ScottL wrote:
Are you advocating dis-including a language because
it does not have
an acceptable abbreviation? Or are you maintaining that it is not
actually a language?
If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
new wikipedia to be formed.
The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an
official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that
language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should
not. Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable. Several constructed
languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those
should be higher. For languages without a code there is still a large
swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our
other criteria.
Ec