Language committee/Archives/2008-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
July 2008 Language committee (Archives for August 2008) September 2008
For a summary of discussions, see the archives index.

Constructed languages[edit]

No decision was taken on constructed languages. See also "Constructed languages" (January 2008).

  1. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    05 August 2008 12:20

    Hello,

    The status of requests for constructed languages has been in limbo for a very long time. The policy requires a "sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience", which most constructed languages clearly don't have. However, it also states that constructed languages must have "a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion". That second sentence was added as an additional requirement (I added it in the original draft), but one member claimed it was an exception to allow constructed languages.

    As a result, no meaningful request for a constructed language has been processed in a very long time. I propose that we finally remove the ambiguous second requirement, so that constructed languages are processed under the same rules as other languages (which most constructed languages fail).

  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    05 August 2008 20:05

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  3. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    07 August 2008 09:51

    Since we're clearly not going anywhere with this, I suppose we'll just wait to see what the community draft says about them. No artificial languages will be approved in the meantime anyway.

  4. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    07 August 2008 13:42

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

Change requirement for "native speakers" to "fluent expression"[edit]

The proposed policy change was not implemented.

  1. Sabine Cretella
    18 August 2008 01:53

    This was on my discussion page today on nap wiki and then I noted it was also on meta - I already answered for myself. Besides that the message itself on my user pages were made by anonymous users. - the link on meta points to: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft

    /me is working a lot these days, like mostly in August, so that is already my quite clear opinion.

    Cheers, Sabine

    *****

    "Fluent expression" instead of "Native" Requirement Community find very problematic to limit language proposal to native language. in foundation list there many example of languages that has no native speakers, but are very useful as culture vehicle. possible proposals in these will fail because of this unfair barrier

    what is our proposal?

    the consensual proposal of wikimedia community is replace "native" requirement" for "fluent expression". in any kind of language form (oral, written, signal).

    Please replace native for fluent expression. ~~u~~

    Well, I am personally against this change, I am not going away from the native speaker's requirement, but I will forward this to langcom.
    --Sabine 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    18 August 2008 01:58

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  3. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    19 August 2008 00:01

    I also disagree with the proposed change. While we can objectively measure native speakers (based on ethnologue and other sources), I'm not aware of any such measures of "fluent expression". The term would also need more precise definition.


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    Not necessarily; polite discussion may lead to a change of mind for the person disagreeing.

  4. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    19 August 2008 00:56

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

Persian Wikinews, and Gerard acting without informing subcommittee[edit]

SabineCretella marked the request for a Persian Wikinews as eligible, and chastised GerardM.

  1. Sabine Cretella
    13 August 2008 08:06

    According to this message the eligibility of fa.wikinews only depended on one of us changing the status to elegible

    http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikifa-l/2008-August/000011.html

    so I did it.

    I never answered to anybody privately speaking for langcom without sending a copy of the message here or first of all asking its members and it is by chance that I saw this message because I am a member of the discussion list.

    If we are not informed about actions which are within the realm of langcom and we are used this is very bad for our credibility.

    The right wording for the mail about fa or pes would have been:

    I am against using fa. for wikinews and therefore langcom cannot decide for it being eligible, because that would have been the truth of facts. But by having that message public, we are in a very weird situation.

    I was assured to get a lot of trouble because of me becoming active now: ok, so here it comes, get me trouble.

    Btw. I was informed that there was a discussion going on on the WLDC blog - I did not read it, because it is outside the WMF. Of course I am not against the WLDC discussing about the better language code for Persian projects - after that WLDC, which has a representative among the Advisory Board Members of the WMF can request a language code change for the whole of the Persian projects with the board - it is not going to be the langcom to decide on language code changes, that is none of our business.

    Please put one thing in your head: we are the langcom of the Wikimedia Foundation and not of any other board or foundation - I also have my very neat private discussions with sil for different organisations, but I never take these in here, because if so: I first of all have to ask them if their statements are also made for being forwarded to WMF langcom. When we, as langcom, have questions to sil I always use my wikimedia.org address, so that these are official. If we wear "several hats" we should make sure that we do not mix these.

    Yes, I contacted Gerard privately and told him that I would do. I am not going to publish the private conversation, nor I am going to discuss about it.

    Thank you for your time.

    Sabine

  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    13 August 2008 07:54

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  3. Sabine Cretella
    13 August 2008 08:09

    The discussion is ongoing outside the WMF - it is nor on meta nor on any WMF list.

    I am more than disappointed by your talking in our name without having informed us.

    No further discussion is necessary IMHO.

  4. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    13 August 2008 08:13

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  5. Sabine Cretella
    13 August 2008 08:19

    If you do that because you want to decide upon a project you have to inform langcom. You are not langcom, but a member.

    A committee works as a team and not just because you want to decide.

    Stop it.

  6. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    13 August 2008 09:43

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>


  7. 14 August 2008 01:23

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  8. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    14 August 2008 10:04

    If the languages or dialects covered by a macrolanguage tag can work together on one wiki, I see no reason not to allow a wiki with that macrolanguage tag. It is a valid identifier.