Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild) 05 August 2008 12:20
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).
/me is working a lot these days, like mostly in August, so that is
already my quite clear opinion.
"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)
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.
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
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
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