On 18/10/06, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:
Mark, are you able to read English? Where did I or Gerard write that we restrict languages to ISO 639-3 codes? If any we talk about ISO 639-3 and to add specifiers to it to get a proper code for officially not existing languages.
Well, that's basically what I said in my e-mail. Gerard wrote that we should follow the standard, etc., etc., and you wrote something about making codes up.
Did I ever advocate that we just make codes up? Unless you think that using 6-letter codes (macro code plus custom identifier, viz fiu-vro, bat-smg, roa-rup, map-bms, etc.) is "making codes up", which from what you said in most of this e-mail doesn't follow your opinion.
You should know very well what it means when you need to proof that a
language exists ... or am I wrong and everything in the last year was always all to obvious and went smoothly?
I didn't need to prove anything to anyone. The fact that it has its own ISO 639-2 code speaks for itself. That it is written in that script in that region is a fact, not disputed. What /is/ disputed is whether or not it is "offensive", or whether it should be allowed to exist given there are not native speakers working on it. If this is how well-informed you are on this extremely controversial issue, you need to do some studying before you vote to make a decision.
You should not doubt about someon trying to be objective. Objectivity
can be preserved only by facts on the ground - not by: I am favourable or against because I think this or that ...
Humans are subjective by nature. We can be more objective or less objective, but it is impossible for us to be entirely objective.
Multilingual mediawiki is not all too far away ... and it can, if we
work out a good strategy, be the solution for many language problems. Why? Well, imagine that there is that macro language or that language that has other languages included, but that up to now don't have an own code .... well: they can co-operate on one wiki - we are about languages, right? so why would we try to separate the macro language to many small wikipedias? Does it make sense? From a time and
No, it makes little sense. Our current usage of macro codes does not agree to such a handling.
I think you misunderstand the term "macro-language". It refers to a code for a "language" that is really more of a language family. "macro codes" also include codes for entire language families, such as BAT, FIU, and MAP.
administration point of view there is little sense in doubling the
efforts ... Imagine to have one admin per locale that belongs to the macro language .... that would mean the clean up work with vandals would not depend on one person only. Certain kinds of contents could be created contemporarily for all of the languages/dialects .... it would shift all of them to another level.
It really only works for special cases. Certain close dialects of Kurdish, maybe some of the Italian minority languages, Dutch Low Saxon (many dialects, no single standard), Norman... But currently they are already cooperating in single Wikipedias. It won't work for more different cases, such as Samogitian/Latgalian (share the same macro code) or Võro and Karelian (again, share the same macro code), because editors will not understand each other.
If the committee's official opinion is that we should try to have "cooperation" in a single Wiki between certain mutually unintelligible varieties, then WM has reached a new low when it comes to language policy.
And now please come back on earth among living beings ... and consider
this with a logical mindset and not only "they are this or that ...." we are not this or that, we have our experiences and these are at disposal of all by trying to make the creation of new wikipedias as npov as possible.
Yes, but what makes you special? Why should you get to have a microcommunity that is more important than the existing community? Why are your opinions more valued than ours? You also have to consider that simply *moving* a new Wiki right on top of an existing Wiki (as you are apparently planning for the Belarusan case, according to Timichal) is going to cause huge issues. A slow phasing-out, replacement of articles individually or by bots makes much, much more sense.
Just saw your latest mail: there were no requirements and restrictions
published by us up to now ... well, I'd know that really ... clouds?
Mentioned on Incubator, supported by Timichal on IRC...
Mark