Talk:Language committee

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Language committee (contact page about requests)

Please add any questions or feedback to the language committee here on this page.

Archives of this page

See also: Requests for new languages/Archives

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5[edit]

When we will have Wikipedia in Montenegro language. That differs from Serbian. 'Gorski Vijenac' is written by Njegos. Language has 2 more letters. Language is spoken by 232.000 people. For thr formation 3 people voted in favor, while 2 were against. I would ask some of Wikimedia team to create Montenegro Wikipedia. Sonioa (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sonioa: If you really want to "ask" someone, ask, but you're unlikely to be able to complete your answer. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyway @Amire80, GerardM, Jon Harald Søby, SPQRobin, and Satdeep Gill:@Millosh and MF-Warburg: I don't know how to judge if this user is asking the actual "Wikimedia team" or not, or just, is this request likely to be rejected or verified? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. --MF-W 17:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sonioa: See Talk:Language proposal policy#Why ISO discrimination?
Let's be really clear. At the present time, Montenegrin does not have a language code; it's considered a variation or dialect of Serbian. Now, that may or may not be accurate, or what you want to hear. But for right now it's reality.
The first thing that the Montenegrin community needs to do if it really wants its own Wikipedia is to apply to SIL for an ISO 639–3 language code. So far I have not seen any evidence that there has ever been such an application—not by the community here, not by the Montenegrin government, not anyone. If you apply for such a code you might or might not get it. But if you don't apply for a code you'll never get it. So go apply for a code.
  • If you get a code, then you can start working on a Montenegrin Wikipedia test at Incubator.
  • If you apply for a code at SIL, you can temporarily start working on a Montenegrin Wikipedia test at Incubator; we'll give you a temporary code then. But we won't do so if there isn't even an application pending at SIL.
  • If you apply for a code and the application is denied, there may be a small possibility that LangCom will allow this anyway. But as I am not a member of LangCom, I can't guarantee they will do that. But I can pretty surely guarantee that if you don't even try to get a language code, there is no chance LangCom will allow a Montenegrin wiki. Is that clear enough? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I see that SIL feels this would fall to an ISO 639–2 code. Not sure why that should be. You'll have to wait until there is a formal answer from the Library of Congress. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Why wait? The last modification of 639-2 from LoC is adding Standard Morocco Tamazight (zgh) which is happened 5 years ago, and maybe somewhat dead. I don't think we really should open this request for more than a decade. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I also suggest to decline this request as nothing happened in LoC, not surprise, the LoC is a lazybone of America. -- 02:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point, ah I'm not possible to send email to langcom mailing list as my E-mail provider don't allow such sending. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I still can't see any emails in langcom mailing list regarding this... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hungarian and Japanese Wikivoyages[edit]

Having the Hungarian and Japanese Wikivoyages marked as "approved" in the table at Requests for new languages#Wikivoyage and yet having them just "sumbitted" (i.e., status = open) on the individual request subpages is a bit confusing. Should the table entries and subpages be changed to waiting, instead (with a comment= by a langcom member explaining the situation)? - dcljr (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dcljr: Note: Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Innu-aimun, Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Khowar and Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Tabasaran are likely (marked as Verified as eligible on RFL list but still submitted on their subpages). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dcljr, Liuxinyu970226, and MF-Warburg: I can't speak to those Wikivoyages, which fall under a special transitional rule that I don't completely understand. As for the three that Liuxinyu970226 mentioned:
  • I boldly went ahead and edited Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Innu-aimun to read "eligible", based on the fact that MF-Warburg actually wrote a comment to that effect on the page.
  • With respect to Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Tabasaran: Liuxinyu, you added that entry yourself, with a status of "eligible", at this diff: Special:Diff/16256268. Unless you actually saw this discussed in the LangCom discussion group around that time, you should have inserted it with a status of "open". I'll let you decide what the right thing to do there is.
  • As far as Wikipedia Khowar goes, I'm not going to rehash the whole situation there. I suspect that MF-Warburg didn't really intend to change the status all the way back to "discussion". At the same time, the general frustration level at the time was such that when a different user edited that page to status "eligible", MF-W reverted him, because he didn't want to risk an edit war. So that's where it stands now. I suspect that the status should really be "eligible"—it's a real language, with a language code, and a reasonable population of speakers. But to avoid stirring up old problems, I'm going to let MF-W decide for himself how he wants to handle it. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've reset the Tabasaran one, no idea why I made such mistake when digging unlisted requests in that time. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A user has just boldly tried to "rationalize" the Wikivoyage-requests table and was reverted. Presumably, explaining the situation in a comment= on the request subpages (as I suggested in the first post in this thread) would reduce the probability of this happening again. MF-Warburg, would you like to do that, since you seem to know what the situation is with these wikis? - dcljr (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and marked the Hungarian Wikivoyage and Japanese Wikivoyage request subpages "approved" (to match their status at Requests for new languages#Wikivoyage) and added a brief explanations that actual creation of the wikis is on hold, AFAIK because of some technical issue about importing the olf Wikitravel content. Someone who knows better can provide a better explanation. - dcljr (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
There have been problems getting the actual material to import in a form that can be imported. See incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import. --Rschen7754 04:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Do remember that there is material for both of these projects in their "normal" places on Incubator,incubator:Wy/hu and incubator:Wy/ja. Is the material in Incubator the same as what was in Different? In any event, once those projects are created don't forget to incorporate whatever is in Incubator, too.
For the moment, I'm going to leave those projects marked as "open" rather than "approved, awaiting creation" in Incubator. Given that there isn't a time definite for project creation, I think that will be less confusing to potential contributors. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81, MF-Warburg, and GerardM: Given the explanations above, it looks like the most appropriate status would actually be "status = eligible". Once again, I am being bold and making the changes. A LangCom member should probably edit the subpages again, so the claim that "A committee member provided the following comment:" is actually somewhat true. [grin] Whatever other changes are made, please make sure that Requests for new languages#Wikivoyage and the two subpages are not left in contradictory states. - dcljr (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Contradictory states don't bother me so much, but ok. The only potential "problem" here is that I don't think these two project formally need an "approval" from LangCom; it's more a matter of overcoming technical hurdles, right? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: I chose "eligible" because the message it gives (on each subpage) says, "the subdomain can be created once there is an active community and a localized interface", whereas "approved" says, "there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project", and "open" talks of users giving "arguments or reasons" for why the project should be created and claims that LangCom "needs to verify the language is eligible to be approved". The "eligible" message is the most accurate of the three, no? We don't need to argue over whether the projects are eligible for standalone wikis (so, not "open"), but since their creation has been put off for so long, neither test wiki has sufficient activity (if they ever did) to become a standalone wiki at this point (so, not "approved"). Any misgivings you have about the impression "eligible" gives users can be explained in the "comment = ". - dcljr (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if these two projects formally require an activity check, because they may come under a grandfathered rule. On the other hand, I don't know that they don't require an activity check, either. Leave it the way you left it, and if a LangCom member has an issue then the LangCom member can change it. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think by now it is reasonable to say that neither of these two projects will be approved without meeting the usual criteria. The momentum after the Wikivoyage takeover is long gone and still no interested group has formed around these pages. --MF-W 00:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so LangCom member MF-W has now addressed the issue on both subpages, so I guess that's the end of the matter (for now). - dcljr (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I am also going to edit the page at incubator:I:Wikivoyage import to reflect this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia Sakizaya[edit]

I would like to point out that the recent activity of Wikipedia Sakizaya (incubator:Wp/ais) is really good, while it is still waiting to be verified as eligible. It's been active for a long time and there are at least 7 users for daily contributing. The quality and quantity of articles are also comming to a certain level. Furthermore, there are some contributors engaging in the interface translation. We would like to know how can we push it to the next step. :) Corainn (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerking notes:
  • Sakizaya is apparently considered a variety of Nataoran. The code technically belongs to Nataoran, but also incorporates Sakizaya. Questions about that:
  • For the project community: does the project incorporate Nataoran, or is it purely Sakizaya?
  • For LangCom: If purely Sakizaya, what are your thoughts on that?
@StevenJ81: It is purely Sakizaya. Thanks for your questions, we have found that the en-Wiki page of Sakizaya language is to some degree incorrect, while the zh-Wiki page is quite clear. We would like to clarify:
  • There are five dialects in Amis. One of them is Nataoran language(Nanshi Amis).
  • Sakizaya is a different ethnic group from Amis. During "Takobowan Incident 加禮宛事件" (also known as "Galeewan Incident" or "Kalyawan Battle") in 1876, there were many Sakizaya people be killed, the rest of them hided in Nataoran Amis and were ruled by Nataoran. For this reason, Sakizaya gruop and Sakizaya language were wrongly categorized as Amis and one of its dialects by Japanese scholars during Taiwan under Japanese rule.
  • In 2007, with some Sakizaya elders' efforts in Sakizaya Name Correction Movement, Taiwanese government officially identified Sakizaya as an independent ethnic group.
  • It could be said, Sakizaya uses "ais" as the code in Wikimedia Incubator, since now Sakizaya is classified as Nataoran language unter ISO 639 scale. In the project of Amis Wikipedia you can see the real Nataoran.
We're now trying to translate some reports as reference to correct the English Wiki. It's a good chance for us to tell the story and there could be more people knowing our history. Corainn (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, what awesome informations @Corainn: that you provided, wondering if there's plan to request SIL to change their ais name? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Please keep working on the interface translation. It is not yet complete enough to start considering approving the project. (In this I mean completely approving it, not marking it "eligible".
StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Thanks a lot! It's very good to know. Corainn (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Corainn: The ais interface support seems stalled, see phab:T174601. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Thanks for your Message! We'll also answer the question on that Website. For the localisation requirements of Sakizaya's project, there are over 4200 messages been done. In the group MediaWiki(most important messages), the translations are also 85% finished. We're keeping working and trying our best on interface translation. :) Corainn (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Corainn and others: I think the Language Committee is going to need to think about how exactly to handle this, and probably bring in some outside expertise—which is standard for the first approval of a project in a new language, anyway.
I follow your explanation of the differences between Central Amis, Nanshi Amis and Sakizaya. And I am not going to start arguing about who is the same ethnic group, who is a different ethnic group, and so on. All I can go on here is what SIL and its Ethnologue say, as they are the standards organization managing ISO 639–3. What they say is this:
  • Amis proper (langcode ami) includes within it Nataoran language. But it also includes other dialects (e.g., Fatang and Fata'an).
  • Nataoran language (langcode ais) includes within it Sukizaya.
  • At the moment, SIL characterizes Sukizaya as a highly divergent dialect of Nataoran. It does not have its own language code. On the other hand, SIL acknowledges that Sukizaya is divergent, too.
There's no doubt that Sukizaya can be an important piece of a project with language code ais. But as things stand now, the Language Committee might prefer that a project with that code be more inclusive.
You may consider asking SIL to create a language code for Sukizaya. (Or maybe the RoC government, or a regional group in Taiwan, would want to do that.) If you really want a Sukizaya-only project, having your own language code would be the best way to accomplish that. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81 Thanks. Now we're also discussing how to deal with this complex situation. But first of all we would like to know: Approximately it might be a long process trying to request SIL for a new code, so if we stay with "ais", what would you suggest possible solutions to make this project more inclusive with the same code? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corainn (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Corainn: I have absolutely no idea how things work at SIL. I believe User:Baba Tabita, who is a LangCom member, is more familiar with how SIL works. I would contact him by e-mail to ask. (This is not strictly speaking wiki business, so better to discuss it off-wiki.) You'll want to ask him both about creating new codes outright and about the idea of reassigning ais to Sukizaya, especially if that approach actually has the support of the authorities in Taiwan.
  • If you seriously think you're going to try to get a new language code (or to get SIL to assign ais to Sukizaya), I'd probably hold off on trying to get a final approval from LangCom. Instead, just keep working on your project at Incubator. Getting wikis reassigned to a different code after they are already created is practically impossible, while moving pages to a different code within Incubator is easy. So you may as well let the process play out with SIL first. Once it does, if you end up with a unique code for Sukizaya—either a new code or ais—you'll be in great shape to apply for a project approval.
If SIL wants to keep things as they are, then you can consider creating a more inclusive project. An example of a successful wiki with this "problem" is the project "als" Wikipedia. Nominally, this is the Alemannic Wikipedia. But Alemannic German is really a dialect continuum, and as you can see from the front page of the project, they explicitly support at minimum four dialects within the continuum (Swiss German, Swabian German, Alsatian, and Badisch German, a Low Alemannic dialect). I know nothing of the history of the project, so I don't know how they got to this point. You'd have to inquire there about that. But the project seems to work well. The model I would consider is that at least the Nataoran community would be welcome to start a "section" of your project along those lines—and ideally you could find some people willing to contribute. (And, of course, it's always good to recruit new contributors!)
Good luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating! At this stage, just two brief reactions:
  1. Without an ISO 639-3 code, a language does not have a good chance of being approved by LangCom. And if [ais] really is Nataoran, then Nataoran will have to be included in a wiki project registered under that code.
  2. It is possible to apply for a new ISO code here. Please get advice from someone who has successfully submitted change requests before.
Best wishes,--Baba Tabita (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: and @Baba Tabita: Thanks for your informations! After discussing with User:Lithoiyen(Tai-yuan Li, an expert in indigenous language in Taiwan who works in National Academy for Educational Research) and with some Amis friends this weekend, we have found that there seems to have some problems with the code ais and the code seems to be only for Sakizaya. I would like to write and discuss here as well:
  • There is no Nataoran language. Nataoran is only a name of an Amis community. According to the page of SIL/Ethnologue for Amis language, the five dialects of Amis are Haian Amis(Central Amis), Tavalong-Vataan, Southern Amis, Chengkung-Kwanschan and Northern Amis(Nanshi Amis). (I’m sorry for the confusing information in the beginning below, I’d like to say is actually ”Nanshi Amis”.)
  • And in the page of SIL/Ethnologue for Nataoran, its dialects include: Nataoran, Sakizaya, Kaliyawan, Natawran, Cikosowan, Pokpok, Ridaw. But except Sakizaya, the others are also only names of Amis communities: Nataoran(Natawran community: 那荳蘭部落), Kaliyawan(Kaliyawan community: 嘉里部落), Natawran(also Natawran Community: 那荳蘭部落), Cikosowan(Cikasuwan Community: 七腳川部落), Pokpok(Pukpuk Community: 簿簿部落), Ridaw(Lidaw Community: 里漏部落). Please see here in CIP for informations of Amis communities.
  • The Amis people in those communities, they speak all Northern Amis(Nanshi Amis). So now the code ais is only directed to Sakizaya.
In this situation, now we prefer not to apply for a new code. And I think ais could be only for Sakizaya in Wikipedia project. But we’re still not sure, we should request SIL for a change of that informations, or if LangCom could accept ais in this shape now, since it’s strange to cooperate with Nataoran community who speaks Nanshi Amis in the project. Corainn (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you can ask SIL to change their definition regarding ais, if you don't want to ask for a new code. Again, Baba Tabira is the one to ask. If you come to LangCom now, they will want "Nataoran", whatever that might be (Nanshi Amis?) to be included in your project. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want someone to talk to about how Alemannic Wikipedia works these things out, contact User:Holder. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Thank you all for telling and helping. After discussing now we would like to submit a Change Request on SIL first. We'll also keep working on the project at Incubator. Furthermore, I think Atayal Wikipedia(incubator:Wp/tay) is noteworthy as well. Tayal language has been verified as eligible and they do quite well in the interface translation. :) Maybe @Yihsiangyang: would like to know about the progress. Corainn (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Sorry for the late reply. Yes, we'll try to request SIL for a change. :) Corainn (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've just send a message to SIL. And I found a paper that discuss the question about Sakiraya and Amis in English. Maybe it's a helpful reference to let LangCom understand why we say "Sakizaya Language" instead of "Nataoran Language". Please read it. Thank you.--Reke (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, to be sure.
I think the proponents here need to understand that we're not really questioning "Sakizaya language" per se. The problem here is more the following:
  • Right now, SIL/Ethnologue assigns the code ais to "Nataoran". Right now, the government of Taiwan apparently uses the code ais for "Sakizaya". At Wikimedia, policy is to follow SIL/Ethnologue.
  • Under that policy, there is no reason a "Nataoran Wikipedia" couldn't include Sakizaya within it, as long as it also incorporates the rest of "Nataoran" (whatever that is, see below). This approach is used very effectively in the Alemannic Wikipedia (als:); see above.
  • There seems to be resistance to that approach for a couple of reasons, including:
(a) SIL is wrong, Taiwan government is right, ais is Sakizaya.
(b) A past history of discrimination and conflict
(c) A claim that there is no real "Nataoran" — that the Nataoran people (and perhaps others whose dialects are listed in Glottolong under "Nataoran") are really speaking "Northern Amis"
Do I have that right?
Point (a) doesn't matter. As long as SIL says that ais is Nataoran, then it's Nataoran. Understand, also, that language names are to a great extent managed by CLDR, a project of the Unicode Consortium. They are not managed by WMF at all. So, again, if the CLDR database says that ais is "Nataoran", then it's Nataoran, at least for now. We can't change that, and CLDR won't change it until SIL does.
It seems to me that if there is truth to point (c) here, then the government of Taiwan would support this approach to SIL, SIL would agree, and you'd have a language code. Once that happens (and a few other things move through the system of the NGOs involved—see below), then ais would be "Sakizaya language", and we'd be done.
It's outstanding that there are a lot of enthusiastic contributors supporting this community. It gives me confidence that when the project is eventually created, it will remain strong. That said, every possibility I can think of going forward is going to require either patience, or tolerance, or both, from this community:
  • Wait for a resolution from SIL (either that ais is really Sakizaya or that SIL will assign a different code to Sakizaya)
  • Be willing to create a "Nataoran Wikipedia" under ais that will welcome contributions from the rest of the dialect cluster within that language code
  • Ask the Language Committee for an exception to the policy requiring an ISO 639–3 code. Let me tell you that LangCom is considering allowing exceptions under extremely specific, narrow circumstances. They have not done it yet. They will almost certainly ask you to try to get a language code from SIL before they will even begin to entertain the idea. They will probably also ask you to create a broad "Nataoran" Wikipedia first. And you may not qualify for an exception.
I would request that we stop arguing here about (a) the nature of the Sakizaya language, (b) the nature of the Nataoran language and (c) the ownership of language code ais. Right now, the facts are what they are, and your choices are the ones I outlined above. The community should decide which way it wants to go. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I understand that LangCom prefer to follow the data on SIL, which is the reason why I send a message to SIL before talk to you.
As a long time staff in our chapter and a community member of Wikimedia Movement, I am totally agree with the logic of yours. It makes total sense to me. However, I am worrying that if the cold hard response may also hurt their passion and trust to Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Taiwan has invested time and human resources into the Sakizaya project, and so as these Sakizaya Wikipedians. It is a new experiment for us as an affiliate because we were used to work on languages which is already with large native speakers and we do not want to hurry things. But Sakizaya people, as some other people with a few native speakers, they always need to get hurry up to find some ways that can keep their language alive.
Due to the above concerns, may I ask Wikimedians to be more empathetic towards the case, and explain to these lovely newbies in a gentler way? Maybe something like "We are sorry for that we can't give for Sakizaya people now, but we know it's a language different from Amis. Before SIL fix the problem, we can help you to do something else that helpful for incubating your own Wikipedia."
In my humble opinion, just change the tone of the response will help greatly in building the environment of more understanding (as the tea house project) and that may help a lot for a new and small community. Thank you for taking your volunteer time to help the open knowledge to grow in a more diverse and accessible for every single human being.--Reke (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I hear you. I thought that I tried to do that. I'll try harder.
I can only speak for myself, but I'd be very happy to see a Sakizaya Wikipedia project get approved. The community is very welcome to continue working on the project at Incubator. And, frankly, while I'd want to see a few more of the existing pages fleshed out, the project is in pretty good shape toward a future approval. I'm always happy to help with projects in Incubator; people can contact me on my talk page there.
Let me add one more thing: In some ways it's better for the project to stay in Incubator as long as the language code issue is still not settled. If this became, and then SIL gave Sakizaya a different code in the future, it would be difficult to move the project from to But if this happens while project is in Incubator, it's very easy to move the project from Wp/ais/ to Wp/newcode/, and then to export it one time to So I'm happy to encourage the community, but I must still urge patience. Fair enough? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. That's another good reason. :)
Maybe the only thing we can do now is waititng how SIL reply. Waiting is a long process, and hope it is worth.--Reke (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that if Wikimedia in Taiwan, and even better the RoC government, would intervene with SIL, your chances for success with them will probably improve. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Wondering if the request is really submitted or not, as of now I can't see anything about ais. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Hey, thanks for attentions. We're still gathering and preparing the materials at present, since the translation may cost some time. We plan to submit our change request in the 2018 series requests. Corainn (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Atayal Wikipedia[edit]

hello, I'd like to inform you that Atayal Wikipedia(incubator:Wp/tay) has already translated over 4000 articles, among them, MediaWiki(most important messages) is over 84% translated. Is there any possible that Atayal can be verified as approved?-- Yihsiangyang (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Your activity looks good. However it is first necessary to complete the translation of the most-used messages. --MF-W 23:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Yihsiangyang: I left a note at incubator:Talk:Wp/tay/Main page. On my review too many of the article pages are really stubs. I would encourage this community to stop focusing on creating new pages and start focusing on building out pages that are already there. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Finish the most wanted messages.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: Hello, the most wanted messages has already translated 100%, thanks. Yihsiangyang (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Arabic[edit]

I am convinced that the Arabic Wikivoyage project is ready now and should be released. [1] It has substantial article to most important places. -- 20:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • There has not been enough activity recently for approval. There must be ongoing editing by at least three active editors (meaning editors with at least ten edits during the month) for at least three months and ongoing until approval.
  • I just did a random check of ten pages in the test project and all ten were stubs (or blank outlines). Pages must be more developed than that for this project to be approved. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Requirement for localized interface in proposal for wikisource proposal on languages that are not really alive?[edit]

In the Wikisource Manchu proposal, I saw the description on top say "The language is eligible for a project, which means that the subdomain can be created once there is an active community and a localized interface, as described in the language proposal policy. You can discuss the creation of this language project on this page.". Is the condition that require "localized interface" still needed if the language itself is not alive? C933103 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In theory, yes, as we can translate messages to that language. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a good question. (Of course, technically, the language is not extinct, so that may play into this a bit.)
There are a few different issues in play here:
  • There are several Manchu project tests underway in Incubator. If Wikipedia or Wiktionary comes up for approval first, then per LPP the rules certainly say we would need the interface translated first.
  • Even though in principle Wikisource projects are allowed in extinct languages, no such independent project actually exists now. Right now, all such projects either (a) remain in Multilingual Wikisource (see s:mul:Category:Classical and historical languages), or (b) where appropriate, are part of a project in the modern version of the language. (At this point, for example, English Wikisource has a category for Old English works and a category for Middle English works.) If and when Wikisource Manchu comes up for approval, LangCom will probably want to know why it would be better served as an independent project than within Multilingual Wikisource. And maybe it would be, given some of the unique characteristics of the writing system used in Manchu. But you'll need to make that argument at that point.
  • Wikisource Manchu has not met the activity requirement described in LPP#Requisites for final approval. In particular, "an active community" means that for a minimum of three months, and then running until approval, the test project must have three named editors each month having at least ten edits in the month. They don't have to be the same three every month, but there must be ongoing contribution to the test. Wikisource Manchu has never had even one month with three such active editors.
  • Wikisource Manchu is a little on the small size (in content) for a project approval.
Taking all of the above together, your question becomes moot until and unless (a) Wikisource Manchu comes up for approval before any other Manchu test project, and (b) you have met all other approval requirements except for interface translation. I suspect if that all really happened, there might be a way to work this out. But we're not even close yet, so nobody has to decide about that at present. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Monolingual language codes on Wikidata[edit]

A discussion on this subject is currently underway at d:Wikidata:Project chat#Monolingual language code creation process. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Propose to reject Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ahe[edit]

Because the ISO 639-3 for Ahe, just "ahe", is retired, merged into Kendayan (knx) in 14 Aug 2008. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm focused on trying to wrap up requests that are much older than this one. I'll get to this eventually, but I'm just not worried about it for right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mongolian written in Mongolian script being put on hold?[edit]

According to description on the page, "The request is on hold until software starts to support it.", however, according to Requests for new languages/Wikipedia American Sign Language 2, "the reason it wasn’t were the technical issues with using SignWriting, but that doesn’t really affect the eligibility status", so it seems like "Mediawiki able to support the script" is not a requirement to make the request become eligible. Thus, can the request's status get updated accordingly? C933103 (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Millosh: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It's been on hold a long while; that's not new.
FWIW, I'm working my way through still-open requests from 2010. This one, and a couple of others, relate to the broader question of when it is appropriate to use script converters and when it is preferable to have parallel projects. There are a couple of other things I am working to clear up first, and then I will get to that one. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I've made the project eligible now. --Millosh (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Now that the project is eligible, would it be possible to adopt as a Wikipedia project? Although it is not necessary to be desirable due to situation of wikipedia accessibility in china. C933103 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Basque Wikisource[edit]

Hello, Basque Wikisource is growing and we have some cool projects to add more texts in the next months. Having our own subdomain and exiting from Multilanguage Wikisource could be great to gain visibility, project access and Wikidata links. Would it be possible to review the proposal made some years ago? -Theklan (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Theklan: The project is already marked "eligible". For the project to be approved and moved into a subdomain, there needs to be a community regularly contributing to the project. In practice, this means that each calendar month, there must be at least three contributors (with user accounts) having at least ten edits during the month. The three contributors do not have to be the same each month, but there must be three each month. That level of contribution must continue for a minimum of three months, and from then until the project is approved.
  • For the time being, Basque Wikisource does not meet that level of activity. See data at Catanalysis. You may wish to involve some other contributors to your "cool projects to add more texts" in order to reach that level of activity.
Additionally, continued progress on translating the interface into Basque is necessary. For the most part, that's not a big issue with Basque, as only 28 messages within the All core MediaWiki messages group are not translated. (There is also one "outdated" translation in that group.)
Any other questions, just ask. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks StevenJ81! -Theklan (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Noongar Wikipedia[edit]

Kaya, as discussed with the committee in Berlin we have completed the 762 most important messages and continue to work on the other translations. Full details of the projects status is at Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Nyungar, after 2 years of work 492 articles we think we are ready to make the leap to Gnangarra (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: I think you're getting pretty close. Just a couple of other things you need to do:
  • You need one more month (December) where you have at least three named editors having at least ten edits each. You need this to establish firmly that there is a community (rather than one or two individuals) contributing to the project.
  • I did a random page search on the test project. I checked 20 pages, and 15 of them were essentially stubs (no more than two paragraphs of 2-3 sentences each). I would encourage you and your community to stop creating new pages right now and to try to fill out more of the pages you already have. You should have no more than half the pages as stubs, and better if even fewer. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Lingua Franca Nova (lfn)[edit]

My name is George Boeree. I am the original creator of Lingua Franca Nova (LFN), and wish to assure you that the articles in the Wikipedia Incubator is indeed in LFN. I will make efforts to correct any problems in the articles, but many of the articles have already gone through review in the Wikia website. Thank you for your attention and consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:980:c002:c680:bdb8:f4aa:92f9:21c4 (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Prof. Boeree. Your comment, along with some others inside Language Committee, are sufficient. We're marking this as approved. SJ81 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


How do we think about it? That user is requesting to change to, which will probably break our rules that about valid ISO code or IETF language tag. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not the right code. We can't do that. SJ81 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I am the user who posted that on phabricator and I really don't want to change anything. I just wanted some insights. Thanks. --Jnanaranjan sahu (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)