By the way, we use "als" (https://als.wikipedia.org/) for Alemannic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German> whose ISO 639-3 is "gsw". Should we do something about that ? There are active discussions on Alemannic language*s* <https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Recherche?search=gsw&prefix=Wiktionnaire%3AWikid%C3%A9mie&fulltext=Rechercher+dans+les+archives+de+la+Wikid%C3%A9mie&fulltext=Search> on the French Wikitionnary, with a good summary of the situation <https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionnaire:Wikid%C3%A9mie/janvier_2017#Que_faire_de_l.27alsacien_.3F> and solution proposals by Lyokoï. Discussions are following works around the project "langues de France <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Langues_de_France>", especially lingualibre <http://www.lingualibre.fr/>, and various support from OLCA (/Office pour la Langue et la Culture d’Alsace/, Office for the Language and Culture of Alsace) which provided active help in finding location to host the next Wikiconvention francophone <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConvention_francophone/2017/fr>. There are also some discussion on "gsw" on the Alemanic Wikipedia <https://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Suech?search=gsw&prefix=Wikipedia%3AStammtisch%2F&fulltext=Archiv+dursueche&fulltext=Search&searchToken=agupy8m0zs1u98f6wtoje1n9a>. Bis bàll, Mathieu Le 02/02/2017 à 16:50, Danny B. a écrit :

Hello, I know you haven’t heard from me in awhile and I hope this e-mail is recognized by the list. I was the original registrant of the ISO “gsw” tag. I’ve read the discussion page for this, but only in assisted translation, though I can parse the French OK. I’d also add that I registered this tag maybe 10 years ago and suggested this change on the Wikipedia shortly afterward before I ever joined Langcom. I think that might have been how I ended up here? :) These points may help clarify some things: 1. The “gsw” tag is what’s appropriate for Alsatian, Schweizerdeutsch, and Alemannic. Those are considered to be dialects of the same language continuum. It is a bit of an unusual tag in that it does indicate a range of related dialects. Any discussion of Swabian relates to what ISO considers a separate language. Ref: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/langcodes-keyword.php?SearchTerm=… <http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/langcodes-keyword.php?SearchTerm=gsw&SearchType=ALL> 2. The IETF tags discussed are more specific than the ISO code and can be used to distinguish the three named variants above by region — if that is useful. This is one case where allowing the IETF tagging could be very useful, IMHO, but not sure where the group stands with respect to that. However, it should be noted that there is more than one dialect of GSW just in Germany. But there are other variant tagging options for that. That could be preferable. I can’t say. 3. But ISO codes are not assigned by region. It appears that someone is questioning why other languages spoken in Alsace are not part of the same tag? There, I may have lost something in translation. The Amish language discussed is also considered distinct, but would have to look up the code. 4. Those familiar with these dialects should be clear that gsw and gsw-CH are not used to describe High German as written in Switzerland for formal purposes. They describe the more casual dialect used in informal situations that is not easily understood by speakers of High German. In any event, “gsw” certainly seems to be a better tag than “als.” Just some question as to whether the Wiki contains a specific variant that could be identified with more specific tagging and whether we want to allow that. I will look through the discussion more closely. I could provide a better answer if I knew more about the community that works on this and which variant is primarily used, or whether the dialect variants are mixed throughout the Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Regards, Karen Broome