Discuss the creation of this language project on this page. Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them (see the Language proposal policy).
Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki.
Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language.
The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
"Wikisource talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
Thanks for the ping. I'll watch this page. Seems like this could be a critical mass situation and it's ready to graduate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The licensing for font problem had been resolved, please check again if there are further complication/problem. --AldnonymousBicara? 09:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Need to change from OFL 1.1 to CC BY SA or GNU GPL (which is previously CC BY NC ND).--AldnonymousBicara? 09:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
From licensing perspective OFL is equivalent of CC-BY-SA-ND, still need some conversion or multi licensing.--AldnonymousBicara? 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the issue. The fonts (Pustaka Bali and Vimala) were already accepted last week in UniversalLanguageSelector, OFL is explicitly mentioned as one of the allowed licenses, and 27 other fonts were previously added to the repo with the license. If you think there is a problem with OFL, it goes well beyond this proposal and should be a larger discussion. As far as this proposal is concerned, it is consistent with current practice. --Lautgesetz (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Aldnonymous: -SA-ND is contradictory: if you can't make derivatives, there is no sharealike requirement. In any case, the license has been approved by the FSF, OSI and the Debian project, so an argument that it is non-free does not seem to be supported by the three organizations that typically set the line between free and non-free. It seems that you are most concerned by the prohibition on selling the font alone: the FSF also noted that condition, but found it to be "harmless". As Lautgesetz mentioned, this isn't the first font under this license to be used on Wikimedia projects, so concerns about the font license are best discussed elsewhere. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah thanks for notifying me AntiCompositeNumber, the sa probably because I type it while I'm sleepy and just used to write CC-BY-SA while it should be CC BY ND. As for discussing this on the grants itself is fine. But the problem what I have is actually the Wikisource content that came from Palmleaf, those are not the fonts but an actual wikisource content. Anyway if OFL is okay, I have no problem with it.--AldnonymousBicara? 21:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Palmleaf.org user contributions are already CC-BY-SA. Not sure what the issue is? --Lautgesetz (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Then its should be okay. There's no problem left.--AldnonymousBicara? 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: The font thing seems like it's resolved and if we just imported Palmleaf's works, we would have ~200 pages as a start. So I now have two questions: 1.) Do we know that a critical mass of users will exist (either "natively" from WMF projects or coming from Palmleaf)? and 2.) It seems like this proposal is skipping hosting at s:mul: altogether but I'm not sure why this is--can you explain? You don't need to propose a new language at Meta to start importing texts at mul.ws and I see a couple of comments at s:mul:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Balinese_Wikisource saying, "This is a great place to start the project and test things before it graduates". Am I missing something here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind is that Balinese can be written in both Balinese and Latin scripts. The default script on ban.wikipedia.org is Latin, overridable with explicit script in the language code i.e. ban-bali. It seems best to follow the same default for Balinese Wikisource (and we can reuse l10n strings). UniversalLanguageSelector already has fonts for ban-bali. Most users won't have adequate fonts installed, so it would be best to enable the "Download fonts when needed" setting so webfonts are automatically used. They are not large. --Lautgesetz (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Support There are fonts, some initial seeding content, and I'm convinced that the specific needs of this language and its request for transliteration make it worth immediately graduating to its own domain (cf. the browser-breaking catastrophe that is incubator:Wp/ase). Some language editions have needs that are simply met better by skipping a multilingual-but-Latin-character-based wiki. I will say that I have a concern about the userbase and I am ignorant of what kind of corpus there is of written works but with over 1 million speakers and a long history of the language, I'm guessing it's sufficient to support this project. As someone who is not competent to do the technical work of installing a Balinese-to-Latin transcription tool or knowledgeable about the language so I can vet any of the work, I can't support those activities, but I can support basic maintenance and importing content, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)