Talk:ISO 639:g

Is "Gallegan" a correct name?

I'm just wondering if the name "Gallegan" is part of the standard or has been freely chosen by whoever wrote the article. The word "gallegan" derives from the SPANISH name for the inhabitants of Galicia (gallego). Shouldn't this name derive from the territory name "Galicia", and thus be "Galician"? I personally think this is most correct, but I don't know if I can change that right away, if it's the standard itself that makes the mistake, and not wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.209.7 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "Galician", as it is called in the ISO standard. Thanks for your notification. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

“Gelic (Scottish)” would be better than “Gaelic (Scots)"

It would be better to write the English name for language gla as “Gaelic (Scottish)”. There is nothing historically wrong with “Scots Gaelic” as a name for the language. However, writing that form these days invites confusion with the entirely different language Scots (language code sco).

Caoimhin (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ale–Gawwada

To editor DRMcCreedy: my edit was based upon the recent RM debate at Talk:Ale language. I could be wrong; however, it does appear that "Ale" is the direction in which the language ID websites are going. Rather than change this entry from "Gawwada" directly to "Ale", I used the Glottolog notation, "Ale–Gawwada". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  20:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My issue is that this page is specifically about the codes of the ISO 639 standard, which uses the the name "Gawwada" for code "gwd". Glottolog is a different standard entirely. Maybe a compromise would be something like "Gawwada [Ale]" for the English name. (ISO 639 names can have parenthesis, so I'm more comfortable using square braces for the part that isn't in the standard.) What do you think? DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)