[Foundation-l] Ancient Greek Wikipedia, possible reconsideration

[Mark Williamson]

The difference is that grc.wp, unlike als.wp, would not be squatting
on a space that could potentially be used by another language. If you
presume that it is impossible to write an encyclopedia in the language
designated by grc.wp, which I still think is an absurd argument, then
I don't see the problem with letting the code be used for... well,
whatever you want to call it.

As far as making up fake codes, codes like map-bms or lat-smg do not
do the type of potential future damage that als.wp does. There is no
potential for harm of any type, there is  no squatting at somebody
else's code.

Mark

On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  It is NOT easy to change codes. Just consider the tragic story of the
>  als.wikipedia.org a project that is squatting on the code for the most
>  relevant Albanian language. We have asked this to be resolved for more then
>  a year. As to the ISO process, I know how long on average it takes, I made
>  it my business to know.
>
>  It is not acceptable to me to have projects that suggest to be one thing
>  while in fact they are not. Ancient Greek is an historic language and as
>  such it is no longer spoken. Either get its definition changed or get
>  another code.
>  Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>  > If you believe it would happen so soon (which I am quite pessimistic
>  > about, especially for the multiplicity of languages this might apply
>  > to), then why not allow these Wikipedias to exist under the "wrong"
>  > code for so short a time?
>  >
>  > It would be easy to move them afterward, and you would find no
>  > opposition to moving them then.  If Pathoschild would agree to this,
>  > would it be amenable to you as well?
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > Pharos
>  >
>  > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > > Hoi,
>  > >  I spoke with the convener of the ISO working group that includes the
>  > ISO-639
>  > >  codes. I spoke with someone from SIL. Not vague at all. When you
>  > suggest
>  > >  that it takes 10 years, you do not know what your talking about.. One
>  > year
>  > >  is more like it. It does not preclude continued work on the Incubator..
>  > >
>  > >  The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the
>  > Latin
>  > >  Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
>  > >
>  > >  Again, there is no urgency and there is certainly no rush. Given
>  > >  Pathoschild's stance I am the closest that you have to ever getting an
>  > Old
>  > >  Greek project in the first place.
>  > >  Thanks,
>  > >      GerardM
>  > >
>  > >  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
>  > >  wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  > >  > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >  > > Hoi,
>  > >  > >  The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing
>  > a
>  > >  > corner
>  > >  > >  case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the
>  > >  > things
>  > >  > >  that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a
>  > reconstructed
>  > >  > >  language, there is no urgency.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years.  Just 7 years, and
>  > >  > look at all that has been accomplished.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of
>  > >  > likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your
>  > >  > unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a
>  > >  > requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to
>  > >  > consider significant.  And if it ever were implemented in the medium
>  > >  > term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing
>  > >  > the larger issue.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed"
>  > >  > code later if one was ever implemented.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > But I assert that there -is- an urgency now.  Waiting 10 years should
>  > >  > not be an option.  We would lose -far- too many good
>  > >  > encyclopedia-writing hours.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Thanks,
>  > >  > Pharos
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > > _______________________________________________
>  > >  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > >  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > >  > Unsubscribe:
>  > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  > >  >
>  > >  _______________________________________________
>  > >  foundation-l mailing list
>  > >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  > >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>