Difference between revisions of "Project talk:Languages"
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
In LSL Portal, each languages have categorys. Example,Category:LSL is Category:LSL/fr and Category:LSL/ja, with lang codes. But this is LSL Portal only now. I also want to organize each langs pages with each langs category in other portals. [[User:Asuka Neely|Asuka Neely]] 04:24, 25 February 2008 (PST) | In LSL Portal, each languages have categorys. Example,Category:LSL is Category:LSL/fr and Category:LSL/ja, with lang codes. But this is LSL Portal only now. I also want to organize each langs pages with each langs category in other portals. [[User:Asuka Neely|Asuka Neely]] 04:24, 25 February 2008 (PST) | ||
:Originally we weren't going to have the translated articles in categories but I realized that it would aid usability if we did. Having all of them go into a single set of category pages resulted in them getting too busy so we split them. There is no reason I see not to carry the practice across the entire wiki. | :Originally we weren't going to have the translated articles in categories but I realized that it would aid usability if we did. Having all of them go into a single set of category pages resulted in them getting too busy so we split them. There is no reason I see not to carry the practice across the entire wiki. [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 06:28, 25 February 2008 (PST) |
Revision as of 06:28, 25 February 2008
Some notes
I prefer use of ISO 639-1 alpha-2 codes for language identification, because it covers most of the major languages and it is the common practice of IT industry today. I believe 639-2 alpha-3 is overkilling for the projects like SL wiki, but it can co-exist with alpha-2 codes, and I added some wording on the possibility of their uses in a future. Use of ISO 639-3 doesn't make sense. (Who wants to have pages in such rare languages?)
I just taken the page title convention from MediaWiki web site. It is primarily consistent with the existing practice on this SL wiki.
I know that Project talk:I18n#Translated versions of an existing article says some different convention on the page translation, but I ignored it, primarily because I don't think ISO 639-3 is a good choice (see above for this point), and entire page and its associated project page doesn't look like a page to cover I18N (internationalziation) issues on SL wiki project. The page is for a group activity called "I18N project". (I believe the author of the page didn't know the purpose of MediaWiki's project name space...)
I know that a set of pages Voice Mentors: Getting Started with Voice and its (incomplete) translations uses similar but different convention. I believe the differences are small, and we can migrate in a future.
-- Alissa Sabre 23:58, 7 September 2007 (PDT)
Supported Languages
I noticed that the list of supported languages shown here and that for viewer UI (shown on How to Localize Your World).
Languages only supported as a wiki page:
- Ilalian
- Dutch
Languages only supported as a viewer UI:
- Korean
I also noticed that the list of supported languages in Template:Languages-spoken is very huge; it looks like covering all ISO 639-1 languages. (Although I've not verified...)
I personally don't care the disagreement in this case. Opinions?
-- Alissa Sabre 18:57, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
- Template:ISO_639-3/cat-speaking contains all ISO 639-3 languages in their english spelling.
- -- SignpostMarv Martin 18:02, 12 October 2007 (PDT)
- I agree having more wiki languages than viewer languages can make sense. I think we say "Ilalian" here to mean "Italian". I, for one, have used the English viewer to chat in Italian.
- -- Ppaatt Lynagh 08:08, 4 November 2007 (PST)
Each lang code categorys
In LSL Portal, each languages have categorys. Example,Category:LSL is Category:LSL/fr and Category:LSL/ja, with lang codes. But this is LSL Portal only now. I also want to organize each langs pages with each langs category in other portals. Asuka Neely 04:24, 25 February 2008 (PST)
- Originally we weren't going to have the translated articles in categories but I realized that it would aid usability if we did. Having all of them go into a single set of category pages resulted in them getting too busy so we split them. There is no reason I see not to carry the practice across the entire wiki. Strife Onizuka 06:28, 25 February 2008 (PST)