Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Baybayin Tagalog 2

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

Baybayin Tagalog Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Baybayin Tagalog 2)
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.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

Closing per oppose arguments and policy. Jon Harald Søby 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Localization
  • Project name: ᜏᜒᜃᜒᜐᜓᜍ᜔ᜐ᜔
    The name of the project in the requested language; for example, "Wikipédia"
    in French.
  • Project namespace: ᜏᜒᜃᜒᜐᜓᜍ᜔ᜐ᜔
    The name of the namespace for project pages like policies; usually the same
    as the project name.
  • Project_talk namespace: ᜂᜐᜉᜈ᜔᜔ ᜏᜒᜃᜒᜐᜓᜍ᜔ᜐ᜔
    The name of the discussion namespace for project pages like policies; for
    example, "Wikipedia talk" in English.
  • Wiki logo: Wikipidya.png
    The name of the wiki logo uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, like
    "Wikipedia-logo-v2-pl.png" (see logo).
  • Default timezone: PHT (UTC+8)
    The default timezone on the wiki, like "CET (UTC+1)". This is usually the
    default UTC.
  • User interface: See Translatewiki.
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
The Tagalog Baybayin script.

Baybayin Tagalog is the ancient form of the Tagalog language before the arrival of the Europeans. Unlike the modern variant, Filipino, which is written in the Latin alphabet, it is written in the Brahmic abugida form. The oldest surviving text written in the script is known as Doctrina Cristiana located at the Library of Congress. Currently, certain sectors of artists and aficionados are interested in reviving the script. The most common contemporary use of the script is in tattooing.

Editing community note: So far I am the only one, although Jose77 appears to be interested.--_`23prootie 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arguments in favour[edit]

Flag of the Katipunan faction Magdalo, using the ᜃ (ka) symbol.
Flag of the Katipunan faction Magdiwang, using the ᜃ (ka) symbol.

Arguments against[edit]

  • Strong Oppose - Baybayin is a dead Philippine script (already been dead and replaced by current script system by the year 1580s). It is only used by several minorities such as Palawan tribes, but the majority of Filipinos even the Filipino language (and regional dialects such as Chavacano de Zamboanga, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Bicolano, etc.) uses the modern Latin alphabet with no diacritics. Furthermore, there is no specific rule or official character support (there are so many font and script support over the web, each is unique of their own) for such script, so checking proper spelling will be nearly impossible. Or vandalism may remain on such pages over years because counter checking will be difficult to people who are not using this script. Yes, there is an ISO code for Baybayin script but there is no official font support as decreed by the law for such writing. And take note, Baybayin is only the script, but the language in which Baybayin is used into is Tagalog. And per Sky Harbor, Tagalog Wikipedia is still weak, and another duplicate Tagalog Baybayin Wikipedia written in another writing system entirely alien to present majority will make the possible Wikipedia Baybayin Tagalog weaker or maybe useless.-JL 09 12:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC).
    • First of all, could you please write in a concise way not exceding 1,500 characters because walls of texts are difficult to read drowning out much of their context. Thank you!! --23prootie 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Now, in dealing with your points:
        • Baybayin is not a dead script. It only takes one user for a script or language to be considered as "alive", take Yaghan as an example. I, as a living user of the script, guarantees it to be alive.
        • Second, the Republic of the Philippines officially supports the script, otherwise it wouldn't have sent it to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Office Register of World Memory.--10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your point. As far as I know, it is better to be precise and clear when in a discussion, rather than leaving a piece of comment saying "apples and oranges" with no clear meaning what it's for.--JL 09 11:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Just because one person uses it does not guarantee it alive. Yaghan is a living language because at lest 1 person has it as their native language. If you grew up using Baybayin, then it's alive. However, if you learned Latin before Baybayin, essentially Baybayin is still dead. Kanzler31 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I am afraid that you are mistaken, sir. A language or script is alive as long as one person is using it, native or otherwise.--`23prootie 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Arguments above. Kanzler31 23:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Geez, no votes allowed.--10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nobody uses baybayin in any practical form of communication so having a Tagalog Wikipedia in Baybayin would not advance Wikimedia Foundation's goals. --seav 04:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There are blogs that use the script, and workshops are present in Manila and California.--23prootie 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Those are not practical forms of communications. Baybayin is currently used for artistic purposes and as a subject of academia, and not for practical forms of communications nor as a medium of written conversations and barely outside of specialist groups. Please take note that Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to spread free and open knowledge and the reason why they support various language projects is so that native speakers in those languages can have access to knowledge. There are no native "writers" of Baybayin and anyone who writes in Baybayin can read and write using the Latin script. Thus, having a Baybayin-script Wikipedia does not advance Wikimedia Foundation's goals at all. So, why should WMF spend resources in hosting a Tagalog Baybayin Wikipedia? --seav 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I find the "practicality argument" flawed. Because all Filipinos are capable in communicating in either English or Filipino (Tagalog) or both, should they then stop using their own native languages? In a multilingual society such as the Philippines, marginalising a language group on the basis of "practical use" is politically explosive. I honestly believe that all languages in the Philippines should be supported either by an institution such as Wikipedia or by the Philippine government. The amount of use should not be the basis for excluding anyone.--23prootie 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, let's stick to the fact. You keep on pushing that a Wikipedia in Baybayin should be promulgated by diverting towards another point of view that Baybayin writes a specific language different from Tagalog or whatsoever. ("should they then stop using their own native languages"). Please be reminded that Baybayin alphabet represents the Tagalog language before it was replaced by the use of Latin alphabets. Hence, because no other people is native to Baybayin (or at least in this discussion) and because Baybayin Tagalog Wikipedia would be a redundancy to the existing (Latin) Tagalog Wikipedia, and an existence of a Baybayin Wikipedia will be a haven of vandalism or libelous comments hidden on Baybayin codes, and that the creation of a Baybayin Wikipedia would not promote the goal to represent language (because Baybayin is really not a language, it is a form of dead writing system) of number of individuals, I still oppose the request.--JL 09 12:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, this is misquoted ("should they then stop using their own native languages"), I was referring to all Philippine langauges not this language specifically.--`23prootie 15:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Tagalog in Latin (Filipino language) and Baybayin Tagalog are sufficiently different because both are mutually unintelligible. It is unimportant if they both represent the Tagalog branch of Philippine languages, what matters is the question on whether or not these differences are enough to differentiate them from each other. One of your arguments against this nomination is the fact that majority of the current speakers of Tagalog are unable to read the script (vandalism argument). Well, if that is not reason enough, then what is?--`23prootie 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - While I agree that we have to conserve the Baybayin script, having a Tagalog Wikipedia in Baybayin will just duplicate the current Tagalog Wikipedia written in Latin script. AFAIK, there is no specific Wikipedia language edition that uses two different writing systems. One example is the Japanese Wikipedia, it started in romaji, Romanized Japanese, because of the limitation of the MediaWiki software before but it is now written in kana, which is used by all literate native Japanese speakers. There is no other Japanese Wikipedia written in any other writing system. So, applying that argument, we can only have one writing system in Tagalog Wikipedia. And the writing system is the Latin script because all literate native speakers of Tagalog today use that script. We cannot use Baybayin since only a few Tagalog speakers can read it. --Jojit (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is: Belarusian has Wikipedias in the narkamauka (official, post-reform) and Taraškievica (classical, pre-reform) orthographies. However, bear in mind that both orthographies are still in use by Belarusians, and other Wikipedias (like Serbian, Kazakh and Mandarin Chinese) have server-side solutions to address the issue of differing orthographies and writing systems. But should this be made applicable to Tagalog in Baybayin and Tagalog in Latin? I don't think so, unless the KWF (who I'm writing to now about this issue) says otherwise. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And what I am afraid of is the increased vandalism. Since nobody so far is 100% literate to Baybayin script, then the possible Wikipedia will be vulnerable to vandals or possibly libelous contents written in Baybayin, which nobody can't notice because a website in generally alien system will be very difficult to manage. And such contents can stand in the possible Wikipedia for so many years until everyone will become literate to Baybayin.--JL 09 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I am concerned about the level of activity. The only people that use the Baybayin is as mentioned above various indigenous tribes, but were do you expect to find a computer or internet cafe in the forest? Most (if not all) users of the Baybayin script have no internet access since they live rurally. Nobody would contribute to the project and would leave it as a "vandal-heaven". Kanzler31 05:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, members of the Hanuno'o and Tagbanwa tribes don't even use their variants of Baybayin to write Tagalog. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Apples and oranges.--23prootie 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but what do you mean by Apples and oranges? I know the definition, but I think you should state your comment a bit more clearer. Kanzler31 00:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
            • I agree. We're having a discussion about a possibility of another Wikimedia project, so please be precise and stick to your points.--JL 09 11:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I did not explain. What I meant by that expression is that the current status of other Indic scripts in the country should not have an impact to this discussion. Baybayin is an apple, Hanuno'o and Tagbanwa are oranges--23prootie
    • If the Tagalog Wikipedia had been more inclusive in allowing alternative forms of the language/s there, then this request would not be in existence. The problem is that it is too busy catering to the Filipino language that it effectively shut out other variants of the language, such as Batangueño.--23prootie 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • How has there been a "shutting out" of other variants of Tagalog in favor of Filipino? As far as I'm concerned any variant of Tagalog is acceptable, none of which are currently written in Baybayin. At the same time, the problem of "favor" that you cite is one that is reflective of the community as a whole: just like how the Korean Wikipedia reflects the marked lack of North Korean speakers by virtue of being written solely in the South Korean register, the Tagalog Wikipedia reflects the reality that most contributors are from Manila and the immediate neighboring provinces (Cavite, Rizal, Laguna, Bulacan), or studied Filipino while in school. You'd see Batangas Tagalog on the Tagalog Wikipedia if there were more Batangueños contributing to it, but we don't. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I tried adding a Baybayin page there a year ago but was subsequently blocked. Given that that Wikipedia relies too much on the UP Diksyonaryong Filipino on much of the nature of its articles, it gives the Filipino language unequal weight on deciding what to put there. On the question regarding the variant of Tagalog that uses the Baybayin script, it is the variant assigned with the ISO 15924 code.--23prootie 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • (from my comment in the Wiktionary debate, with modifications) [citation needed]. I don't think there are significant problems with the language policies on the Tagalog projects: if we were to adopt the common man's argument that Tagalog and Filipino are different, then we're even more "Tagalog" than the KWF, UP-SWF, FIT, SANGFIL, etc.! The Tagalog Wikimedia projects are not akin to WikiFilipino, which strictly abides by the UPDF and the UP-SWF's writing rules. Never has the community endorsed the UPDF as the sole standard for a Tagalog lexicon: if you read the policy pages, there are over TWENTY recognized dictionaries currently in use! I don't even own a copy of the UPDF! --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Fine. But what I am trying to say is that that Wikipedia falls within the scope of "Tagalog defined as the Filipino language" (i.e. the Manila dialect of Tagalog). Even if you use twenty dictionaries, I doubt that any of them are based in Marinduqueño dialect since the vast majority of Tagalog language dictionaries published today are in Filipino. I may have exaggerated a while back but my point is not to show that that Wikipedia has a Puritan-level of observance on a particular dictionary but rather to show that no matter what dictionary you use that Wikipedia is still probably going to end up as a Filipino language Wikipedia. And about your criticism regarding the (lack of) difference between Tagalog and Filipino, my answer is that their difference is akin the one between Norwegian and Bokmål or Nynorsk.--_`23prootie 09:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • If you're complaining about dictionaries, then don't blame Wikipedia for following what exists. I'm Marinduqueño, and as much as I want a dictionary for my particular dialect, the fact is that the most of the differences between Marinduque and Manila Tagalog exist only in spoken speech (Marinduqueños use standard Manila Tagalog/Filipino for formal writing). Likewise, we have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of dictionaries for Tagalog have always been printed in Manila using the Manila dialect as a basis, all the while likewise including idiosyncrasies for different dialects within the lexicon. We have to live with that whether we like it or not. Again, if you're complaining about under-representation of non-Manila Tagalogs on Wikipedia, then encourage them to join rather than dividing the community, small as it already is, along lines of script. And to think we now have to drag language politics into this debate?! --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Because this debate is primarily fueled by language politics. One dialect versus another is the same as one writing system versus another writing system. I've bolded the part of your sentence that has my point. There are more than one varieties of Tagalog so I do not understand why there can only be room for one (in a single Wikipedia). I do not know if it is possible now to have it dual-script but with the direction this discussion is heading, I think it might never be. The only compromise I can think of is to have two Wikipedias using different scripts co-existing wit each other, sor of like Serbo-Croatian.--_`23prootie 10:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Again, you're accusing the Tagalog Wikipedia community of only favoring one dialect of Tagalog without any verifiable proof that such is indeed taking place on paper. If you took the time to read the policy, we have never endorsed using Filipino as the SOLE register of the Tagalog Wikipedia, and are in fact open to using terms in other dialects provided there's such an entry in any Tagalog dictionary. The fact that we accept words that are "more Tagalog" than what Filipino and Manila Tagalog allows is a clear indication that on the part of the group of editors who took a part in crafting the policy, none of us had the intention of singling out Filipino as an object of our favor despite the fact that most of us are speakers of the Manila dialect. I have yet to see any proof of malicious intent. And in particular, please be guided by the language proposal policy: "The degree of difference required is considered on a case-by-case basis. The committee 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." --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • Since when did I suggest there was any "malicious intent". I did not say that the current situation in the Tagalog Wikipedia is malicious. What I said was that the status quo there clearly favors the variant(/s) already in use paving the way for alternatives. I did not propose this project to steal the limelight from Tagalog in Latin (aka. Filipino), I did it as a way to support marginalized languages/dialects in the country, opening the door for other language communities.--23prootie 08:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • And there is one more point we need to point, who is going to use this wiki? Sure, you know how to read and write in Baybayin, but who else does? And who is going to contribute other than you?Kanzler31 18:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Please read the source from the Philippine Daily Inquirer.--23prootie 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Like you said, there is no official representation of this group. Sure, the Philippine government is partially trying to re-introduce the script, the government does not support any group. So, in a sense, the group you speak of are more like a cult or gathering then a group or movement. Kanzler31 23:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Well for starters, the Katipunan and the Pulahanes used the script so, yes, a secret organization and a "cult" (more like traditional religious revivalists) did use the script. I think your argument is moot since the new Philippine peso bills use the script and I think you are only trying to derail the topic.--23prootie 08:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                • If you read your history a bit clearer, the Katipunan did not use the script on their official documents. They only used the "ka" pictogram first, for aesthetic purpose to their flag, and second, "ka" is the first syllable of Katipunan. The flag does not have any symbolic meaning to them, it's just a red flag symbolizes war, and the sun was included to incorporate the mythical sun that used to have special roles in Tagalog mythology. And that year was 1892 ( at least today is 2011). Still, the addition of the script to the new generation of Philippine bills does not guarantee the fact that it is now a living script and that a large community would be able to expand the possible Wikipedia and protect it from vandalism.--JL 09 12:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It is a bit naive to think think that the Katipunan only used Baybayin for aesthetic purposes, they are, after all, a secret organisation. With language a key component of the group (it was this movement that began Tagalog's rise into becoming the national language, Filipino), it is pretty clear that Baybayin and several other indigenous elements associated with them are key aspects of their ideology. How could you possibly say that they did not use the script with documents that are only for the organisation's members to see. We do not know, but based on what we know, they probably have enough knowledge of it to use the correct symbol for the initial letters of the movement's name in the organisation's flag.--`23prootie 14:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Other discussion[edit]

  • I've tried incorporating the script in the Tagalog Wikiprojects but is usually met with resistance.--23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Why should this be created when everybody uses the Latin script?
Because the primary purpose of this is to help in efforts that are trying to conserve the script.--23prootie 00:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The old discussion is in here.

Discussion at the Tagalog Wikipedia here.

Discussion on the Filipino language Wikipedia (Filipino is written in the Latin script).

For the record, I am using the post-kudlit (or modern) variety.--`23prootie 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The opening text of this discussion says "Baybayin Tagalog is the ancient form of the Tagalog language before the arrival of the Europeans.". FYI, the Wikipedia article for Baybayin opens with this line "is a pre-Spanish Philippine writing system.". I remember my history class before saying that Baybayin is not a form of language, it's just a form of writing the old Tagalog language. English Wikipedia's article about Tagalog language also says that Tagalog was written in Baybayin, so the assertion that Baybayin Tagalog is the ancient form of modern Tagalog is nothing but a hoax.--JL 09 05:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You kinda contradicted yourself there, please see Serbo-Croatian and Norwegian. Written orthographies are themselves different forms of languages. The fact that Baybayin is an ancient script suggests the obvious.--23prootie 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Question: could you please give a reliable source that describes Baybayin is the written representation of Tagalog language that you are pushing? And, please accept the fact that introducing a Wikipedia in Baybayin text will be very difficult especially it may be subjected to vandalism and hoax. I suggest returning and proposing the third Baybayin Tagalog if a considerable amount of Filipino people comparable to a population truly understands and uses Baybayin as their primary alphabet, Latin is second. AFAIK, Baybayin represents Tagalog language, Tagalog variants and nothing more. And it's completely replaced by Latin alphabet during Hispanic years, except for cultural minorities who are still using the modern descendant of the alphabet you wanted to "revive" as the only one willing to see it on Wikimedia.--JL 09 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The best sources for written representations are Omniglot and Project Gutenburg itself.I am well aware of the possible difficulties associated with this project, however, I do not believe that those difficulties alone should discredit any prospects of having a project such as this one. Vandalism is common in all Wikiprojects but that didn't stop those projects from existing. I also believe that languages with small communities should be given chances in developing their own Wikipedias, otherwise there wouldn't be one in Nauruan or the Ivatan could forget about having one.--23prootie 08:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • The link you posted in Gutenberg is partly acceptable, except that it's an e-book reproduction of the original publication, and that publication is originally written in Baybayin and Latin script. And I suggest that let's stick to the question, who are going to use this Wikipedia? You're the only one in here so far proposing that you are fluent in the writing system, and a group of oneself is not a community, and a Wikipedia needs a whole lot of community that really do know that script, not those who are forced to learn that script for the sake that a Wikipedia (or Wikisource, or Wiktionary, etc.) written in Baybayin will be born. And Omniglot serves as an online reference for the writing.--JL 09 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • First of all, I am not asking you to contribute so it's okay if you didn't. Now for the community, I think most of them are still waiting for something to happen and are okay with the status quo. They are not going to contribute if they believe it is not possible. And about the references, I'm talking about the whole analysis in Project Gutenberg, not just the re-representation of Baybayin. For Omniglot, you asked for a contemporary use of the script, and I think the text there transliterating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be perfect.--_`23prootie 10:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Orthographical questions, et al.[edit]

Two major questions can be easily raised by this type of proposal, since Baybayin by and large as an orthography has not been standardized:

  • How will you be able to distinguish between words whose written forms in Baybayin are the same? The words bobo (stupid) and bubo (to mint), boto (vote) and buto (bone), and base (base, as in "based on") and basi (sugarcane wine) are some of the words which will have ambiguous spellings in Baybayin. Will a Baybayin font be used which distinguishes between e and i, and o and u, or will we have to rely on context, as in Japanese speech?
  • How will words from foreign languages other than Spanish (and to a lesser extent Portuguese) be treated in Baybayin? Will they be transliterated to comform with Tagalog spelling (contrary to current orthographical rules for Latinized Tagalog/Filipino, where the spelling isn't changed) or kept as is (in accordance with current orthographical rules)? Will words have a standard spelling in the absence of a Tagalog dictionary written in Baybayin? Or will this be left to the intuition of editors?

In addition, Wikipedias are not necessarily magnets for communities: there needs to be an established community of editors before momentum is built which encourages other people to join Wikipedia, or any other Wikimedia project for that matter, and edit their hearts out if they so please. So far, I don't see any evidence of any viable editing community which could possibly contribute to this project, or to any of the proposed sister projects. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • There is a communty for the script, otherwise, I wouldn't have requested it in the first place, Anyway;
    • On the first note, context plays a huge role in Tagalog, for instance the word labi could either mean "(human) remains" or "lips" depending on the message of the sentence.
    • With regards to loan words, a sound-alike logic should be used (i.e. q = k/kw; f = p/ph; z = s; c (alone) = k; ce = s; ch = ts/ty; j = dy/h; x = ks/s; etc.). Besides conventions for Filipinizations of loan words are already well established that certains words, a decade ago, didn't have translations, such as computer, but now have well-accepted ones (kompyuter).--23prootie 10:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
In response to the points above:
  • Where is the community you speak of for this particular project? I only see one person defending the case of Baybayin, no more, no less. No community means no project, and they don't come to it like bees to a jar of honey.
  • Tagalog words can easily be distinguished through the use of diacritics, something though that has fallen out of favor (hence why we now rely on context to the work for us). The words suka, suká and sukà all mean different things, for example. Such distinction does not happen in Baybayin.
  • Filipinization has also fallen out of favor (since Marcos was overthrown), which is why you have Taglish becoming the norm.
A lot of work still needs to be done before people will be convinced of the merit of such a project, whether it be transliteration and coexistence of the two scripts in a single Wikipedia, or a completely new project altogether. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I know that there is a lot of work needed but it is better to have these discussions than not having one at all. In response to the community, there is one as sourced by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, however, there appears to be a lack of leadership or even a movement that could represent them. On the distinction of words, context plays a part. I would favor slightly dissimilar diacritics for e & i and o & u but unfortunately font support and an established modern orthography does not exist yet. For now, I am forced to accept that transliteration from Latin may be needed. With regards to Tagalog words, many of the ones in current use are compatible with Baybayin, even the word "kompyuter". I am very against the use of Taglish as an established basis for orthography. I feel that this path is lazy and may end up in creolizing the language.--23prootie 08:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be acceptable if such community that you kept on quoting must have, or at least join the discussion here. It's a total waste of time, energy and funding if a one-manned Wikipedia will be approved.--JL 09 12:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
How can you invite someone somewhere that doesn't exist yet.--_`23prootie 10:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, there are actually two people in Wikipedia that contribute in the script, me and Jose77, but he is not active in this debate. Based on the discussion on the Tagalog Wikipedia, it appears that his contributions there in using the script doesn't seem to be that well-received.--_`23prootie 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
What's the point then of having this request if you opt to defend your case single-handedly? The point of the Wikimedia projects at this stage is to attract a community so that a viable project can be formed. If there's no viable community, then the Foundation would have even more reason to deny this request. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Building communities takes time, after all Rome wasn't built in a day, and sometimes building one is harder than others. I know people are going to resist this, since it is different but I know that in time that may change. Fine, I am alone in defending this, but I believe that just by doing this request makes a point that there is a community out there and maybe, in time, there could be one here too.--23prootie 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
An interesting note[edit]

I just realized that the lack of distinction between certain "letters" of Baybayin creates a slight difference in the interpretation certain words of Tagalog when those words are written side-by-side in both the Baybayin and Latin scripts and are simultaneously compared to each other. This is enough for Baybayin Tagalog to be a separate variant from Modern Tagalog (i.e. Filipino).--`23prootie 10:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is going to use this?[edit]

The biggest question is, who is going to use this wiki? Virtually all Tagalog speakers read and write in Latin. And those that read in Latin generally do not know how to read and write in Baybayin. I'd say some youth speakers may have never even heard of the script. And even those that have knowledge of Baybayin can also read Latin and prefer Latin. With no contributors and no community, this proposal is basically born dead. Kanzler31 18:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You only need a thousand speakers to have a Wikipedia, the Nauruan Wikipedia's existence is a testament to that. And there is one contributor and a one-member community, please see Yaghan.--23prootie 08:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Two of the arguments in Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Rapa Nui are as follows:
Due to a tragic history, much of the Rapa Nui culture has been lost. The people speak the language, but since the island officially is under the Chilean government, Spanish is mostly used in offices, when writing or doing errands. The Rapa Nui people need a forum where they can actually use their own language, instead of Spanish.
The people's pride of their cultural heritage and their will to fight for remembering their roots would easily make Rapa Nui Wikipedia grow quickly, but mostly once created, because most of the Rapa Nui don't speak english.
I am not sure if this answers your question but the request was approved so does it mean that languages that are at most risk have a better chance of approval?--_`23prootie 09:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. As far as I know, Rapa Nui is a language (or dialect, whatever you wish to call it), unlike Baybayin, it's a form of dead writing system.--JL 09 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Rapa Nui is a language, variants of languages may be considered as dialects depending on the context and in turn dialects may also be as languages. The vriant of Tagalog written in Baybayin is definitely different from the Filipino language variant of Tagalog which is written in the Latin script.--_`23prootie 10:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Baybayin is already dead, so unlike Rapa Nui, nobody can actually contribute. Sure, the Philippines government is trying to revive the script, but Baybayin has not been completely revived to the point where there is a native community. Kanzler31 00:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
A language, such as Latin, may be considered as living, even without native speakers, as long as a community that use the language exists.--_`23prootie 10:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is no official policy of reviving Baybayin on the part of the Philippine government. The KWF promulgated a new Latin orthography two years ago, and it intends to stick by it. In fact, Baybayin is only used officially in two areas: stylistic markings for seals of some government agencies (the Cultural Center of the Philippines and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines come to mind) and as a security feature in new peso banknotes to be released this month. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my point. The government is trying to test the water if whether or not the public would accept a possible re-introduction of the script. So far, the reaction appears to be positive. They have done this before with regards to the Filipino language. A little over a decade ago, the vast majority of media and official documents published in the Philippines were primarily in the English language and it is only until recently when Filipino began to catch up. Their use in names of public offices might appear as a token gesture but what they are trying to do is build momentum and to ease acceptance.--_`23prootie 10:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I really apologize for being divisive about this issue but if I have to choose between divisiveness over risking this project to be never nominated, I'm choosing divisiveness. Sooner or later this nomination is probably going to happen but rather than wait decades for that to happen, I rather it e now.--_`23prootie 11:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, I will state this again. Until the Philippines government makes it official to re-use Baybayin, this project should not have been proposed in the first place. And know back to defining a "dead" language. Your example of Latin wasn't a good one, because Latin is STILL considered dead, even though there are plenty of fluent speakers. The reason why Latin is dead is because there is no native communities growing up speaking Latin. And the same goes for Baybayin. Kanzler31 23:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

From the original Wikipedia request[edit]

The policy in the Tagalog Wikipedia effectively blocks any variant of the language from being used in there with the sole exception of the w:Filipino language. I request that there be a reconsideration for this Wikipedia.--23prootie 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. But Palabaybayan ng Filipino, is not a Tagalog Wikipedia policy, it's just an article about Filipino orthography written in Tagalog language. This is the nearest page on Tagalog Wikipedia that discusses on the policy of translation, or usage of language.--JL 09 12:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I concede, I may have been confused.--_`23prootie 10:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To make people's lives easier, here are all the pertinent pages with respect to the language policies of the Tagalog Wikipedia. Including the mother policy, language on the Tagalog Wikipedia is governed by a policy trifecta:
  • Wikipedia:Pagsasalinwika - the mother language policy of the Tagalog Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia:Pamantayang pangwika - standardizes the variants of Tagalog used on the Tagalog Wikipedia and clarifies the Tagalog Wikipedia's stance on lexical borrowing
  • Wikipedia:Gabay sa abakada at pagbabaybay - standardizes spelling rules for Tagalog as used on the Tagalog Wikipedia; current policy uses a mix of Abakada and the 2008 Gabay sa Ortograpiya ng Wikang Filipino as promulgated by the KWF
While the pages are in Tagalog, we can translate portions of the policy upon request, and the admins can clarify provisions if need be. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One last concern[edit]

My last concern is the possible Nationalism within the project. I'm not calling you a nationalist, 23prootie, but there may be some people that use Baybayin that MIGHT be Ultra-nationals. This is just like the Egyptian Arabic wikipedia, which there was a lot of concern that the wiki was going to be plagued by linguistic nationalists. And in a sense, there is a sense of separatism in the project. A majority of articles in that wiki is pure Standard Arabic with some word-swapping. Also, there was previously a "Siberian language" Wikipedia project which was very much used by tons of Anti-Russian Siberian nationalists. And now lets imagine an African American Vernacular English project (AAVE has no written form, btw), if it was created, there could be a high chance of a bunch of Black Panther Anti-American nationals plaguing the project with anti-American political propaganda (which was very much the case with the Siberian wiki). Another example would be a North Korean wiki, which of course would very much have a lot of political propaganda from Nationals from that country and outside the country. Again, I am not calling you a nationalist, 23prootie. But we must certainly be concerned of any Filipino Ultra nationalists trying to spread propaganda in the wiki. Kanzler31 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ultranationalism will be a very big issue for this type of project. So far, most Filipino ultranationalists, even Filipino nationalists in general, don't really care about the Baybayin-Latin debate, if there even is one. They have "bigger" problems to attend to. However, community splitting and duplication of work are my biggest fears here. Unless there is significant momentum for Baybayin to either supplant or coexist with Latin, I don't see how any solution becomes tenable. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, if you don't what to split a community, stop blocking users. Second, I did a while back, suggest a compromise for the dual existence of Baybayin and Latin in that Wikipedia but I was shunned. There shouldn't be controversy in re-introducing Baybayin either as a separate Wikipedia or part of the Tagalog one, and I dont know where your opposition is coming from.--23prootie 08:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
While the Wikimedia Foundation has an interest in preserving existing linguistic entities, the problem that is raised now is whether or not there even is an existing linguistic entity being preserved in the first place. Malay Wikipedians for example are content with a Latin-only Malay Wikipedia, and we're not seeing hell being raised over the lack of support for Jawi on the Malay Wikipedia despite the fact that a significant minority of Malay speakers still use the script on a regular basis. Unlike Jawi, there's no substantial community of Tagalog speakers which uses Baybayin as a primary means of writing, so what is there to preserve? Unless there is a significant shift in policy direction on the part of the Philippine government, it is highly unlikely that Filipinos will develop literacy in Baybayin. Reintroduction of essentially dead scripts is outside the purview of the Foundation's vision and mission, and any new project presupposes a sustainable community of users fluent in the script. I have yet to see that happen: typing Tagalog using a Baybayin font on a Latin keyboard is far being considered literate in the script. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There are four Wikipedias written in "extinct" languages (Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Gothic, and Manx) and another four (Norfuk, Nauruan, Cornish) written in small community-languages, one of which is a dialect of French (Picard), so I do not see why there has to be an exception for Baybayin. Then there's Classical Chinese, same language, different orthography. With the case of Kawi and Malay, maybe the only reason why there hasn't been a split is because no one has ever tried nominating Kawi.--`23prootie 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And on your question of hell-raising, why are you so intent in opposing (that you also resorted to hell-raising)?--`23prootie 15:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And in my opinion, ultra-nationalism may be incorporated to some articles if they are all written in uncommon script. Apart from the fear of possible constant vandalism and hidden libelous postings that maintenance would be limited to small community of literates to the script, and totally alien to others.--JL 09 17:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Rather than opposing this project, I suggest that you start now in trying to make other people better understand it.--23prootie 08:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)