Hoi, A regulatory body can only regulate within its sphere of influence. What is called "Moldovan" does not necessarily relate to the Moldovan country and thereby the relation does not necessarily exist. This has been explained to you before.
There are plenty of languages that do not have a regulatory body associated with them. It is therefore not really necessary to differentiate languages based on the fact if such a body exists or not. This has been explained to you before.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/10/07, Jacky PB dpotop1@yahoo.com wrote:
My constructive position (made clear a long time ago in a discussion here, and in other discussions on various Wikipedia fora) is the following:
- Given that no Cyrillic script Moldovan editor exists
on Wikipedia, it is only important *for the time being* that reading capability is provided for Cyrillic readers.
- This reading capability can already be provided
using the transliteration script of :en:User:Bogdangiusca. I have tried it, and it provides decent results. This script should be the only content of a mo-cyr.wiki, transliterating pages of ro.wiki. For the script, please contact its author.
- When/if Cyrillic-script Moldovan editors ask for
their wikipedia, then (and only then) the mo-cyr.wiki should be given to them.
- Why mo-cyr? Because there are 2 Moldovan languages
at the time being:
- the guys that declared themselves Moldovan in
the Moldovan census are a very large majority, and their Latin-scripted version of Moldovan is regulated by the Moldovan Academy of Sciences.
- the guys that (are forced to) use the Cyrillic
script in Transnistria probably use the last language standard of the Soviet times (I know of no existent regulating body). You see that you just can't let a minority take exclusive use of the ISO code mo/mol. OTOH, the Latin-scripted language is identical with Romanian, as stated by its regulatory body.
As you see, this *is* constructive, and the elements of the solution (and the agreement of Romanians) are here for a very long time now.
Dpotop1
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In what the WMF aims to do it reserves no place on what wikipedia editors do and do not do. It says that we aim to provide information to people. For the language committee it is nor necessarily relevant what language people identify with as it has brought us an un-ending amount of people who do not want to communicate with others and create new "languages" for political reasons.
If you are so happy denying the use of Moldovan, be constructive and promote the use of the ro.wikipedia with the Cyrillic script. If all you can do is deny this option as well as deny the existence of a mo.wikipedia, please refrain from posting unless you have something positive to say.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/10/07, Jacky PB dpotop1@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a big misunderstanding on your
part.
The existance of a Wikipedia in a linguistic entity does not
indicate
any level of difference from other Wikipedias' languages. It
does
not claim that it is a "language" or a "dialect".
I think there's no misunderstanding here. You do have Wikipedia editors identifying their linguistic identity as Bosniac, Croatian, Sebian,
or
Serbo-Croatian. You don't have Wikipedia editors identifying their linguistic identity as Moldovan. That makes all the difference.
:en:Dpotop
We have Wikipedias in Bosnian, Croatian,
Serbian,
and Serbo-Croatian. It's a bit of a paradox, if we have Wikipedias
in
the first 3, we shouldn't have one in the fourth logically.
But this problem is non-existant from a
linguistic
standpoint precisely for the reason I stated above. All
four
are linguistic entities, despite the fact that Serbo-Croatian
is an
"umbrella" entity that allows for the use of the other three. As
long
as there is a reason to have these Wikis separate (ie, unless
BCS
people can agree to a merger), they will be separate.
Now, I think everybody here knows by now that
you
would be willing to merge mo and ro Wikipedias with a script
conversion
system on ro.wikipedia. That is fine. Nobody here objects
to
such a system. What we do object to is that at this very moment, the proposal has very little support from the Romanian Wikipedian community. You have been told many times that you are welcome to try to
test
the waters, organize a poll at ro.wp, try to convince people
of
the utility and validity of such a system, but you keep
complaining
to this list about how it's not your responsibility and about how
WE
need to do something.
How can you have not figured out by now that
with
hundreds of e-mails repeating the exact same thing in so many words,
you
are not only failing to change anything, you are actually
making
people more and more firmly against the position you represent?
Mark
On 09/03/07, Liviu Andronic
wrote:
On 3/5/07, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
> Verbosity is a prerequisite for my
arguments
to be understood. Otherwise
> these are simply skipped. > .... Really ? ...
At times, this is the feeling that I have. At
any
rate, verbosity is
necessary to make my arguments clear.
- According to the recently adopted
Language
proposal
>
policyhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP-
that I suppose can be
> applied to existing wikipedias to
determine
their
> "validity" - there are three "essential"
requisites that can be
verified: a > valid ISO-639 code, language singularity
and a
viable community and
> audience. > Hoi, You are plain wrong. You are also wrong in
applying the policy in this
way. The policy determines how new languages
are
to be accepted. The
Moldovan Wikipedia already exists and it
does
have a valid ISO 639 code.
Thanks, GerardM
Hello,
I have no intent to renew this debate. This is simply to say that my view
over
the entire issue has not radically changed.
For
the following (same)
reasons:
From what I know, the tiny wikipedias (like
the
Moldovan one) were created �
partir de a "list" with no formal voting and
without following any specific
guidelines or policy. On this basis, I believe
that the newly adopted policy
could be used for determining the
"correctness"
of wikipedias that were
created in "obscure" ways. In any case, it is
not
up to me to decide such a
usage.
As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid
indeed
in the eyes of the ISO,
but also according to the official POV of the
Party of Communists in RM (I
suspect), of the Transnistrian authorities and
might have been in the eyes
=== message truncated ===
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l