Gerard, We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble. > On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi, > In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a two > third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as > possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. > For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we > should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than > linguistic reality. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: > One issue: voting. > > == Voting == > > This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or > you want any addition. > > 1) No voting > > 1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member > of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project > should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board. > > 1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia > projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no > significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population > of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this > case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible. > > 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be > approved without them. > > 2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion) > > 2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but > without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers > ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of > speakers.) > > 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but > valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.) > > 2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between > prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers > "macrolangauges".) > > 2.4) Project approval if not 1.3. > > 3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion) > > 3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in > possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing > projects policy [1]. > > 4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion) > > 4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by > any of the current committee member. > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
