ilooy wrote: I guess there are some who think this is perhaps a little bit too lax of a policy in some regards. There are ISO codes for completely fictional languages like Klingon or Tolkein Elvish, and there is some opposition to the current Klingon language Wikipedia as a result, even though it was created using this argument you are making. In general, even with the group that assigns these ISO codes you are talking about, there is even opposition to constructed languages like these, so that does give more support to your argument. There are new ISO codes that are being added as well, and if you speak a dialect like Cornish or some other very little-know language you would do both your culture and the international community in general a good service by trying to get a new ISO code established for your language, going beyond just the Wikimedia Foundation. It is far easier to add an ISO code for a German dialect from Bavaria than to add one for a constructed language like Pig Latin. The only real issue at that point is if you can get a reasonably large group of people to support something like Wikipedia. There are many very ambitious people who have started a Wikipedia for their language, only to have it become the target of spammers and vandals after it wasn't updated for several months with any new content. This is the dilemma really. -- Robert Scott Horning

Brion Vibber wrote: Clearly we should not rely exclusively on the codes for our decisions, but they do give a first slice in the decision making process, particularly if used as an exclusionary tool. There should still be an opportunity for those who are excluded to make a case. IIRC the Ethnologue criterion for including a constructed language is the the existence of literary works in that language. They recognize 24 such languages. Yes, there are people with the kind of mentality that will create a literature in Klingon or Elvish. A better criterion for us would be the existence of native speakers. Another might be to ask who is the audience for this new language project. What interests the readers rather than the writers? What practical information would serve them best? What cultural support will best help their culture? For the Serbocroatian and other politically charged situations it is very difficult to avoid the political traps unless you are willing to say "This is the way it's going to be," right from the beginning. The other thing that is not addressed is the need for a critical mass. There are many individuals for whom the challenge is in having the project in their language approved. When they win the fight they lose interest, so for me the two-tier involves a fairly easy hurdle to get a project started followed by a probationary period where they can prove that there really is enough interest to keep it going. Ec

valdelli(a)bluemail.ch wrote: Sorry, I should have been more clear in making the distinction between Ethnologue/SIL and ISO 639-3 for which Wthnologue is the "Registration Authority". Ethnolgue essentially does not concern itself with constructed languages. The following is from http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/types.asp Ec

ilooy wrote: Well, that *is exactly* what we've done the last few years. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Hoi, When we consider if a language is appropriate for having a wikipedia, you may find old respectable languages that have gone in official disuse like Neapolitan and consequently diverged in spelling because there was no longer an education in a language. Neopolitan is a language that some see as a dialect of Italian. I understand that the Andalusian statute does not say that Andalusian is a language while it is as different, as distinct as many of the other languages spoken in Spain. I know that Andalusian is known for its many songs which is one form of literature. On the I&I conference I spoke with someone from Guatamala and discussed Mayan languages. I learned that for many people it is their first and only language. It does not have a literature or standardised orthography because it is primarily a spoken language. My point is that by creating artificial barriers, you prevent us from making our aim come true; all information for all people. When a small dialect/language is good for codifying that culture, it serves our purpose. I doubt that we would get these same people to write about their culture as much in a language that they are forced to use. When we insist on literature and one orthography we may exclude the people that use predominantly a spoken language and prevent us from getting our information to these people. As I mentioned on the wikitech list, the whole idea of voting is broken anyway because when you vote for a language, you are supposed to actively support this project to be while a nay-sayer is excused from any effort. I do not vote for Dutch nds or for Andalusian because I will not work on these projects. Artificial languages are different from dialects and languages as they do not represent a culture, a people. Consequently comparing natural and artificial languages is problematic. It also helps to be a little more relaxed about artificial languages; even with Klingon it works as a project for as long as there is a community willing to put a lot of effort in it. As it is a rather silly thing, I am sure that these people will reach this conclusion at some point. In the mean time it does not detract from the value of our other projects. It only becomes a problem when we adopt or care about the value system of the officious. Thanks, GerardM On 11/25/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

On 11/26/05, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote: There are nice tables for converting ISO-639-1 to ISO-639-2. The upcoming ISO-639-3 code is like the ISO-639-2 in three characters and there will be no conversion. However some codes will be removed and replaced by others. For your information, in Ultimate Wiktionary we will have a table with the ISO-639-3 codes but for convenience sake we have room for the ISO-639-1 codes. In order to make it more simple, we will have a field where we store the name that the WMF uses. As Ultimate Wiktionary, aims to have all words in all languages, words particular to dialects are certainly welcome. This will allow us to have words in Westfries, spoken in the region where I was born, once a language but now not more than a dialect of the Dutch language.. :) By creating "the" list of languages, you remove the discussion from the argument "is this a language or not". This removes the need from creating your own list and it is important because as we know it can be an endless struggle. Even when there is a language known on the list and there are people denying the validity and there are always more languages to consider. Being on the list is important when you care for a language. The audience ? All of the above. However for organisations like ours it does not free us from having the argument anyway. We have people that insist on a fixed orthography, a literature or an army to have the argument going their way. I would like us to be relaxed about it. Let us have the projects in the languages that are requested, in the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when a project is a success, it is a reason to rejoice. Thanks, GerardM