Hoi, When we were to move away from a set of URL's from et to ekk, a generic redirect from et to ekk will suffice because there will be a one on one relation. The et named articles will never be used for anything else. This is true because this is how the standard works.
For those wikis where the code has been squatted, there is no such quarantee. It is also quite clear that these codes have been always wrong.
Where we disagree is about the definition of "good" URL's. We either have our domain structure complying with a framework or we don't. As we DO have a domain structure that complies to a framework, the URL's that do not comply are "wrong". Given that the framework allows for the changes to languages, there is nothing "wrong" with reorganising our domain structure. Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/23 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se
Kjetil Lenes wrote:
If you consider Norwegian nynorsk to be a dialect, you have your facts wrong. It is one of two written forms of norwegian, they have the same legal standing.
I'm not talking about dialects or legal standing. I'm talking about renaming thousands of URLs, breaking incoming links from other websites, for no good reason. Once assigned, good URLs such as no.wikipedia.org and et.wikipedia.org should not be changed.
ISO can decide tomorrow that English should be xy and French should be ab. We shouldn't follow such changes. It is a totally different issue that we consult ISO when we open a new project.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l