[Foundation-l] Language subcommittee vs Montenegrin language - show time over again
sabine_cretella at yahoo.it
Fri Apr 13 11:39:19 UTC 2007
Brianna: I was talking about American English/British English, the
Chinese scripts on one zh.wikipedia, German German/Austrian German/Swiss
German/South Tyrol German, European Spanish/various South American
Spanish varieties etc. and these varieties are quite different depending
on their different development.
In many cases, in the past, Wikipedias were created that could have
co-existed and co-operated on one Wikipedia. Now: we are not talking
about what was, but what is going to be. So if there is such a
similarity that it makes sense to co-operate and not multiply wikipedias
that is the way to go.
Just saw that Gerard answered something similar ... well, so no need to
go ahead and duplicate things said :-)
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> Not to be nit-picky, but...
> On 13/04/07, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>> We haveONE English wikipedia, ONE German wikipedia, ONE Chinese
>> wikipedia, ONE Spanish wikipedia, ONE Portuguese wikipedia etc. and they
>> all are able to co-operate within their variations - so we simply expect
>> the same from you.
> Well, actually we have two English Wikipedias (en: and simple:) and
> multiple "Chinese" Wikipedias (so far zh: - Mandarin, zh-yue:
> Cantonese, zh-classical: Classical Chinese, zh-min-nan: Min-Nan, wuu:
> Wu, cdo: Min-Dong). Also two Norwegian Wikipedias (no: and nn:).
> I'm just saying it's not like the boundaries of languages are clear or
> well-defined, and it's not like defining what constitutes a language
> has ever been free of politics. Both which I'm sure Sabine is actually
> aware of. :)
More information about the foundation-l