[Foundation-l] mo.wikipedia.org

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As it is, it will remain in this way unless the powers that be decide
differently.

When you read about the arguments why the Moldovan language was deprecated,
the argument was very much based on what an official Moldovan organisation
did. The people in Transnistria are effectively not part of the remit of
this official organisation and this makes it effectively another political
decision, not that I have a problem with the result because here perfection
is the enemy of the good.

The one question is, to what extend there is a difference between the
Romanian as spoken in Moldova and spoken in Transnistria. If there is a wish
to indicate such a difference, there is no proper way to indicate areas like
Transnistria because they are not part of the ISO-3166-1. Because of this
wilfull ommission the RFC falls flat on its face.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:

> On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:30, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Because this is one of the most heavily fought battles that did not
> > result in a situation that is acceptable to all.
>
> Well, since "mo" is now deprecated, re-naming it "ro-Cyrl" can be done
> without really taking any decision. It's essentially cosmetic.
>
> > The issue is that the people behind the mo.wikipedia are not living
> > anywhere near the areas involved and they are not native speakers/
> > writers either. It would have been good when this thing had been
> > just deleted because the pain would have worn off. However, the
> > decision was that when a native speaker comes along, it can be
> > restarted...
>
> I don't understand. Is it to be deleted? Is it to be re-named? If not
> the former, then surely the latter.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>