Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale does not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done for British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
I think it's reasonable to have BCP 47 Wikidata localizations, including various varieties of German, French, English, Spanish. People would like to get localization in their written form.
I think the same applies for Wikidata.
On Nov 21, 2016 12:49 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale does not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done for British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Thanks, Gerard, for bringing this issue to our attention.
As far as I can see, different Frenches are comparable to different Englishes. I understand that we allow a difefrence between American and British English. Do we also have separate support for Australian English, Indian English, South African English etc?
If we are to differentiate between French French and Canadian French, what about Swiss French, West African French etc?
In any case, I agree that such distinctions should be Wikidata only.
Looking forward to hearing your (pl.!) opinion(s) on this, and with best wishes, Oliver
On 21-Nov-16 12:48, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale does not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done for British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Wikidata do not only differentiate between American and British English. I do not know about Australian English, but Canadian English is there and supported. I think this is the same rationale for Canadian French.
JP Béland Aka Amqui
Le lun. 21 nov. 2016 7:54 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org a écrit :
Thanks, Gerard, for bringing this issue to our attention.
As far as I can see, different Frenches are comparable to different Englishes. I understand that we allow a difefrence between American and British English. Do we also have separate support for Australian English, Indian English, South African English etc?
If we are to differentiate between French French and Canadian French, what about Swiss French, West African French etc?
In any case, I agree that such distinctions should be Wikidata only.
Looking forward to hearing your (pl.!) opinion(s) on this, and with best wishes, Oliver
On 21-Nov-16 12:48, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale does not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done for British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, We do have different forms of English but they do include a requirement for localisation. With ISO-639-3 languages we truly have different languages with dialects we do not have the same rationale why having Wikidata support is a necessity. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 November 2016 at 13:54, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks, Gerard, for bringing this issue to our attention.
As far as I can see, different Frenches are comparable to different Englishes. I understand that we allow a difefrence between American and British English. Do we also have separate support for Australian English, Indian English, South African English etc?
If we are to differentiate between French French and Canadian French, what about Swiss French, West African French etc?
In any case, I agree that such distinctions should be Wikidata only.
Looking forward to hearing your (pl.!) opinion(s) on this, and with best wishes, Oliver
On 21-Nov-16 12:48, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale does not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done for British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next integration:
* A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia should take from Wikidata. * A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as localization, instead of default Austrian version. * What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German January instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
I am sure there are similar peculiarities between fr_FR and fr_CA.
If it's been solved in other ways, it's OK not to have fr_CA. If not, it's reasonable to expect that Wikidata should cover such things and add fr_CA as a Wikidata-only language.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do have different forms of English but they do include a requirement for localisation. With ISO-639-3 languages we truly have different languages with dialects we do not have the same rationale why having Wikidata support is a necessity. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 November 2016 at 13:54, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks, Gerard, for bringing this issue to our attention.
As far as I can see, different Frenches are comparable to different Englishes. I understand that we allow a difefrence between American and British English. Do we also have separate support for Australian English, Indian English, South African English etc?
If we are to differentiate between French French and Canadian French, what about Swiss French, West African French etc?
In any case, I agree that such distinctions should be Wikidata only.
Looking forward to hearing your (pl.!) opinion(s) on this, and with best wishes, Oliver
On 21-Nov-16 12:48, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale does not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done for British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next integration:
- A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia
should take from Wikidata.
- A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as
localization, instead of default Austrian version.
- What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German January
instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in the first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
I am sure there are similar peculiarities between fr_FR and fr_CA.
If it's been solved in other ways, it's OK not to have fr_CA. If not, it's reasonable to expect that Wikidata should cover such things and add fr_CA as a Wikidata-only language.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We do have different forms of English but they do include a requirement
for
localisation. With ISO-639-3 languages we truly have different languages with dialects we do not have the same rationale why having Wikidata
support
is a necessity. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 November 2016 at 13:54, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org
wrote:
Thanks, Gerard, for bringing this issue to our attention.
As far as I can see, different Frenches are comparable to different Englishes. I understand that we allow a difefrence between American and British English. Do we also have separate support for Australian
English,
Indian English, South African English etc?
If we are to differentiate between French French and Canadian French,
what
about Swiss French, West African French etc?
In any case, I agree that such distinctions should be Wikidata only.
Looking forward to hearing your (pl.!) opinion(s) on this, and with best wishes, Oliver
On 21-Nov-16 12:48, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, For languages with an ISO-639-3 code it is OK to have Wikidata support them. For French and in particular Canadian French the same rationale
does
not exist.
What is our opinion about including Canadian French as a Wikidata only language? In my opinion it is only through the same way as it is done
for
British English that this is fine. Thanks, GerardM
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186
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
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
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next integration:
- A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia
should take from Wikidata.
- A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as
localization, instead of default Austrian version.
- What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German January
instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in the
first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that Wikidata operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
Hoi, Yes. But the point is that our position has always been that for a language we accept ISO-639-3 for Wikidata without a localisation effort. For BCP 47 we have not done so and there is not the same blanket need to accept them. When a BCP 47 needs a different date format, it is a matter of localisation to make that happen. It is not what this do in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 01:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next integration:
- A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia
should take from Wikidata.
- A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as
localization, instead of default Austrian version.
- What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German January
instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in the
first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that Wikidata operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Ok. So is there some rule of thumb we could formulate about whether or not a specific BCP 47 should be allowed for Wikidata?
2016-11-23 6:26 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes. But the point is that our position has always been that for a language we accept ISO-639-3 for Wikidata without a localisation effort. For BCP 47 we have not done so and there is not the same blanket need to accept them. When a BCP 47 needs a different date format, it is a matter of localisation to make that happen. It is not what this do in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 01:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next
integration:
- A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia
should take from Wikidata.
- A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as
localization, instead of default Austrian version.
- What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German January
instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in the
first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that Wikidata operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
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
Hoi, In my opinion we should leave BCP 47 for what it is. There is no point in including it at this time. It will become relevant once Wiktionary data is included in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 09:55, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok. So is there some rule of thumb we could formulate about whether or not a specific BCP 47 should be allowed for Wikidata?
2016-11-23 6:26 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes. But the point is that our position has always been that for a language we accept ISO-639-3 for Wikidata without a localisation effort. For BCP 47 we have not done so and there is not the same blanket need to accept them. When a BCP 47 needs a different date format, it is a matter of localisation to make that happen. It is not what this do in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 01:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next
integration:
- A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia
should take from Wikidata.
- A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as
localization, instead of default Austrian version.
- What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German January
instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in the
first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that Wikidata operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Gerard, why do we need to wait? Because we have so much tasks to do right now and it's unreasonable to put more burden on us?
On Nov 23, 2016 11:08, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In my opinion we should leave BCP 47 for what it is. There is no point in
including it at this time. It will become relevant once Wiktionary data is included in Wikidata.
Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 09:55, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok. So is there some rule of thumb we could formulate about whether or
not a specific BCP 47 should be allowed for Wikidata?
2016-11-23 6:26 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes. But the point is that our position has always been that for a
language we accept ISO-639-3 for Wikidata without a localisation effort. For BCP 47 we have not done so and there is not the same blanket need to accept them. When a BCP 47 needs a different date format, it is a matter of localisation to make that happen. It is not what this do in Wikidata.
Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 01:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next
integration:
- A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia
should take from Wikidata.
- A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as
localization, instead of default Austrian version.
- What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German
January
instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in the
first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that Wikidata
operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily
become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and
Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
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
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
Actualiteit the thing where we would-be have made a difference we chose not to. This is hardly relevant and we have precedents.
Op wo 23 nov. 2016 om 13:54 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
Gerard, why do we need to wait? Because we have so much tasks to do right now and it's unreasonable to put more burden on us?
On Nov 23, 2016 11:08, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In my opinion we should leave BCP 47 for what it is. There is no point
in including it at this time. It will become relevant once Wiktionary data is included in Wikidata.
Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 09:55, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com
wrote:
Ok. So is there some rule of thumb we could formulate about whether or
not a specific BCP 47 should be allowed for Wikidata?
2016-11-23 6:26 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes. But the point is that our position has always been that for a
language we accept ISO-639-3 for Wikidata without a localisation effort. For BCP 47 we have not done so and there is not the same blanket need to accept them. When a BCP 47 needs a different date format, it is a matter of localisation to make that happen. It is not what this do in Wikidata.
Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 01:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com: > > I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next
integration:
> > * A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia > should take from Wikidata. > * A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as > localization, instead of default Austrian version. > * What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German
January
> instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in
the first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that
Wikidata operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily
become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and
Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
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
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Sorry the last reply was with a phone.. Not a good idea..
At this time there are several issues that are not addressed in Wikidata itself. Labels are stuck. Only one will be dominant and there is no way to annotate them with statements. So Wiktionary support may bring much needed functionality through the back door, functionality that makes Wikidata one dimensional will be more fine grained when labels are left for proper label support.
Having a code for Canadian French is as relevant as 18th century British English for instance.
In the past British English came in after localisation at Translatewiki.net. For me Canadian French is no different.
When you ask do we have something better to do.. Sure, we could finally agree that Wikisource is first and foremost a tool for editors and that for Indian languages they do spend a lot of time and effort to filter out finished goods and present it in another tool that is more consumer ready. So far we are stuck with our consensus, we do not help them out.
So no, French Canadian is not special and yes we have something better to do. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 13:54, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, why do we need to wait? Because we have so much tasks to do right now and it's unreasonable to put more burden on us?
On Nov 23, 2016 11:08, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In my opinion we should leave BCP 47 for what it is. There is no point
in including it at this time. It will become relevant once Wiktionary data is included in Wikidata.
Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 09:55, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com
wrote:
Ok. So is there some rule of thumb we could formulate about whether or
not a specific BCP 47 should be allowed for Wikidata?
2016-11-23 6:26 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes. But the point is that our position has always been that for a
language we accept ISO-639-3 for Wikidata without a localisation effort. For BCP 47 we have not done so and there is not the same blanket need to accept them. When a BCP 47 needs a different date format, it is a matter of localisation to make that happen. It is not what this do in Wikidata.
Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2016 at 01:44, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2016 00:47, "MF-Warburg" mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2016-11-22 15:33 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com: > > I don't think it's true at the moment, but imagine the next
integration:
> > * A person is born on year/January/date. That's the data Wikipedia > should take from Wikidata. > * A user says "I am a German from Germany" and has that as > localization, instead of default Austrian version. > * What's the method of telling Wikidata to give German German
January
> instead of Austrian German January inside of the infobox?
Well, as dates in Wikidata are not stored as "5. Jänner 1980" in
the first place, that seems no problem. The infobox' code will simply translate 1980-01-05 differently, depending on the users' language settings. Or am I mistaken?
That was just an example, not the best one. The point is that
Wikidata operates with the open set of words and that we could easily come into the position to force a user to read even something completely strangr to him or her.
For example, the term Art Noveau/Secession and similar could easily
become a category and a difference between the two varieties. And by reading one variety, a user could come into position not to understand that.
I could find a lot of such potential pairs between Serbian and
Croatian, which are distant on similar level as Spanish varieties, so it's not hard to me to imagine that keeping strict ISO 639-3 codes instead of BCP 47 could make confusion.
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
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry the last reply was with a phone.. Not a good idea..
Yes, this email sounds definitely better :)
Having a code for Canadian French is as relevant as 18th century British English for instance.
In the past British English came in after localisation at Translatewiki.net. For me Canadian French is no different.
I wouldn't agree that a living language is as relevant as a dead language. In the case of a living language, localization is relevant, while it's not true for a dead language.
So, I suppose you want them first to make the basic localization, then to add it as a Wikidata language? I agree with that.
When you ask do we have something better to do..
No, I didn't say that. I said that we are not overwhelmed by various requests and that it's not big deal to approve a language for Wikidata. Said so, I will repeat that I agree that the basic localization should be the requirement.
We also need to amend the Language policy for localization and Wikidata purposes. Like: If you want your language variety to be added into Wikidata and Wikimedia localization, you need to do translate the most common messages; etc.
Hoi, We have done that. When a language has an ISO-639-3 it is admissible for Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 November 2016 at 02:57, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry the last reply was with a phone.. Not a good idea..
Yes, this email sounds definitely better :)
Having a code for Canadian French is as relevant as 18th century British English for instance.
In the past British English came in after localisation at
Translatewiki.net.
For me Canadian French is no different.
I wouldn't agree that a living language is as relevant as a dead language. In the case of a living language, localization is relevant, while it's not true for a dead language.
So, I suppose you want them first to make the basic localization, then to add it as a Wikidata language? I agree with that.
When you ask do we have something better to do..
No, I didn't say that. I said that we are not overwhelmed by various requests and that it's not big deal to approve a language for Wikidata. Said so, I will repeat that I agree that the basic localization should be the requirement.
We also need to amend the Language policy for localization and Wikidata purposes. Like: If you want your language variety to be added into Wikidata and Wikimedia localization, you need to do translate the most common messages; etc.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
We have done that. When a language has an ISO-639-3 it is admissible for Wikidata.
Do we have different rules for Wikipedia and Wikidata?
Not really; for both ISO 639-3 is required. I think the reason for simply allowing any (639-3) language to be included into Wikidata, without any software localisation requirements, was that it could also be dead languages (similar to how Wikisources can be approved in dead languages without requiring interface translations).
2016-11-28 16:31 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
We have done that. When a language has an ISO-639-3 it is admissible for Wikidata.
Do we have different rules for Wikipedia and Wikidata?
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, No Wikidata is a resource where specific properties to a language can be added. By adding this to Wikidata it gains functionality for everyone. It is NOT a function that is used to consume content in that language, it is a side effect and in my opinion a welcome side effect at that. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 November 2016 at 17:32, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Not really; for both ISO 639-3 is required. I think the reason for simply allowing any (639-3) language to be included into Wikidata, without any software localisation requirements, was that it could also be dead languages (similar to how Wikisources can be approved in dead languages without requiring interface translations).
2016-11-28 16:31 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
We have done that. When a language has an ISO-639-3 it is admissible for Wikidata.
Do we have different rules for Wikipedia and Wikidata?
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
No Wikidata is a resource where specific properties to a language can be added. By adding this to Wikidata it gains functionality for everyone. It is NOT a function that is used to consume content in that language, it is a side effect and in my opinion a welcome side effect at that.
Then i see that LangCom is just consultative body to the Wikidata in this case and that Wikidata could do whatever it wants after we express or not the position.
Hoi, Sorry, we discussed that in the past. Typically every ISO-639-3 is allowed. That is it. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 November 2016 at 16:23, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
No Wikidata is a resource where specific properties to a language can be added. By adding this to Wikidata it gains functionality for everyone.
It is
NOT a function that is used to consume content in that language, it is a side effect and in my opinion a welcome side effect at that.
Then i see that LangCom is just consultative body to the Wikidata in this case and that Wikidata could do whatever it wants after we express or not the position.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, we discussed that in the past. Typically every ISO-639-3 is allowed. That is it.
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
Hoi, Yes it does for the ISO-639-3. BCP 47 is not agreed as being acceptable and, it is not. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 November 2016 at 17:13, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, we discussed that in the past. Typically every ISO-639-3 is
allowed.
That is it.
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
May you then tell me where is defined inside of the Language policy that Wikidata has a different status than Wikipedia?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Yes it does for the ISO-639-3. BCP 47 is not agreed as being acceptable and, it is not. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 November 2016 at 17:13, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, we discussed that in the past. Typically every ISO-639-3 is allowed. That is it.
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
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
Hoi, Milos you forget the policy. We have a consensus for the ISO-639-3. We do not have a consensus for the BCP 47. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 November 2016 at 17:13, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, we discussed that in the past. Typically every ISO-639-3 is
allowed.
That is it.
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2016-11-30 6:37 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Milos you forget the policy. We have a consensus for the ISO-639-3. We do not have a consensus for the BCP 47. Thanks, GerardM
I'm still confused... (and maybe more and more confused)
The lang com and the policy (assuming you talk about this language proposal policy[1]) is about creating new project, right?
Here we are talking about adding content to an existing project (and more precisely to ease and improve the adding of content, since even without a specific lang code the content can still be add).
Isn't this two different things?
Cdlt, ~nicolas
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. Thanks for that.
Cheers Lydia
PS: Please CC me on replies.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. Thanks for that.
Yes. I see that the scope of Language committee ends with localization implemented into Wikimedia projects (so, theoretically, a subset of what's been done on TranslateWiki). In other words, political responsibility of Wikimedia Foundation ends there and LangCom is the keeper of that level of integrity (no, we don't need Klingon localization because its educational value is zero, but it's completely valid to make it for fun and implement into some non-Wikimedia MediaWiki installations).
Contrary to that, LangCom shouldn't interfere into the content of Wikimedia projects, like Wikidata is. But, yes, it's useful to consult LangCom in more formal cases, like adding a new language into the Wikidata sets.
Hoi, I am sorry but when people want to localise Klingon in the Klingon script they are welcome to it. This has nothing to do with the language policy. It is up to the people at translatewiki.net to decide on that. In the past their requirement for Klingon was that it had to use the Klingon script.
The scope of the language committee typically ends with the creation of a new project. However, in the past we did recommend for the closure of wikis when the language used was NOT the language advertised. The removal happened in the end.
We do and did get involvement in the addition of new languages in Wikidata for ISO 639-3. The purpose was that they did not wan to add all languages and having a process where the language committee wisely nodded is what we have. This is for ISO 639-3 only. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 November 2016 at 12:55, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. Thanks for that.
Yes. I see that the scope of Language committee ends with localization implemented into Wikimedia projects (so, theoretically, a subset of what's been done on TranslateWiki). In other words, political responsibility of Wikimedia Foundation ends there and LangCom is the keeper of that level of integrity (no, we don't need Klingon localization because its educational value is zero, but it's completely valid to make it for fun and implement into some non-Wikimedia MediaWiki installations).
Contrary to that, LangCom shouldn't interfere into the content of Wikimedia projects, like Wikidata is. But, yes, it's useful to consult LangCom in more formal cases, like adding a new language into the Wikidata sets.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am sorry but when people want to localise Klingon in the Klingon script they are welcome to it. This has nothing to do with the language policy. It is up to the people at translatewiki.net to decide on that. In the past their requirement for Klingon was that it had to use the Klingon script.
The scope of the language committee typically ends with the creation of a new project. However, in the past we did recommend for the closure of wikis when the language used was NOT the language advertised. The removal happened in the end.
We do and did get involvement in the addition of new languages in Wikidata for ISO 639-3. The purpose was that they did not wan to add all languages and having a process where the language committee wisely nodded is what we have. This is for ISO 639-3 only.
Please, read again what I wrote.
Then again, how about http://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T137810 for mn-Mong?
2016年12月1日 15:14 於 "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com 寫道：
Hoi, I am sorry but when people want to localise Klingon in the Klingon script they are welcome to it. This has nothing to do with the language policy. It is up to the people at translatewiki.net to decide on that. In the past their requirement for Klingon was that it had to use the Klingon script.
The scope of the language committee typically ends with the creation of a new project. However, in the past we did recommend for the closure of wikis when the language used was NOT the language advertised. The removal happened in the end.
We do and did get involvement in the addition of new languages in Wikidata for ISO 639-3. The purpose was that they did not wan to add all languages and having a process where the language committee wisely nodded is what we have. This is for ISO 639-3 only. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 November 2016 at 12:55, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. Thanks for that.
Yes. I see that the scope of Language committee ends with localization implemented into Wikimedia projects (so, theoretically, a subset of what's been done on TranslateWiki). In other words, political responsibility of Wikimedia Foundation ends there and LangCom is the keeper of that level of integrity (no, we don't need Klingon localization because its educational value is zero, but it's completely valid to make it for fun and implement into some non-Wikimedia MediaWiki installations).
Contrary to that, LangCom shouldn't interfere into the content of Wikimedia projects, like Wikidata is. But, yes, it's useful to consult LangCom in more formal cases, like adding a new language into the Wikidata sets.
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
Hoi, The mn-Mong indicates mn in the Mongolian script. This code has its own problems because it is a macro language. The notion that a script is indicated is seen different from the notion that a specific way for a country is indicated.
Mind you many dialects are more different than the differences between countries.. eg Geordie and Australian English. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 December 2016 at 16:59, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
Then again, how about http://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T137810 for mn-Mong?
2016年12月1日 15:14 於 "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com 寫道：
Hoi, I am sorry but when people want to localise Klingon in the Klingon script they are welcome to it. This has nothing to do with the language policy. It is up to the people at translatewiki.net to decide on that. In the past their requirement for Klingon was that it had to use the Klingon script.
The scope of the language committee typically ends with the creation of a new project. However, in the past we did recommend for the closure of wikis when the language used was NOT the language advertised. The removal happened in the end.
We do and did get involvement in the addition of new languages in Wikidata for ISO 639-3. The purpose was that they did not wan to add all languages and having a process where the language committee wisely nodded is what we have. This is for ISO 639-3 only. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 November 2016 at 12:55, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us for any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that they should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. Thanks for that.
Yes. I see that the scope of Language committee ends with localization implemented into Wikimedia projects (so, theoretically, a subset of what's been done on TranslateWiki). In other words, political responsibility of Wikimedia Foundation ends there and LangCom is the keeper of that level of integrity (no, we don't need Klingon localization because its educational value is zero, but it's completely valid to make it for fun and implement into some non-Wikimedia MediaWiki installations).
Contrary to that, LangCom shouldn't interfere into the content of Wikimedia projects, like Wikidata is. But, yes, it's useful to consult LangCom in more formal cases, like adding a new language into the Wikidata sets.
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
khk and mvf are two major different dialects in the umbrella of mn with limited intelligibility between them, but when written with Mong, the text should be about the same other than some loanwords etc., and the colloquial variation are not reflected onto -Mong writing, according to my understanding on the macrolanguage, which mean khk-Mong and mvf-Mong should be the same other than some word choice, which mean when writing in -Mong, khk and mvf writers would bend their language into an universal custom of -Mong writing. Thus I think it make little sense to differentiate inside mn for -Mong.
2016年12月2日 13:41 於 "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com 寫道：
Hoi, The mn-Mong indicates mn in the Mongolian script. This code has its own problems because it is a macro language. The notion that a script is indicated is seen different from the notion that a specific way for a country is indicated.
Mind you many dialects are more different than the differences between countries.. eg Geordie and Australian English. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 December 2016 at 16:59, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
Then again, how about http://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T137810 for mn-Mong?
2016年12月1日 15:14 於 "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com 寫道：
Hoi, I am sorry but when people want to localise Klingon in the Klingon script they are welcome to it. This has nothing to do with the language policy. It is up to the people at translatewiki.net to decide on that. In the past their requirement for Klingon was that it had to use the Klingon script.
The scope of the language committee typically ends with the creation of a new project. However, in the past we did recommend for the closure of wikis when the language used was NOT the language advertised. The removal happened in the end.
We do and did get involvement in the addition of new languages in Wikidata for ISO 639-3. The purpose was that they did not wan to add all languages and having a process where the language committee wisely nodded is what we have. This is for ISO 639-3 only. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 November 2016 at 12:55, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes. The point is then that Wikidata doesn't need approval from us
for
any valid BCP 47 combination with a valid ISO 639-3 code and that
they
should just consult us just to be sure it's not a nonsense.
The consultation part is important for me personally. I don't have enough knowledge on language codes and so on to decide which ones are following a given standard or not. So I'd like some sanity checking from you folks and I got that in the past on tickets in phabricator. Thanks for that.
Yes. I see that the scope of Language committee ends with localization implemented into Wikimedia projects (so, theoretically, a subset of what's been done on TranslateWiki). In other words, political responsibility of Wikimedia Foundation ends there and LangCom is the keeper of that level of integrity (no, we don't need Klingon localization because its educational value is zero, but it's completely valid to make it for fun and implement into some non-Wikimedia MediaWiki installations).
Contrary to that, LangCom shouldn't interfere into the content of Wikimedia projects, like Wikidata is. But, yes, it's useful to consult LangCom in more formal cases, like adding a new language into the Wikidata sets.
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
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
Hi,
I'm quite confused by this discussion and I'm not even sure why there is a discussion here in the first place...
Wikidata has a help page for almost a year now : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Monolingual_text_languages where it's clearly stated new code are ok, as long at it's a valid BCP 47 code and used in a real case. And it's written : « A language code does not have to fulfill the requirements of the language proposal policy for new Wikis. » ; and indeed, a lot of lang code where added, AFAIK the lang com never even talked about it (at least not when the « und », « mis », « mul » and « zxx » codes where added last year : https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T72205 ).
For me this help page seems pretty straigthforward. And more pratically, if there is no code for Canadian French, people will just keep going to use the code « mis » with a qualifier like in the given usage example (here : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q145992 ) which seems way worse to me.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Nicolas, thanks for making things clear!
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm quite confused by this discussion and I'm not even sure why there is a discussion here in the first place...
Wikidata has a help page for almost a year now : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Monolingual_text_languages where it's clearly stated new code are ok, as long at it's a valid BCP 47 code and used in a real case. And it's written : « A language code does not have to fulfill the requirements of the language proposal policy for new Wikis. » ; and indeed, a lot of lang code where added, AFAIK the lang com never even talked about it (at least not when the « und », « mis », « mul » and « zxx » codes where added last year : https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T72205 ).
For me this help page seems pretty straigthforward. And more pratically, if there is no code for Canadian French, people will just keep going to use the code « mis » with a qualifier like in the given usage example (here : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q145992 ) which seems way worse to me.
Cdlt, ~nicolas