Mark, at least two linguists (User:Angr is another) said twice that story about Zlatiborian is a hoax.
And I am not saying Zlatiborian is a real language. What I am saying is that people should be able to decide what it says on their userpage about the languages they speak, even if it's rediculous.
I strongly support sociocultural identities of various people, but this one would be silly if there would not be some not-so-good-informed people who support them.
Are you saying I'm not well informed? I know perfectly well that it's ludicrous to suggest a separate Zlatiborian language. But I believe that these people have the right to say it's the language they speak.
blah blah blah
Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin have very small differences. The only reason why they are "separate languages" is political. Between 200.000 and 10.000.000 of people say for themself that they are speaking the language with different name.
Yes, I know. I may not be fluent in Serbocroatian, but I certainly know what the situation on the ground is.
blah blah blah
Again you bring up statistics, trying to prove to me that Zlatiborian isn't a language. I don't care -- that is irrelevant to my viewpoint. My view is that, REGARDLESS of whether it is a language or not, it should be allowed a Babel template so long as any Wikipedians claim to speak that "language".
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If Glapolgaptoringian is the same as
English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
But this *is* the user space!!! The intended use of Babel templates is the user space!!! I don't advocate writing misinformation in articles. But I don't see the harm in keeping Babel templates for languages the existance of which is dubious.
- Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national constitution. In
the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
We are talking about the user namespace, NOT the article namespace. I don't think any mention of "zlatiborian language" should be made in the article namespace as it really doesn't deserve that mention, but I think it should be allowed in template and user namespaces.
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
That makes absolutely no sense. The language tag is only for user pages.
Also, note that he/she/they took two-letters code "zb"... As well as I took three-letters code for Belgradian. Do you think that there are more relevant languages which would need those codes?
So far, there is no language with the ISO(/DIS) 639 two-letter code "zb". This may not always be the case; if it is determined that a real ISO code is nessecary, one could just use "zlatibor" or "zlat" or "qzlt", all of which will never become ISO language codes.
I agree with that. But, as I understud explicite rules on English Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not the place where all human knowledge should be kept. If someone calls his/her language Zlatiborian even it is the same as Serbian and other Zlatiborians (in the sense of rebion) call their language Serbian, then it is idiosyncretic, not relevant in the sense of encyclopedia.
Yes, but the user pages aren't part of the encyclopaedia; rather they are a supplement to it.
And, of course, when Wikipedia becomes "the place where all human knowledge should be kept" I would completely agree to keep Zlatiborian articles and user boxes.
Articles should be deleted. Templates for userpages should be kept.
Yes, Mark, I understand that you would support Texans if they say that they are talking Texanian even it is the same as English as well as I support Montenegrins to call their language as Montenegrin even it is (almost) the same as Serbian.
But, there are a lot of differences between Montenegrins and Zlatiborians. I hope that I explained what are the differences.
Well, perhaps it's better to say I would support somebody from LA saying their language is Californian. The speech of LA is more or less the basis for "standard" American English (well, not the basis, but one of the major influences). Grammar and vocabulary are basically the same as the standard, differences are (mostly) only in pronunciation.
Now, this in my mind is equivalent to Zlatiborians and Serbians.
Mark