Talk:Codes for constructed languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ISO 15924?[edit]

As in Blissymbol...

Also, {{Infobox language}} should be checked / expanded to support this, and the table also.

Are all the languages listed coded properly on their wiki page? Sai Emrys ¿? 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 15924 is for scripts rather than languages, so it isn't appropriate to add it to the table. (Blissymbols is a script as well as a language.) I haven't checked all the articles for correctness. --Zundark 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the other languages listed have strongly associated scripts that have codes? I think it's worth adding, perhaps with a note explaining that one set of codes are for the language itself, and the other for the script. Sai Emrys ¿? 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europanto[edit]

I propose to delete the line referring to Europanto since the associated code elements are no longer valid. Doug Ewell 19:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougEwell (talkcontribs)

Broken link[edit]

ISO 639 code tables on the website of the ISO 639-3 Registration AuthorityBluethailand (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Jonah (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codes for constructed languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

simple tag[edit]

Much as I would like to have it, I could not find any evidence on a sublanguage "simple" in BCP 47 (rfc4647/rfc5646). I think that statement should be removed - unless a reference can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanenc (talkcontribs) 2021-06-01 (UTC)

For BCP 47 subtags it's necessary to check the Language Subtag Registry to determine the official status. And simple is indeed listed there as a variant subtag meaning "simplified form". --Zundark (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]