Language committee/Archives/Policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
archives Language subcommittee (archived policy drafts)
There are several language policy proposals, organized here by date and proposer. The GerardM-Pathoschild synthesis, a modified version of the original Pathoschild proposal, was implemented at Meta:Language proposal policy in January 2007.

Overview[edit]

  • 2006-06-06: The first policy draft was an essay written by SabineCretella on 06 June 2006, titled "Creation of new languages for existing projects". It described problems with the former community process and proposed various possible solutions.
  • 2006-11-11: The second draft was written by Pathoschild independently of the language subcommittee on 11 November 2006, and implemented through the community on 21 November 2006 without subcommittee approval. It laid out specific requirements for approval and a standard process all requests would to go through. Pathoschild was invited to join the subcommittee thereafter.
  • 2007-01-02: The third draft was written by GerardM on 02 January 2007 to replace the established policy created by Pathoschild. He emailed it to the language subcommittee members for discussion, but no consensus was reached on replacing Pathoschild's draft.
  • 2007-01-14: The fourth draft was written by Pathoschild on 14 January 2007, merging some of the points in GerardM's draft with the established policy to reach consensus. After additional changes based on discussion, this draft was implemented at Meta:Language proposal policy.

2006-06-06: SabineCretella[edit]

New languages in general[edit]

New languages creation at this moment cannot be seen as objective. Too many people simply vote because of an opinion, but not thanks to proven facts.

When can a language be considered a language ... that is hard, because even relying on Ethnologue or ISO 639-3 (see note below) we cannot be sure if a language really has been considered as such. One example is Griko Salentino that has two variations that are even quite different in terminology (and of course have also many things in common). Griko Salentino is a language deriving from Greek spoken in the South of Italy, in Puglia and Calabria. The language is considered to be a minority language by the Italian State. So as you can see: this is one of those cases where a language exists, but we don't have a code for it. How would such a discussion go on?

Anyway: to prove that a language is a language there are certain requirements to be met in order to get an ISO 639-3 code.

Furthermore there should also be some internal requirements – such as the Swadesh list completed on Wiktionary/OmegaWiki (so we have the possibility to compare with other existing languages). We need a certain amount of editors to make sure the project can live (5 dedicated people is not enough ... out of ten who say that they want to contribute, normally only three really do/can do). We should at least have some texts in that language before starting any new language (see wikisource) – also a certain amount of quotes, proverbs etc. would be a solution.


ISO 639-3[edit]

To say if a language is a language we normally quote the ISO 639 code ... I'd go further: for all new languages I would apply for the ISO 639-3 code, because it is much better/detailed even if not exhaustive.

To get such an ISO 639-3 code certain conditions must be met. For example a certain number of documents ... really I don't know them all, but it would make sense that people who want their language to become really a language have to request an ISO-639-3 code from ISO. Meeting these conditions the language is a fact and therefore can be considered as such.

There is already one contact to the standardisation organisation and this person would also co-operate. The thing is: if we go that way it means that people who want new languages to become true must be really committed ... well, this shouldn't be a problem, right? Otherwise the new project would not have success either.

Wikipedia[edit]

Normally, and that is somewhat strange, a new language is nearly always about creating a new Wikipedia. Wikipedia has very specific requirements and these cannot be met by only a handful of editors. Well, yes, if this handful of editors worked only on Wikipedia, also during the time when other people actually work, they can reach outrageous results, but that most often is not possible. Now there is that requirement of 5 native speakers we have up to now: I say it is not enough. Let's take the nap.wikipedia – we had quite a strong support and approx. 10 people who wanted to contribute. Now what does contribute mean: write articles or also run bots? When it comes to writing articles out of these 10 people we have 3 or 4 regular contributors ... now one less, since due to private problems I can have a look at the project, but I had to reduce workload and therefore had to choose where to spend my time: where it makes more sense to the community. I every now and then edit on nap.wikipedia, but if it was not for E. abu Filumena and GENNYSAR ... well, the Neapolitan wikipedia would be much poorer in contents. Now this is a project where I do marketing for continuously (mainly outside the Wikimedia community) – and I care more about talking about the Neapolitan wikipedia than editing myself, since if I can get a new person to edit every now and then it is better for the community. We need different people, we need to discuss, we need a way to exchange opinions etc. Imagine what would happen if also GENNYSAR and E. abu Filumena had some private problems ... the project would die or at least slow down a lot. So we need at least 5 to 10 really active members.

Getting these 5 to 10 real editors is problematic when your wiki is somewhat isolated from the others – just connected through interwiki links, when there is no real exchange among these small projects that have more or less the same basic problems.

In some time we will have the Multilingual Mediawiki ... considering the experience I gained with the creation of the nap.wikipedia I would say that on one hand we must give people the possibility to create contents and to go ahead, to attract other people, not only within the wikimedia community, but also from outside. This means they need to be able to show something. Well, I can imagine having a Multilingual Mediawiki where all the languages/dialects can create their portal and their pages – so even only one person can start to edit and can be joined by other people step by step. This person, on that kind of wiki, would have less problems, because there is less admin work to do. Not all help pages must be translated there – the portal must give links to meeting places and where to talk about the project + information who to contact in case of questions/requests. In this way we can see if it is a serious attempt to create a new project and people wanting to work on it can work without having to feel that others object to a project that could become valuable. It is then up to the editors to proof that they are working on it seriously – and even if such a project should have a longer pause ... it will just be there waiting for the next one to come and take up action.

Babel templates based on ISO 639-3 should be a requirement in order to understand who is of mother tongue and who is near native from the editors – this will help to see how many people are actually working on a language. I am referring to ISO 639-3 since it is the only logical way to go – it is the only one where new languages can be requested. When it comes to not being present a language code: in order to have the wikipedia public, we could ask people to apply for the code – in that way we assure that we talk about a language and not a dialect. Unless the code is not there the wikipedia contents simply remains on the multilingual pages that are some kind of “trial”, but must have serious contents and not just let's try a bit around how a wiki works ...

Another thing to consider is: we will soon have wikidata at disposal – this means that many contents can be automatically there – names of cities, countries, distances, geocodes ... all that is common to all wikipedias can be in wikidata. Also the calendar can be within a relational database – having this connected to a database structure similar to the OmegaWiki structure it allows for inserting new relevant dates of events, dates when people died and were born. This means that we only have to fill in the date once and it is at disposal for all and we only translate the description.

We have to consider all these things, because they are on their way – and people for example can work on the translation of the calender events, the structural data before the actual wikipedia is created. I know that all this goes further than only new language creation: but also this has to be considered because it will be there. It does not make sense to change policy without considering these points.

Languages - and people speaking it[edit]

On the page Proposals for closing projects I just read an interesting note (today: 20 June 2006). How do we make sure that people really speak that language and don't fake speaking it ... well how can we control that? I suppose that people propsing new projects should be known people by the community - and since they are known others should know if they write that language or not. I don't have a clue right now how we can make this point sure ... well: I suppose for 95% of language requests there will be no doubts ... but for those we have doubts? hmmmm ....

Wiktionary/OmegaWiki[edit]

When it comes to Wiktionary/OmegaWiki I personally insist on ISO 639-3 codes – the reason is simple: it covers more languages and does consider macro languages. That is even more important when it comes to lexicological data. Of course we can upload collections, but for a new language that has no collection the first thing to complete will be the Swadesh list – it is “only” 208 terms (or was it 207 ...?) - well it seems to be easy, but it is not, compiling it is often underestimated because words often have multiple meanings ... The Swadesh list, like already said above, will help us to understand the differences. The actual quantity of general words, necessary to communicate in a language is approx. 2000 words.

It does not make sense to create a new Wiktionary, but to integrate in OmegaWiki. Well, I know that no decision has been taken for its integration into the Wikimedia foundation: being one of the creators I, like all the other members of the OmegaWiki committee, want it inside the Wikimedia Foundation – should it for some reason happen that this is not possible right now and that it will take some more time to get an integration, it makes anyway sense to co-operate. The reason is the same: new wikis are mainly about rare languages – so there is not a huge user base that can care about it – see the Sicilian Wiktionary – the community wanted it (it has approx. 6000 terms, mainly uploaded with the bot). At the time of creation I would have preferred to have the contents in the Italian Wiktionary, because it would have been less admin work (now I look every now and than if there is any vandalism) and the language would have had more exposure to other people and therefore I suppose more people would have worked on it, well the community then wanted it differently. This means it does not make much difference for the “big” languages if they are on Wiktionary or OmegaWiki, but it makes a lot of difference for the rare languages. When you are a member of a huge community you do work better and have more fun than being confined in a small project.

Wikisource[edit]

Has similar problematics to Wiktionary/OmegaWiki. Also here I would propose a collective Multilingual Mediawiki installation for the rare languages. Contents for rare languages are not too many (normally) and therefore administration work would exceed work on contents. At the beginning Wikisource was a project that had all texts in common. Well, it makes sense to have separate projects for languages that are big enough in contents. Also here: it makes more sense to collect contents and when they reach a certain limit they can be exported to a single Wikisource.

Wikibooks[edit]

If Wikipedia has problems in getting a user base in rare languages that is huge enough, how difficult would that be with Wikibooks? Also here: see Wikisource.

Wikiquote[edit]

That is a question of its own ... we should take care about Wikiquote separately simply because it makes sense to consider it from different points of views – not only when it comes to the collection of quotes, but also to the re-usability of the data.

Wikinews[edit]

Well ... also here: an initial solution would be “one central place for rare languages”. I asked one of the people on the Italian wikinews if we could get a section for the Italian regional languages – I did not get an answer. Since I believe that rare languages will have news only every now and then and they would be about very local events, like in Neapolitan for example a note about Cartoons on the Bay that takes place every year in Amalfi or about the Via Crucis in the several towns on Easter or about the particular Neapolitan Cribs and the feasts around it in the Christmas period etc. A single wiki, here too, would be too much admin work. People working on the several projects, in particular in these rare languages, are mainly the same – they only have different contents that need a place where it can be stored. A separate wiki for all those small communities together also means that they can talk “across projects” share experiences, grow community more easily. A Neapolitan speaker can understand for example most of the Sicilian texts, a huge part of the Piemontese texts and so they can read even if they are not able to talk/write in that language. It is like me reading Spanish: I can understand it quite well, but I cannot write or really talk.

Additional Notes[edit]

All these are things that come into mind considering what we have, what we need and the difficulties I personally know. Please let me know about your doubts and experiences – your thoughts and also personal feelings. Knowing them will contribute to resolve our very difficult task to find a proper way of new projects creation and to determine how we are going to consider a new language to be a language. I myself would opt for the ISO 639-3 way, strictly co-operating with them. In that way: people who want a new language to be there, one that is not considered to be a language must proof that it is. Of course we must also find out how to deal with languages that have no script at all ... how to get all that in our projects, because according to a study every week one language on earth dies. Here we should consider Commons as well – as a repository of sound files of people actually speaking that language, of photographic collections that show how these people live, etc. It will preserve a part of the culture of mankind for the future. It is relevant, it is important to do it.

My thoughts go much further – but for now we have to consider all these actual necessities and problems to reach the goal. We should consider that many people now objecting to languages do that without knowing the language, often also because of politics. What we do, within the Wikimedia Foundation must stay away from actual “personal opinions” and “national politics” - we must be objective and give anybody a chance. People who want to do actually must show that they really want to do. So creating basic requirements like the request for an ISO 639 code, proofing that a language exists and a close co-operation with ISO on languages and policies on how to consider what actually is a language (by not excluding those who only have an oral tradition up to now) is a very objective way to do things, even if often it will turn out to be a harder way than today to reach the creation of a new language.

Where languages are spoken etc.[edit]

I am just getting sick to explain the maybe hundredth time that nap=Neapolitan does not only refer to the language spoken in Naples, but to a huge area (including parts of Abruzzo, Puglia etc.) following the definition of Rohlfs. That nap is really more than just a language - on the considered territory you can find other languages as well as dialects of Neapolitan and dialects of these other languages. People do not seem to be willing to understand and quite often miscredit nap in that way. It is often more a kind of a political thingie - but I cannot help ... so one thing would be fundamental: have pages like on Ethnologue, but have them in a wiki format where people can add information - something that could be a starting point for the understanding what needs to be a separate language and what definitely is a dialect. Where people can add information if certain requirements of "speaking a different language" can be met (requirements set by ISO ... but maybe also providing other information that proofs that they exist). Wikistandards?--Sabine 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-11-11: Pathoschild[edit]

There are several points you must consider when creating a new language. Please review the full text of this page before submitting a proposal.

Application procedure[edit]

Prerequisites[edit]

Please ensure that the following statements are all correct concerning the proposed language.

  1. The proposal is to open a new language Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, or Wikiversity.
    Meta-Wiki, the Wikimedia Commons and Wikispecies are multilingual projects, so that there are no separate editions for individual languages. Wikisource and Wikinews have their own request pages: Wikisource, Wikinews.
  2. That language project does not already exist (see the complete list of Wikimedia projects).
  3. The language is sufficiently different from any current language (see the complete list of Wikimedia projects) to be mutually incomprehensible.
    Where this is questionable, the issue should be decided by the normal process described below. Different written forms of the same basic language should be included on the same wiki, possibly on different pages.
  4. It has a valid ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 draft code, or you have proposed a compatible language code.
    If there is no standard ISO code for your language, you will need to propose a code that is more than three letters long. The recommended format combines a generic code for the language family (such as gem for Germanic languages) with a three letter code for the proposed language (such as fiu-vro combining "other Finno-Ugric languages" with a code invented for the Voro language). This procedure may not be ideal for all circumstances, but should be followed if reasonable.
  5. The proposal has a sufficient number of speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion.
    • The best way to demonstrate the viability of the community is to begin creating content in that language on the Development wiki. A proposal with a flourishing community and a sizeable repertoire of content is much more likely to be accepted than one with no community or content.
    • Many users consider fictional languages (such as Klingon) to be unacceptable, and such proposals may get strong opposition. A precedent of note is the Klingon Wikipedia, which was eventually shut down (see archived discussion).

Initial proposal[edit]

Please ensure that the following statements are all correct concerning yourself and your proposal.

  • You have an account on this Meta-Wiki.
  • You have provided all required information, as explained in the following sections.

Create the subpage[edit]

Create a new subpage named "Requests for new languages/Project Language name", where language name is the English name if that exists. Provide the following information (see the example below):

  • language
    • The English language name; if an article on the English Wikipedia exists, link the name to that page.
    • The native language name, if it's different from the English name.
    • The ISO code, in the form <code> <ISO standard number>. See w:List of ISO 639-2 codes and w:List of ISO 639-3 codes (select one). If there is none, create one (see "Prerequisites" above) and write it in this format: "language (code [invented])".
  • Users interested in forming a community.
  • Relevant pages and external links.

Place the following example content, replacing the information with facts relevant to your proposal per the instructions above and in the template. The request below would be on a page named "Requests for new languages/Wikipedia French".

===French Wikipedia===
{{:Requests for new languages/header|open}}
{{New language proposal
 |language  = [[w:French language|]] (''français'', fr ISO 639-1)
 |community = [[User:Pathoschild|]] ('''N/P'''), [[User:Joe|]], [[User:Bob|]] ('''N''')
 |links     = [[incubator:Wp/fr|development wiki project]]
 |external  = [http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ai-ia/fi-if/index_e.cfm International Francophonie]
}}

Replace this line with your opening argument in favour of the new project.

example removed, template does not exist here.

Place it on the main page[edit]

On Requests for new languages, add "{{/Project Language name}}" at the bottom of the appropriate section.

Discussion[edit]

Users are encouraged to discuss whether it is a good idea to open the new language. However, this is not a vote. Even if there is strong support, the proposal may be denied if there are strong arguments against its creation and insufficiently strong arguments in support as judged by the closing administrators.

Conditional approval[edit]

If discussion indicates that the project is a good idea and would prosper, a Meta administrator will close the discussion with the "{{:Requests for new languages/status|passed1}}" template.

(The Meta administrator closing the proposal must be impartial, having no overriding opinion regarding the proposal. This does not mean that they cannot participate in the discussion by providing unbiased facts or links to precedent discussions. The decision may be reviewed by other Meta administrators.)

At least five active users must edit that language before a test project will be considered successful. You are encouraged to search for interested contributors yourself, as this may speed up the process considerably. These users must explicitly state that they are willing to contribute time and effort to the project. Note that a project may be closed if there is little or no activity within the first year.

Final approval[edit]

If the test project is successful, a Meta administrator will change the template on the proposal page to "{{:Requests for new languages/status|passed2}}" and begin drafting a summary of the discussion and the growth of the test wiki. The number of users that supported or opposed the project is irrelevant.

This brief report will be submitted to the developers via the appropriate mailing lists and bug requests. This may be a lengthy process, since the developers are very busy and new language creation is not a high priority. You are strongly encouraged to continue developing the test project. This may accelerate the process over a proposal with no active community. For Wikipedia proposals, the List of articles every Wikipedia should have may be useful in doing this. All pages developed as part of a test wiki can be transferred to the real wiki when it is opened.

When the wiki is opened, this template on the proposal page will be changed to "{{:Requests for new languages/status|passed3}}".

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Please read the above procedure, particularly the prerequisites, for other information.

Languages[edit]

  • How many speakers are necessary?
    There should be enough speakers to form a viable community and audience. Whether a particular language qualifies depends on discussion.

Test project[edit]

  • When and how are test projects created?
    Anyone can create a test project at any time after opening a new request. For more information, see the Incubator wiki's main page.

See also[edit]

2007-01-02: GerardM[edit]

Policy for the creation of projects in new languages.

When there is a proposal for a new project in a new language there are several considerations:

  • The languages is not used for any project yet
  • The language is an established language i.e. it is recognised by one of the ISO-639 standards and it conforms to the full understanding of what this language is considered to mean
  • The language is not recognised as such or it is a more narrow or differing meaning from what the Standard describes

When a new project is proposed for a language that has established itself in a WMF project, typically there should be no problem allowing for an other project in the same language.

When the language or linguistic entity is recognised in an ISO-639 standard, typically there is little reason to not allow for a project in this language. However, an argument could be that the language is mutually understandable with another linguistic entity. When this is the case, there is a need for some fine balance judgement why the request makes sense or not. Often political arguments are used to force an issue. For the WMF this does not make a difference.

There are WMF projects where a narrow understanding of the language is what rules a project. This has led to the creation of the nds-NL project; here the insistence of the use of one orthography led to the two projects for what is essentially one language. There are other examples of such practices; some of them like the Belarus Wikipedia are politically inspired and divorce the language from how it is used by the majority of the people that speak the language. These practices are not really compatible with the base understanding of the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

When a language, linguistic entity has not been recognised, there are several things to consider. It is truly an existing language. If it is not, to what extend has a constructed linguistic entity been able to establish itself. As the WMF is not there to develop new constructed linguistic entities, there has to be an extended body of works before a WMF project should be considered. When it is not a constructed language but an as yet unrecognised linguistic entity, the information that distinguishes this LE from another needs to be presented in such a way that the WLDC will accept it as such. With this understanding it is possible to assert if it makes sense to allow it for a WMF project.

When these basic facts are being sorted out, a project may start to build material that is to serve either as material for the WLDC to assert if the language is to be considered valid in its own right and/or as the start for a project when it is approved as such. This material is to be build in the Incubator wiki. This is also the place where the localisation of the MediaWiki software can be maintained for any linguistic entity.

When the WLDC needs to assert a linguistic entity there is a need for full articles about a spread of subjects. This is to assert the consistency of the language. The WLDC will also require that articles in specific domains will be present. This too serves as a way to consider the completeness of the linguistic entity that is to be asserted.

When a linguistic entity is not controversial as such, there is still a need for creating a minimum amount of content. The moment when a project is to be promoted into full production is a function of the number of people editing on this proto-project, the consistency of the content. The localisation of the MediaWiki software is also a factor in the decision to allow for full project status.

In the past, it has been practice to vote for or against new language proposals. This led to people with no knowledge of such a language to vote in favour. It resulted in people to vote for/against a language out of political motivation. It proved really problematic and resulted in projects that are problematic because of the POV presented and in the quality of the language. We have terminated projects because they were not in the language as advertised. We have projects were people from Belgium create the content with a grammar book from 1915 and a dictionary of 1856. This is not what the WMF is there for. It is therefore that a vote for or against a project is not relevant. When there is an objection to a project, it has to be argued in linguistic terms. The assessment of a project is therefore to be done on linguistic merits. It is therefore relevant to have a linguist determine if a proposed project is indeed in that language and, it is for the WMF to decide if a sufficiently big group is involved or if a sufficiently big sized proto project exists to make it a full fledged project.

2007-01-14: GerardM-Pathoschild[edit]

Please review the full text of this page before submitting a proposal.

The language subcommittee processes requests in accordance with the application procedure and prior experience with requests and projects. The subcommittee can skip steps in the procedure if they consider a request to have already met the objectives of those steps. Proposals for projects in a language that already has a well-established project may be fast-tracked in this way.

Application procedure[edit]

Requisites[edit]

The following requirements must be met by requests before they can be approved.

  1. The proposal is to open a new language edition of an existing Wikimedia project that does not already exist (see the complete list of Wikimedia projects).
  2. The language should have a valid ISO-639 (search) or BCP 47 (list) code.
    If there is no valid ISO-639 or RFC 4646 code, it should be a natural language or a well-established constructed language. The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language. The information that distinguishes this language from another should be sufficient to convince standards organizations to create an ISO-639 or BCP 47 code.
  3. The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language.
    The degree of difference required is considered on a case-by-case basis. The subcommittee does not consider political differences, since the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to give every single person free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge, rather than information from the viewpoint of individual political communities.
  4. The proposal has a sufficient number of interested editors to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion.
    Many users consider fictional languages (such as Klingon) to be unacceptable, and such proposals may get strong opposition. A precedent of note is the Klingon Wikipedia, which was eventually shut down (see archived discussion).
  5. There is an active test project on the Incubator wiki (this may be done at any time, but is required for final approval).
    A project should start on the Incubator wiki. This will demonstrate that there is sufficient community to build the project. If there is no valid ISO 639 or BCP 47 code, the test project will provide some of the material to present to the World Language Documentation Center. This is also a good occasion to translate the MediaWiki software if there is no version in that language.

Initial proposal[edit]

Please ensure that the following statements are all correct concerning yourself and your proposal.

  • You have an account on this Meta-Wiki.
  • You have provided all required information, as explained in the following sections.

Create the subpage[edit]

Create a new subpage named "Requests for new languages/Project Language name", where language name is the English name if that exists (for example, "Requests for new languages/Wikipedia French"). Place the following template on the page:

===French Wikipedia===
{{:Requests for new languages/header|open}}
{{New language proposal
 |language  = [[w:French language|French]] (''français'', fr RFC 4646)
 |community = [[User:Pathoschild|]] ('''NP'''), [[User:Joe|]], [[User:Bob|]] ('''N''')
 |links     = [[incubator:Wp/fr|development wiki project]]
 |external  = [http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ai-ia/fi-if/index_e.cfm International Francophonie]
}}

Replace this line with your opening argument in favour of the new project.

Provide the following information (change the example above):

  • language
    • The English language name; if an article about the language exists on the English Wikipedia, link the name to that page.
    • The native language name in italics, if different from its English name.
    • A valid ISO 639 code. You can often find this code in Wikipedia's article on the language, or by searching the ethnologue language family database (Google search "site:http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp language here").
  • Users interested in forming a community. Write "(P)" beside the proposer's name, and "(N)" beside native speakers.
  • Relevant pages and external links.
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Place it on the main page[edit]

On Requests for new languages, add "{{/Project Language name}}" (for example, {{/Wikipedia French}}) at the bottom of the appropriate section.

Discussion[edit]

Users are encouraged to discuss whether it is a good idea to open the new language. However, this is not a vote. The project will be assessed on its linguistic merits and chances of flourishing. Even if there is strong support, the proposal may be denied if there are strong arguments against its creation and insufficiently strong arguments in support as judged by the language subcommittee.

Conditional approval[edit]

If discussion and past experience indicates that the project is a good idea and would prosper, the language subcommittee will conditionally approve the language (with the "{{:Requests for new languages/status|passed1}}" template).

The users should begin writing a test project on the Incubator wiki now, if they haven't already. At least five active users must edit that language regularly before a test project will be considered successful. You are encouraged to search for interested contributors yourself, as this may speed up the process considerably. These users must explicitly state that they are willing to contribute time and effort to the project. Note that a project may be closed if there is little or no activity within the first year.

Final approval[edit]

If the test project is successful, the language subcommittee will approve the request (with the "{{:Requests for new languages/status|passed2}}" template) and draft a report for the Board of trustees. The number of users that supported or opposed the project is irrelevant. When the wiki is approved by the board and opened, the template on the proposal page will be updated to reflect this ("{{:Requests for new languages/status|passed3}}").

Users are strongly encouraged to continue developing the test project while they are waiting for the wiki to be opened. This may accelerate the process. For Wikipedia proposals, the List of articles every Wikipedia should have may be useful. All pages developed as part of a test wiki can be transferred to the actual wiki when it is opened.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Please read the above procedure, particularly the prerequisites, for other information.

Languages[edit]

  • How many speakers are necessary?
    There should be enough speakers to form a viable community and audience. Whether a particular language qualifies depends on discussion.

Test project[edit]

  • When and how are test projects created?
    Anyone can create a test project at any time after opening a new request. For more information, see the Incubator wiki's main page.

See also[edit]