Requests for new languages/Wikibooks Multilingual

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Multilingual Wikibooks[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikibooks Multilingual)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page. (See an unofficial analysis of this request.)

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve just a project which intends to be written in one language. Thus, this proposal is invalid. If you want to create multilingual Wikibooks, please create a page Multilingual Wikibooks and start discussion about the idea at textbook-l. --Millosh 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal summary
  • Language details: Multilingual (ISO 639-3 mul)
  • Editing community: darklama (NP),Tosão(NP)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: Test page
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

I would like to see a multilingual Wikibooks project created to encourage translations, creation of multilingual books, creation of books in languages which don't have a separate language project yet, and to encourage more communication and cooperation between Wikibooks projects. I believe by creating Multilingual Wikibooks, problems finding a suitable place to host books undergoing translations and for creating multilingual books can be easily fixed. I believe it would give opportunities to people who speak languages not yet covered a place to write books until enough interest is gathered. I believe it would help make it easier for the various Wikibooks projects to cooperate and communicate with each other. --Darklama 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments in favor[edit]

  • Support Support It's a good idea Tosão 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support The Wikiversity project was launched with beta.wikiversity.org in place as a multi-lingual hub. I think it is a good idea to have a "central" hub for Wikibooks. We need all the help we can get dealing with translations and coordination between languages. --JWSurf 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes, a very good idea. +sj | help with translation |+ 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Votes will be ignored according to the policy. --OosWesThoesBes 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    This Wikibooks is a good idea, BUT it should not be called 'multilingual', because that's already something else: incubator:Wq/mul and incubator:Wt/mul. --OosWesThoesBes 06:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to opose. --OosWesThoesBes 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

* Support Anything that helps move information across language barriers has to be beneficial to WMF's stated missions and goals. I personally would like better access to non English technical papers. v:user:mirwin w:user:lazyquasar "annonymous comment" - [1]

  • Support Support It would be useful also for multilangual policy --Ramac 12:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support I support this idea. Projects progress when there is a community behind them. For many languages there are not enough users to help start a new language project, and even if they did they would be on their own. Starting to build content on a place where each one would earn something from the collective progress is the best thing. When there will be enough content a move to a separate wiki will keep the project/community active. Geraki TL 10:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support As Wikisource and Wikiversity have multilingual sites to host texts without their own language subdomains, I support Wikibooks having the same feature. In case texts in a specific language become sizable, relevant users may ask to break away to open a new language subdomain. We did this kind of major page move on Wikisource, then dozens of language subdomains generally work well after grand openings.--Jusjih 03:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support This idea is very interesting for me. Ginen time I would like to contribute in it. At least I can find a way to use it.--Dima io 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against[edit]

  • Oppose Oppose I'm against Betawikiversity and the Oldwikisource, and because this seems to be a similar project, I'm against this project too. There is Incubator for developing projects, no need to duplicate Incubator with these three projects, I think. SPQRobin 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per SPQRobin. Incubator has developed / is developing policies for wiki development projects and users are confused yet by BetaWikiversity and Oldwikisource. We don't need another project like this. --MF-Warburg(de) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Mehrsprachigkeit ist keine Sprache. Deutschlehrer 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Translation: "Multilingualism is no language." --MF-Warburg 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposeOppose I agree with Warburg and Robin. We should not split but unite. If this will be done you'll get an inactive mul.wikibooks.org and a less active incubator.wikimedia.org.
  • Oppose Oppose Another thing. The policy states localisation must be done, how to handle this? Europanto? --OosWesThoesBes 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    For the interface messages, localization could be done by making use of MediaWiki:Interface_message/langcode, and user preferences to determine which localization would be used, and defaulting to English by default. Any guidelines or policies could be localized much like is done on Meta, and using langcode subpages. Like Wikibooks:Translations, Wikibooks:Translations/de, Wikibooks:Translations/fr, etc. --darklama 03:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    The problem is this isn't a request for a new language, but a request for a new project. --OosWesThoesBes 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    This request doesn't fit the requirements for requests for new projects. Its not a completely unique project proposal as required by requests for new projects, while it would be a new edition of an existing project with a valid ISO-639 language code as required by requests for new languages. The problem is that this proposal doesn't really fit either page. I'm willing to agree that this isn't a request for a new language, but its also not a request for a new project either. I believe a language subcommittee member has already voiced there uncertainty at this being something they can act on and has suggested this proposal be left up to the Wikimedia Foundation or left up to Wikibookians to decide on. I'm not sure where to go from there. --darklama 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I am in opposition. As a regular editor of en.wb, I think that the format of the project is better suited to individual, separate language projects, rather than one multilingual effort. Wb will grow too big, too soon, for that. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I oppose this. Like Beta Wikiversity and the Old Wikisource, which I also oppose, this creates over redundancy. What this project is suppose to do is already covered by other projects. Interlingual coordination between Wikibooks should be done here at Meta, while new Wikibooks should be there at the Incubator. -- Felipe Aira 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Wikiversity has shown that projects work better when coordination and efforts between global project policy and the introduction of new languages is not split across two or more projects. Additionally this proposed project is about more then policy and new languages. It is also about writing books for a bilingual audience, where a single book on this project could have Spanish, French, Japanese and English all contained in it, possibly side-by-side on the same page. --darklama 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Felipe Aira, Let me draw your attention to 1. the extremely active Finnish wikiversity: betawikiversity:Pääsivu/Requests for new languages/Wikiversity Finnish 2#Arguments in favour, 2. the fact that beta was instrumental in the launch of Greek wikiversity and the approval of japanese wikiversity, providing far better support than what could possibly be available on the incubator, answering questions about techniques and policies; 3. (for you did not explain what you mean by "over"-reduncancy) we will always have some redundancy, a system without redundancy is inflexible and undesirable even if it is possible, and 4. Most importantly, without wikversity beta, the efforts of wikiversiters will be split across incubator, meta, wikibooks, etc. That is bad. Hillgentleman 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per SPQRobin. Siebrand 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - new projects should be tested at the wikiincubator --Cradel 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose.It needs to delete all of Wikibooks.There will be lots of wasting time.TBG 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The arguments above sums up my reasons. —§ stay (sic)! 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per User:Anonymous Dissident above, got it right. -- OlEnglish 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. I thought the old wikisource was fantastic, but that was wikisource, this is wikibooks. The multilingual format is not suited for wikibooks at all. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Other discussion[edit]

Hmmm, this looks like a very good and interesting proposal. It seems it would be something along the lines of a multilingual platform, somewhat like oldwikisource:. Cbrown1023 talk 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes that and somewhat along the lines of betawikiversity too. --Darklama 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OosWesThoesBes that this could use a better name. For now though I'm following that convention with incubator:Wb/mul. Do you or does anyone else have suggestions for a better name? Perhaps "International Wikibooks" or "Beta Wikibooks"? --Darklama 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if "pan-lingual" makes any sense. Hillgentleman 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds alright to me, but "pan" is a reserved 3 letter language code for something other then pan-lingual. Its been suggested this could use www.wikibooks.org like oldwikisource does. --darklama 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of as well. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Yann 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in fragmenting and making even more problematic to get a overall view of what is going on. In place of fragmenting and diversifying projects it would all work better if simplified and concentrated, adding layers of complexity to simple issues will only augment problems for the contribution of content and mutual understanding of participants. Since translation doesn't mean the creation of the of "new" content in it self (at least as the objective), it will need a source (from were to translate from), why shouldn't we use use the source talks pages to reach a critical mass to help not only in translating, but in keeping the translations in par, using the target talk pages to inform not only on the effort but on the need to keep the works similar.

This is another problem I see in attempting to coordinate translations, maintaining works in parallel state, this will be only achievable if the source is at a static stage (not evolving) and the target must also be static and near 0 stage of development (if not synchronization of content should occur before translation begins), also the translation has to be done quickly, because at any point the works can diverge not only on the content but on presentation or organization, in fact depending on each project evolution they will cease to be a translation and become a derived work. In any case a repository for people to coordinated several projects synchronization (not translation since only a few works can be effectively translated) can become usefully, but is there really a need for it ? What insufficiencies will it address ? --Panic 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Translations probably wouldn't last long on the incubator because a language project already exists and eventually multilingual books would need to find a new home outside of the incubator, since the incubator is for testing with the intent to create a new project once enough interest has been shown and not as a permanent home for them. BetaWikiversity and OldWikisource have demonstrated that they are not simply copying what the incubator does, they do much more than anything that the incubator does and will ever do in its current form and so will this if interest in contributing to this project grows. The incubator has limitations which as time goes on, more and more people are realizing, that is why these projects are created and new ones proposed. Perhaps its the incubator that needs to disappear or change its focus. --darklama 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One would expect a completely translated book to move to a language-specific wiki. A new language project should get its own wiki some day. What kinds of content (i.e. apart from the multi-lingual coordination and other community discussions) are going stay in the proposed project? Hillgentleman 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides coordination and community discussion Multilingual books would stay at the proposed project. --darklama 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • On the comments:

* I'm against Betawikiversity and the Oldwikisource, and because this seems to be a similar project, I'm against this project too. There is Incubator for developing projects, no need to duplicate Incubator with these three projects, I think. SPQRobin 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC) * Per SPQRobin. Incubator has developed / is developing policies for wiki development projects and users are confused yet by BetaWikiversity and Oldwikisource. We don't need another project like this. --MF-Warburg(de) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There is more. Beta serves as a platform for multilingual coordination, general policy development and incubation for new projects. Beta editors know what wikiversity is about. If nothing else, notice the difference between incubator:special:recentchanges and betawikiversity:special:recentchanges - the latter consists of matters concerning wikiversity alone, and in this sense is a friendly environment to new projects. Hillgentleman 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I understand Beta, because it's the newest project of the WMF, founded a year ago. But Wikibooks? That is founded in 2003! So I really don't get why this is needed. On Beta, there has to be discussed about the goal, policy, etc. Once that all is done, and the biggest languages have their Wikiversity version, I will request that new Wikiversities should be made in Incubator. SPQRobin 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Its needed because all existing Wikibooks projects are for writing books in a single language. This project proposes to be for writing books that are in multiple languages, just as OldWikiSource is for hosting public domain books that are written in more than one language. That is its main proposed aim. --darklama 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
But what is preventing someone from a non-English Wikibooks to take a book from en.Wikibooks.org and translate it (and after that the book goes a separate way)? If your idea is to keep the books the same in all languages, then it will pose a difficult task in synchronizing the different language versions and everyone should work on the meta-language (english probably) and that could also be done within en.wikibooks.org; coordination could be done on meta. The only argument for this project I see is building a alike-thinking community with an interest in internationalisation. As for hosting languages of non-existing Wikibooks (mediawiki-projects): incubator was created for that and I am afraid to diverse all the (human) resource over different separate incubator projects. Incubator as project is so nice, because you have more people within one place watching the projects. But you can always try and if it doesn't work out:too bad; if it works out: super. Just a thought... Londenp 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether there is anything preventing someone taking a book from en.wikibooks.org or any other wikibooks project and translating it. However English Wikibooks is not a multilingual project and some other wikibooks projects seem to have a similar policy. This has lead to some cases in which two projects both try to say that the translation should happen on the other project. So being able to host temporally books undergoing translation without risk of deletion I see as an extra benefit to this project, it is however not its main aim.
I think your confused about my ideas and aim of multilingual wikibooks. Hosting multiple books each written in a single language would be outside its project scope. The intent is write bilingual books, with multiple languages included in a single book, rather then synchronizing multiple single-language books. For example section names could be written in English and French, and a paragraph written in English followed by the same paragraph written in French, or could have a section written in English followed by the same section written in French. Multilingual wikibooks would be targeting bilinguals, places that teach education in a bilingual environment, and people taking classes in a different country while having to learn a second language (for example someone taking classes along side taking English as a second language). Right now there is no project to fill in the gaps to write textbooks with a bilingual audience written by a community of bilingual contributors for education in bilingual environments. --darklama 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I really did misunderstand the proposal. Londenp 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another case where a multilingual Wikibooks project would be useful came up today. We have on English Wikibooks a book in German for English-speaking German learners. It includes translations etc to support that aim. In parallel, the German edition has English text for German-speaking English learners. So does a German book belong on English Wikibooks? Maybe, maybe not. But where it most absolutely would fit in is on a project specifically for such works. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oldwikisource is for works in languages which cant sustain their own project. It serves as an incubator for wikisource in some cases, and also a final resting ground for texts in languages that will never have their own wiki because they are dead. In some senses oldwikisource is a special case, because some languages will never progress to "projects", however wikiversity has benefited, and I expect that wikibooks will also benefit from having their own cross-language, or multilingual wiki, so they can autonomously handle projects which either span more than one language, or projects in minor languages which will never be part of a big push to set up a new wiki in that language.
    A multilingual wiki does not aim to side-step the incubator - the incubator is for projects which aim to become fully fledged projects, whereas a mul.wb would be for projects which would likely never fit on a better wiki, but are still valuable and viable. It would be the responsibility of mul.wb to ensure that they foster truly unique content, and do not merely become an incubator. I believe we should let them try. John Vandenberg 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes I agree that Wikibooks would benefit from a cross-language or multilingual wiki which is why I proposed this project. A multilingual wikibooks project could be used to provide updated versions of international works available from Oldwikisource which are maintained for instance and for dealing with cross-project issues specific to Wikibooks, like features that could aid in making writing books easier or problems unique to writing books in a wiki environment. However multilingual wikibooks is also intended to take the place of incubation on the incubator. I believe book writing is different enough from writing encyclopedia articles, dictionary definitions or quotations to need its own incubator to help ensure the success of new language projects and help reduce the need to reinvent the wheel by benefiting from the experiences of other Wikibooks projects. --darklama 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)