Hoi, Please explain what the arguments are NOT to accept a standard that is the only viable way of making sure that other people understand what language we are using. Please explain what alternative exists given the all too frequent choice of codes that are the codes for languages given by the standards organisation when new projects are proposed. Please explain what is gained by going against what is the standard for the acceptance of languages and measure it against what it would cost us to do it in an idiosyncratic manner. Please explain what is wrong to use either codes that comply with the standard and when we do not want to use such a code, a code that is manifestly different.
It is fine to have a different opinion but please let there be some method behind the madness.
Thanks, GerardM
Ray Saintonge wrote:
ScottL wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
ScottL wrote:
The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should not. Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable. Several constructed languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those should be higher. For languages without a code there is still a large swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our other criteria.
From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the POV is can be reasonably supported. Which means it should still be a case by case thing.
Absolutely. That's why I emphasize that such a POV is only a starting point. . Ec