followed then yes obviously that is good.  If 
the standard does not allow for the language but our other policies 
would otherwise accept it, then we need to do something different, but 
it is not a reason to disallow a language.

SKL

Gerard Meijssen 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