David Gerard schreef:
On 21/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Utterly and totally. I really don't see a case for having removed it at all.
Forces us to do original reseach in defineing what is a language and in some cases creating a written script.
See, this sort of answer is why people think you're a troll. The reasons "in their own language" is a good thing have been discussed on this list ad nauseam in the past.
- d.
Hoi, Defining what a language is, defining a script is a non trivial matter. When you want to get into these kinds of thing there is a space for it. There are people who dedicate their life to these kinds of thing. There are two types of people (and many classifications), there are those that do and there are those who don't.
Both for the defining what a language is and, for coming up for a script, you are in the wrong place when you want to do it in the Wikimedia Foundation. There are other organisations that deal with that. There are people in those organisations that are "approachable" that do not bite and who are happy when people show a "do and can" attitude.
When there is a need for doing original research to have a language or a dialect or an orthography or a script recognised or dismissed by Standard organisations, then the need for this within the Wikimedia Foundation is to have it done outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. Voting on "is this a language" is a bad idea. It just does not work. Demonstrating that there is a big corpus in what is supposed to be a language does work. This however has to be shown to relevant Standard organisations because that is what they are there for.\
The question is, do you want to go that extra mile ..
Thanks, GerardM