Language committee/Archives/2009-04

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
March 2009 Language committee (Archives for April 2009) May 2009
For a summary of discussions, see the archives index.

Wikipedia Sorani[edit]

The request for a Sorani Wikipedia was approved.

  1. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    07 April 2009 02:13

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  2. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    08 April 2009 05:39

    FYI, they have already around 500 pages in Sorani on the Kurdish Wikipedia. The Main Page is on http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallewe and the category seems to be http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategor%C3%AE:%D8%B3%DB%86%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C

  3. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    08 April 2009 05:46

    As we are not able to make a conversion engine in a reasonable amount of time, we should make Sorani language editions eligible. However, I think that communities should make a work group for building a conversion engine.

    At the other side, I don't agree with changing ISO 639-1 code.

  4. Antony D. Green
    08 April 2009 14:06

    I don't have an opinion on changing the code of the Kurmanji Wikipedia. Keeping it at ku does no harm unless there's a realistic chance of there ever being a "pan-Kurdish" Wikipedia in addition to the Kurmanji and Sorani ones. (Likewise, I don't see the harm in keeping Bokmål Wikipedia at no rather than nb as long as there are no plans to start a "pan-Norwegian" Wikipedia in addition to the Bokmål and Nynorsk ones.) But some sort of automatic redirect from kmr to ku might be in order, just as nb.wikipedia.org already redirects to no.wikipedia.org.

    I don't think that a conversion engine is a solution here, since Sorani and Kurmanji are really linguistically distinct, quite apart from the writing system issue. But a conversion engine to be used within the Kurmanji Wikipedia may be worth looking into since Kurmanji speakers from Syria, Iraq, and Iran use the Arabic alphabet rather than the Latin alphabet. However, it would be a very complicated conversion - much worse than Cyrillic and Latin for Serbian - since there's not a one-to-one correspondence of characters and since conversion would also have to swap RTL and LTR directions, and thus the entire layout of the pages.

    I fully support making the request for sdh-wp eligible.

  5. Antony D. Green
    08 April 2009 14:21

    Correction: of course I mean ckb-wp. AFAIK no proposal for sdh-wp has been made.

  6. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    08 April 2009 16:48

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  7. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    10 April 2009 06:32

    Hello,

    As it is a different language, I support to give it eligible status.

  8. (Karen)
    10 April 2009 14:32

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  9. Jon Harald Søby
    12 April 2009 14:15

    Ditto here.

  10. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    15 April 2009 15:05

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  11. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    15 April 2009 17:42

    I am fine with opening the project.

  12. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    24 April 2009 01:21
    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    I've rewritten the analysis script to work for categories or prefixes on any Wikimedia wiki. Statistics for this test project are now available using Catanalysis, and look fairly promising. Activity has been fairly sustained for a while, and there is a sufficient body of articles. If there are no further issues to be raised, I favour approval.

Wikipedia Meadow Mari[edit]

The request for a Meadow Mari Wikipedia was approved.

  1. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    15 April 2009 17:40

    Gerard, may you explain a little bit more extensively why are you against opening Mari project. If there are a couple of native contributors (or one very enthusiastic) which are willing to work on that project, I don't think that it should be a big deal to open the project.

  2. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    15 April 2009 17:54
    Milos Rancic wrote:

    > Gerard, may you explain a little bit more extensively why are you
    > against opening Mari project.

    Knowing what I do about the position of the Uralic languages, I cast my vote FIRMLY FOR opening a Mari project. There are real people who speak Mari. Give them a chance.

  3. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    15 April 2009 18:03

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  4. Antony D. Green
    16 April 2009 01:42

    There are three non-bot users who have edited the Mari test Wikipedia in 2009, which meets the minimum requirement. And I agree it's likely that more people will join once it's a "real" Wikipedia.

  5. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    16 April 2009 11:53

    My opinion is that there is not enough activity. If we judge this request with the thought that people will be more likely to contribute on a real Wikipedia, then we should treat every request like that, since every test has the same situation.

  6. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    16 April 2009 12:27

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    I disagree. This isn't some weird little Italian or Low German dialect. This is a Uralic language severely threatened by Russian.

    I do think there is a difference, and I think that we should support a Mari encyclopaedia.

  7. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    16 April 2009 13:27

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  8. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    16 April 2009 13:33

    I really do agree that there are major differences between those languages, but with "situation" I meant the situation in Incubator, namely that contributors don't like to contribute on Incubator. They want to edit an own Wikipedia.

  9. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    20 May 2009 05:06

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Requests_for_approval_Meadow_Mari_Wikipedia

    We should approve this. Without delay, please.

  10. (Karen)
    20 May 2009 23:21

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  11. Antony D. Green
    24 May 2009 09:38

    Little response so far!

    I've already indicated that I'm in favor of approving Meadow Mari, and that hasn't changed.

  12. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    25 May 2009 02:45

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    Michael, may you check the rest of the issues at from the "Approval process" [1], so we may notify the Board about the approval?

    [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Status/wp/mhr

  13. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    25 May 2009 04:15

    I don't understand what you mean, as the verb "check" is ambiguous.

    I don't believe I have any powers to activate the project. Someone on this committee may.

  14. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    25 May 2009 04:51

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    We agreed that we approve the project. The only issue which left in the approval process is "verify test project content with a reliable neutral source, such as a professor or expert". As you are involved in Ugro-Finnic languages, I asked you to verify that. If you are not able, we should try to find someone else to do it.

  15. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    11 June 2009 03:45

    See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Requests_for_approval_Meadow_Mari_Wikipedia

    Somebody push the button and turn it on, please.

  16. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    15 June 2009 03:17

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  17. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    15 June 2009 04:24

    Would you ever explain that on the Mari request page?

Wikipedia Acehnese[edit]

The request for an Acehnese Wikipedia was approved.

  1. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    17 April 2009 14:06

    Hello,

    I'd like to propose the approval of the Acehnese Wikipedia The request is verified as eligible, all most used messages are currently translated, and there are several not-grayed out (though not very active) editors for the past 4 months

  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    17 April 2009 14:22

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  3. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    29 April 2009 16:44

    So is this test now approved, or what is the next step for Acehnese Wikipedia?

  4. Shanel Kalicharan (Shanel)
    30 April 2009 15:51

    Since they've fulfilled every other requirement, it can probably be approved. First we'll need to find someone to verify that it is actually Acehnese *looks at linguists*.

  5. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    01 May 2009 18:42
    Shanel Kalicharan wrote:

    > Since they've fulfilled every other requirement, it can probably be
    > approved. First we'll need to find someone to verify that it is
    > actually Acehnese *looks at linguists*.

    :) Looks like a valid language [1] (Aceh is one of the names for Acehnese) with 3M of speakers. Of course, I can't guarantee is the content in that language or not (or, at least, I'd need much more time to research it).

    [1] - http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ace

  6. Antony D. Green
    02 May 2009 02:24

    I think the point is we have to confirm that the language the test Wikipedia is written in is, in fact, Acehnese, and for that we need someone who can reliably and neutrally confirm it for us. My recommendation is John M. Lawler (emeritus of the University of Michigan), who can be contacted at <email address censored>, or Mark Durie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Durie), who can be contacted at <email address censored>

  7. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    02 May 2009 02:35

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  8. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    02 May 2009 08:06

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    A good idea! :)

  9. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    02 May 2009 09:08

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    If they are speakers only of the national language they are unlikely to know much about the regional languages.

Wikipedia Mapunzugun[edit]

No decision was taken on the second request for a Mapudungun Wikipedia.

  1. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    27 April 2009 01:34

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  2. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    27 April 2009 03:25
    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    Says who? Where?


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    Says who? Where?


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    Where is there information about any of them?


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    A list? Shall we guess its contents?


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    More than you have provided here, that's for sure.

  3. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    27 April 2009 03:29

    This? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escritura_del_mapudungun

  4. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    27 April 2009 03:45

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  5. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    27 April 2009 04:05
    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    Then it's up to the users to provide this clarity. I see SEVEN orthographies at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escritura_del_mapudungun with three of them dated, one to 1986, one to 1991, and one to 1996. One was made by a grammarian who died in 1992. One by a company that was formed in 1993. there seems to be no information about what people are using, and no information on the Request for new languages about which one they want to use.

    This does not suggest stability. The 1986 orthography is lacking a citation about local opposition. I suggest more homework is needed.


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    This suggests that there is more homework needed.


    Gerard Meijssen wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    Be-Tarask was accepted because there was a clear usage scenario. I'd like to see a wiki for this language WITHOUT a spelling war or fancy software to help them maintain orthographic disunification.

  6. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    TO Peter Åkesson
    27 April 2009 06:54

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

    Peter Åkesson wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>
  7. Milos Rancic (Millosh)
    28 April 2009 00:18

    I am introduced in the issue (I am talking with Peter and a couple of Mapuches about conversion engine). They have three valid orthographies (see [1]):

    • Unified alphabet, promoted by Catholic Church.
    • Raguileo, promoted by Mapuche national movement.
    • Azümchefe, promoted by Chile state authorities.

    Generally, just the first two are strong enough inside of the population, but the third is valid because state authorities are promoting it.

    They have

    [1] - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_mapuche

Wikipedia Western Panjabi[edit]

The request for a Western Panjabi Wikipedia was approved.

  1. Robin P. (SPQRobin)
    30 April 2009 14:26

    Hello,

    I'd like to propose the approval of the Punjabi Wikipedia. It is marked as eligible, all most used messages have been localised, and the activity is very high (though mainly by only two contributors). It has already over 1000 articles.

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Western_Panjabi

  2. Michael Everson (Evertype)
    30 April 2009 14:55
    Robin P. wrote:

    > Hello,
    >
    > I'd like to propose the approval of the Punjabi Wikipedia.

    Sure.

  3. Jon Harald Søby
    30 April 2009 15:28

    Aye.

  4. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    30 April 2009 15:39

    Yep.

  5. Antony D. Green
    30 April 2009 15:46

    Sounds good to me.