On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:22:05 +0100, GerardM wrote:
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
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
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
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.