Well, but it's equally true (and written) that "If there is no valid ISO 639 code, you must obtain one. The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities". We do absolutely not want to invent our own codes, because that gets really messy, especially when at some point a language does get a real code.

2018-01-23 20:49 GMT+01:00 Phake Nick <c933103@gmail.com>:

2018年1月23日 00:27 於 "Steven White" <Koala19890@hotmail.com> 寫道:
> Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Teochew: Currently on hold due to no ISO code. Code was rejected at SIL in 2009. At the time, SIL expressed some sympathy for the idea of retiring "nan" and splitting it. But as the code request did not cover the full breadth of "nan", the request was rejected. There has been no recurrent request, to the best of my knowledge. Suggest reject per policy, with an invitation to create a new request if a code is ever created.

Note that, in Wikimedia's language proposal policy, the reason being put forth for reqiring an ISO 639-3 code for the language is that, "The information that distinguishes this language from another must be sufficient to convince standards organizations to create an ISO 639 code.". In this case, the standardizing body is convinced that the language is sufficiently unique, despite they're not able to create the code due to problems of other nan variant. Which mean the underlying rationale behind the reason for requesting a ISO639 code is fulfilled despite the lack of code.

As, in the language proposal policy, it is said that "The committee can skip steps in the procedure if they consider a request to have already met the objectives of those steps.", I would suggest member of language committee consider marking Teochew as eligible according to this principal.

Langcom mailing list