On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:22:05 +0100, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, From a policy point of view the language committee does not consider political arguments. The argument that a likelyhood is very small is exactly the kind of argument that would still allow a language to be accepted.
You are successfully confusing me.
1. because at any other occasion you insist that project closures are none of langcom's business and 2. because langcom's policy is exactly: "no community - no wiki". In this case there was, as far as I see, no community.
The aim of our foundation is to provide information to all people, not just the people that you care for.
The only valid purpose of a "Moldavian" Wikipedia would be to serve a Moldavian linguistic community. However, I cannot see that there has been any demand by native Moldavians for such a Wiki, which is not surprising if the observation is correct that the only remaining use of Cyrillic script is in those places where it is enforced by ethnically Russian dominated authorities.
The arguments for closure for Moldovan are not shared by the language committee and it was a VOTE that closed the mo.wikipedia it was definetly not consensus.
Again: Can you name any native Moldavian/Romanian speaker who voted in favour of the continuation of this project?
It was also not done with permission of the board. The notion that you or anybody else feels that a language code is given out in error is politics. It is personal while I agree that you can have this opinion, it is an opinion you are entitled to it. I do not share your sentiments.
Then where exactly is it said that the mo language code is reserved for Moldavian/Romanian /in Cyrillic script/?
Also when you use these arguments and you insist that they are to be WMF policy, you do provide arguments to deny languages that are being considered. This is not a zero sum game.
?!?
Thanks,
Johannes