[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] vro

Marcus Buck me at marcusbuck.org
Wed Jan 21 23:43:04 UTC 2009

I agree on 'et', but the 'no' case is different. the codes 'no', 'nb' 
and 'nn' were present in ISO 639 since the beginning. 'no' is the code 
that covers both 'nn' and 'nb'. When 'nn' split from 'no' it would have 
been good, if 'no' had been moved to 'nb' the same time.

The main difference between the cases of Voro/Estonian and 
Bokmal/Nynorsk is, that Bokmal and Nynorsk speakers would both agree if 
you ask them "Do you speak Norwegian?" But Voro speakers do not agree 
when asked "Do you speak Estonian?" They'd say "No, I speak Voro."
So, both Nynorsk and Bokmal are contesters to the code 'no', but Voro 
has few interest to be covered by 'et'.
That shouldn't surprise, since Nynorsk and Bokmal are two different 
standardizations for the same language, when Voro and Estonian are 
different languages.

Marcus Buck

Lars Aronsson hett schreven:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> It is nice that you oppose, there are reasons why it might be a 
>> bad idea, but the ones that I know are not the ones you put 
>> forward. A reason why a change would be good is that it will 
>> prevent confusion.
> Come on, nobody is confused about what language Estonian is.  If 
> giving a language code to a local dialect means we have to rename 
> all URLs for one of the major Wikipedias (Estonian is the 34th 
> biggest, Bokmål is the 13th biggest), this only means we have to 
> oppose all future assignments of new ISO language codes.  It is OK 
> to use the standard when naming new Wikipedias, but it's not OK to 
> suddenly change a well-known address.
> We're here to spread free knowledge.  That is not helped by 
> renaming all of our URLs just because of some random ISO standard 
> change.  The no and et Wikipedias should be kept as they are.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list