GerardM wrote:
Hoi, For some of the newly created wikipedias there are reasons why I would not create them as languages in WiktionaryZ in this manner They are:
http://roa-tara.wikipedia.org/ Tarantino http://cbk-zam.wikipedia.org/ Zamboanga Chavacano http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/ Classical Chinese http://cu.wikipedia.org/ Old Church Slavonic http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/ Siberian/Nort Russian
- Tarantino is supposed to use the roa code. This code does not
signify anything but that it is a Romance language. The code does specify what is included in the code and Tarantino is not one of them.
- In ISO-639-3 cbk is the code for Chavacano. Zamboangueño is an
alternative name..
- For Classical Chinese there is no specificity as what is meant by
this. This is also easy to explain as the zh (zho) code itself is depreciated in the ISO-639-3 because there are some 10 languages that are included in this code.
- I might include the Old Church Slavonic as chu. It is used as
liturgical language of various Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches. It is considered extinct.
- The ru-sib is a created language. It is a bad idea to create a code
as if it is a dialect of the Russian language when it is not.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard, please note that Wikipedia hasn't standardized on ISO 639-2 like Wiktionary has. Otherwise, you'd be using "eng.wikipedia.org" instead of "en.wikipedia.org". Maybe someday; I still remember going to "en2.wikipedia.org" way back when, so the URLs certainly aren't permanent.