Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was a lack of consensus. The article will be kept. --  Denelson83  23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code
Tagged for speedy deletion by Evertype with the explanation: "The inclusion of the specific content here violates copyright. The page is already out of date (a maintenance problem), and the ISO 15924 article now links to the official code list on the Unicode website." I've removed the speedy tag and brought it here as this doesn't seem to fit the criteria for speedy deletion. No opinion from me – Gurch 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we cannot use the list, how can we use the codes? We then probably should also not use the codes itself anywhere in WP. It is nice that we use ISO 639 language codes and also have lists for these codes. It's a pitty this is not possible for script codes. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: by copyright
 * are we allowed to include the codes in every script article?
 * are we then allowed to compile a list of script articles sorted by these script codes?
 * - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously I support the deletion of this article. Evertype 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The code lists are copyrighted, and the contents of those lists are made freely available from an authoritative source. Putting copies of these lists on the Wikipedia is a Bad Idea. The list here is already out of date, as I pointed out. The ISO 15924 Registration Authority does not need a Wikipedia list to compete with it. That is why we make the authoritative lists freely available. Of course you may use the script codes in articles about scripts. Just don't try to duplicate the offiical list, since any list here could be vandalized (for instance) or contain other error or simply be out of date. Evertype 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything can be vandalized. Every list can be vandalized. That the RA does not need a Wikipedia list to compete with is questionable. It depends what the RA wants. Anyway, it's not the point what RA wants but what wiki-readers would like and what is allowed and what not. Can WP generate a list of wikipedia script articles by ISO 15924 codes? The official list does not have the feature of being available in WP with all the advantages that come with this - you can download WP and read it offline, you can click on a script name to learn more. That way I found Deseret. Everyone who needs the stuff in business will for security allways have to look up the stuff in the official list. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If WP uses the codes for Userboxes/Writing systems as you supported at Category_talk:User cyr, could WP then generate a list of Boxnames with script name written out in full? If not, WP should probably not use the codes. Maybe nobody should use them if he wants to give overviews of own content sorted by script. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the opinion of the ISO 15924 Registration Authority that a Wikipedia article on ISO 15924 should not contain a list of the codes, because it will be always out of date. The article should point to the authoritative source, the registrar. The registrar obviously isn't, and shouldn't be, obligated to update Wikipedia articles or any other non-authoritative source for the codes. The ISO 639 groups are also very unhappy with the unauthorized duplication (with errors) of 639 code lists on the Wikipedia. Evertype 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the one who added the list to Wikipedia, although to ISO 15924, not a separate article. I did so, because I expected to see it there, when I first read that article. I thought about the copyright issue for a moment before doing this. (Personally I think fixed-length abbreviations are hardly copyright-worthy, although logical numerical keys and the particular layout might, but let my layman point of view aside.) Finally I decided the links to the articles on the scripts that I added (and three trimmed columns) made it something different than a mere copy. The list on Wikipedia can of course never be more than informative, everyone’s expected to know that. I too wonder, however, whether the RA would still consider Tobias’ scenario a copyright infringement, although that would require some work first, because, for instance, some included scripts are still not or only described on corresponding language articles. PS: What part exactly is out of date? And who thought “Kana” meaning Katakana instead of Kana was a good idea? Christoph Päper 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of the RA to track an unofficial list to make sure that it is accurate. This page is out of date. Don't know why? Check the real list. Evertype 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Let a lawyer review all ISO/IATA/ICAO related lists that we have in WP. Wikipedia is not there alone to please any RA or company. Of course WP has to fully respect copyright. Nevertheless User:Evertype (who is the RA) still did not answer some related questions. Is WP allowed to create a list of articles sorted by 15924 codes? Is WP allowed to create a list of userboxes sorted by 15924? Evertype supported the use of ISO 15924 codes for userboxes and now argues that WP should not publish a related list. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * YES I object to the publication of duplicate lists which call themselves lists of ISO 15924 codes. The list you have published is inaccurate. It is out of date. It is incomplete. This is bad. It is misleading to end-users, and therefore irresponsible. Use the codes. Make your set of user boxes. Do not publish a duplicate list of the codes and encourage people not to use the actual standard. What part of this is confusing to you? Evertype 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a statement about the correctness of the list to the top of the list. What easy name would you suggest? E.g. "Possibly incorrectly list of ISO 15924 codes by possibly false ISO letter code" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that the list is still out of date. Evertype 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote. Support deletion as alternative suggested has been satisfactorily implemented. I suggest a candidate, tentative solution.  We add in each script a "Category:" entry for Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes (and the equivalent for the numeric codes), for example:  for "Arabic alphabet".  The resulting category will be such a list, but it will not claim to be complete (and will not claim to be fully accurate, as nothing on Wikipedia can make such a claim – such is life!) – Kaihsu 18:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the cat to Template:Infobox Writing system. But the cat will not bring sorting by code, nor one can see the code. There are good reasons for lists, even if cats exists. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It will sort by code with the (for example) " Arab " part, "Arab" being the relevant code. I have changed the template "Template:Infobox Writing system" to do this.  One can see the code by reading the entry for the writing system (for example "Arabic alphabet").  – Kaihsu 07:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you do this the old-fashioned way with an ordinary Category rather than a fancy infobox trick? you know, Evertype 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Infobox makes sure that the code is only input once, to guard against divergence (= error). The category does not show the "|...]]" bit – it is only used for sorting. – Kaihsu 08:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should we delete other lists of ISO codes, as well? Nonsense. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.