For verification, we usually approach an outside scholar or research linguist of the language in question. Does anyone know of such a bona-fide person? Usually, such an expert would alert us to problems, e.g. of inconsistencies due to lack of orthographic standard (which tends to be more prominent in macrolanguages than in languages proper).

On 27-Apr-15 3:28 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:

We had a discussion about the eligibility in March, there was no conclusion, but so far nobody brought up problems either... though I'm still a bit wary because we already had a fair share of problems with such languages which are macrolanguages with Southern, Eastern, Northern etc. subdivisions. But at least there is an ISO 639-3 code.

The most-used msgs are complete.

Activity is sustained by at least 3 editors since February (so 3 months now at the end of April), which is ok (though the most active contributor in this month is a bot).

I find Gerard's question interesting - anyone can look at https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/wp/bgn to find out - I will try to do this tomorrow and inform you all.

2015-04-22 20:30 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>:

Hi,

I received a few requests to check the status of Western Balochi incubator (bgn).

The code bgn is legit, the translation of most-used messages is complete, and the activity in the incubator is reasonable. A lot of pages are written; many are just one or two lines long, but I don't think that I mind.

Do we want to verify that it's the right language?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom