There's something that I had to consider several times recently: If there
are doubts about a language's eligibility for having its own Wikipedia, but
it does have an ISO code, is there any reason to deny translation into it
More precisely: The language definitely passes criterion 2 in "Requisites
for eligibility"  ("The language must have a valid ISO 639 1–3 code"),
but there is no conclusive decision about whether it passes criterion 3
("The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a
more general wiki").
Example 1: Montenegrin (cnr), which was discussed lately, and about which
most of the Language committee seems to have the opinion that it doesn't
pass criterion 3.
Example 2: Ancash Quechua (qwh). There is some discussion about it at
, but I cannot find any discussion by committee members (other than
Steven). (I don't have an opinion about it myself, and I'm not opposed to
marking it as eligible.)
Example 3: Dari (prs). This was already rejected by the committee with an
explanation similar to Montenegrin, but it is already enabled in
translatewiki. (Curiously, translatewiki also has Zoroastrian Dari [gbz];
I'm not sure why, but I'm not really opposed to it.)
I'd say that in such cases, localization in translatewiki should usually be
allowed. In translatewiki we have English, UK English, and Canadian
English; German and Formal German (Sie); Hungarian and Formal Hungarian. If
these are eligible for translatewiki, then I'd say that cnr and qwh are
eligible for translatewiki, because both seem to have at least some
differences from related languages.
Of course, there's the question of whether Language Committee decisions
apply to translatewiki at all, given that it's not really a Wikimedia
project, but it's probably legitimate to at least express an opinion.
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing list