Talk:Codes for constructed languages

ISO 15924?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Europanto
I propose to delete the line referring to Europanto since the associated code elements are no longer valid.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 (talk • contribs)

Broken link
ISO 639 code tables on the website of the ISO 639-3 Registration AuthorityBluethailand (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * --Jonah (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

artificial extension
"art-x-solresol" is the usage example for that format, but would a two-word name also be run together like that? The ConLang Code Registry seems to do it that way. Arlo James Barnes 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

simple tag
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 (talk • contribs) 2021-06-01 (UTC)


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