Requests for new languages/Wikisource Belarusian 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
main page Requests for new languages (Wikisource Belarusian 2)
submitted verification final decision
Application-certificate.svg This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This project is eligible under the next conditions:
  • The main localization should be in official orthography.
  • Fallback localization should be in Taraskevica.
  • Language committee would count better localization for the final approval. That would mean if the localization in Taraskevica is better than localization in official standard, we would count it.
  • Condition is that both communities are working on it and that we should see no discrimination on new project. That includes necessity to have reasonably equal number of admins and bureaucrats. Stewards will be informed about this decision.

--Millosh 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waiting for creation: bug 34351. SPQRobin (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now created, be:s:. --MF-W 09:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposal summary
  • Project name: Вікікрыніцы
    The name of the project in the requested language; for example, "Wikipédia"
    in French.
  • Project namespace: Вікікрыніцы
    The name of the namespace for project pages like policies; usually the same
    as the project name.
  • Project_talk namespace: Размовы пра Вікікрыніцы
    The name of the discussion namespace for project pages like policies; for
    example, "Wikipedia talk" in English.
  • Wiki logo: Commons:File:Wikisource-logo-be.png
    The name of the wiki logo uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, like
    "Wikipedia-logo-v2-pl.png" (see logo).
  • Default timezone: FET (UTC+3)
    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.

Arguments in favour[edit]

The Belarusian language has its own Wikipedias, and it's time to start it's own Wikisource. Now there are more than 350 articles, and it's growing up (actually there are more than 1000 articles - info add on 7.10.2011 by Electron). Belarusian speakers in the world are about 9 millions. I know about the problem with write-systems, but as I see, in this test-Wikisource are two variants of Belarusian script, so it doesn't matter how it's written - it's on Belarusian (As we see with Sakha WS - Cyrillic and Latin variants are there)--Andrijko Z. 12:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 'Support'Support --Andrijko Z. 12:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support--Хомелка 13:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support --Jim-by 13:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. language has a large developing community media and literature. --HalanTul 01:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support --Kaiyr 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'SupportMaster Shadow 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The test project is active and has plenty of material already. A joint Wikisource might also help bring the two separate Wikipedia communities closer together. Jafeluv 13:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support --Maksim L. 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I support the request. It's strange for me that 9 milion nation has no its own subdomain... but the problem is that there are not many contributors. To say the truth most contributions have done last time were done by me. Maybe if the project has its own subdomain more people will get to know about the project because now it is no easy to find it... Electron 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support--Renessaince 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support, although see my comment in the section Arguments againts. Wizardist 17:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Given a significant amount of native Belarusian literature, opening the project will be favourable for its popularisation. I wouldn't see probable low activity as a problem; hundreds of smaller projects go their ways without being constantly looked after, just collaborative efforts help them grow. To have a few enthusiastic users, as experience shows, is enough to maintain a project and keep it in order. Good luck. --Microcell 18:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Strongly Support --N KOziTalk 09:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support. Though Wikibooks are inactive here but this project is active and has a big future --LexArt 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support', after Electron. We must have Wikisource, in Belarus the copyright acts only 50 years after author's death, which makes this project very promising. There are already plenty of free texts in Belarusian. --Azgar 13:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support' Earlier I made some contribution with Verlaine poetry translated into Belarusian language but absence of separate Wikisource project pushed me away from further work (there are still a lot of texts to come) so it would be great to have our own project. Yet indeed there is a problem with write-systems but at least we should start from something I think. --Jauhienij 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 'Support'Support-- Bladyniec 16:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support'. I think that arguments by Electron and Azgar are rational. It's a good idea. Bocianski 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support'. The most awarding approach to push up heavy projects is to increase number of supporters. I believe they will appear and I will make efforts to hunt them out. --Da voli 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support' - --Vaukalaka 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support' --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў 12:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support'Support' --Kaganer 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Strong support. --Mitrius 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguments against[edit]

I would like such a project to exist. Moreover, there is a proposal from my side on preventing the drama which took place in March 2007. Despite this, I don't think Wikisource will have a fluent edit flow. Even Belarusian Wikipedias (both) still haven't reached such level. That's why I propose to wait for some time and wait for more people to come. Wizardist 13:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's not an argument. Usually when a project opens - people come, that's why it's time to open the Belarusian Wikisource--Andrijko Z. 04:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, on the other hand, this project may distract people from Wikipedia. I wish there were people in Wikipedia who lacked on-their-way tasks, so they could contribute to Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc. But there are no people of that kind yet. I just don't want Belarusian Wikisource to be what Belarusian Wiktionary is. Wizardist 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that it will be as a Wiktionary, as you see, Wikisourse has an activity and people, who works there.--Andrijko Z. 09:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I'd like to work in Wikisource as well. Although, it's not a wedding, all arguments and points should be heard by people. Wizardist 17:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice to hear this. Every help is welcome, especcially the help of native spikers. Electron 09:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other discussion[edit]

Localized project name[edit]

At this moment Belarusian title of the project is a loan translation of English Wikisource (Wiki + source → Вікі + крыніца). Should we leave the current Вікікрыніца name, which is codename indeed, or go the different way as Russian Wikisource did: Викитека (Вики + библиотека, Wiki + library), or leave the things the way they are? Wizardist 13:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually it is Вікікрыніцы. To say the truth I am accustomed to Вікікрыніцы (Вікікрыніца in plural form) as the name was at the begining. There in Polish version: Wikiźródła are also in plural form. Because there are not only one source but a lot of sources. But I am not a native speaker of the lenguage and may be other proposals sounds better in Belarusian... Electron 20:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Localization update[edit]

  • 132 messages need to be translated--Andrijko Z. 12:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It remains to 6 messages. While I do not know how to translate them, but in my opinion, this problem can be solved in the process. So, what else should be done to the section was put in a separate space?--Хомелка 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


OK. I understand well that the admins of new Belarussian Wikisource should be mainly the native speakers of the language. I am not the native speaker of the language but I understend it pretty well. I am the bigest contributor to Belarusian wikisource, as now. Also in the past I was an admin of Polish Wikisource, now I am the admin of "Ogród Petenery" (one of the biggest Polish Wikia site with Polish modern free poetry and art). I am also a bigger contributor on Commons & Polish Wikipedia. Also I know Mediawiki language quite good. So if there is no objection I can help at the beginning with technical problems as mainly technical admin on new Belarusian Wikisource. Of corse if there be better candidats I will vote on them. Electron 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody would object if criteria are reasonably met. The idea is not to count admins one by one, but to have both communities represented. --Millosh 00:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a person who lives outside Belarus and I am not involve in this dispute personally. I think that there is no matter how we should write in Belarussian. The matter is why so litle people want to speak, write and read in Belarussian (no matter in why way). The language is very old and it was the important one in old time in the past on the east of Europe... Electron 09:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must notice that such an approach (reasonably equal number of admins and bureaucrats) should be performed not for establishing counterbalance, but for collaborative effort to make Belarusian Wikisource a better place to enrich Internet with Belarusian literature :) Wizardist 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right but somebody should have admin rights to build and protect the new project against vandalism. Without the rights it is rather impossible to do. I have nothing against other candidats if they will beter. But somebody must be the admin. My candidature is only an option, I can help at the beginning but I don't insist on. Of cource it would be better if both community have they representatives among the admins. Electron 11:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. I support your candidacy for your efficiency in Belarusian Wikisource-to-be. :) Wizardist 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not strong in English. But. I know the Belarusian language quite well and I am an experienced administrator of be.wikipedia. It is also important that I consider myself a neutral person in the subject line of the Belarusian language, although I works only in one of the Belarusian projects. I think I can be an administrator and in this project too.--Хомелка 17:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Every experienced user with a good knowledge of Balarusian language is welcomed. Electron 15:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. It will be wonderful to Wikisource admin ;) --Kaganer 10:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Mrs. Хомелка approved herself as a creative, reliable and hardworking administrator in project --Da voli 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Also propose to assign Mrs. Хомелка bureaucrat. --Maksim L. 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Neutral, active and experienced user. --Azgar 08:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. —zedlik (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After attending a wikimeetup which took place yesterday on Jan 22, I decided to nominate myself to an administrator position along with Хомелка to satisfy LangCom's conditions listed above on this page. Wizardist 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support :)--Хомелка 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. --Azgar 08:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Electron 14:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. —zedlik (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Belarusian Wikisource has been approved. But, please, fill the template (newly shown fields) above, so I would be able to fill the bug. --Millosh 13:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we leave the current submitter project logo as it is and change it in future? The font type doesn't fit the logo and the tradition of Wikimedia logos, but I don't think we have guys out there to come to finish the logo. Wizardist 11:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it would be a technical problem to change the logo. Technical it's only a file named File:Wiki.png. It might be the legal or license problem only, I suppose... Electron 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK, such actions don't violate Wikimedia trademark policy, so it's neither an isuue, I think. :) Wizardist 18:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo proposals[edit]

There are two logo variants at the moment.

Wikisource-logo-be.png Wikisource-logo-be v2.svg

Which one is better for the logo? Wizardist 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for me, first is better.--Хомелка 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second - below all criticism (horrible typography)! From these two - just the first! --Kaganer 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Хомелка. Electron 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. The first one for now and you'll decide which one you want after the creation of the Wikisource. -- 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]