Template talk:mo

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion debate[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Template:mo

Deprecated. TeleComNasSprVen 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Template:mo" and "http://mo.wiktionary.org/" are different things. Keep the template as long as we have Category:Moldavian language.--Daniel 10:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep, this is a de facto nomination of Category:Moldavian language and all of its subcategories, and I've seen no discussion on the matter. No discussion, no support from me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
We could, and might as well, start the discussion of the category here then. TeleComNasSprVen 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Take it to the BP.​—msh210 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
According to this report from the Summer Institute of Linguistics linked to in the proposal discussion above about the closure of mowiki-related Wikimedia sites, the former ISO-639 code mol (mo) was retired in 2008, i.e. merged with the code ron (ro) and therefore any entries containing the Moldavian language code should probably be changed to Romanian ro instead. Ergo, this template seems unnecessary as it does not represent an official language. TeleComNasSprVen 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, we use {{mo}} to represent Romanian as written in Cyrillic script (or Moldovan, depending on your point of view). In that aspect, the code is mildly useful. -- Prince Kassad 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't follow ISO 639-1 religiously, the fact it's deprecated doesn't automatically exclude it from Wiktionary (no better example of this than {{sh}}). --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The practice of using language codes to represent scripts is controversial, though. There are currently discussions about changing that for Chinese, as well. —CodeCat 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This was moved to {{etyl:mo}} as part of the unification of Romanian and Moldavian. This debate has been dead for so long it seems wrong to continue it, so I'd suggest that if anyone wants to nominate {{etyl:mo}} they should do so, and this debate will end in an 'rfd-archived' as opposed to rfd-passed or rfd-failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)