5

Apparently we have two naming systems

Obviously we have to adopt a uniform system. Which one do you think we should use?

| |
5

We can let them evolve for a while and see if a clear winner emerges. Will some be longer than the allowed 25 characters? Will some short ones be ambiguous without the suffixed "-languages"?

When we see if any issues arise or one form is clearly favoured then we can get stuck in make all the losing forms into tag synonyms for the winning forms.

| |
4

I think we should go with the first system -- the "-languages" part is generally redundant and makes the names too long for good aesthetics and (as aedia ╬╗ points out) possibly the software.

| |
0

I think we should adapt the second system (like ). It seems more appropriate to use nouns rather than adjectives. Of course we can add synonyms if necessary.

| |
  • 1
    I like this but an argument against it would be if there are major language families not likely to fit in the tag length. indo-european-languages is fairly long already; I think max tag length is 25 chars. (I can't think of anything right now that wouldn't fit.) – aedia λ Sep 22 '11 at 14:28
  • @aedia╬╗ Your tag is 24 chars if I'm not wrong... It's still ok, no? – Alenanno Sep 23 '11 at 10:06
  • [northwest-caucasian-languages] would be too long. – Mechanical snail Jan 28 '13 at 20:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .