With all due respect, would you mind saying why? Please keep in mind the following, from my perspective as someone who is at the same time (a) not a member of LangCom, but (b) very active in managing Incubator on a day-to-day basis.
* In doing this, nobody would be changing the requirement that a language must have an ISO 639–3 code in order to be approved (or in order to have a test on Incubator). The question of the existence of the code and question of the use of the code in our projects do not have to be the same question. * I see the Mapuche test projects as having been pretty inactive for a while. I don't know if that's simply because there is no interest in the native-speaker community now, or because the community finds the idea of editing under this code offensive. * It's not for me to decide whether the community should find the code offensive. Nor am I taking sides as to whether anybody is or is not racist, or is or is not perpetuating anything inappropriate. I'm simply interested in running an experiment to see whether the community would be willing to get more involved on Incubator under a different code. Because, like it or not, evidently the community itself finds the code offensive. * It's easy enough to test the idea in Incubator now without messing anything else up. I do this by creating redirects on the wiki from all the W?/arn pages to W?/qmp pages. Nothing else would change for present. Nobody would even have to change any underlying master redirects yet: * arn.wikipedia.org (presumably) redirects to incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/arn, which would then redirect using the wiki markup to incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/qpm
I'm not saying you're wrong to oppose this idea, but would you mind explaining why? Thanks. Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
________________________________ From: Langcom langcom-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:39 AM To: langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Langcom Digest, Vol 44, Issue 23
Hoi, I am dead set against it. Thanks, GerardM
Hoi, The ISO-639-3 code is a requirement to eligibility. Because of historic reasons we have a few codes that do not comply with the code.One of the reasons for the language committee was to prevent such things from happening again.
When we accept codes that do not signify an existing language, it becomes easy to argue all kinds of corner cases. This door is best kept closed. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 May 2017 at 17:20, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
With all due respect, would you mind saying *why*? Please keep in mind the following, from my perspective as someone who is at the same time (a) not a member of LangCom, but (b) very active in managing Incubator on a day-to-day basis.
- In doing this, nobody would be changing the requirement that a
language must have an ISO 639–3 code in order to be approved (or in order to have a test on Incubator). The question of the *existence* of the code and question of the *use* of the code in our projects do not have to be the same question.
- I see the Mapuche test projects as having been pretty inactive for a
while. I don't know if that's simply because there is no interest in the native-speaker community now, or because the community finds the idea of editing under this code offensive.
- It's not for me to decide whether the community *should* find the
code offensive. Nor am I taking sides as to whether anybody is or is not racist, or is or is not perpetuating anything inappropriate. I'm simply interested in running an experiment to see whether the community would be willing to get more involved on Incubator under a different code. Because, like it or not, evidently the community itself finds the code offensive.
- It's easy enough to test the idea in Incubator now without messing
anything else up. I do this by creating redirects *on the wiki* from all the W?/arn pages to W?/qmp pages. Nothing else would change for present. Nobody would even have to change any underlying master redirects yet: - arn.wikipedia.org (presumably) redirects to incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/arn http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/arn, which would then redirect using the wiki markup to incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Wp/qpm
I'm not saying you're wrong to oppose this idea, but would you mind explaining why? Thanks. Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
*From:* Langcom langcom-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:39 AM *To:* langcom@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* Langcom Digest, Vol 44, Issue 23
Hoi, I am dead set against it. Thanks, GerardM
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The ISO-639-3 code is a requirement to eligibility. Because of historic reasons we have a few codes that do not comply with the code.One of the reasons for the language committee was to prevent such things from happening again.
When we accept codes that do not signify an existing language, it becomes easy to argue all kinds of corner cases. This door is best kept closed.
In other words, we should keep a number of communities without Wikimedia projects (Mapudungun is not the only case) to keep Gerard not upset.
Hoi, Please explain your reasoning. Do not forget to explain why you have to attack me by accusing me of not wanting communities without Wikimedia projects. You know what the policy is like, you know why it came into being, I am only doing what is expected of us. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 May 2017 at 17:41, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The ISO-639-3 code is a requirement to eligibility. Because of historic reasons we have a few codes that do not comply with the code.One of the reasons for the language committee was to prevent such things from
happening
again.
When we accept codes that do not signify an existing language, it becomes easy to argue all kinds of corner cases. This door is best kept closed.
In other words, we should keep a number of communities without Wikimedia projects (Mapudungun is not the only case) to keep Gerard not upset.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Please explain your reasoning. Do not forget to explain why you have to attack me by accusing me of not wanting communities without Wikimedia projects. You know what the policy is like, you know why it came into being, I am only doing what is expected of us.
Because you didn't present any argument except "it's better not to be that way".
On 18 May 2017, at 16:41, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
When we accept codes that do not signify an existing language, it becomes easy to argue all kinds of corner cases. This door is best kept closed.
In other words, we should keep a number of communities without Wikimedia projects (Mapudungun is not the only case) to keep Gerard not upset.
Oh, quit pouting.
Go. Go talk to the Chileans. Help them to write to the JAC with a request. That is the ONLY WAY that a change can be made.
I have already written to them to ask. I have sent you their response. So either shut about it, or go and work with them to prepare a new request. There is nothing that we can do about it here.
Michael