Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Coptic 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Coptic Wikipedia[edit]

See also third request (verified as eligible).
submitted verification final decision
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:

It is the policy of the language subcommittee that only languages with living native communities may create new wikis. Coptic is classified by ISO 639-3 as "extinct", which means that there are no native communities. Pathoschild 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

As per earlier discussion.

Arguments in favour[edit]

Arguments against[edit]

  • none

General discussion[edit]

For a classical and extinct language such as Coptic, I really wonder if a Wikipedia (which requires many authors with the ability to write freely about all sorts of topics) is the best project to start with. It would no doubt be easier to gather classical texts in a Wikisource edition and to create a Wiktionary, which would be quite a good thing to have esp. for an extinct language, which by definition has no native speakers. --Johannes Rohr 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"many authors with the ability to write freely about all sorts of topics" will eventually show up. How many native speakers of Latin have we got??--Ghabbour 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offence intended. I was only trying to make a practical suggestion, as I saw no activity in the test project. --Johannes Rohr 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, the Latin Wikipedia appears to have issues. You have to hit alt-x quite a few times to catch a real article. Most pages are stubs, of the type "Bromine is a chemical element" or bot generated date/year boilerplates. --Johannes Rohr 21:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the Wikisource request, I think the much better solution for extinct languages is to digitalize sources in the old Wikisource project (oldwikisource:), because an extinct language does not need a software surface in itself (due to the lack of native speakers). --Thogo (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you do need, is an interface that the speakers are likely to understand. The default interface of oldwikisource: is in English, unless you register and change your prefs. I would presume, that most Coptic speakers live in Egypt and have Arabic as their first language. You cannot expect them to be fluent in English. In that case, a fully localized interface would still be the best. --Johannes Rohr 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the language is used as a liturgical language only and is not spoken since the 18th century or so. Wouldn't it be easier to start with a wiktionary than a wikipedia? nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf
Ummm... I can speak in Kemetic language and coptic, and BTW kemet is the old name of egypt. I know these languages because i am 1 of 3,000,000 folowers of the ancient religion of kemet. Anonymus