ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting on this proposal is now closed. No amendments were able to obtain consensus.

This is a proposal to add an amendment to the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding eras. The full explanation of the proposal can be found at Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise_proposal. Discussion of the proposal should be done at the compromise proposal talk page. Please limit comments in the voting area below to 1 short sentence at most and do not reply to other people's comments. Remember that the manual of style is just a guide; editors are not required to follow its suggestions. This proposal is an attempt to discern what, if anything, there is consensus on regarding era designations.

Contents

[edit] Voting

Please vote for whether or not you support each sentence of the proposal (except for the 1st sentence). Each sentence which receives consensus will be added to the Manual of Style. Only registered users with a non-trivial number of edits will be counted. The voting will run from July 15 until August 1 00:00 (UTC). If only the first and fourth sentences are approved, the opening clause of the fourth sentence will be removed.

[edit] Sentence 1

The use of one era style over another can often be controversial.

(If sentence 4 is approved, this sentence will be added to the beginning of the paragraph. Do not vote on this sentence here.)

[edit] Agree

  1. I don't see any reason to only allow this with sentence 4. ~~~~ 12:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Seems obvious gkhan 07:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • So obvious that it's not actually true. The overwhelming number of articles that use any notation use BC/AD, and have always used BC/AD without any comment whatsoever. It's only on a very small percentage of them that there's been any dispute, jguk 12:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By the sheer size of the evidence page of the arbitration case, it seems to be very true. Often does not mean a majority. gkhan 17:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary - even though that dispute was very divisive and covered a number of articles, the actual number of pages for which there was any real form of dispute was a very, very small proportion of all the articles that use date notation, jguk 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Obviously this statement only applies to those articles for which there needs to be any sort of era notation. There have been bitter disputes, many involving yourself, so the statement that this can be controversial is clearly true. siafu 19:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It's the word "often" that is incorrect - the debate (thankfully) has not really touched the overwhelming majority of articles, jguk 19:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I would like to direct you to the two votes just below this one. There is obviously many people who disagree and there is not at all any consensus. These two votes encompass, respectively, all articles on clear non-christian subjects and all articles on clear christian subjects. That's a bussload of articles. The fact that a large number of people can't agree what dating these articles should use should make it perfectly clear that, yes, infact it is often contentatious. And, again, often does not mean a majority. gkhan 20:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Displaying the fact that "the use of one era style over another can often be controversial" implicitly suggests to the viewer that this fact is so important it needs to be displayed to everyone. This is certainly not the case here IMO. The fact that "some editors tend to misspell at least one of the words 'powerful', 'separate', or 'article', so make sure you don't" is of similar importance. Sure we don't want that in the Manual of Style, do we? :)) KissL 12:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence 2

In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD.

[edit] Agree

  1. Kaldari 02:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree. SEWilco 05:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree. CDThieme 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Val42 00:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Agree. --Coolcaesar 02:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strongly Agree gkhan 21:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strongly Agree. It doesn't make any sense to say that, for example, Simon bar Kochba was born around AD ("the year of our lord") 100, since Jesus is not the "lord" of bar Kochba and probably isn't the lord of whoever's writing about him. Sure, switching from "AD" to "CE" without changing the starting point for the counting of years seems kind of silly, but it's unlikely that we're going to overhaul our calendar anytime soon. So I think that "CE" and "BCE" is the best we can do, at least when we're discussing specifically non-Christian themes. Mwalcoff 00:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agree. The use of BCE/CE is a courtesy to readers from non-Christian cultures and religions. Sunray 00:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Strongly Agree as per User:Mwalcoff and User:Sunray DES 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strongly Agree. It's hard to believe there is even disagreement over this clearly NPOV usage. -- Visviva 15:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Agree. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Agree I'm not going to repeat what has already been said (re: Mwalcoff and Sunray). --JB Adder | Talk 05:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Strongly Agree --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  15. Agree.Dejvid 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Agree. --Briangotts (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Agree AlbertR 22:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. Agree. Religious articles should steer away from Christocentric terminology. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Agree. Jayjg (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

  1. Very Strong Oppose - many people consider one style or the other violates NPOV. Proposal violates WP:5P. Guettarda 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - defining what articles fall under the "non-Christian religious topic" rubric is bound to be divisive and ultimately fruitless, and only serves to taint those articles so designated as POV. Alanyst 03:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Very Strong Oppose - we have already had a long vote and discussion and it is clear that there is no majority for claiming NPOV violations. This vote (which has been brought forward on an already dead proposal) will merely continue the earlier divisiveness. Besides, why should US academics prescribe what everyone else in the world uses? jguk 06:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for the reasons stated above. --Merovingian (t) (c) 07:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Bam. Golbez 19:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 20:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose with extreme predjudice. In my formative years everything was BC/AD, and I'll merrily use those terms--yes, even to describe Buddha--until my dying day. I do not recognise BCE/CE. And, as above, why should US political correctness get in the way of things? Anyway, how many people actually know AD means Anno Domini, "The Year of Our Lord [Jesus Christ]"? Very few. AD has been used for two thousand years without complaint and it's become ingrained in society to such a point where it transcends its original monastic uses, so why change it now? We MUST NOT retcon history just to be politically correct. GarrettTalk 00:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC) --another problem this wording creates is that some people will think articles like Zeus, where the descendants of the believers wouldn't give a **** about terminology, would need to be changed. But as for "generally", how do you decide which to change and which to leave the way it is, MORE polls? GarrettTalk 03:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. VERY STRONG OPPOSE BC is standard usage outside the US and has nothing to do with Christian prejudice. BCE/CE still measures from the same dates but fraudulently claims not to be connected to Jesus. ~~~~ 12:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. CE/BCE is just silly. What next, change "Thursday" (which means "Day of Norse God Thor") to "Scandinavian-culture-day"? Why should anyone be offended by quoting some other culture's dating system? Jesus probably wasn't born on AD 1 anyway. AD is an established convention, and that's all. Wikipedia can't be used promote some feeble faddish attempt at political correctness, or worse, religious correctness. --A D Monroe III 15:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Stewart Adcock 18:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Absolutely not. The term "Common Era" is not widely in use, or even understood, outside of academic circles in the US, and is therefore systemic bias. Radiant_>|< 14:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Absolutely agree with Ril(4~) and Radiant. What should be done is adding the dates in other calendars, not obfuscating the calendar name. --MarSch 10:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose We just went through this without anything close to a consensus to accept, continuing down this road can only be divisive. Both styles are based on the same dating system, the proposed change is cosmetic and not worth the edit wars that would spring up all over en.wikipedia if this were accepted. Rx StrangeLove 03:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose CE be it Christian Era or Common Era or Current Era distracts from the article. It cautions the reader of bias louder than any POV tag. --ClemMcGann 09:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose All my life I have called it AD and BC and that is what I studied in school. It is by far the most common way both written and spoken. Masterhatch 20 July 2005
  16. Oppose Definitely not; I support all arguments given by the first fifteen posters. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose PedanticallySpeaking 15:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose CE/BCE is just silly. --JW1805 15:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, BC/AD is standard English. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:56, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, BC/AD is widely accepted English, whereas BCE/CE are neologisms. —thames 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  21. oppose. I appreciate the proposal is meaning well, but it is making things worse instead of better. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  22. oppose. For me, at least, BC/AD have no religious meaning at all, and there's no reason they can't be used on some articles. BCE/CE have no meaning at all; I don't believe they are well known enough to use in a medium for the general public, such as this; I didn't know these terms before I came to wikipedia. Eugene van der Pijll 23:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics, the contributors can decide for themselves whether the use of BCE/CE "should be favored", without the unwitting Wikipedian like myself forcing them to do this way or that. This proposal is instruction creep, and nothing else. KissL 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  24. Oppose There is no clean separation between articles on Christian topics and on non-Christian topics, in particular there is a lot of overlap between Jewish, Christian and Muslim topics in several domains. This proposal deals with a marginal dispute and does so in an unsatisfactory manner. --- Charles Stewart 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Abstain Absent use of BCE/CE, I prefer instead to favor consensus. I am not, and have not previously been involved in work on articles involving religion, so I have to abstain in favor of the consensus amongst those who are. siafu 02:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Tally

44% in favor, 56% opposed. Proposal fails.

[edit] Sentence 3

In articles concerning Jesus as a religious figure, BC/AD should be favored.

[edit] Agree

  1. Kaldari 02:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Many existing Christian references use this Christ-oriented notation. SEWilco 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree, due to the fact that the naming system is directly related to his life. --Merovingian (t) (c) 07:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree. RossNixon 22:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Val42 00:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Agree. --Coolcaesar 02:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree simply because there is no reason to introduce the farcical BCE/CE which still measures from the same dates but fraudulently claims not to be connected to Jesus. ~~~~ 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agree. Of course. Sunray 00:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Agree but only provided sentance 2 is also included. DES 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 15:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Agree. Appropriate in context. -- Visviva 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Agree.--JW1805 15:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  14. Strongly agree per Merovingian --JB Adder | Talk 05:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Agree.Dejvid 19:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

  1. Very Strong Oppose - many people consider one style or the other violates NPOV. Proposal violates WP:5P. Guettarda 02:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Guettarda, and per my previous objections to the notation. siafu 02:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per my reasons for opposing sentence 2, although I respectfully disagree with Guettarda that we must necessarily consider both styles as violating NPOV (since that would seem to imply that neither style belongs in Wikipedia, which would leave us with no good alternative). Alanyst 03:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Implies BC/AD should not be favoured elsewhere. I oppose the use of a dating system which is not understood by vast numbers of Wikipedia readers (especially outside the US, since in my country it's not even used in academic circles) in preference to one understood universally. Proteus (Talk) 20:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Agree. CDThieme 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Is this a vote to agree or disagree with inclusion of sentence 3? Kaldari 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per Proteus, it makes it sound like BC/AD usage must be the exclusive domain of Christianity, which is by no means consensus here, nor will it ever be. GarrettTalk 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Using AD/BC doesn't mean "I believe in Jesus". Jesus probably wasn't born on AD 1 anyway. This proposal implies AD/BC is a POV -- it isn't; it's a standard. --A D Monroe III 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. m:instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 14:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, What he said: (m:instruction creep). Rx StrangeLove 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose The familiar AD/BC standard should be used. But not because it has a connection with the Christian deity. It should be used because it is the familiar standard convention. It is not the function of WP to change recognised accepted standards. --ClemMcGann 09:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose m:instruction creep Proposal seems to be directed at just a few specific articles - let involved editors decide under present guidelines --JimWae 21:38, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, m:instruction creep. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:58, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  14. oppose, as this sentence makes no sense without sentence 2, to which I just opposed :) dab (ᛏ) 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. The article on Jesus is the one and only place in wikipedia where I feel CE/BCE could be more appropriate than AD/BC. A sentence like "Jesus was born in 4 Before Christ" does sound a bit awkward. However, as many readers will be unfamiliar with the abbreviation BCE, it should only be used here if it is explained, and I don't know if it's worth the trouble. Eugene van der Pijll 23:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose In articles concerning Jesus as a religious figure, the contributors can decide for themselves whether the use of BC/AD "should be favored", without the unwitting Wikipedian forcing them to do this way or that. This proposal is instruction creep, and nothing else. KissL 13:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, see reasons above. --- Charles Stewart 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. oppose. BCE/CE should be universal, per above. --Briangotts (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. AlbertR 22:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Religious articles should steer away from Christocentric terminology. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Of course BC/AD notation should be used here - but it's a nonsense to have a policy vote to do this. The vote stems from an assumption that certain notations are POV, an assumption that has already been rejected in a large vote. We should be thinking of our readers, not certain editors' personal preferences, and should write articles that as many people as possible understand and find informative. The Jesus article is a long, long, long way from being such an article, and concentrating on the date notation is somewhat understating the problems it already has, jguk 06:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Either way is fine by me here gkhan 21:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Tally

43% in favor, 57% opposed. Proposal fails.

[edit] Sentence 4

[In all other contexts,] consensus should be built before making any changes to the existing article style.

(This sentence is bundled with sentence 1 for voting purposes. The initial clause of this sentence will only be included if either sentence 2 or sentence 3 are also approved.)

[edit] Agree

  1. Kaldari 02:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree. I would also support this as a binding rule for all cases if there is not a clear determination made above. siafu 02:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Maurreen 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Alanyst 03:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Deal with unknowns later. SEWilco 05:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Agree, along with SEWilco's suggestion. --Merovingian (t) (c) 07:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree. CDThieme 21:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Agree. Val42 00:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agree. --Coolcaesar 02:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. While I still think this vote is illegitimate, the sentance 1 has already been proven, and sentance 4 is already the basis of Wikipedia editing. Guettarda 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Agree. Consensus is an important value of Wikipedia. Sunray 00:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Agree DES 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Agree. Stop the pointless date style crusade. Jonathunder 21:47, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
  14. Agree. This shouldn't need to be said, but it does, given the number of people who have nothing better to do than wander Wikipedia stirring up usage controversies. -- Visviva 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  15. Agree a "stating-the-obvious" guideline, really.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO this is much more a reason to oppose: it is totally redundant. KissL 14:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. AgreeDejvid 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Agree. Wikipedia works best when it works by consensus. Jonathunder 19:33, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  18. Agree. We don't need any editors on a campaign changing articles en masse to their preferred style. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

  1. Very Strong Oppose The wording is all wrong - and why is Sentence 1 also meant to be voted on here, but not listed here? The straightforward fact is that date notation on the vast majority of WP is not controversial - has remained constant, and is not likely to change any time soon. How can we vote to agree something which is patently untrue. Also, the emphasis on any article for anything style related should be on what style will be most appreciated by its readers. The wording implies that editors' views are paramount. Also I agree with Guettarda about the poll's failings, jguk 06:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Disagree with Sentence 1 on grounds of factual inaccuracy. Proteus (Talk) 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Very Strong Oppose as per Jguk, wording is awful. How is this consensus to be built, by MORE polls or what? I strongly doubt you will have anyone agree. Just leave articles the way they are, unless the above proposal(s) change things. GarrettTalk 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Very strong oppose. It would just extend this poll ad infinitum. ~~~~ 12:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Heck no, people should simply stop this debate since it's not going anywhere - not restart in on whatever page it might apply. Radiant_>|< 14:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose combination with 1 and wording here. Gene Nygaard 13:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I don't think we need this, Wikipedia already works by consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose If we don't decide this debate now and here, it will go on forever. Let's come to an agreement now so we don't have to keep talking about it every time it comes up. Masterhatch 20 July 2005
    • To have an agreement people have to agree, surely. Sunray 07:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose PedanticallySpeaking 15:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I think BCE/CE should be favored for any article except for those mentioned in sentence 3.
  11. Strong Oppose. This needs to be settled here. We don't need this same poll on every talk page.--JW1805 15:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Disagree Article creators pick the dating system sometimes for a reason, other times because it's what they are used to using. Coming to a consensus about the article's dating may completely demolish the creator's original intentions. --JB Adder | Talk 05:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Agree with Cyberjunkie that this is stating the obvious — and therefore oppose adding it to the Manual of Style. KissL 14:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, agree with Radiant. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:40, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I think that outside of the two subject areas in the other two votes, there are a lot of pages where there is no real controversy (for example, because the advocates of both styles don't visit those pages. And for uncontroversial issues, there is no reason why consensus should be built beforehand. See also: WP:BOLD. Eugene van der Pijll 17:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. BCE/Ce should be universal standard.--Briangotts (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    but it isn't, do a google search on any term with BC and then BCE, to see single digit percentage for BCE. It is not a standard outside of some isolated pockets. Even if it 'should' be - it is not. It is not the task of WP to campaign for a change to existing accepted standards. --ClemMcGann 23:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. AD/BC is the almost universally accepted standard. Oppose because we being asked to vote on a false statement --ClemMcGann 23:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. AlbertR 22:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

# I think this vote is illegitimate since it seeks to violate WP:5P, but in the absence of consensus as to what amounts to NPOV usage, I endorse this statement. Guettarda 02:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia already works by consensus, this is just instruction-creep gkhan 21:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  2. This whole thing's bollocks. We should use both, of course. It's particularly pernicious that a pro-Christian POV should tacitly be accepted in "religious" articles and not accepted in articles about non-Christian subjects. Grace Note 07:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    Wow - we actually agree on something? Cool. I think that's a first (for this issue at least). Guettarda 14:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. well, yeah, but without sentences 2 and 3 this is the null solution anyway, and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Tally

50% in favor, 50% opposed. Proposal fails.


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -