Talk:Nhanda language

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Western Australia / Indigenous peoples Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Nhanda language is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

comments[edit]

This article is rather confusing. It gives bis as the ISO 639-3, but that code refers to a different language. --Gareth Hughes 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Actually, it gives "bia", which is still incorrect. I've checked ISO 639-3 and Nhanda isn't there so I've emailed SIL to ask them to put it in. I'll remove the number from the article until a code gets allocated.

Is there anything else about the article that was confusing? Dougg 23:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for that. The main issue that confused me was the difference between 'bia' and the article itself. I've e-mailed SIL over a couple of coding issues. Their answer always seems to be that they are waiting until ISO 639-3 is adopted as standard before accepting any applications. --Gareth Hughes 13:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIL have been very quick in replying. There should be a code in about a year's time. I guess it's ok to leave the infobox as it is until then? They tell me they're streamlining the process, so from late 2006 it should only take about 3 months to get a new code approved. Dougg 00:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]