Talk:jv

jv
The (only) sense of "The ISO 639-1 official language code of Javanese". --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can look this up at the SIL website, where it is listed. --EncycloPetey 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any that use the term rather than just mention the term? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's not a word so you can't use it in a sentence any more than enm or ang, can you? What am I missing here? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Votes/2009-12/Proposed inclusion of words and abbreviations with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments failed, so this needs to be deleted. -- Prince Kassad 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Err hang on, it can still pass in other ways can't it? Thinking about translingual, a lot of our translingual terms aren't words but rather symbols or codes or whatever. I think we need some policy on this, or propose enm alongside it. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've nominated all the alpha-3 ISO codes. -- Prince Kassad 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm really saying that if these don't meet CFI, they should be at RFD. Otherwise, what does use vs. mention even mean for a symbol like this? I don't know what to look for. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A Usenet cite of someone saying, "Yeah, I'm pretty fluent in jv, but less so in ang" should do IMO. Or maybe even a book saying "if you set your browser's accept-language header to include "jv" then you'll see that Web page in Javanese, because it...". (That's a use, not a mention, right? Not sure....) Other uses are possible, too. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're second quote is still a mention as what is significant is the identifier ("jv") rather than what it stands for (Javanese). The actual definition part of the sense line is just "Javanese". The whole "ISO 639-1 official language code" part is really etymological and usage note material. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right: I don't know what I was thinking. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, WT:AMUL lists these as being automatically valid, but under what authority, I don't know. If it did come down to an RFD I'd say keep as people will search for these after seeing them in articles. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:AMUL says that if the term is included in multiple languages with the same definition, it can have a Translingual section. It does not supersede the CFI for inclusion in those individual languages, so there's no contradiction. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No but it says that ISO 639 codes are acceptable as translingual entries. Again, I don't know what is a "use" vs. a "mention" in this case. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Use–mention distinction. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * contains well over 1000 entries. Symbols are (I think) always mentioned rather than used, so all 1079 should be on this page. For example, for = and + what would you accept as translingual 'uses' rather than mentions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about 1 + 1 = 2? -- Prince Kassad 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 19:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved to RFD: Yair Rand has objected to the above closure, but no one has presented any citations (even dubious ones). —Ruakh TALK 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

aar
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

abk
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

afr
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

aka
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

amh
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ara
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

arg
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

arz
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

asm
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ava
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ave
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

aym
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

aze
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

cad
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

cat
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

eng
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

enm
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

fro
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

jbo
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

law
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

rhg
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

swa
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

swe
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

syr
Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

szw
All ISO codes with no citations or anything proving their use. -- Prince Kassad 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're in the Appendix space now at Appendix:ISO 639-3. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

aa
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ab
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ae
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

af
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ak
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

am
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

an
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ar
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

as
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

av
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ay
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

az
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

be
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

bm
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ca
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

cr
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

dv
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

en
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

fj
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

fr
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ga
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

gn
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

gv
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ii
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

nl
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

pl
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

qu
Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ve
Following PK's lead with the ISO 639-3 codes, here's the rest of the ISO 639-1 codes (of which 'jv' was the one rfv'ed above). Just in case someone's worried they will be "lost", see Appendix:ISO 639-1. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your concern with these entries? Do you believe they are not really in existence? --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I better hope they exist, I did create that appendix:) I think that including non-lexical material in the main part of Wiktionary is dubious If we do, it should be with good reason and voted on (maybe you'd like to vote on amending the CFI?). We are a dictionary, not a hodge-podge compilation of code books. Why are we "defining" things that aren't even used in natural languages? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, these will all pass, it would be a waste of time to find these in use. You're saying we may not find three durable citations or 'en' to mean the English language? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not denying that these exist, but that they are not dictionary material, that is an RFD issue, not an RFV one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They will pass if cites are found in which case they are dictionary material. If you can find three appropriate usages (not mentions which is the hard part) please offer them up. I do not presuppose that such cites are nonexistant. They could be, and that would be great. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Start a discussion in the BP if you think that ISO codes should be removed. --Yair rand 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @YR & MG: This is not RFD where we're debating "keep" vs "delete" (there's not even any citations that we can debate over). I don't "think that ISO codes should be removed". I think attestation is necessary for their inclusion (just like every other term). If you would like to start a discussion to change the CFI to allow the inclusion of these terms regardless of attestation, you may. But that burden falls on one who wants such a change and that is not me. --Bequw → τ 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But these are not terms, and they are generally assumed to be exempt from requiring any attestation further than their being listed in ISO. We all know that these codes are correct, so this is really not an RFV issue. --Yair rand 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, why are they not "terms"? We have no problem calling FR (an ISO 3166 geographic code) and + (another L3 symbol) "terms"? An entity is not liberated from the CFI by proclaiming it is not a "term", worse it removes any possible justification for keeping it. Second, where was consensus reached on these terms being exempt from the CFI (you and one or two others may have said this but I find no real discussion on the topic)? In the absence of such a consensus these terms must pass the CFI (they can't just be "correct") so this is indeed an RFV issue. Again, start a vote if you would like to change the CFI. --Bequw → τ 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ISO codes are, like many other things, an unresolved issue, and are widely believed to be exempt from CFI, although this is not an official policy. To deal with this, start a BP discussion to set it one way or another, but RFV is to find verification, which we obviously can't get in this situation even though we all know that these are correct. Likewise, starting an RFV of the entire Category:WMF jargon (another unresolved issue that doesn't pass CFI), would be an inappropriate response. --Yair rand 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite a discussion where the issue of ISO language codes was debated and left unresolved (or did you mean "undebated"?). Please cite a discussion supporting that they are "exempt from CFI" (or was this on IRC?). Absent these, normal procedures are followed. Classes of words are constantly RFV'ed, either directly or by association, (eg the Chinglish and unattested SI Unit entries) so this is appropriate. Again, you are welcome to bring up changing the CFI in the BP, as was done for the SI Units. As for WMF jargon, it was RFV'd and it was left unresolved because there were differing interpretations of WT:CFI. To my knowledge there are no interpretational differences here. --Bequw → τ 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And WT:BP comes and goes with no consensus. Anyone want to add a section to WT:UNRESOLVED? --Yair rand 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell since the discussion was so thin. No one really replied in the BP after I posted that since, in addition to not being attestable these terms are (a) free from linguistic information, and (b) covered better by wikipedia. Most of the discussion here was about the distinction between "usage" and "mention". It appears to me that the half-hearted support for their inclusion simply whithered. If anyone really complains I'll start a vote, but I'm leaning towards RFVFailing all these terms. --Bequw → τ 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a vote, go ahead, though I don't think it will pass (especially since it won't have been as a result of extensive BP discussion). Closing the issue by failed RFV would set a really bad precedent. I'm all for leaving this on the "unresolved" pile for the moment. --Yair rand 00:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They definitely fail RFV. The debatable part is whether that should result in their deletion. Though uncommon, the entries could be moved to RFD. But since it's a class, I'll set up a vote. --Bequw → τ 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They definitely fail RFV. The debatable part is whether that should result in their deletion. Though uncommon, the entries could be moved to RFD. But since it's a class, I'll set up a vote. --Bequw → τ 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is absurd (and doesn't belong on RFV). The examples of "use" that have been suggested are specifically language-bound; supposing I actually could find three examples of "I speak fluent ve", that would show only that this was used as a word in English, and wouldn't even address the Translingual section. -- Visviva 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm... on the other hand, software that has been published in physical form, or mirrored at multiple locations, would have to be considered "durably archived", wouldn't it? -- Visviva 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If only English usage is verified, then we should only list them as English. If they are verified to have identical meanings in several languages then we can debate whether they merit a single Translingual section, or separate ones. Translingual terms need to be verified just like others (we just don't often because usually, unlike here, it's trivial). The problem here is that no language usage has been shown. As for software, natural language elements would be usable (eg comments), but code is prohibited per WT:CFI. --Bequw → τ 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ISO language codes
Affected entries: jv, aar , abk , afr , aka , amh , ara , arg , arz , asm , ava , ave , aym , aze , cad , cat , eng , enm , fro , jbo , law , rhg , swa , swe , syr , szw , aa , ab , ae , af , ak , am , an , ar , as , av , ay , az , be , bm , ca , cr , dv , en , fj , fr , ga , gn , gv , ii , nl , pl , qu , ve

These were listed at RFV; no one attempted to cite any of them.

—Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. See also Votes/2010-03/All ISO 639 codes to meet CFI as Translingual entries, which technically would have passed except that two voters abstained because they didn't agree with the reasoning for keeping them given. Also note that WT:AMUL specifically allows ISO codes. We have no official policy for symbols, and lack of "usage" of ISO codes applies just as much to entries like ♫, =, ☺ or any other symbol. --Yair rand (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:AMUL is only applicable if the terms can pass CFI (ie assuming valid usages have been found for jv in several languages, then we can consolidate them into one entry). WT:AMUL does not supplant the CFI. And bad-reasons are a perfect reason for a vote to fail. --Bequw → τ 21:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI begins with the "general rule" that "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." Surely there is no question that all of these codes -- which are found for example in the headers of countless zillions of HTML documents, but AFAIK are not defined in any HTML reference -- fall into this category.  -- Visviva 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence without the context of the second could be used to justify adding almost anything. Wikipedia includes all these terms and I imagine is much useful to the reader than us. It's not like I'm going to think that lang=en uses real words and go to a dictionary. --Bequw → τ 21:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you won't, you work on the dictionary and are familiar with the meanings of things like that. If we were gearing the dictionary to accommodate only those who already know the meanings of things (or the best place to look for them), we'd be of no use to anyone. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It failed RFV, by which guideline should this be debated on RFD? If we're going to debate allowing the set, do it on BP and get a vote that passes. --Bequw → τ 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the last vote pretty clearly showed there is no consensus to exclude these terms. But I suppose there's no harm in having another such vote, if someone cares to start it.  -- Visviva 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that that vote showed clearly that there was no consensus to treat these differently from any other term so, as Martin noted in the "Decision" section, we delete them if they fail RFV (which they now have). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As everyone appears to debate this group as a whole, I've start WT:BP. I've made a proposal, but feel free to argue for the their acceptance as is. --Bequw → τ 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful, limited set. There has been no showing of harm to the project.  These entries have been being added since at least 2004, and IMO the burden of proof is on those who suddenly want to turn this practice on its head.  -- Visviva 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete, obviously I started that vote because I wanted these to pass. Quite why two users abstained despite (apparently) supporting the proposition I don't know. These don't pass CFI unless cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The actual real-world utility of Wiktionary as a source of information on the meanings of things should be the overriding principle that all of its rules serve. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would have been nice for y'all to say this during the vote! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, that. Very well, I change my vote to move to an appendix and liberally redirect titles there. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 02:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's eat our own dog food by actually following the principles that we apply to others. There is no consensus to treat these as anything special. I would expect that we need these to be verified in order to be kept. If these are kept, I see no basis for excluding many normative standardized definitions (which always seemed a good function for WP not us).
 * To broaden our slogan to be something more in line with one for WMF as a whole seems to be hubris. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any danger that we'll start including entries on Amanda Bynes, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, or Islam in Cambodia. On the other hand, we shouldn't look to purge piano and curling and sun just because we're impinging on Wikipedia's coverage. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments above (in this section), or, better yet, appendicify. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Appendicified. --Bequw → τ 04:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)