Talk:List of sign languages: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎ISO 639 followup: queue, not gee
Line 17: Line 17:
== ISO 639 followup ==
== ISO 639 followup ==


<div style="column-count: 8;">
<div style="column-count:7;">
* [[ISO 639:ads]]
* [[ISO 639:ads]]
* [[ISO 639:aed]]
* [[ISO 639:aed]]
Line 51: Line 51:
* [[ISO 639:dsl]]
* [[ISO 639:dsl]]
* [[ISO 639:dsz]]
* [[ISO 639:dsz]]
* [[ISO 639:ecs]]
* [[ISO 639:ehs]]
* [[ISO 639:esl]]
* [[ISO 639:esn]]
* [[ISO 639:eso]]
* [[ISO 639:eth]]
* [[ISO 639:fcs]]
* [[ISO 639:fse]]
* [[ISO 639:fsl]]
* [[ISO 639:fss]]
* [[ISO 639:gsg]]
* [[ISO 639:gsg]]
</div>
</div>

Revision as of 03:14, 1 May 2024

Add ISO 639-3 codes?

I wonder if it would help if we add a column to these tables for a language's ISO 639-3 code, when it has one. It seems rather odd that when we use those codes in so many places in WP, we haven't used them here. Of course, a lot of sign languages don't have ISO codes, but this will be one way of calling attention to that fact. BTW, I have a readily-available list, already sorted by continent and language name, so it would be fairly easy for me to do this. In other words, if others agree, I'm happy to be the one to do the grunt-work. Ping me if you have comments. AlbertBickford (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I see the point. We used to use ISO codes in a lot of family articles, and this page, because we didn't have individual articles on the languages. I've been removing them as language articles were created. Other editors have been removing them too; the lack of objection over several years constitutes silent consensus. The only place I can think of where we still use them is spurious language (because many of those "languages" still do not have articles) and in the list of artificial languages that mentions Kotava and Romanova, whose articles have been deleted as not notable. If we restore them here, why not add them to thousands of family articles? I don't see any advantage in doing that. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't know about that history. I'm fine with leaving them out. AlbertBickford (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639 followup

Arlo James Barnes 02:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]