timichal wrote:
> In the
past we have accepted codes to be used as "language" codes which
> were non-existent and have had as a result that we are not in compliance
> with the rules of accepted use for the ISO-639 codes. When codes for new
> languages are used that are not consistent with the existing ISO-639
> codes (all two and three character codes) a language should not be
> accepted at all.
>
>
We can handle ISO-639 codes, it's no problem to assign the correct code if it
exist. In my opinion, even languages without an ISO-639 code should be
accepted; however, this shouldn't be controlled by us, but the decision should
be made in the New language requests vote.
You can only vote on things that are acceptable in the first place. It
is not acceptable to make up codes that are in violation with the rules
of usage of the ISO-639 codes. You can vote all you like and have
whatever majority but is is fundamentally wrong. When you want to have
codes that are permissible, the
http://simple.wikipedia.org is a great
example of what CAN be done without infringing on compatibility of the
ISO-639 rules.
According to
your rules, anyone (with help of
a few friends or of a few sockpuppets) can re-open the Zorglub language
(oldbies will understand which language is concerned).
So, your proposal needs to mention the issue of constructed languages.
The policy is just a proposal at the moment; however, we'll take this into
account. There is a Quenya language test in Incubator; I suppose we should
delete it?
Besides, I see you wrote "The Foundation
will also have to approve the
domain". Errrrrrrr. I'd prefer we avoid such bottleneck. How about
something like "if at least 20 votes with a very large majority", no
approval needed. If less votes or less obvious support, then, the
Foundation or the spc must approve before creation ?
I removed the approval part, I think it remained there from the time when it
was imported on Meta and reworded by Daniel. As for your 20 votes suggestion -
unfortunately there are often cases of flash voting, where 20-30 voters can
easily appear out of nowhere and declare their support. We can counter this
somewhat by forcing all voters to have accounts, but there are still problems
with that. I think this has yet to be decided somehow. We should make a
percent range of approval, like with RfAs on English Wikipedia; e.g. more than
75% support gets approved automatically, between 50% and 75% needs approval by
Foundation/SPcom and less then 50% fails to get a wiki estalished.
The problem with
the votes that were taken on Meta proved that there was
little merit in much of the votes. Many of the votes were plain
political. The lack of reason proved to be such that I only voted when
the proposal was seriously flawed. For me ANY proposal that prevents us
from communicating what language we are using is seriously flawed. It
did not prevent us from having projects where an existing Wikipedia
prevents setting up a wikipedia using the rightful "owner" of the
ISO-639-3 code .. :(
Does it help that with single login, everybody who works on any project
has his or her user ??
Thanks,
GerardM