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
* 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.
--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
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
refrain from posting unless you have something
positive to say.
On 3/10/07, Jacky PB <dpotop1(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is a big misunderstanding on your
> The existance of
> a Wikipedia in a linguistic entity does not
> any level of
> difference from other Wikipedias' languages. 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,
Serbo-Croatian. You don't have Wikipedia
identifying their linguistic identity as Moldovan.
That makes all the difference.
> We have Wikipedias in Bosnian, Croatian,
> and Serbo-Croatian.
> It's a bit of a paradox, if we have Wikipedias
> the first 3, we
> shouldn't have one in the fourth logically.
> But this problem is non-existant from a
> precisely for the reason I stated above. All
> are linguistic
> entities, despite the fact that Serbo-Croatian
> "umbrella" entity
> that allows for the use of the other three. As
> as there is a
> reason to have these Wikis separate (ie, unless
> people can agree
> to a merger), they will be separate.
> Now, I think everybody here knows by now that
> would be willing to
> merge mo and ro Wikipedias with a script
> system on
> ro.wikipedia. That is fine. Nobody here objects
> 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
> the waters,
> organize a poll at ro.wp, try to convince people
> the utility and
> validity of such a system, but you keep
> to this list about
> how it's not your responsibility and about how
> need to do
> How can you have not figured out by now that
> hundreds of e-mails
> repeating the exact same thing in so many words,
> are not only
> failing to change anything, you are actually
> people more and
> more firmly against the position you represent?
> On 09/03/07, Liviu Andronic
> > On 3/5/07, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Verbosity is a prerequisite for my
> to be understood. Otherwise
> > > > these are simply skipped.
> > > >
> > > .... Really ? ...
> > At times, this is the feeling that I have. At
> rate, verbosity is
> > necessary to make my arguments clear.
> > > 2. According to the recently adopted
> > > > policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP>-
> that I suppose can be
> > > > applied to existing wikipedias to
> > > > "validity" - there are three "essential"
> requisites that can be
> > > verified: a
> > > > valid ISO-639 code, language singularity
> 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
> to be accepted. The
> > > Moldovan Wikipedia already exists and it
> 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
> > the entire issue has not radically
> the following (same)
> > reasons:
> > From what I know, the tiny wikipedias (like
> 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
> of wikipedias that were
> > created in "obscure" ways. In any case, it is
> up to me to decide such a
> > usage.
> > As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid
> 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.
Wikipedia-l mailing list