don't worry, current and community proposal exclude expressly dialects, and different written forms of the same language.

see:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft

C.m.l.

----- Original Message ---- From: Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2008 2:24:55 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

Acceptance of the RFC 4646 as the standard to go by would mean that we split the en.wikipedia.org in the many variants accepted under this standard. Not a good idea you will agree.

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:

It was retired before ISO 639-3 was published, and even if it weren't it would fail the requirement that it "be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki".

In light of this requirement mentioned by Jesse, how is it a problem that RFC 4646 provides for "many variants" (like en-GB, en-AU etc)?