Hoi,
The closure of the tlh.wikipedia was announced by Jimmy Wales at Wikimania
.. The room cheered and thought it a good idea. This was before the
lanuguage committee was started.
When you read the phrasing about languages, you will find that an ISO-639
code is a requirement. This does however not imply at all that it guarantees
the creation of a project. With the ISO-639-6 it is likely that there will
be a code for the American orthography (among others) for the English
language. This will not imply at all that it will be ok to split the English
language Wikipedia.
Having two projects for Belarus is a really bad situation. For me the
only reasonable
outcome would be when the two projects merge.
The existence of new policies does not imply that they will be retroactively
applied. When this is thought to be unfair, I do agree, it is often not
fair.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3/31/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/03/07, Elisabeth Anderl <n9502784(a)students.meduniwien.ac.at> wrote:
What legitimate purpose to Wikimedia's
mission do serve then Esperanto,
Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, etc. Wiktionaries?
You might want to lock all invented languages then.
The message You got on tlh.wikt. is unaccaptable. But it should not be a
reason for closing that wikt.
Please have a look at the statements here
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9164
The reason to reopen it is:
It is a _dictionary_ of an invented language. We have other Wiktionaries
of that kind.
Also, as I could see, there are quite active contributors there, so this
wikt. got even bigger than some of the other mentioned invented
languages sites not closed.
Thanks,
best regards,
Elisabeth Anderl -aka- spacebirdy
Brion Vibber escribió:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Per the announcement I put in the sitenotice last month, I have locked
> the Klingon-language Wiktionary,
http://tlh.wiktionary.org/
>
> As far as I know there was never any deliberate intention to have such
a
> site (it would have been automatically
created alongside the Klingon
> Wikipedia), and it was forgotten when the Klingon Wikipedia was
closed.
> As soon as I was notified of its existence I
put up the notice that it
> would not stay, so anyone working on it would be aware.
>
> The only response I got to my notice was this very rude message, which
> was hidden away where I never saw it until today:
>
http://tlh.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo%27wI%27_ja%27chuq:Brion_VIBBER
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that the site doesn't serve any legitimate
> purpose to Wikimedia's mission; while it may be _fun_ it would be
better
> hosted somewhere else, perhaps whereever the
Klingon Wikipedia ended
up?
>
> If there's some legitimate reason to reopen it, let me know. We could
> hand the question off to the Language Committee if desired.
Well, it turns out Klingon has an ISO 639-2 and an ISO 639-3 code too.
If it is recognised as a language by the ISO, why are we rejecting
their right to have a project?
ISO 639 as the basis for the existance of language projects has been
constant used to justify the Belarussian turn of events. Aren't we
acting with double standards to consider ISO 639 all-important for one
language but suggest this is not important for another.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l