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