Talk:Language committee/2008

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Consta in topic Wikipedia Pontic Greek

Requested updates

Wikipedia Lower Sorbian

Interface for Lower Sorbian Wikipedia is fully translated now, so we are waiting for further decisions. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pe7er (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to emphase this request. The first page at the incubator was created in late 2005. The first request followed in October 2006, the second one in April 2007. The community may be small, but the incubator doesn't provide a perfect environment to grow a wiki (the need of a prefix for every link is pretty much the reason, why I haven't continued to edit here). During this two years the users have shown they are willing to contribute to a Lower Sorbian Wikipedia – without the need of bots to create articles. The sooner the project starts, the sooner it will grow. --32X 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This wiki has been approved and created. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks Limburgish

Please give it a conditional approve. I know from expirience people work more and harder when something is looking more like reality. Also take a look at requests for new languages/Wiktionary Zealandic and requests for new languages/Wiktionary Lozi. --OosWesThoesBes 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Spoken Tamil

Is it possible to Create a Wikipedia for Spoken Tamil? Tamil is a highly Diglossic Language.The Written and Spoken form of the Language Differ very much so as to be Mutually incomprendable to a great degree. Hence the Spoken Variation of the Tamil can be considered to be a Separate Language. So can I create a proposal for this ? Madrastamil 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoken Tamil would have to meet all the requirements outlined in the language proposal policy. I am curious though, as to what the difference would be between written Tamil and the written form of spoken Tamil (what a confusing sentence).--Shanel 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Extremaduran

The Extremaduran community is asking why it is not yet approved. It has a good activity, the interface is completely translated, so I want to ask to the Langcom to look at the request, and please discuss the approval. Greetings, SPQRobin 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's obvius there is something happening here... would the extremaduran request be approved some day? how much time have we got to wait? what could i say to the community?... extremaduran community think that the proyect won't be approved (me too), so, if you are not gonna approve our proyect, tell us the true, we will create a wikipedia in other hosting, but we can't continue losing contributors... greetings Better 18:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me.. Give me a shout in five days time.. and I will know if I can go to a next phase. GerardM 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This request is under discussion and will probably be approved in about a week. However, it may take several weeks before the developers create the wiki, so please continue working on the Incubator in the meantime. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Those are good news... i'll call for the community to continue working, i wish the proyect will be approved. Greetings Better 10:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you aprrove the Estrmaduran wikipedia? This project has all the request. We have the right about having a Wikipedia even before another projects that now are Wikipedia. Please, don't st to us "in a week, in five days" we have expect a lot of time so please, do it the quikliest as possible. --Katxis 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with him. Why don't we have a wikipedia yet? --Chabi 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This incubator must have a Wikipedia as early as possible. --Jeneme 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well... i don't know what to say/do to reach the "final approval"... Continue creating/improving articles? What for? you told us there would be a decision soon three week ago,and... here we are, waiting for a conversation between i don't know who (well, thats what we think, because we know nothing about whats going on in the process... in fact, we are not sure if there is any process)...Please, could you tell me which is the real status of extremaduran wikipedia? Better 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This request has already been approved by the language subcommittee, as I have explained previously. It will be created in the next batch. The only thing missing before final approval is board approval, which we will have before the next batch is ready for creation. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:14:20, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
Aham... ok, thank you Better 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Crimean Tatar

As the core interface is now translated, could you please, update status page of our project? I suppose, that we are now active enough to go to the final step (i.e. final approval and creation). Don Alessandro 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

He-e-y! Is there anybody here? Don Alessandro 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your message got lost in the flood here and elsewhere. Please leave me a message on my talk page, and I will try to do it this weekend. I'll put together a better system for requesting updates, too. (I'm a little behind on updates because my free time is going towards rewriting the analysis script to use my new database access). —{admin} Pathoschild 10:25:00, 02 December 2007 (UTC)
This wiki has been approved and created. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


So, we have finished all non-admin visible messages. As far as I can see, the rules state that for the first wiki in a language only, localizing the administrator interface is optional. However, we have translated a great part of it too. Please, note that we have translated more messages than Kabyle community (Kabyle request was approved this spring), much more than is now translated into Turkish (flourishing wiki - 95877 articles, 121725 users), Esperanto (91737 articles, 3625 users), etc. We have completely translated the "top 500" list, some messages of which are not translated even into Spanish and Italian. So, I think we've done a good job.

Don Alessandro 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have done a fantastic job. I have now notified the board that we are about to approve the project, so it should be ready for creation in a few days time. Jon Harald Søby 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So, is there any progress? Don Alessandro 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is approved, I see now. (bug 12399). SPQRobin 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I was reminded of it when I saw the message here. Should have happened about six das ago, but I forgot about it. It should hopefully be created when Christmas is over, together with the Lower Sorbian Wikipedia. There is still the issue of automatic transcription that needs to be worked out, though (AFAIK it hasn't already?), but that doesn't need to happen before the Wikipedia is created. Jon Harald Søby 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, about the automatic script conversion. php script for convertor is not ready yet, but it will be finished soon. What is to be done to implement it in the newly created wiki? Don Alessandro 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's great! A really good Christmas gift for me and Qurban Bayram gift for Crimean Muslims. Don Alessandro 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate active workers Crimean Tatar Wikipedia and all ethnos on such excellent achievement.--HalanTul 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource Low Saxon

Is there any specific reason, why after several months the Low Saxon Wikisource has not even been given conditional approval? There is already a well-populated test project (see oldwikisource:Category:Plattdüütsch, oldwikisource:Category:Middelnedderdüütsch), the interface is fully localised and the eligibility of the language itself is beyond doubt. In August, the main proposer asked the same question at a different place but received no reply. --Johannes Rohr 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll bring it up with the subcommittee. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:25:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Having created the status page, it looks like the request currently fails the localization and test project requirements. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sassarese

Hi all! About Wikipedia in Sassarese language, we've passed 80% of mediawiki software localization (health status "good"), where remain approximately 300 messages in great measure for sysop and exif-; it worked 3 translators and it doesn't appear any obsolete, fuzzy or problematic message (and it's the first wiki in a language only). There are always original applicant, although with minor activity seen the traslation work, and others attend the activation of the domain If all the criterias was reached, we might start these holidays (happy new year :) ). Felisopus Talk to me 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC) PS important thing: local name is sassaresu!

You can request a change to the local name on betawiki:Process/tasks#Open Issues. SPQRobin 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As you can see from its new status page, the only requirement left is an active test project. I suggest you contact past and potential editors and get them to work on the test project. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:53:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Seri

Here is a mistake in the contributors' list as it is taken from Sakha Wikipedia, I think. Sura 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed by the new script. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:42:41, 09 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Southern Sami

Hi! can ye make a status page for the Southern Sami Wikipedia. PS I have soon make more than 20% of the localizations files. Max sonnelid 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How active must a project be for approval. Max sonnelid 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
GerardM has created the status page.
Activity is judged based on many factors including number of regular editors, number of edits, new pages created, amount of content created, and (perhaps the most important) how regular the activity is. We need enough to help ensure that the project won't lose momentum if one of the editors stops editing, and to ensure that there is an administrator and community available at least once daily. As a general rule, three regular editors (making a dozen or so edits per month) is a minimum. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:35:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel it should be added that the editors should have a certain level of proficiency in the language in questions. If I am to believe the comments at Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Southern Sami, this is currently not the case:
What he said - I'm a student of South Sámi, and even though I'm far from being proficient, I can clearly see that the main page's text is a total dictionary-translated mess. The Wikipedia needs at least one editor who can speak it somewhat proficiently. Krihke 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless this is refuted, I feel the test project is not viable. --Johannes Rohr 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. We'll verify the quality of the test project before approving it. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity Swedish

Hi! can ye create an status page for the Wikiversity Swedish, please. Max sonnelid 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:54:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! the Swedish localization is clear (99.88 %). Max sonnelid 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

100 % localization. Max sonnelid 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the status page. There are only six extension messages left before the localization requirements are complete. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:24:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! the translating for "Wikimedia extensions" is clear. M.M.S. 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the status page and added it to the list of requests needing analysis below. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:28:56, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! the Swedish Wikiversity (Wikiversitetet) is localised on Beta Wikiversity. M.M.S. 07:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And can ye add Wikipedia Gagauz, Wikipedia Gan, Wikipedia Moksha into the list for project as wating for an analysis, the "MediaWiki messages (most used)" is translated in them projects. M.M.S. 08:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the status page, and GerardM added those requests to the list. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:12:04, 04 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sakha

Translation of base expressions of the interface into the Sakha (Yakut) language is practically completed , moreover, partial translation and other groups of expressions is made.--HalanTul 06:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1725 MediaWiki messages (99,9%) are translated. List --HalanTul 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated. This request is under discussion and will probably be approved within a week. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:37:23, 09 January 2008 (UTC)
Any news? --Saaska 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Barring anything exceptional, it will be in the current batch of wikis to be created in a few weeks. It has subcommittee approval, so all that's left is pushing it through with the current batch being processed. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's great news, thank you ever so much!
I've noticed that when the developer's requested to create wikis, "subdomain, XML lang code, and interwiki link prefix" are specified. I wonder if we could have domain name "sakha", not "sah", because sah may be read as an obscene word in Sakha. --Saaska 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a subcommittee decision, but I personally do not think that would be a good idea.
All subdomains for one language must be identical and we cannot easily change them after, so we cannot afford to make mistakes by assigning arbitrary subdomains. A more technical problem is that the subdomain name matches the database prefix, which is limited in length. It would also set a bad precedent; for example, what happens if there are actually several different self-names for a language, and we unknowingly pick the one preferred by one nationalist branch? We can't fix it after, since we'd need to move all projects.
Using language codes as subdomains is a useful, established, and more-or-less politically neutral convention for the Wikimedia Foundation. ISO 639 codes are descriptive domains, they're relatively stable (especially ISO 639-1 and 639-2 codes), and there's no need to worry about making that kind of error.
Is it similar to an obscene word or obscene in itself, and how it is obscene in Sakha? —{admin} Pathoschild 18:25:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many codes which could be considered being obscene by some people [1] [2] [3]. Just a few examples. The code for Limburgish (lim) isn't a perfect word too. You've got to see it as an abbrevation and not a word. --OosWesThoesBes 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "sah" can be interpreted as human excrement (sorry), but it in case of a long sound (a:). If a word to read with short (a) anything bad will not be. It is possible to understand as old times. I think, that it is possible to reduce up to "sa" (the domain is not used), or to leave as is.--HalanTul 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not too bad when written — Latin script looks foreign anyway, it's worse when told orally, like "look it up on". Well, I see that we'd be opening Pandora's box there, so "sah" will have to do. Well, it's better than to have it "yak" or otherwise based on Russian. Thank you. --Saaska 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ottoman Turkish

Time Line:

  • 25 August 2006 First Requests for new languages Ottoman Turkish Wikipedia
  • 9 January 2008 Rejection

The rejection of Ottoman Wikipedia comes after a year and half of intense activity and fruitful development of possibly the most successful projects within the incubator.

The 180 degree change of policy came more than a year after the application being placed. By any logic it is arguable that changes of policies should not be effecting the applications submitted under the pervious and different set of policies.

The discussion by the Language Committee members halted in late November, and has not been very transparent as how the committee reached this decision. Howcome numerious historical languages has been approved but when it comes to Ottoman Turkish suddenly all the rules needed to be changed?

On behalf of the wikipedians who helped to create the test Ottoman Wikipedia, would like to ask for an arbitration on this decision.

--Mehrdad 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mehrdad. When a decision is made on a request, the current policy always applies and not the policy that existed when the request was filed. The policy is written with specific goals in mind and tweaked in order to better reach them; it would be counterproductive to apply older forms of the policy. This is frustrating in the rare cases where formerly eligible requests are denied, and for this reason we try to minimize significant policy changes. Fortunately, most changes are beneficial— for example, the localization requirements were recently changed so that it is easier to open a first wiki in a language.
The rejection of historical languages in October 2007 was not a 180-degree turn. Wikis in historical languages were intended to be checked before the change by the requirement for "a sufficient number of interested editors to form a viable community and audience"; the change was a clarification rather than a 180-degree turn.
The public archives are continuously updated. I have been working to update them over the last few days, and they're now available up to mid-December.
To make sure I understand what you suggest, "arbitration" is a final resort in dispute resolution involving both parties (you and the subcommittee) submitting to a higher authority for a binding decision. Although I and other subcommittee members are willing to discuss historical languages with you, there is unfortunately no realistic recourse for arbitration. If you want to circumvent the language subcommittee and appeal to a higher authority, only the Board of Trustees is in the position to arbitrate. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:43:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
When a decision is made on a request, the current policy always applies and not the policy that existed when the request was filed.
And this is completely unfair. And becides this it also does a great harm to the reputation of the WM Foundation. E.g. a friend of mine, who wanted to start the development of Karachay-Balkar wikipedia, gived up with this after he had seen that the requirements can be easily changed during the process. Who knows, maybe after a months of work we will be told that it is necessary for the language to have an official status, or to have official regulation body, or to have more than 500,000 speakers, or to be uncomprehensible with any other language in the world, or ... he said. And he is right! Every proposer must be guaranteed, that the rules will not be changed until the final decision. And I think not only this my friend thinks so. People won't open new requests if they don't know what rules will be tomorrow. Don Alessandro 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We have some questions: Who is responsible for hundreds of hours of the work spent on creating, editing and administering Ottoman test Wikipedia. A year after the submission of its application no one from Language Subcommittee has contacted to let the applicants know that they are indeed wasting their time? So if the members of the subcommittee are concerned that activity on historical languages takes away the resources from other languages, how come they did not care about creation of thousands of articles in this historical language, just to be dumped?

While our application was waiting for review many other applications, with much less activity and very few articles or activities, have processed and approved or rejected!

I believe that during the last year and half, Ottoman Turkish has been by far the most active test Wiki. If you know of any other test Wiki with such a good start, please correct me. During the first year of Ottoman Wiki activity, its application has been meeting all the criteria set out for new Wikipedias. Why change of the rule comes right in the middle of the discussion times for reviewing this application?

There are so many questions here and as Don Alessandro pointed out in his comment, this method harms the reputation of the WM Foundation.

We would like to discuss this application of Ottoman Turkish Wikipedia, within the same ground rules that has been there for hundreds of other languages.

We are asking the language sub committee members: Are we asking for too much to be treated equally?

--Mehrdad 11:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's it! All requests must be treated equally. I'll just remind you how it was:

  1. Ottoman request is opened
  2. Ottoman request meets all criteria for conditional approval
  3. In spite of its meeting all criteria Ottoman request is not conditionally approved for several months, while other requests whith lesser activity get the approval
  4. Rules are changed
  5. Ottoman request is rejected

Seems very strange. isn't it? Don Alessandro 13:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So... Noone has anything to answer? Don Alessandro 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really. All requests are treated equally; no historical language has been approved to my knowledge. It's not very fair that it took so long to reject the request, and it would have been better if we had disallowed historical languages from the very beginning, but the rules are not going to change and this wiki will not be approved.
There are alternatives, like creating a Wikia wiki, if you're interested (I've mentioned this previously). —{admin} Pathoschild 13:38:14, 01 February 2008 (UTC)
Look... For several months Ottoman request was not approved, in spite of meeting all criteria that were valid then. At that time there were no exception for historical languages, and there were no difference between the Ottoman request and other requests. But the request was not treated equally in spite of this. The rules were changed post factum to accuse a discriminative policy. The request meets the criteria, but instead of approving it you change the criteria. The name for such a thing is discrimination. Who can guarantee that if you dislike some other request you will not change the rules once again to reject it? Don Alessandro 14:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ottoman Turkish was not discriminated against, as all languages were processed equally (other languages with no native speakers were also rejected). The policy applies equally to all open requests, so no exception will be made for Ottoman Turkish. That is not debatable. If you want to discuss the policy against historical languages, please join the conversation on Foundation-l instead where more users can participate. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:04:26, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
There WERE no difference between languages with native speakers and without them. You have invented this difference (historical vs living) AFTER a months of discriminative policy to accuse it.
OK, I'll try to join the discussion in the mail list. Don Alessandro 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Värmlandic

Hi! can ye make a statuspage for Wikipedia Värmlandic. M.M.S. 11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Värmlandic has no ISO 639 code. Without that, you will get no Wikipedia, so it doesn't make sense to start a status-page. I'm sorry, but that's the policy. SPQRobin 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The request page mentions a proposed ISO 639-3 code; is this just a suggested code, or have you filed a formal request with the ISO 639-3 registration authority? —{admin} Pathoschild 17:29:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Haitian creole

The following discussion is closed.

i everybody,

could we have an analysis or an updated view of the progress status of our request ? Thank you for your attention.

thank you, --Masterches 00:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done (see status page). —{admin} Pathoschild 20:53:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for having updated the status of request. I saw that there was an error in the link to the test project inside incubator on the status page.

It's referenced with a link to "creole haitian" instead of "haitian creole" (which exists since the beginning of the request!)

Shoul i redirect te wrong page "creole haitian" to the right one "haitian creole" ?

The request page is there (the right page is mentioned inside the box) : Requests_for_new_languages/Wiktionary_Haitian_Creole

The test page here :

Thank you for your attention, cordially --Masterches 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the status page, but the link itself seems to be correct; "Haitian Creole" redirects to "Creole Haitian". —{admin} Pathoschild 23:37:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
ok i saw the changes, thanks for having replied so quickly (<10min :-) !! ). No errors detected.
but in your reply you say "Haitian Creole" redirects to "Creole Haitian", it should be the opposite "Creole Haitian" redirects to "Haitian Creole". The request page should be "Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Haitian Creole"; could it be fixed to or it is too late ?has it got an impact on the duration for approval ? I don't know where we have made this error in the beginning. Thanks in advance. --Masterches 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's entirely possible, and it won't have any effect on the request itself. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:59:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Most used WMF messages has been translated and proceeded to all wiki projects in haitian creole (we can see changes in wikipedia, wikisource), we continue translation of other messages and continue editing the test projects but could we have the next step for validation ? It concerns both Wiktionary and Wikiquote request in Haitian Creole. Thank you. --Masterches 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:06:41, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Erzya

Translation of the most-used MediaWiki messages is completed (list). Now a project is ready for a final approval, because the first wiki in a language only needs to translate the "most used MediaWiki" messages. Please make further decisions. A.M.D.F. 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I will propose the wiki's approval as soon as the analysis script is back online (it is currently offline due to problems with Wikimedia Deutsch's SQL server). —{admin} Pathoschild 20:51:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added it to the list of requests waiting for analysis below. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:06:22, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Karakalpak

Dear language subcommittee members! Couldn't you review the status of Karakalpak Wikipedia? The only criteria for final approval was developing an active test project, which we have done successfully on my mind. The statistics of last month (it isn't working for some reasons) shows that the Karakalpak Wikipedia did a significant step in creating articles and involving more and more contributors. Now we have about 180 articles, and for January there were 7 active contributors and this is the only beginning I think. I hope for a positive decision and soon final approval. Thanks in advance. Atabek 02:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will do so when the analysis script is available (it is currently offline due to problems with Wikimedia Deutsch's SQL server). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:25:22, 01 February 2008 (UTC)
Shanel added it to the list of requests waiting for test project analysis below. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:24:43, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests waiting for analysis

This is a list of requests that need test project analysis before approval. The analysis script requires access to Wikimedia Deutch's SQL servers, which are temporarily disabled due to an upgrade problem. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:28:56, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

The script is working now. A.M.D.F. 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
All updated. Only the Erzya Wikipedia seems ready for approval. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:42:11, 06 February 2008 (UTC)
And Lozi Wiktionary too. --OosWesThoesBes 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:47:32, 08 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Lozi

500-most used messages are translated ([4]) The first project is the Wiktionary, so the Wiktionary doesn't need any more interface translation. Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Lozi. --OosWesThoesBes 09:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:43:42, 08 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Norn

Hi! can ye create a status page for the Norn Wikipedia. M.M.S. 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Norn Wikipedia has been rejected because it does not meet the minimum requirements for eligibility. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:28:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Manipravalam

Manipravalam is a hybrid mixture of Tamil and Sanskrit. Essestially, the Language itself is Tamil, however with very high Sanskritization, rendering it incomprehensible to someone not knowing Incomprehensive. Manipravalam, has a rich literary heritage, all of them being written in the Medieval Age. Tamil Vattezhuhu with Grantha Script was used to write Manipravalam.

So, We wish to propose a Wikisource Exclusively for Manipravalam, for documenting these medieval Manipravalam Texts. We Originally wanted to propose a Wikipedia, however as it was stated that, Ancient Wiki's are not allowed anymore, we dropped that Idea. Could you please, tell about the Chances of this proposal getting accepted, and please do advice if any changes need to be done in this proposal.

Thank You Vinodh.vinodh 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to make the request. Why do you not make it part of a Tamil Wikisource ?? GerardM 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Manipravalam mixes Tamil Script and Grantha Script. And as of now, there is only one Unicode font for Manipravalam is available, e-grantamil(Opensource) that too which overwrites the Bengali Code page for using Grantha. So, some specific changes must be done to the wiki specifically for displaying Manipravalam properly. Thats' why we wanted a separate Wikisource. Thank you. Can we move ahead and make a request officially ?? Vinodh.vinodh 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You can always ask for a new project. There is no reason why you cannot. What I find problematic is that this font overwrites the Bangla Unicode codepage. GerardM 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sakha

The following discussion is closed.

Just to make it sure, what is the current status of Sakha wikipedia? Being approved by the Language subcommittee and awaiting the decision by the Council? Or approved by the council and awaiting technical support to create a wiki? People are getting a bit nervous. Sorry for taking this up again. Thanks.--Yaroslav Blanter 07:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The status page marks all requirements for final approval as met. I would feel that this one-and-a-half year old proposal should be approved ASAP. --Johannes Rohr 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Bèrto 'd Sèra is contacting a third party to verify the test project content; if at all possible, I will try to include it in this batch. If you know a person (such as a verifiably accredited professor) we can contact, that would help. If it is not included in the upcoming batch, it will definitely be in the next one. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:27:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "verifying"? Is this yet another unannounced policy change? Somewhere in the archive I read a note by Bèrto accusing the Sakha Wikipedians of conning by mixing Sakha with Russian in their articles. I went through the articles myself and I found that the percentage of non-Sakha in the test project was actually much lower than alleged by Shanel who spoke of 50% or more, see Talk:Language subcommittee/2007#Wikipedia Sakha. I fail to see why additional verification is necessary. While there are many wikipedias and test projects, where many if not most authors are far from fluent in the target language, this is certainly not the case for the Sakha test project. Therefore I have difficulties understanding the need for this increased strictness. Please explain. --Johannes Rohr 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
50% is definitely nonsense. There are about a dozen articles on Sakha topics (out of several hundreds) which were originally posted in Russian, but then Halan Tul put on each one a template "Translation needed", and some of them have actually been translated. I do not think there are more than ten articles now which are more than 50% in Russian. Possibly, there are none. If such verification is needed, just aks for any Russian speaker. I am a native Russian speaker and I clearly can tell what is Russian and what is Sakha. Besides, they have more than five editors who are native Sakha speakers. --Yaroslav Blanter 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Btw if Bèrto 'd Sèra indeed speaks Russian at ru-3 level, he/she can do such verification him/herself. The Sakha text would just look like nonsense.--Yaroslav Blanter 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There are certain minimum requirements that all requests must meet before approval, but that does not preclude any subcommittee member from requesting more detailed investigation if there are any related issues to be clarified. In this case, a test project is not successful if it is partially in the wrong language or of low quality. Note that I'm not commenting on the quality of this test project, having not looked into it myself, but only explaining Bèrto 'd Sèra's concerns (similarly, Shanel was only quoting another member in the discussion you linked to).
If the project is actually of reasonable quality, as you suggest, then it should have no problems passing the requested verification. If you have any further concerns about verification of the Sakha Wikipedia test project, please address them to User talk:Bèrto 'd Sèra. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:54:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel Bèrto should respond here rather than me starting yet another discussion on his talk page. --Johannes Rohr 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You first have to get his attention. GerardM 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not like I hadn't tried. --Johannes Rohr 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Gan

The following discussion is closed.

Just to make it sure, what is the current status of Gan wikipedia? Being approved by the Language subcommittee and awaiting the decision by the Council? Or approved by the council and awaiting technical support to create a wiki? People are getting a bit nervous [5]. Sorry for taking this up again. Thanks. --Jose77 21:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us; I'll nominate it for inclusion in this week's batch of approvals. Please update the 5 "fuzzy" most-used messages, which are messages that have been changed since they were translated.
Note that due to technical limitations, we cannot be aware of the progress of every project simultaneously. Your help would be appreciated finding any other requests ready for updates. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:52:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity Portuguese

The following discussion is closed.

The project is increasing, with the creation and translation of some pages, new users. I want to request that you give a vote of confidence. Portuguese is a language very speaked and any project in Portuguese will have success. Luckas13 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The current activity seems to be acceptable, but it must be sustained before the request can be approved. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:38:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sranan Tongo

The following discussion is closed.

Haj :) The Sranan Tongo Wikipedia (2nd proposal) seems ready for approval. (Test project main page, Very active, Pathoschild's tool also shows the perfect distribution of edits per editor) The only necessary messages, 496-most used messages, and a few others (not many) are translated, so it seems to meet all the requirements. If there is anything left to do, please say so. :) --OosWesThoesBes 18:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll nominate it for inclusion in this week's batch of approvals. Please update the 9 "fuzzy" most-used messages, which are messages that have been changed since they were translated. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:43:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me at it. I've reviewed all translations and matched them with the Dutch and English, they seem to be perfect... --OosWesThoesBes 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
GerardM has raised concerns with the length of the articles, which are frequently one sentence. if you could spend a while expanding the existing articles instead or as well as creating new small pages, there would be no objections to approval in the next batch. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:34:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a problem indeed. Also see the category with stubs: 247 out of ¿350? pages are stubs, it's too much and I'll see what I can do. Let's say we're ready for approval when there are 75 pages left in that category? (and ofcourse the activity is kept) --OosWesThoesBes 07:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wi are very hard fighting against stubs and their are badst 79 - 2 = 77 stubs left (tu templates) I also find the pages tu go biger. Wan week ago wi could only dream of wan page like Kawmeti. Wi are meking pages biger, like Kaw (si difference) I think wi are ready for wan subdomain. When will yu aks the board of trustees for their opinion so yu kan aks the divelopers? Adfokati 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On average we look at things once a month. GerardM 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So you mean we have to wait untill April even it is begin March now? As seen here we do a lot to enlarge our pages. The only problem is two users don't work with us and keep create stubs, what do we need to do with that? Grutu, Jordi (mi taki) 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We do not look at things only once per month, but wikis are created in large batches. We'll look at it again now, but it probably will not be approved in time for this batch of creations. Stub articles are okay, as long as you have a large collection of more complete articles. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:30:27, 08 March 2008 (UTC)
As you can see on your own tool :) (usefull thing, thank you), there are more edits, editors and bytes edited, but the number of new pages is descending, heavily. And compare it to, for example, Erzya. And again I'd like to point at this, we're heavily expanding stubs, but sometimes it's just impossible to enlarge a stub, because even en-wikipedia doesn't have more information, except for the coordinates. I personally don't find it problematic if we have to wait another month, because than the Limburgish Wikisource will be in sight of approval too. --OosWesThoesBes 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Limburgish requests

The following discussion is closed.

The 'All Extensions Used By Wikimedia'-group is translated. Which means the Wikisource has all requirements fullfilled, the Wikibooks needs some more activity and the Wikinews needs some more editors. --OosWesThoesBes 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the three status pages. All three only need to fulfill the requirement for an active test project, although the Wikisource request will be eligible for final approval if the current activity is sustained. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:29:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Det is good. --OosWesThoesBes 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Karakalpak Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Dear Language committee members! Could you update the status of Karakalpak Wikipedia? Atabek 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If all goes well, it will be included in the April 2008 batch of approvals. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:13:39, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Betawi language

The following discussion is closed.

Betawi language is a language has speak in Jakarta. There are no website in Betawi language. I hope, this is the first web in Betawi language Azmi1995 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Azmi. You can propose the creation of a Betawi wiki; this is explaned at Meta:Language proposal policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:13:39, 06 March 2008 (UTC)
Can i stop it before i make a proposal creation Betawi wikipedia (Azmi1995 i forget to log in) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Czech

The following discussion is closed.

Hi!, I think the Czech Wikinews is a successful project and is have over five contributors. M.M.S. 11:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If all goes well, it will be included in the April 2008 batch of approvals. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:13:39, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fiji Hindi

The following discussion is closed.

Translation of "most-used MediaWiki messages" in Fiji Hindi has been completed. Girmitya 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated. If all goes well and test project activity is maintained, this request should be ready for approval in April. —{admin} Pathoschild 12:46:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fiji Hindi update

The following discussion is closed.

There are many words from the English language used in Fiji Hindi and so do not need further translating, that is why they were saved as they were. Some of these words are the months of the year and modern ICT terms like, "RSS feed", "log in", "password" etc. Girmitya 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "most-used MediaWiki messages" in Fiji Hindi has been re-done. Please note that there are 79 messages made up of English words used in Fiji Hindi (as explained above) Girmitya 11:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the translations in hif-latn - Fiji Hindi has been completed. The Fiji Hindi Wikipedia (and Wiktionary) will be in latin script. Girmitya 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the status page and nominated the request for approval. Due to some recent changes in Wikimedia's licensing requirements and the language committee's requirements, I cannot estimate how long this will take. Please watch the request page for updates. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:17:45, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

New status pages

The following discussion is closed.

Hi!, can ye create a status page for the Karelian Wikipedia and the Estonian Wikinews. . M.M.S. 11:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Värmlandic Wikipedia. M.M.S. 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
the latter would be pointless, as "Värmlandic" still has no ISO code and the code you provided, "vrm", is invalid, see . Also, the Wikipedia page "en:Värmlandic language" that the proposal links to does not exist. --Johannes Rohr 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I created the status pages for the Karelian Wikipedia and Estonian Wikinews, but rejected the third request for a Värmlandic Wikipedia. Please do not resubmit requests unless the reason for their rejection has been addressed. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:13:39, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

Mingrelian Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Hi! I think the Mingrelian Wikipedia is a successful project, and it have 4 contributors. Only 189 most used-messages is un-translated. M.M.S. 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All most-used messages must be translated. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:02:04, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote Occitan

The following discussion is closed.

The translation for Occitan is clear. M.M.S. 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated. There are currently still messages left to translate. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:08:28, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mari

The following discussion is closed.

Can ye create a status page for the Mari Wikipedia (2). M.M.S. 11:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoi, it does not make sense to do that as long as it does not move from the discussion stage. Given that it is a macro language, it is unlikely to move from that stage. GerardM 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have changed a request and moved all articles in incubator to another prefix. This is a wikipedia in a Meadow Mari language (mhr). A.M.D.F. 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The status page has been created. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:09:38, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Jutlandic

The following discussion is closed.

All the most used messages for Jutlandic is clear and I think is it's a sufficient project. --M.M.S. 11:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The test project must remain active over at least two months before approval. This request is already listed to be checked again next month. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:27:25, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Indonesian Languages

The following discussion is closed.

Sometimes, i cannot understand what the article in wikinews en:, and many indonesian people cannot read an english articles Azmi1995 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews will not be accepted in one wiki for many Indonesian languages. This is not what is accepted under the rules the language committee operates under. GerardM 08:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
this one your mean? Thats official language for Indonesia Azmi1995 10:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
An Indonesian Wikinews would be eligible. See Meta:Language proposal policy for information on requesting it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:33:26, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Malay

The following discussion is closed.

The Wikisource Malay test project is not at the incubator, but in the Old Wikisource: [6]. Aviator 12:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I corrected the status page. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:39:52, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Moksha

The following discussion is closed.

I think, Moksha wikipedia is now ready for final approval. Project is active, see [1]. A.M.D.F. 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll look into it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:41:29, 05 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any news about this Wikipedia? A.M.D.F. 09:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is currently being investigated for approval. Due to some recent changes in Wikimedia's licensing requirements and the language committee's requirements, I cannot estimate how long this will take. Please watch the request page for updates. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:21:23, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Karakalpak Wikipedia again

The following discussion is closed.

Dear Language committee members! Could you update the status of Karakalpak Wikipedia? I hope this time it is ready for final approval. --Atabek 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's on the list of requests being looked into. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:42:07, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Finnish Wikiversity

The following discussion is closed.

Hi! I think the Finnish Wikiversity is successful and the localization is active. 09:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently the localisation is at 99.28% for the MediaWiki messages and 71.81% for the messages used in extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks, GerardM 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Now is the localization at 100.00% for the MediaWiki messages and 92.55% for the messages used in extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation, and it have over 100 contributions from January from 19 contributors. M.M.S. 08:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the status page. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:26:13, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Silesian Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Hi! I think the Silesian Wikipedia is successful and the localization is clear. 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the status page and nominated the request for approval. Due to some recent changes in Wikimedia's licensing requirements and the language committee's requirements, I cannot estimate how long this will take. Please watch the request page for updates. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:29:01, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Southern Yukaghir

The following discussion is closed.

Please create a status page for Wikipedia Southern Yukaghir:

  1. Check that the project does not already exist: Done
  2. Obtain an ISO 639 code: Done, yux.
  3. Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki: Done, Southern Yukaghir is a isolate language (together with Northern Yukaghir).
  4. Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language: Done, Southern Yukaghir has a little community on Internet.

M.M.S. 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The fourth point asks for editors, not for speakers (and even speakers are few... 10 to 50 in 1989. I fear, the number didn't went up in the last twenty years). All four contributions to the test project were made by a Swedish IP. As Yukaghir is spoken in Siberia, I take it as obvious, that this IP is you. So there are no native or fluent speakers. --::Slomox:: >< 17:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You could learn it... But I guess this language is hard to learn, not much published, not Indo-European... --OosWesThoesBes 09:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This request has been rejected, so a status page is not needed. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:32:19, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Venetian

The following discussion is closed.

Hi, what about Venetian wikisource? The project is active, the localization is complete; we've got only 2 interested users, but I guess that in a Wikisource project the number of texts is much more important than the number of contributors, am I right? Is it possible to proceed with the approval or is it better to wait for other people to join? thanks Candalua 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, two editors are not sufficient for the test project to be considered successful. A minimum of 3-5 editors (depending on their activity and length of participation) are normally required. Please consider inviting interested friends or Internet users to contribute. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:41:20, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Aragonese

The following discussion is closed.

Localization of MediaWiki in aragonese is already completed (including all extensions used in wikimedia wikis). Please update the status page when possible Language_subcommittee/Status/ws-an --Juanpabl 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:46:38, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Silesian

The following discussion is closed.

Hi Pathoschild,

All the Silesian interface messages have been translated. --Jose77 08:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've listed it for possible approval in June 2008; if the test project activity continues over May, I think it will be approved. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:36:28, 01 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Hindi

The following discussion is closed.

Hi Pathoschild, is the test wiki for Hindi Wikinews not enough developed yet for get an approval? If not, how much should it be developed? Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shyam. The test project analysis indicates that you are the only editor, but the language proposal policy requires several active editors. Please keep editing, and maybe try inviting interested friends or Internet users to participate as well. These editors will form the basis of the community after the wiki is created. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:33:06, 01 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will try to call other users from Hindi Wikipedia. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Silesian

The following discussion is closed.

Hey! Can you update checkbox "all MediaWiki messages"? It's already translated. I know that's optional, but it would be nice to have another box in our todo list checked. Herr Kriss 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:51:08, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity Persian

The following discussion is closed.

hi dear pathoschild please take look at this.i think at least it must be verified as eligible.--Mardetanha talk 01:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 12:07:04, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity Dutch

The following discussion is closed: Requirements not met

Hello, I have proposed Dutch Wikiversity and I was wondering if it could be approved or rejected. The test project is running, and all the other requriments are met. Thanks. (Red4tribe 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Unfortunately, not all requirements are met. One of the requirements is, correct me if I'm wrong, at leat 10 users actively working on the test: This is not the case. --OosWesThoesBes 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity Finnish

The following discussion is closed: Requirements not met

I think the finnish wikiversity is ready for approval, only 28.61 is untranslated in WMF extensions. -- 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello 83. The policy requires roughly 100% translation for a language with existing projects. You're almost there. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 21:08:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedias Egyptian Arabic and Meadow Mari

The following discussion is closed: Egyptian Arab approved, Meadow Mari doesn't meet requirements.

I think Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic and Wikipedia Meadow Mari is successful projects! M.M.S. 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Egyptian Arab is already approved. Wikipedia Meadow Mari does not meet the requirements, as listed on its status page. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:33:07, 04 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource/Wikiquote Aragonese

The following discussion is closed: Requirements not met

All (100%) media-wiki messages as well as WMF extensions are now translated into aragonese (an). Please, update when possible the unofficial status page ( and ).

As of today, the only remaining criterion for approval is that of the activity in the test project. I wish the evaluation of the current activity in both projects is enough for approving them. In case it isn't enough, we would be grateful if you could give us some feedback about the level of activity required. Thanks, --Juanpabl 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated. Unfortunately, there are currently 82 core and 101 extension messages left to translate. The status pages now explain what is required for the test project requirement. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:07:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Masry

The following discussion is closed: Updated

please update the page of unoficial analysis of the Masry wiktionary[7]thanks-- 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:55:57, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource/Wikiquote Malay

The following discussion is closed: Updated

Please re-evaluate the status on our requests for Malay Wikisource and Wikiquote. We have just completed the translation of all required messages (as of the time of this posting, see [8]) and we're more than ready to move on and go to the next level. Aviator 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:05:11, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tarifit

The following discussion is closed: Updated

please update the unoficial analysis page of the Tarifit Wikipedia[9] --Agzennay 10:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated, no change. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:06:36, 05 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,sorry for the first request, I have just finished the translation of the most-used MediaWiki messages of Tarifit can you please update the unoficial analysis page of the language[10] --Agzennay 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Updated; thank you for your work. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:12:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lingua Franca Nova

The following discussion is closed: Waiting for policy update

We are anxiously awaiting your decision regarding our request for a Lingua Franca Nova Wikipedia. We have met, we believe, all the requirements, including an ISO code. The only issue remaining is the issue of sufficient recognition. In that regard, we are mentioned in every overview of auxlangs I can find, as well as having been discussed to one degree or another in all the general auxlang discussion groups. We have a group of our own with 200 members and an active wiki with over 1200 good pages, over 1,600,000 views, and nearly 15,000 edits since we began (none "robotic"). We have 300 registered users, about 30 regularly active editors, and 5 administrators. We estimate that about 30 people are fluent or near fluent in LFN, with an additional 300 or so with some reading ability.

We strongly desire to become a part of the wikipedia community. Thanks for your time and attention. George Boeree 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe interesting to consult: the article in en:WP. Since 1965. Less than 100 speakers. Blanke Internationale Plansprachen does not mention it.--Ziko-W 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The first publication of lfn was online in 1998. Blanke's book was published in 1985. There are more than 200 speakers, but the barrage of criticisms made it easier to simply say "< 100." The hostility of a number of people - even towards the en:WP article - has certainly taken us by surprise.
Once again, I would like a response to our request. George Boeree 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please give us an update on the progress you are making concerning artificial languages, especially in regards to Lingua Franca Nova? --

Hi. Are there no changes to the status of this Wikipedia since January? Any new info? Thanks, Malafaya 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated (no change). The status of artificial languages under the current policy is debated to a standstill. A community policy draft is under development to resolve that problem. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the proposal but according to:
If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion.
there is still a great level of ambiguity, and the current standstill at the LFN Wikipedia request would remain. Or am I missing something? Cheers, Malafaya 07:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You are missing nothing. There are people who block any consideration of artificial languages. Given the quality of the existing LFN website, it would look really favourable as a WMF project. Some people explicitly block anything to do with artificial languages.. For me the only silver lining is that it prevents ancient languages with the same argument. These languages would have my support as long as it is clear to all including clear on a meta level, that such a language is not as it was spoken in "them old days". GerardM 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Norse Wikisource

The following discussion is closed.

Please set Wikisource Old Norse as "verified as eligible". M.M.S. 07:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Farsi

The following discussion is closed: done

Hi, you might want to set this request to "eligible", or are there any issues with Farsi? --Johannes Rohr 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:34:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Albanian

The following discussion is closed.

Hi, can you please set this as "Verified as eligible" --Cradel 16:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:41:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Requests for new languages

Sepedi Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

The official status of the Request for new languages page shows as Conditionally approved but the status on the Sepedi Request Page is still Discussion, who is suppose to change that? Mohau 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This was fixed a few days after you let us know. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently closed

The following discussion is closed.

Why do we have some projects recently released from the Incubator listed under "recently closed"? Shouldn't we just have three separate sections, "Recently closed", "Recently created" (or "Recently approved", and "Recently confirmed" (the last one for the existing projects where the closure was discussed and rejected)?--Yaroslav Blanter 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can do it myself, if the idea gets supported by the committee members.--Yaroslav Blanter 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can sort the table by status by clicking on the image beside "Official status". You can also sort all closures by date, which can be very useful at times. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:26:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hungarian wikinews is waiting from 24 November 2006

The following discussion is closed.

Maybe the time was enough. We have been waiting 1 year and 1 mounth !! Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Hungarian

We are writing news articles every day. Just the hungarian wikinews hasn't been published so nobody can see our work, our news articles... incubator: Wn/hu What are we waiting for ??! --ZuzuPetas 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we help something to start? --KossuthRad 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I can help too.--News 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The request has been approved. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:27:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Language proposal policy vs. reality

After some controversial debates over issues like the Moldovan Wikipedia, I strongly feel that the language subcommittee should consider fixing the language proposal policy so that it actually reflects the current practice. At the moment, the policy does not correspond to reality.

Firstly the sentence The language should have a valid ISO-639 1–3 code (search). must be changed to The language must have a valid ISO-639 1–3 code, as I read numerous statements saying that no exception will be made. Consequently, the rest of the paragraph, explaining what happens if there is no ISO code must be omitted.

Second, the phrase The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language. should be deleted, because langcom members have explained countless times that they are not going to make judgements over what constitutes a distinct language, leaving this decision to ISO. As we all know, Moldovan and Romanian are identical, still, the language subcommittee insists on having a mo wiki just because an ISO code exists.

Because of the latter, I further suggest to add the sentence "If there is a conflict between reality and ISO, the latter wins."

Third, the sentense If discussion and past experience indicates that the project is a good idea and would prosper, the language subcommittee will conditionally approve the language (with the "{{ls-header|conditional|comment --~~~~}} " template also does not correspond to the current practice, which is to give approval automatically when there is an ISO code, even when there are absolutely no signs of an active community. --Johannes Rohr 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly, but the subcommittee does consider the similarity between languages when processing requests. It is important to distinguish between what the subcommittee as a diverse group does, and what one or two members individually say or do (GerardM and Bèrto both have a tendency to imply that their opinions reflect subcommittee consensus, which is not the case).
Remember that the subcommittee never make official statements; its sole goal is policy development and processing requests. Any comments by a subcommittee member are their own personal comments. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:14:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
<grin> you tweaked without seeking consensus so add yourself to the list ... GerardM 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Added. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any requests to be approved in the nearest weeks?

Now there are two new wikis (Lower Sorbian and Crimean Tatar) that have already been approved, but still are not created. One of the developers said, that "amount of effort to create wikis is nearly the same for 2 wikis as for 10, so I'll wait for some more to pile up" So, I want to ask subcommettee members: are there any requests to be approved in the nearest weeks? If there are no such requests does this mean that these two wikis are to wait several months until there will be enough approved requests? Don Alessandro 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are enough active test on Incubator which have asked why they are not yet approved: Hungarian Wikinews, Extremaduran Wikipedia, ... SPQRobin 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, Sakha Wp, but they are waiting for several months I guess. --Yaroslav Blanter 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I divide concern of the Don Alessandro. It can have negative value for PR, advertising, promotions of the new project, for its development.--HalanTul 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope that Sassarese Wikipedia/sdc.WP is in list.. if not, what he need more for the final approvation? --Felisopus Talk to me 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Several wikis have been approved recently, and the two wikis Don Alessandro mentioned have been created. If you see a request that meets all the requirements for final approval, please do let us know. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:50:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing living languages from dead languages

I would like to make a proposal on the distinguishing of living languages from dead languages. In borderline cases, a living language must have a contemporary literature that is respected by scholars of the historical language. The modern Vatican documents in Latin, for example, have some respect from Latin scholars, and that should be our standard. The historical scholars of the language (who understand it best) must consider the contemporary "literature" to be a legitimate undertaking, rather than a linguistic hacking exercise (for example, people who try to write in Punic or Etruscan).--Pharos 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The requirement for contemporary literature is not what defines a living language.
What we are looking for in a language is continuous usage. This does apply to Latin. GerardM 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any clear definition of "continuous usage"? I'm trying to offer a working definition that will distinguish languages that are useful for something in the contemporary world, and languages that are not. Of course, not just any contemporary literature will suffice: a couple of webpages written by enthusiastic students would not be good enough. But if there's an effort toward contemporary literature that's on the whole supported by linguists and scholars who are recognized experts on the historical language (for example, the status of the w:Cornish language a few decades ago), I think that would be a good demonstration of usefulness.--Pharos 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, I heard from pathos that "Bungo" (Japanese archic and literal, influenced from Classical Chinese in its terminology) would be considered as historic, hence would be rejected. I am no big fan of this request, but it is a history of continuous usage in Japanese society. Until 1945 or 46 it was the official style of Japanese (i.e. in gov't documents including law) and some of them are still valid and hence nationwidely read. I think it as a style rather than a separate language, but I agree that literacy of Bungo has still been a part of literacy of written Japanese even in the contemporary world. It is more widely read than Latin in Europe (as said, it is a style the major law is written in!) - is the Bungo Wikipedia request still to be rejected? --Aphaia 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many words floating around. Dead vs extinct vs historical. There is continuous usage and revived. I would hesitate to define these things.. there are always corner cases .. The idea is that there have always been people that used it on a regular basis. GerardM 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The subcommittee does not define "historical" or "living"; we use the ISO 639 data. For example, see the ISO 639 lookup for Old Japanese (Bungo). Latin is defined as "ancient", so there are likewise no native speakers and it would not be approved. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:38:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this overly ISO-centric criterion. ISO is a great tool as an initial test as to whether a language is reality or fantasy (remember the "Siberian language"?), but it shouldn't be used as an all-encompassing reference. Which is why I think we have to use our human judgment, to work out some of our own criteria based on common sense. For example, I think any reasonable person would conclude that a Latin Wikipedia (even though it's in an "ancient" language) has relatively more merit than a Volapuk Wikipedia (not that I'm anti-Volapuk).--Pharos 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Pathoschild on this. Latin has been in continuous use through the ages. I will argue for Latin any day. I will also argue for recognised constructed languages. GerardM 23:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is something we can debate when we process a Latin request. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:09:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You say you support "recognised" constructed languages — but, leaving aside the relative success of Esperanto, is there really any constructed language that would come close in terms of recent use to the serious "historical" languages that have been proposed? These two categories are actually quite similar, as both are almost entirely literary and produced by specialists. Let's even leave aside the 20th century literary dialects like Japanese Bungo and Ottoman Turkish — there has got to be considerably more contemporary literature produced in Ancient Greek than in Volapuk.--Pharos 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Constructed languages were excluded largely because they weren't discussed in relation to the decision on historical languages. However, there are arguably two points in favour of constructed languages: they're actively used in daily life (not just in academia), and they act as linguas franca between participants of different languages. I don't think the second is much of an argument (wikis should be opened in the participants' native languages instead), but the first does distinguish them from historical languages. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:47:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This may be true for auxilliary languages like Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua or Slovio, however, neither Lojban (a single person really fluent, as far as I recall) nor Volapük (30 speakers worldwide) are "used in real life". Due to excessive use of bots, the Volapük Wikipedia is constantly in the top ten list by article count. Recently, Volapük has been certified eligible for a separate Wikisource.
It is totally beyond me how an artificial language with less than three dozen speakers, which had seen an very brief period of blossoming some time back in 19th century can be regarded more eligible for a separate Wikisource, than the Coptic language, which has been a living language from the 3rd to the 17th century and is still an important language in religions service of 10 percent of Egypt's population. --Johannes Rohr 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for the 30-speaker figure? This is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but tagged as an unverified statement. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:29:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a figure supported by User:Smeira (or, I think Smeira actually said 25). And if that is at all a good estimate, do you really think there would be many reliable sources on contemporary Volapuk to cite for that?
And I think Johannes is rather overestimating the success the other constructed languages as well. "Slovio", for example, has had its article deleted at English Wikipedia. And it's unlikely any of them but Esperanto has one native speaker.
I strongly disagree that these are "actively used in daily life (not just in academia)"; except in the rarest of circumstances they are not used in daily life (other than online). The difference is just this — that most of the use of the "historical" languages is in an academic context, just because they are widely studied at universities, which constructed languages are not. "Historical" languages also exist on the same level as constructed languages in the way they are used to a comparable extent for communication and contemporary literature by enthusiasts; only in the case of "historical" languages the enthusiasts' use is overshadowed by the academics' use.--Pharos 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you should ask User:Smeira who should know best as he is one of those 25-30. He has consistently used this figure, see e.g. [11] and being the only contributor to downplaying the significance of Volapük is not something he is likely to do. --Johannes Rohr 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical languages even barred from having their own Wikisource?

Hi there, can someone please elaborate on this? I mean, if a language with a millenia-old tradition, having been spoken appr. from the 3rd to the 17th century is not eligible for its own Wikisource edition, it is hard to images, which one is. I must confess I'm slightly shocked by this. --Johannes Rohr 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple question.. in what language should the user interface of this project be ? In my opinion it DOES make better sense to have a well defined environment in a multilingual environment.. For the record, I argued for a Coptic Wikisource, however I find this argument quite persuasive. GerardM 16:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be in Coptic, what else? This is the language which everyone who wants to contribute or read ancient Coptic texts can be expected to understand.
I mean, what kind of argument is this? If this sets a precident, then effectively new Wikisource editions in historical and extinct languages are effectively made impossible.
Sorry, but I completely fail to understand the reasoning behind this decision. It appears that some people are having fun imposing new restrictions every other day. --Johannes Rohr 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe ALL Wikisources should have a tab for translating the tabs into other languages, because people who can't read important historical texts fluently will occasionally want to have a look at them (and for Coptic, most Copts would probably find tabs in Arabic easiest to navigate). But however interface issues are resolved, that is not a reason to deny a Wikisource in my opinion.--Pharos 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note I'm not allowed to translate the interface for Middle Dutch on the betawiki, don't know why. --OosWesThoesBes 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Middle Dutch has a modern successor which the audience can be expected to understand. Coptic doesn't. --Johannes Rohr 18:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Since interface is needed (verplicht?) the project won't ever be approved :( --OosWesThoesBes 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think you need a separate project for Middle Dutch? There is s:nl:Categorie:Middelnederlands, which looks like the perfect place. It sure wouldn't cross my mind to request a new Wikisource for Middle High German. --Johannes Rohr 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource is the exception to the rule about extinct languages, according to the "Frequently asked questions" section. I'll bring this up with the subcommittee. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:42:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do so, and while you're at it, please ask them, what qualifies Volapük for a separate Wikisource, if Coptic doesn't. --Johannes Rohr 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Volapük is a constructed language, new projects in constructed languages are within what the policy allows for. GerardM 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...just as it allows for Wikisource editions in historical languages. Anyway, GerardM, please - the policy is made by you and your colleagues. It is not god-given, esp. the recent exclusion of wikipedias in historical isn't. Apart from the fact that, as said above, the current policy that can be read at WM:LPP explicitely states that wikisource editions in historical languages are OK.
If an artifical language, which has no more than 30 speakers qualifies better for a separate wikisource edition, than one which still has a special cultural significance to millions (and is likely used by many thousands), than there must be a very good reason for this.
Apart from than, if your restrictive approach to historic languages is to make the slightest bit of sense, the approach towards constructed languages would have to be equally strict. If the sole purpose is to make information available to more people, projects in languages which have been created solely out of scientific interest like Lojban do not make any sense. IIRC, there is a single person who is really fluent in the language. Likewise, Volapük is completely off-limits. In the latter case it is not the language, which is used to spread information, but Wikimedia's resources which are used to propagate the language. In the case of Coptic by constrast, Wikimedia would have the chance to host original works of the hightest historic and cultural significance from more than one and a half millenia of human history.
If the only reason for the current imbalance lies in the policy, then the policy is wrong and ought to be changed. However, I do not see anything in the policy disallowing new wikisource editions in historical languages, quite the contrary. And finally, I over the last few months I did not get the impression, that langcom takes its self-imposed policy too serious, rather, it appears to take many decisions on a per-case basis. --Johannes Rohr 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New projects in historical language

At Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ottoman Turkish 2 I read:

It is the policy of the language subcommittee that only languages with living native communities may create new wikis

I also note, that the language proposal policy has been modified in October, making a 180 degrees turn with regards to historical languages, [12].

This is kind of a drastic change and I am surprised that it happened silently, without a broad community discussion. Further am even more surprised, that some historical languages appear to be more equal than others. Heck, why is Ottoman Turkish being rejected and Ancient Greek conditionally approved? Why is Classical Japanese not yet rejected?

Personally I am not very fond of Wikipedias in historical languages. Most of them have not delivered convincing results, not even the Latin edition, not to mention Old Church Slavonic, Gothic or Anglo-Saxon. However, not excluding languages which have valid ISO codes should be a matter of principle, not? Else, the next logcial step might be the exclusion of languages which are just about to die out, including the recently approved Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia (~2000 speakers in two villages or so). As I understand, langcom members share the concensus that the eligibility of a language should be decided solely on the grounds of its ISO status. Why is this policy not observed with regards to historical languages? --Johannes Rohr 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: If taken literally, the phrase languages with living native communities also excludes artificial and auxilliary languages. --Johannes Rohr 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the policy itself: Point 4: "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion." Thanks, GerardM 08:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't this just an artificial exemption for constructed languages? I believe the two categories are actually quite similar, as explained in my comment in the next section.--Pharos 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hoi, no it is not. When crafting the policy there was explicit room left for new projects of constructed languages. It is not artificial, it is deliberate. GerardM 08:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note the number of people who talk Saterlandic is growing. Unlike languages with more speakers like Limburgish (1.6 million) which are decline very rapidly. --OosWesThoesBes 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the points mentioned by Johannes, I also want to ask:
  • Why the policy is changed by the subcommetee? It seems to be more logical the policy to be adopted either by the WM foundation, or by the whole community. And the subcommetee should be an executive body to implement the policy.
  • About the Ottoman request... People were told that it is possible to open a wikipedia in a historical language, so they have opened a request and created an active project in the incubator. Then after a year, they were told that historical languages are no more welcomed. Don't you find it to be very strange and unfair? The change is to be implemented for the newly opened requests, but not to those opened long before it was done.
Don Alessandro 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The language committee has as its task to provide a way in which projects will start in languages and do well. That is what is has to do. We have communicated our motivations for what we decide. Things have improved considerably from the time where a lot of "yes" men voted for a new project where nobody cared about these what are now often abandoned projects. It is not fair when a project like Otoman Turkish is denied but there was no thinking on it and now there is. GerardM 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to sent an email to the langcom, but now I see this comment, so I will join in, instead.
I totally agree with Johannes Rohr and Don Alessandro. I was thinking about "Why are Wikipedias in historical languages not allowed?". The only *real* reason is project activity, I think. In the case of the Ottoman Turkish test project, this is not a problem. Even more, it is one of the most active projects. It is one of the requests that took very long until they have a decision, and it persisted the whole time, with a very good activity. So what could be the reason of the langcom to change the policy? I asked it to GerardM, he said they don't have modern terms and words for new things etc. This is also something we can oppose. Ottoman Turkish is a historical language since 1928, according to SIL. This is not very long, I guess, if you compare to Latin, Old English, etc which do have a Wikipedia but don't have the modern vocabulary. I really hope the work done by the active users were not for nothing. Greetings, SPQRobin 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(Any message by a subcommittee member is a personal comment, not an official subcommittee message.)
The subcommittee members reached a decision that languages with no native speakers don't further the Foundation's mission— that creating content in languages nobody speaks natively does not help spread the content to more people. A project in a historical language would, however, draw editors away from projects in their native languages. Instead, wikis should be opened in the languages those editors speak and write natively, to make the content available to their language communities.
It's very unfortunate that it took so long for the Ottoman Turkish request (and soon the Ancient Greek request) to be rejected, and they have justification for resentment. However, their work is certainly not wasted; they are welcome to start a wiki separately, as some other communities have done. For example, Wikia might provide free hosting and maintenance identical to that they would get under the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm currently going through every single open request to update them and create status pages, so I hope to eliminate any such discrepancies. Any change in the policy is likely to have such consequences, which is why we tried to implement any major change within the first year of the new process to minimize such problems (this one was). This is hopefully the last major change in the policy in the forseeable future, and several technical changes in the last month are helping ensure that requests are processed much more smoothly than before.
However frustrating this change may be, the policy must apply to all open requests regardless of when they were filed. It's true that language eligibility is largely determined on the grounds of ISO 639 data, and this is not an exception— Ottoman Turkish is marked by ISO 639-3 as being historical. The same rationale does not apply to endangered languages as you suggest, unless they die out before approval. Creating wikis in those languages will still help make the content available to more living communities, and possibly help revive the language as a side-effect. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:51:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on experience I do have strong reservations about Wikipedias in extinct languages. However, I also find the line of argumentation dangerous, as it could be easily extended to living languages as well, thus entering a slippery slope. You could easily argue that, say, the Sater Frisian, Upper and Lower Sorbian Wikipedias (two of the three have only just been created) don't further the Foundation's mission—: All speakers of those languages are perfectly bilingual in German. For most Sorbs and Frisians, their first stop in search for information will be the German edition as many Sorbs and Frisians will have better proficiency in German or be even monolingual in German. Therefore judging the eligibility of languages on the grounds of their percieved usefulness is something I would warn against. --Johannes Rohr 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S: Does the new policy also exclude artificial languages?
True, almost nobody looks to the Limburgish Wikipedia. --OosWesThoesBes 13:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The aim of the Foundation is to provide information to people. One of the motivations for approving a WIKIPEDIA is that in order to write an encyclopaedia in a dead language is that the language has to change in order to accommodate modern concepts. This in and of itself changes the language. This is in and of itself original research. When a language like ota is historic ie the language morfed into another language, the language is effectively dead. When people still teach such a language because of its literary and historic value it is dead nonetheless. When substantial proof is provided that ota has been actively and continuously used, the label historic can be removed by ISO. This will make a difference. NB For a dead language there is no requirement for a localisation. A Wikisource in a historic language will be considered.

The new policy does not exclude artificial languages. They are not dead.

Indeed there are other languages that will be denied permission for a Wikipedia.

Thanks, GerardM 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you do not share Pathoschild's position? If I understand his point of view correctly, he says, that extinct languages should be excluded because they do not help to make information available to new readers (against which I would argue that the same can be said about most wikis in minority languages and dialects) Instead, you say that historical languages are not suitable as they lack the vocabulary for contemporary topics? Lastly you say that in this sense, Latin is not dead as it continues to be used (as a means of communication hardly anywhere outside the Vatican). Well, the same can probably be said about Ancient Greek, which continues to be tought in schools, probably to Sankrit and many other Classical languages of Asia. And, as I understand the discussion about Ottoman Turkish correctly, there also is isolated contemporary use of this language. To sum up, if Latin is "not dead" no classical language which still has an active speaker community is. Therefore, the argument looses its validity. --Johannes Rohr 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
By conflating different issues you will not have me answer either way. From my pov a language that is dead or no longer used at all should not get a language. A language with few speakers qualifies as to the rules as I understand them. Teaching a language is not the same as actively using them. Who speaks old greek outside school ? And do they discuss modern issues ? GerardM 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Latin would likewise not be approved under these requirements. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:51:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Subcommittee discussion has confirmed that historical languages—including Latin—are disallowed without exception. If a language has living native speakers, we'll request a correction or addition to ISO 639-3 so that it is no longer classified as historical. Constructed languages have been much debated over the last few days in the subcommittee, and I'll leave a note on this page when there's an update. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:45:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to protest that this decision as bizarre in the extreme. Any decision that keeps out Latin (with many thousands of speakers, and a very active contemporary literature), and keeps in Volapuk (with 20-odd speakers) is just wrong-headed.
The is such a thing as overdependence on ISO, and this is clearly it. ISO can and does respond to new languages being submitted, and it is reasonable to request that people seeking Wikipedias in "undefined" languages get an ISO entry first. But there is no way that ISO is ever going to change Latin from "ancient", even if there are ten daily newspapers in Latin.
And the argument that people are being siphoned off from their native language Wikipedia to work on Latin just doesn't make any sense; it is far more likely that the unique prospect of a Latin Wikipedia is drawing people in who would not otherwise be associated with Wikimedia projects at all. Look, there is a reasonable line that can be drawn between Anglo-Saxon (which doesn't merit a Wikipedia) and Latin (which IMO clearly does); I've tried to lay out a basis for drawing such a line below.
I urge the subcommittee to reconsider this issue carefully, and to open it up to broader discussion, as this policy matter is truly a very fundamental issue to Wikimedia. Thank you.--Pharos 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Volapük is a constructed language, so there has been no such decision (as I mentioned above). A wiki aiming to collect historical content—that is, Wikisource—is perfectly acceptable in a historical language. A wiki aiming to provide information to modern people is not acceptable in a language no modern person speaks natively, and is primarily an academic exercise or a promotion of the language, neither of which are goals of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I don't see the basis for your claim that the code for Latin could never be changed. If the language were revived and gained native speaking communities, it would no longer be 'ancient', which has a specific meaning that does not refer to age. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:32:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
When you are talking about Volapuk, you have a language with history. It does have documents that fit right into Wikisource. Thanks, GerardM 10:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I can state with very high confidence, that Volapük is a language no modern person speaks natively, not only because it is a constructed language, but because it is an obsolete constructed language, which was almost completely superseeded by Esperanto more than a century ago. --Johannes Rohr 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is now being discussed on Foundation-l; please comment there instead, where it will receive more attention. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that discussion. I have made a specific proposal there, which may be of interest to you, as it would eliminate the need for aimless research by the Languages subcommittee for these languages.--Pharos 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical reforms


As I've mentioned previously on this page, I've been busy over the last few weeks on some sweeping technical reforms. If you're interested, following is a description of the most important changes.

Test project analysis
I've rewritten the analysis script from the ground up. The new script accesses the replicated database directly to obtain every bit of information stored by MediaWiki. Analysis is now performed in a single step (previously we had to generate a list of pages, paste it to the relevant wiki, then process the relatedchanges), is vastly more efficient, and is now open to public usage (previously only I could run it, for performance reasons).

With the replicated database, the analysis script provides information on the test project's entire history since the very first edit (previously only the last 30 days were available for technical reasons). In addition, the script newly provides:

  • lists of editors and redirects;
  • edit distribution by user per month;
  • number of edits and minor edits per month;
  • number of new pages per month;
  • amount of content added or removed in bytes per month;
  • number of editors per month;
  • and overall statistics, including total number of non-redirect pages, redirects, editors, and edits.

If you have any suggestions for statistics, feel free to comment below.

Status pages
Status pages have been almost entirely automated and moved to Meta. They've been completely redesigned to provide users with every documentation page and tool needed to track their own progress, and integrated with the automated analysis tool above. These changes were also intended to minimize the work required for investigation, so that a thorough investigation of a project can now be done in a matter of seconds instead of taking ten minutes or more.

You can see the difference yourself by comparing these two links:

Verification for eligibility
"Conditional approval" has been renamed to "verified as eligible", to reflect the current practice of giving it automatically to requests that meet the requirements for eligibility. Conditional approval has been a source of confusion for a long time, particularly given that our criteria can change over time.

There is no practical difference, since they mean exactly the same thing, but this is much less confusing for requesters. It also clarifies the distinction between criteria for eligibility and for final approval in the policy.

Pages renamed
The language subcommittee pages have been renamed from "Special projects committee/Languages" to "Language subcommittee", in order to make subpage naming less awkward. This was already a problem with the number of subpages we had, but made status pages very messy. (See a list of subpages.)

Internal changes

  • The archival script has been greatly improved, which makes archival easier. I'll still be the only archivist, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. :)
  • The documentation for subcommittee members has been completely rewritten, expanded, and updated. It now covers the primary subcommittee tasks in detail, from creating status pages to approving a wiki.

    Combined with upcoming internal measures, I hope this will encourage less active subcommittee members to participate more, providing a moderating effect on the more active elements in the subcommittee, reducing the workload per member, and decreasing processing times.

If you have any other suggestions, they're always welcome on this page. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, they are really useful. Concerning the new format, what does it mean if the white crosses correspond to the criteria crossed out, like here? Criteria most probably met, but no decision has been yet taken? Or is it a bug? --Yaroslav Blanter 11:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That means that the criteria have not been met, but they are optional for that request. This is related to the recent changes in localization requirements— the first wiki in a language only needs to translate the "most used MediaWiki" messages, so the other two options are optional. This is mentioned in the text when they're crossed out: "...optional for the first wiki in a language.... —{admin} Pathoschild 12:02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi! I have one idea to reforms in the subcommittee. This is a new category for requests as fulfil all criteria, but not approved by the Board of Trustees (e.g. the Wikipedia Extremaduran), I call that "Partially approved":

main page Requests for new languages (Language subcommittee)
Discussion verification final decision
This proposal has been partially approved.
The language subcommittee have deemed that is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project. Before the final approval must the Board of Trustees approved this project.

M.M.S. 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If the board vetos a request, we do not want to give the community false hope before rejection. In most cases there is no noticeable delay between subcommittee and board approval; it is only noticeable now because the SQL server outage has prevented us from putting together a sufficient batch of approvals for developers to create. You can see a few of those waiting requests in the list above. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:49:29, 03 February 2008 (UTC)


Currently the law is if you are creating the first wiki in your language the 500-most used messages need to be translated, for a second wiki extensions used by WikiMedia need to be translated. I think it's too much. Wouldn't it be better to say for the first wiki the 500-most used messages need to be translated, for the second the MediaWiki messages need to be translated and for the third all extensions used by WikiMedia need to be translated? It currently quite demotivates people to start say a Wiktionary which is quite a standard project. --OosWesThoesBes 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. If your proposal would be the policy, then the second wiki should translate more, but you seem to say they would need to translate less. A little overview:
  • All MediaWiki messages: 1762
    • 500 most used: 494 -- first wiki
    • All minus most used: 1268 -- second wiki (second wiki is your proposal)
  • All extensions: 2189
    • Used by Wikimedia: 597 -- second wiki (third wiki is your proposal)
    • All minus used by WMF: 1592
SPQRobin 13:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your schema is what I mean. --OosWesThoesBes 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the policy and it seems the second wiki has to translate the MW messages too, what you didn't say in your text. So this changes a lot... I added that in gray. SPQRobin 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the current policy demotivates people starting a second wiki, which can be very active (see --OosWesThoesBes 13:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Localisation is a process. This means that with the localisation of the most used messages the localisation has not finished. It is not even to say that enough is done, it is just that we accept that a reasonable effort has happened. We expect the continued localisation after the most relevant have been done. Consequently, with localisation a continuous process, when people are ready for a second project in a language the localisation effort is expected to have moved on.

When the localisation does not happen, the requirements are not fulfilled. Localisation is a community effort and if the community for a language is not willing to maintain its localisation, they provide a disservice to their readers and editors that are not as fluent in the foreign language that serves as a fallback language. Without full localisation of all the involved messages a language is not properly supported for any of the projects.

As localisation is not a numbers game, the requirements are:

  • first project - the most important messages
  • subsequent project - all MediaWiki messages and all the messages of the extension used by the WMF.

Thanks, GerardM 05:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is the advantage of translating messages like Checkuser and Oversight in a language like Limburgish? 1. There are no Checkusers or Oversights who speak Limburgish as a first language, they might never come. 2. Because of regional differences I sometimes hardly can understand some messages, for example the previous name for the Main Page, Huidpazjena. I was thinking about something with a skin... There might be an Algemein Gesjreve Limburgs' (see li:AGL) but it's not perfect. 3. I've asked many people if they would help localisating but nobody wanted because they all said "it is too much". 4. I've never seen half the messages I've translated before.
Another problem which I have had with Lozi was some words of the 500-most used messsages just seem to not even exist. I've almost completely translated the Limburgish interface so I know which messages still need to be translated for a second wiki. It will become very difficult translating those messages, though I know a fluent (near native) speaker. --OosWesThoesBes 07:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What for the localisation is done? To make usage of wiki more comfortable, isn't it? But there are minority languages, all speakers of which are bilingual, and even more - they read and write almost only in the dominating language. E.g. Sorbs in German, Walloons in French, Crimean Tatars in Russian (in former USSR) or Turkish (in Turkey), etc. So, all speakers of such a languages can use wiki easily without the localisation. However, I think localisation should remain one of the requirements to show that the written language is developed enogh to localise the interface. But there is no need to localise all the interface. Don Alessandro 14:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoi, the requirement for localisation is quite explicit. In this way compliance there is the added benefit that it is easy to verify. When it is argued that people do understand another language, you provide the argument why your language does not need a Wikipedia; I do not think that you want to go that way. GerardM 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm... If the aim of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge 'only, wikipedias in all minority languages of Europe definately are to be closed. From this point of view the existance of such a wikis is nothing more than scattering of human resources. People waste their time developing wikis in minority languages instead of collaborating in bid wikis. But I thoght that preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages is also one of the goals of WM Foundation. Don Alessandro 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, a vocabulary of a minority language could also been seen as knowledge, knowledge of a language. This knowledge could be spread best by creating a Wikipedia. --OosWesThoesBes 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The aim of a Wikipedia is indeed the spread of knowledge. The preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages are nice thoughts, but not Wikimedia goals. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:09:03, 08 February 2008 (UTC)

Approval batch

The following discussion is closed.

I'm putting together the batch of approvals for creation this month. If a request meets the Language proposal policy, please add a note in the "Requests for updates" section above. If there are any request you think should be included in this batch, please say so as soon as possible.

  • Approved and awaiting creation:
    • Wikinews Hungarian.
  • Awaiting board approval:
    • Wikipedia Erzya,
    • Wikipedia Extremaduran,
    • Wikipedia Gan,
    • Wikiversity Japanese.
  • Particularly close to approval, but probably will not be ready in time for this batch:
    • Wikipedia Sakha (awaiting verification),
    • Wikipedia Sranan Tongo (awaiting additional test project development),
    • Wikisource Limburgish (awaiting sustained activity).

{admin} Pathoschild 19:47:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated.--Yaroslav Blanter 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Any news from the board? A.M.D.F. 10:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:14:10, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Hungarian

The following discussion is closed.

Wikinews Hungarian 3 Approved 01-Feb-2008 12865 (30 days ago)

The hungarian request has been written 01-Feb-2008 , this is wrong information : 30 days ago. --KossuthRad 09:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of days is calculated based on the number of seconds between two dates rounded to standard days, which in this case was:
{{#expr:({{#time:U|09:21, 4 March 2008}}-{{#time:U|01 February 2008}})/86400 ROUND 0}}
= (1204622460-1201824000)/86400 rounded to the nearest integer
= 32
If you saw an incorrect number, it's probably because you were viewing a cached calculation. Caching can sometimes cause time-sensitive calculations to be a few days out of date. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:48:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The date is wrong again: "52 days" the good information. --KossuthRad 19:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the explanation above. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:43:13, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Erzya Wikipedia's semi-approval

The following discussion is closed.

Please clearify the current situation with Erzya Wikipedia. It was once announsed that the project had been approved but after a while the status was again changed to eligible, temporarily as it was written. Two weeks passed and nothing happens, so what is the current status of the project and what are we waiting for? Sura 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been forwarded February 23 to the board for approval. Policy says the board have 4 days to veto a request. 4 days are expired since February 27. Today is March 5. Somebody from the subcommittee should file a bug to create a wiki now, but nobody has done it yet. A.M.D.F. 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been approved along with the rest of the batch. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:17:03, 06 March 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

How can a people participate of the Language subcommittee?I'm very interesting! Tosão 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tosão. New members are selected from the active Wikimedia community. Although we don't currently need any new members, you're welcome to help us by finding requests ready for updates, answering other users' questions, et cetera. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:54:00, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Latina Wikipedia Closing and hellenic Wikipedia opening

The following discussion is closed: Discussion moved to [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?.

i make the present proposal, based in the recent change of the rules of the language subcommitee. the new rules say that is not allowed the existence of wikipedia in ancient, classics, or death languages. the latin has the three conditions. recently the indicated subcommitee take the shamed decision of reject the opening of a wikipedia in the classiest and marvelous language of ancient greek. yes, you read it. the language of plato, is considered indigned of express itself. its flexibility, wealth, high prestigious, etc. was not considerated. one capricious change of rules had prevented.

one question, why latin can have a wikipedia and the ancient greek not? the reason say that ancient greek must have one by its own right. all historians know that the greek culture always was superior than the latin culture.

another question. why in the new rules argument that ancient languages can not have their own wikipedias because they do not have native speakers. and then support the right of artificial languages (that don't have native speakers, too) to have your own ones? that's no sense. for EQUALITY reason that rule do not must exist.

if your support the idea that latin wikipedia have stay. you support also the rigth that ancient greek must have your own one. the rules must been reversed.

if you consider that the new rule is correct. the latin wikipedia must be closed. for EQUALITY and COHERENCE.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

I think that closing la.wikipedia would be a defeat for the project. The whole project. Why? Because wikimedia's project are not simply the most vivid demonstration of how beautiful can the web 2.0 be, but above all because we are trying to make culture. Latin and ancient greek are, no doubts, great part of the culture of the whole world. Try to imagine us without such "ancestors". It is not possible.
I repeat, in my opinion closing would be a madness. And for the same reasons, would be a madness as well to avoid the opening of wikimedia's projects in ancient greek. Best regards to everybody. -- Jaakko 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
madness? this! is! sparta! scusa, ma considerando l'argomento.. -- 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
strongly oppose this seems to be only a revenge for the closure of ancient greek wikipedia, a project should be closed only if it is not active --Vituzzu 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
read between lines!, i think the idea is not close the latin wikipedia. the idea is the opening the ancient greek wikipedia. i strongly support the idea. OPEN IT! OPEN IT! OPEN IT!. The Language subcomitee is in a terrible error! anyone support the idea?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)
The Latin Wikipedia was created before the Language Subcommittee existed. We have no jurisdiction over existing projects, even those that may go against current policy. Previous to the Subcommittee's creation, there were no, or very few, requirements for the creation of a project. The goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to spread knowledge, not to revive ancient languages. In any case, a Wikimedia project in an ancient language goes against this goal; if nobody natively speaks a language, it does not help achieve the Foundation's goals to create a wiki in that language.--Shanel 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Shanel, yourself confirms the absurd. if the reason is the lack of native speakers, why allow wikipedias in artificial languages, now?. and the second objection. if when the language subcommittee already existed (yes!!!), you, the subcommittee, allow and even approved wikipedias in ancient language; why change the rules, now? it's not only incoherent, inequal, absurd and injust. IT'S ESQUIZOFRENIC!!!(oh, a complete greek word!)-[Anon]
I'm a user and admin of I observe that also the knowledge of an ancient language (e.g its grammar and vocabulary) is a form (I would say a precious one) of knowledge and therefore revive or mantain an ancient languages does not go from my point of view against the Foundation's goals. Besides gives the possibility to connect in an easy way to a lot of Latin resources and this is of course, an other form of knowledge spread; --Massimo Macconi 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)-- 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
...One precision. the project was proposed, when exist rules that permit the creation of wikipedias in ancient languages. if you observe the proposal page, realize that the proyect surpasse the sucesive requisites that the subcommittee demanded. the project is refused because of a suddendly change in the rules, when the project was in the last stage, previous to its approbation. in my opinion the project must be approved, with the original rules that was proposed, and the new rules must to be applicate to the new proposal made after the date of the change.-[Anonymous]
Hoi, you have your opinion. I am sorry for you, but the language committee will not accept the proposal for the project. PS you make less of an impression by not signing your messages. GerardM 06:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
but, the subcommittee isn't respond his critics. you is giving reason of the critics of wikipedia. if you do not give a good reason to refuse proyects, your decisions are arbitrary. most of the users find good reason to the project, but you, twelve individues not. respond the critics.
Every rule should have a rationale. The rationale behind no projects for dead languages is, that a language without speakers can't be a mean of transportation for knowledge and transportation of knowledge ist the main goal of the foundation. Well, ancient Greek is dead, as there are no native speakers, but does this render the language unused? No, it does not. There are schools around the world which teach classical Greek. I only know numbers for Germany: there are 14,500 pupils in Germany who aquired classical Greek language in 2006/2007. This means learners in school. Including people, who already have finished school, and learners at university level we have a number of several 100,000 in Germany alone. So we should have at least one million, but likely several millions of speakers in the whole world.
Greek was a scholarly language throughout its history which lasts from around 800 BC until today (as a written language). I have no doubt, that ancient Greek is able to create a viable community and will create content useful for language learners, but for completed-training speakers as well.
The rationale behind no projects for dead languages is, that a language without speakers can't be a mean of transportation for knowledge, as I said above. So ancient Greek is dead in the sense of no native speakers, but it is not dead in the sense of no speakers at all. Why is it necessary to request native speakers? The point 4 of the policy requests as requisite: The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. Why not just drop the word native? I of course know, that this word was placed there to make life easier for the committee and the foundation, cause it outrules constructed or fantasy languages like Tokipona, Quenya, Klingon or I-combined-all-the-best-elements-of-Esperanto-Lojban-and-Volapük-new-contructed-language No. 231. But if we drop the word native, we have: The proposal has a sufficient number of living speakers to form a viable community and audience. No native speakers is a hard criterion, a decidable one, where you can say "Yes" or "No", when sufficient and viable are very stretchable. If you fear discussions about those stretchy terms, then try placing annotations to the policy which comment on the terms. Like for example: If a language is teached as part of school curricula this is viewed as a strong indication, that the language will be viable, cause this assures there are literates in the language. If a language is a constructed one and this construction happened recently, this is viewed as an indication, that the language is not viable, cause experience shows, that most constructed languages are short-lived beings. This formalizes criteria and makes the point 4 of the policy to some degree decidable again, but still leaves room for common sense.
Imagine the UN would officially adopt Tokipona (really bad choice, but just a thought experiment) as the world's lingua franca and would add a paragraph that nobody should use the language as his or her native language, cause the UN don't want to replace native languages but just add a common language for international communication. Further imagine that all members (and even the non-members) unanimously accept this. It is obvious, that a Wikipedia in Tokipona would be useful from that very moment on. But current policy would prohibit it. We would have to wait until the first persons break the provision of not teaching Tokipona to their children as native language. It would take 15 to 20 years before we would have a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. Obviously our current policy fails in this thought experiment. Of course it's extremely hypothetical, but still a good policy shouldn't fail even if it is only in improbable cases. Dropping the word native would make the policy a better one. --::Slomox:: >< 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an admin on the Latin wikipedia. I suggest that this proposal to close it would run up against the first and second goals of the language subcommittee, because
  1. the proposal's origin is political: "Latin should be treated like Ancient Greek"
  2. the current position has a quantitative basis: "Ancient Greek had few potential editors; Latin is a lively wiki with many active editors" ... [Dalby]
it is not a good reason, nowadays there is a several wikipedias in ancient language than have fewer potential contributors that ancient greek, like sanskrit, clasical chinese, pali, gothic, old english, old church slavonic, etc. you have realize, that ancient greek is taugth worldwide (with millions of learners), and the others not. -- [Anon]
That's partly true, and I would argue strongly for ancient Greek: I love the language and would be happy to see a wikipedia in it (though I felt I hadn't time to contribute much personally). But the issue here is not ancient Greek at all. I'm opposing a suggestion to close the Latin wikipedia. la:Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
... Those who are disappointed by the decision against the Ancient Greek wiki might consider giving more time to the modern Greek wiki (as I will myself). Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
it's not the point. it is to permit a Arbitrariness. if web 2.0 is based in a democratical concepcion, the decission of a committe (a group of few individues) can be repealed. -- [Anon]
I'm an admin at Vicipaedia, too. Closing it?! We have 19,000 articles! Why on earth would anyone think of closing it?! I support the Hellenic wikipedia, too. I would love to be able to edit it more frequently... it's actually one of the reasons I'm taking a Greek composition class.--Josh Rocchio 01:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a contributer to the latin wikipedia. The poster's ( angst over the action concerning the ancient greek Wikipedia is quite understandable. However, I find utterly silly the suggestion that the closing of the ancient greek wikipedia should be tied to the closing the latin wikipedia. The latin wikipedia has proved to be a significant project with numerous contributors and users. The reason behind its success is that there are very many fluent latin speakers and writers world-wide. Note the number of successful latin language newspapers and radio programs world-wide, e.g. la:Nuntii Latini. By comparision people able to understand ancient greek are much fewer. Are there any newspapers or radio programs in ancient greek?
In sum, I find the rationale provided for linking the latin and ancient greek wikipedias fates to be specious and superficial. I think everyone who contributes to the latin wikipedia empathizes with the poster's valuing the ancient languages for their own sake. However, the merits of starting a new wikipedia have to be argued on a case by case basis; the number of possible contributers is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed. Rafael Garcia-- 03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I agree with ::Slomox:: above: there is a fault in the Language Subcommittee's policy, which renders it unnecessarily tortuous and could be easily corrected. Because the basic policy requires a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience it excludes not only "dead" languages but also "artificial" ones (because these, too, have no true native speakers). Two bits of shifty footwork are then required: (a) about Latin, a significant language of cultural communication, we have to say "Ah, but that was already thriving before the subcommittee got to work"; about Esperanto, an equally significant language of cultural communication, we have to say "Ah, but we've just added a separate sub-paragraph for artificial languages". If the word native is taken out of the basic policy, no such shifty footwork is needed. As far as the language subcommittee is concerned, there need be no difference between Latin and Esperanto, in spite of their completely different histories: both are significant languages of cultural communication, both are very active and widely used wikipedias, it's just that neither has native speakers. Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
compare the previous rules with the new rules, see the languange question in the Frequently Asked Question section, of both versions; that is the issue, the change. ancient greek was not refused because of a lack of contributors. it was reject because a sudden change of rules; a general rule that banned wikipedias in any ancient language. that is the claim of its contributors. -- [Anon]
Yes, I see what you mean now. If I may say so, you Hellenists haven't gone about this in the best way -- you've nearly made the Latinists into enemies, whereas we would naturally be supporters -- but, yes, I think you are right in pointing out a thing that needs explaining. The changes were made in two steps, both by Pathoschild, in October 2007, here and here. All I can say is, assuming this important change was discussed beforehand (as the edit summary claims), I haven't yet found the discussion. Yet that discussion must be public somewhere, because (as the content page says) "The whole set of activities of the Language Subcommittee is public". But then, I'm not a Meta buff. Maybe the discussion exists and I haven't found it.
However, there was afterwards discussion about whether this change would affect Latin. Here it is, and the answer is, no it wouldn't, because (as re-argued above) the Latin Wikipedia was already in existence, with additional reasons too. Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
permit make a quotation of the idea of the anonimous user, written some paragraphs above (the bold text is mine): <<<---realize that the proyect surpasse the sucesive requisites that the subcommittee demanded. the project is refused because of a sudden change in the rules, when the project was in the last stage, previous to its approbation. in my opinion the project must be approved, with the original rules that was proposed, and the new rules must to be applicated to the new proposal made after the date of the change.-[Anonymous]--->>>, i think this is more reasonable. [C. Durand]

Does en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point apply to meta? --Iustinus 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It does. I of course understand, that the users of the Latin Wikipedia are upset that their project was chosen by someone else to make a point, but please, there is absolutely no danger for the project. Nobody who actually has anything to say about it wants to close the project. Please stay calm. :-) The Latin Wikipedia will stay and outlive all of us whatever will happen. --::Slomox:: >< 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread primarily addresses two distinct issues.

  • Existing wikis didn't need this, why do we?

    The Latin Wikipedia, and any other existing wiki in extinct languages, will not be closed. All such wikis were created before the language subcommittee was founded to regulate the procedure. Requests predating the language subcommittee were determined by community vote, which were then submitted to Wikimedia developers who arbitrarily created wikis in batches. This caused several problems, such as political repression by out-voting, attempts to falsify votes by creating many accounts per person, empty wikis that even today attract vandalism, spam, and bias, takeover of a small wiki by another language group or a group of friends, and so forth.

    To my knowledge, no wiki for an extinct language has ever been approved by the language subcommittee. The policy change that formalized this prohibition only codified previous practice after extensive discussion. However, dealing with existing wikis is beyond the committee's current authority, nor do we recommend the closure of any existing wikis.

  • Why is the policy applied retroactively?
    When a decision is made on a request, the current policy always applies and not the policy that existed when the request was filed. The policy is written with specific goals in mind and tweaked in order to better reach them; it would be counterproductive to apply older forms of the policy. This is frustrating in the rare cases where formerly eligible requests are denied, and for this reason we try to minimize significant policy changes. Fortunately, most changes are beneficial— for example, the localization requirements were recently changed so that it is easier to open a first wiki in a language.

The majority of subcommittee discussion is publicly readable at Language subcommittee/Archives (excepting messages by GerardM and Karen). Rejected wikis may be interested in Wikia's Incubator Plus. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:50:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

they are different types of changes: one restrictive and the other permisive. you said it, the restrictive has produced a frustrating result and the permisive a beneficial result.
[1] there is a principe in law science that ban retroactivity of a rule, with this reason the rule has ultractivity, in the present case if we follow the principe, the request of ancient greek wikipedia must be approved. and it is not counterproductive, it is an order rule. that is simple law science. unsigned by 15:27, 25 March 2008.
That's an interesting point. Hadn't seen the Incubator Plus. I wouldn't want to prejudge any debate, but if it should happen that the Ancient Greek wiki migrates to Wikia, I believe that on Vicipaedia we would readily make links to it. Ancient Greek is a very important part of Latin culture (ask Cicero). Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby 09:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[2] that is not the point. if you participated in a game, everybody expects that the rules are the same, predictible, uniform, reasonable, stable, etc. and it have always applicated to the player that decided to participate with these rules, to prevent anomia. it is not only law, it is Game's Theory Sociology. The matter is not if there are others wiki's offers, the problem if we accept the change of policy of wikipedia, the change of the rules.unsigned by 15:27, 25 March 2008.
to [1] & [2] This is neither a game nor a law. The policy codifies what we consider appropriate for a Wikimedia project, which can change over time. It would be counterproductive to allow a project we do not consider appropriate simply because it was requested before the current policy was implemented. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:31:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
the term game is a methaphore of order of any social group, and wikipedia is one. and respect to law: if scholars has determinated that for ordering a complex reality like society, when there is a modification of rules, is better not to apply retroactivly the new rules (precisely for prevent counterproductive results: your argument is a reason to support no retroactivity). a simpler reality like wikipedia shouldn't apply this reasonable principe?
I'm a user and admni of I observe that also the knowledge of an acient language is a form of knowledge and therefore revive or mantain an ancient languages does not go against the foundation goal;Massimo Macconi-- 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Could the author of the above sign his opinion with his name? I don't recognize the style of writing above as that of a admin.Rafael Garcia-- 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC) It was apparently Massimo Marconi, I've added the link above. Just trying to keep who is who straight.-- 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is not the language subcommittee's nor the community's interpretation of "knowledge" in terms of Wikimedia's mission. A recent public discussion confirmed that there is general agreement on this point. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:31:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Pathoschild, you ask the wrong question. Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages (secondary) Wikimedia goals? The answer is: "No". Goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to provide knowledge to the human race. As the human race is split up in many, many different language groups, its an obvious conclusion, that we have to support different languages to achieve the goal (without forcing the people to "learn English", but that would be detrimental to the Foundation's goal of providing kowledge cause it would be requiring knowledge instead).
We should try to cover every person on the planet with any of our language editions. But we shouldn't speak about native languages. Cause there are many native languages which have no chance of ever forming a viable Wikipedia community. If there are only ten speakers at all, the whole language community had to engage in writing Wikipedia to create a valuable resource. Of course that is not efficient. It is sad, but we can't support those languages. Therefore we should not speak about "provide knowledge for everybody in his or her native language", but "provide knowledge for everybody in his or her preferred language". The language community of ten speakers will prefer reading encyclopedic material in their second language. Not cause they don't love their native language, but based on rational reasons. So, the nativity is not relevant for the question whether a language is useful to "provide knowledge". It is only relevant, whether there are enough people, who prefer being provided with knowledge in that language, to form a viable community of knowledge-providers and knowledge-receivers (where the community of knowledge-receivers will be much larger than the community of knowledge-providers, cause of reasons of efficiency). Sater Frisian was approved by the language subcommittee, so we can conclude that the subcommittee sees Sater Frisian speakers as a community large enough to be able to create a useful knowledge resource as intended by the Foundation's mission. Or do you disagree? Sater Frisian has less than 2000 speakers. Even if we see Sater Frisian as created in error, there are other languages in the range of some ten thousand speakers. Lower Sorbian with 14,000 for example. So with 15,000 speakers we seem to be on the save side (judging by recent subcommittee actions under the current policy). This coincides with the number of pupils who learn Classical Greek in Germany every year according to the Statistisches Bundesamt (the only number about Classical Greek speakers I could find right away, see de:Griechischunterricht). Add this up with speakers who are not in school anymore and worldwide and you will get a much higher number. Of course you can hardly compare native speakers with learned speakers, but as a mean of aquiring knowledge there is not that much difference. And be aware of the fact, that Sater Frisian and Lower Sorbian are going to die (perhaps measures in preserving the languages will have success in the future, but extrapolating from todays measures of preserving the languages, they are going to die, cause todays measures are not able to stop language shift), when Classical Greek will be teached in school in the future too, like it was teached as a second language for over 2000 years now. In my opinion any sole focus on nativity is bias. --::Slomox:: >< 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(personal comment)Number of native speakers matters not so much as being able to keep up a consistent level of activity on a test project. If a hypothetical language community with 10 speakers left managed to do that, all the more power to them (although I can't imagine such a language community even having internet access). If a community can put that much effort into a test project, it shows they are likely to keep working on a "real" wiki.

Yes, humans speak many, many different languages, but it doesn't change the fact that almost nobody, except for maybe a few language lovers, will ever use a dead language in daily life. I myself am studying Sanskrit. I like Sanskrit, but outside of an academic setting I would never use it. It's just not useful to me in daily life like English is (my native language). While a Classical Greek wiki might be very useful in terms of practicing, reading, or writing it, almost no users will be using it in a non-academic context.

Latin excepted, you can't really discuss modern concepts (like computers) in other ancient languages without borrowing modern words/making a word up or just not writing about them at all. The first scenario GerardM is not fond of. :) In the second, this limits the usefulness of such a project.--Shanel 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

latin excepted. uhmm. you could explain it. and in fact the modern language has the permanent neccesity of borrowing words of the ancient greek for describing new realities. the list of words is interminable in the science and the technique. even nowadays.
I was thinking more of Latin's use in the Vatican. If I remember correctly, they also released a modern Latin dictionary. Personally I think classifying Latin as ancient is a bit misleading, but that's another argument. A modern language can borrow from ancient languages, of course, but it doesn't work so well the other way around. If nobody speaks a language anymore, there is no "authority" on it, so to speak, or no literature to bring new words into common parlance. If you attempt to make new words in a dead language, well it's not the same language anymore, is it? By it's very nature, it's not a changing entity. Any new words you attempt to bring into it will have as much validity as the average w:urban dictionary entry. The Foundation mission it to provide knowlege to mankind that is useful in this present day and age, not to revive ancient languages, as I've said before.--Shanel 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
if we talking about it, the greek is supporting by the greek ortodoxe church, and they speak it even write newspapers, i know (with complete purified vocabulary of modern things). take a lesson of ancient greek in greece of universitary level, that is entirely learn, in... attic greek. yes the professor only talks in it.
@Shanel: almost nobody will ever use a dead language in daily life and almost no users will be using it in a non-academic context. Well, Wikipedia is not daily life, but encyclopedia is a highly academic thing.
That is true, but a Wikipedia in an ancient language *is* really more of an academic exercise than something people can actually use. It is to me anyway. I cannot imagine that someone would really prefer to read about toaster ovens in Sanskrit than in their first language.--Shanel 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
a brazilian, would prefer to read an article in esperanto instead in portuguese? an artificial language isn't an academic excercise, too?. if you find reason for the artificial languages: classical languages aren't in the same condition?. both they haven't got native speakers but they have got a literature that would permit them express concepts and ideas, antiques or moderns.
You are worrying about languages lacking appropiate vocabulary. But every language on earth lacks vocabulary for some things. Try describing the culture of the Evenks without borrowing Evenk words. It's very hard, cause English lacks appropiate vocabulary for many Evenk entities. And Evenk for many English culture entities. I'm sure, a Greek Wikipedia would concentrate on topics, which can be easily expressed in Greek. Ancient Greek culture etc. And when describing non-Greek topics they have to choose a fitting term just like the English or the Evenk have to when describing things not common to their culture. --::Slomox:: >< 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

an aditional comment. in the hellenistic era, greek has design many artifact, like aeolipile, antikythera mechanism, and others. and the language has the capacity of describe the new technique reality of its time. it is also the time of the beginnings of many science like botanic, zoography, etc. too. and the greeks created a terminology for these topics.

See above.--Shanel 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A comment on Shanel's words above: "Personally I think classifying Latin as ancient is a bit misleading, but that's another argument ... If you attempt to make new words in a dead language, well it's not the same language anymore, is it? By it's very nature, it's not a changing entity." These are interesting points. Here's another reason why Latin isn't precisely "dead" or merely "ancient". It isn't just the Vatican that still officially uses Latin and requires Latin vocabulary for new concepts; it's also the botanists, zoologists and microbiologists. Every new name for a species, genus etc. is a new Latin term (and there may be millions still to come!); every botanical species is still officially defined in Latin. In these special ways, Latin is still developing and is in current use, internationally. 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
the same for ancient greek.

Question: Why don't we close Requests for new languages completely? It's obvious the language subcomitee does not want to approve anymore Wikipedias and it invents weird rules so it has a law it can reference. If it doesn't want more Wikipedias, closing the request page would save everyone valuable time and nerves. -- Prince Kassad 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are wikis being approved every month; see Requests for new languages#Recently closed. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:09:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages? (list info). —{admin} Pathoschild 21:15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Approved wikis are not created

The following discussion is closed.

Brion Vibber said: "Currently, no new wikis will be created until GFDL 1.3 is released."[13] Could somebody comment this? A.M.D.F. 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Brion Vibber is the Foundation's Chief Technical Officer, so what he said is indeed true. GFDL 1.3 is in the final stages of drafting, and may apparently be released in a few weeks. The Foundation is planning to update all wikis to that license, which was drafted with its collaboration to better apply to wikis. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:38:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Allow to state the bewilderment: where a direct communication between procedures of creation of new sections and updatings of licenses? It is a pity to a downtime. HalanTul 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but I didn't decide it. Try asking on the Foundation mailing list. —{admin} Pathoschild 13:16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wiki creation has been re-allowed. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:49:21, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad reorganization breaks sorting

The following discussion is closed.

The tables on Requests for new languages have been split by project, but this is unnecessary and breaks sorting. The combined tables can be sorted by clicking on the sort icon next to the heading titles. Importantly, sorting by the first column sorts it by project (making the split entirely unnecessary). The split makes it impossible to sort requests by status and date, which are very important for maintaining the process. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:51:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been written elsewhere .. having the requests by projects and then alphabetically makes for a much more convenient way of working things. It provides a much clearer view of what is happening. At this moment new entries appear all over the place and it happens when I find new requests in unexpected places.
I fail to see how it has an impact on the process, quite to the contrary. GerardM 09:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Entries are already sorted quite neatly by project and then alphabetically in the unified table, but can also be resorted in several different ways. This is not possible when it is split. It is no longer possible to find requests by date of update, for example, short of painstakingly comparing every individual table. I fail to see how splitting the tables has any benefit, quite the contrary. —{admin} Pathoschild 09:25:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Quit reverting each other. It's annoying. You've both broken 3RR. Gerard, please at least don't use rollback to revert Pathoschild. I don't care how the table is organized, just stop with the dick-waving.--Shanel 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dick-waving crisis averted. Now you can both enjoy your bigger e-penises. *runs* --Shanel 09:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(Mine is clearly bigger.) ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 09:42:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: The Belorussian Wikipedias were an exception due to the prior existence of an incorrectly labeled wiki.

If the language policy states that only one language per Wikipedia, then why are there two Belarussian Wikipedias? Oh, but they sure rejected my request for a Wikipedia in Cyrillic Polish! -- Giacomo DiBenedetto 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The language subcommittee only handles requests for new wikis. The Belarussian Wikipedias were created before the implementation of the language subcommittee. SPQRobin (inc!) 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The second Belorussian Wikipedia, that is the one in the "normative" orthography (created in the 1950s) has actually been approved by the language subcommittee, see Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Belarusian normative, so there is a precedent.
However, "Cyrillic Polish", even though not as absurd as Cyrillic Swedish, would still be the invention of a new writing system which nobody uses. Wikipedia is quite definitely not the right place for such experiments. (on a sidenote: one thing I really cannot imagine is Poles embracing the Cyrillic script, taken into account their deep distrust towards Russia but also the long history of written Polish, which goes back to the times of Mieszko I, if I recall correctly)
Apart from that the difference between the Belarussian case and this one would be that the difference between the two flavours of Belarussian are not different scripts but different orthographies. Scripts can be auto-transliterated, there is no need for a separate Wiki. Look at the Kazakh or the Serb Wikipedias. It would be very hard to auto-translate between Belarussian Normative and Tarashkevitsa.
However, there is to my knowledge absolutely no tradition of Polish written in Cyrillic (opposed to Belarussian in Latin script which exists.) If you want to create it, you might want to test on a sandbox environment. Wikipedia is not intended to be a sandbox. --Johannes Rohr 09:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The option preferred by the majority of the language committee was to have the existing Wikipedia either deleted or remove completely the requirement for writing in the non official orthography. This was found to be not acceptable by the community at large. As this was fall out of a problem that existed prior to the change in the language committee, it was not handled according to the LC policy. GerardM 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquotes in historical languages

The following discussion is closed: This should be addressed by the community policy draft.

If historical languages are (theoretically at least) eligible to have their own Wikisource edition, Wikiquote projects should also be permissible. Think of a collection of famous quotes by ancient Greek philosophers in the original language. Wouldn't this be fully legitimate and valuable content? --Johannes Rohr 10:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to that. GerardM 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Generally I agree but I think also it depends. I am not sure if we have to separate the ancient/classical Greek Wikisource from the modern Wikisource. Then to which should the medieval Greek text go? Or while there are requests for antique/classical Japanese Wikipedia (two types are now on Incubator), but the (modern) Japanese Wikisource has already corrected documents in this style or real medieval text (for example, s:ja:宇治拾遺物語). So I think it good to retain the possibility of launching historical language projects as a general principal, that if a certain language project should be separated into the modern one and the historical one (or ones in some cases) are better to be decided by those who know the language very well - the community who are speaking that language. --Aphaia 09:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in cases where a modern successor exists, it would be preferable to have both in one Wikisource edition. However, there are also classical languages with no modern successor. --Johannes Rohr 11:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Or classical languages with many successors which we cannot determine one sole legitimate heir among them (e.g. latin). --Aphaia 13:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I find the idea of wikiquotes in historical languages very good. In my opinion, I think that we can separate the ancient language from the modern, as the ancient greek language for example (as said in its ISO) lasts until 1453 so aften this period all texts go to the modern greek wiki so there isn't a problem.--ZaDiak 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be addressed by the community policy draft. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:08:06, 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion transferred from the metapub

The following discussion is closed: Proposal not implemented

Proposal to switch to ISO 639-3 codes

So far the domain names of WikiMedia are using a hotchpotch of language codes. The two letter codes like en: de: fr: nl: etc. are obsolete ISO 639-2 codes, for some of the more 'exotic' languages we are already forced to use ISO 639-3 three letter codes. Can we please be more consistent?

There are good reasons why ISO switched to three letter codes. There simply are not enough two letter combinations for all languages and some of them are terribly confusing, e.g. sw stands for Swahili but is regularly taken to mean Swedish and ch stands for Chamorro but don't tell the Swiss that! See e.g. here and on the Chamorro wiktionary itself.

When is WikiMedia going to do something about this problem? Please let us convert to strictly three letter codes! I realize that that is a big job because all names have to be changed, but the longer we wait the bigger the problem. Jcwf 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC) nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf

Perhaps Wikimedia could create a rule to only allow new wikis under three letter codes. Additionally Wikimedia could create three letter code redirects to all existing two letter code projects. And we should allow all projects to switch to three letter code, if they want to. But I think it is unrealistic to force all projects to use three letter codes. This proposal will never find a majority. And actually neither ISO 639-2 nor ISO 639-1 are obsolete. I don't see any problem with using codes from different codesets. If the Chamorro community has a problem with their specific code, I propose you talk to the Language subcommittee about switching to the code cha. But there is no reason to switch all codes. --::Slomox:: >< 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Not if you are oblivious to the advantages of consistency. It reminds me of satellites impacting on Mars.. Kilometers versus miles I believe.. And yes the ISO codes are the only system the wiktionaries have sort out 4000 languages or so. The Dutch wiktionary has decided to switch to three letter codes some time ago, but we are forced to write silly things like :*{{eng}}: {{trad|en|silly}} to make it work, i.e. we are forced to maintain two systems. Jcwf 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Consistency like "keeping discussions consistent by not cluttering them over several places"? Please name a realistic example (besides Petersburg, FL, or San Francisco being erased by crashing satellites) how using ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2/3 side by side could mean any danger or just inconvenience. --::Slomox:: >< 03:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The 'cluttering' was inconsistency suggested by you Slomox. I also mentioned at least three examples but you consistently ignore them. But then why would you worry that a tiny language community like Chamorro is expected to clean up the mess the Swiss leave behind? Jcwf 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggested you ask the subcommittee about the special case of Chamorro, not to copy the whole discussion and to carry on discussion in two places.
Your examples are not examples for disadvantages brought by inconsistency through using two systems, but are a general problem of any codes. It is imaginable that there are three-letter codes which could be mistaken for another language, when the corresponding two-letter code is not misleading. If there is a strong feeling in Swahili or Chamorro community to switch to three-letter codes, I would support it. But I would not support a general move to three-letter codes. --::Slomox:: >< 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The ISO-639-1 codes will be used in the ISO-639-6. The notion that the alpha 2 codes are obsolete is wrong. The ISO-639-6 will be alpha 4 but when a linguistic entity matches exactly with a language recognised earlier, the oldest code will be used. GerardM 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I give up: there is nothing worse than people you consistently changing standards back and forth. These ISO-morons should be shot. Jcwf 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no inconsistency; the number after 639 is not a version number. These are 3 closely-related but separate standards. 639-1 and 639-2 are subsets of 639-3, not earlier versions. For a more detailed explanation, see "What's the plan for ISO 639-3 and RFC 3066 ter?" on the ietf-languages mailing list.
Furthermore, languages are synchronized; if a wiki already exists for a language, all new wikis will use the same code. If you want to suggest renaming existing wikis, please discuss on the Foundation-l mailing list instead (the language subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over existing wikis). —{admin} Pathoschild 01:49:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

stq vs. frs

Somewhat related, stq: should have been ISO 639-2 frs. The ISO 639-3 folks (SIL) tried to synchronize their work with 639-2 before the standard was published, but obviously they missed the relatively new frs and ended up with two codes for the same language. It's no disaster, stq won't be reused for anything else, but still annoying. I had fixed the Wikipedia article, but as it is, somebody unfixed it three weeks later not bothering with an edit history. 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think stq should be frs or that stq is not valid ? BOTH are valid ISO-639-3 codes. There is currently a discussion going about exactly this topic on the IETF mailing list about this as well, they make a distinction between the two. GerardM
The IETF archives seem to be public ([14]). Can you point us to the discussion? --::Slomox:: >< 12:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I found it by myself (through the link provided one section above). [15] But could you outline the role of IETF in some short words? Are they able to change codes or what is their relationship to ISO 639? --::Slomox:: >< 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) works closely with some ISO standards bodies, but does not have authority over them. IETF publishes a language tag standard which is largely derived from ISO 639 codes. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan language project

The following discussion is closed: Outside subcommittee's jurisdiction

Please reopen the Moldovan projectthat has been blocked for political reasons. It is very inconsiderate and premature to close the section in the Moldovan language (Cyrillic alphabet). It is still official in the republic of Transnistria. Whether or not the republic itself is reconized politically is a matter of a political debate. It has still existed for 17 years and is unlikely to vanish in the near future. Also, most Moldovans in the neighboring Ukraine (a 300,000 strong minority) use the cyrillic script. Besdies, literacy in Eastern Romance language was started and later existed for 500 years in a cyrillic script. Other examples: Tatar Wiki exists in the Latin script even though Cyrillic is the only official alphabet in Tatarstan, we also have a Serb-Croation project in additian to Serbian and Croation. Low levels of activity that the project had earlier is explained by low levels of internet usage in the rural regions of Eastern Europe but this is likely to change in the near future. 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you contribute there if it will be unblocked? A.M.D.F. 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Moldovan Wikipedia was closed as a result of community discussion, not by decision of the language subcommittee. The language subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over project closures. Please discuss this on the Foundation-l mailing list. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:22:23, 08 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue waiting...

The following discussion is closed: Wikis created

Hi all! Well... i write this message because the last approved batch of wikis is not yet created, and nobody say anything in the bugzilla... :S

The extremaduran wiki was approved two months ago, and the Hungarian wikinews has already 100 days approved, so... what happened with the "GFDL 1.3"? Anybody can tell us when the wikis will be moved? How will they be moved? We will have to change all the links, articles, categories... with the prefix "Wp/ext"? Thank you! Better 09:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PD.- I know the language subcommittee is not guilty of this delay, but well... if somebody could answer me those questions... Better 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any news? --HalanTul 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody knows if there are news? Could anybody say a date? Better 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, but well... nobody knows anything new? Better 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All the wikis has been created. 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) --OosWesThoesBes 13:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You have to copy the content over there manually yourself though, because these wikis are under a dual license, which the Incubator content isn't. You must not copy content you haven't made yourself; everyone will have to copy their own content. It is inconvenient, I know, but it's the simplest way of going through that license change. Jon Harald Søby 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll move the content over. See the Foundation-l thread for a discussion of the licensing issues. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:36:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand... have we (the users of the approved wikis) got to do anything? At the momment we are waiting. On the other hand, some people started copying articles at ext wikipedia, so i think they would have to be deleted, isn't it? Thank you! Better 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with interwiki links too, an aragonese sysop made a interwiki link to the new extwiki in anwiki, but it doesn't work, anybody know how to fix it? Thanks! Better 09:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Thak you! Better 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian-Romanian Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: Request rejected

Dear all, I have just created the request on Metawiki[16] for joining the two language Wikipedias into one. Please, express yourself.--Moldopodo 12:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue for the language committee to decide, but rather up the two communities (mo and ro). Jon Harald Søby 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I strongly feel the discussions regarding Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Moldavian-Romanian should be closed.
  • On one side we have those saying that "Moldovan language" is a Soviet political invention for ethnic engineering. This is backed-up by quotations from: Library of Congress, Harvard, BBC, NY School of Law etc. Not from WP, which by itself is not a source. Arguments come from 3rd party scientific sources, not Moldovan, not Romanian.
  • On the other side we have some arguing in favor of "Moldovan language". Their only argument consists in the legislation of Moldova, made by the ex-Soviet communists, now "democrat" communists, a follow up of Stalin's policy.
I have provided:
  • the above mentioned scientific independent opinions
  • the reasons why the proposal fails WM:LPP basic request no 3
  • I have even answered void arguments like: irrelevant, POV and speculative (addressed to the above sources, too)
We have had the same discussion about two years ago. Almost no one edited it. Virtually all users from Moldova edited, as they do now, without complain the Romanian WP. All this, though, are not enough for me to call for an end of this charade. But when the very initiator of this "proposal" attacks his opponents with chauvinistic assertions [17], IMO it means that we must put a stop on it. We have other thing to do, like e.g. editing articles. Thank you. Adriatikus 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Closed by GerardM. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:29:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote en Aragones

The following discussion is closed: Request open

Hola, hago la solicitud para crear una Wikiquote en Aragones, a las dos personas que estamos llevando a cabo el pryecto nos gusta el nombre de Wikipoyes, Wikipoyes avanzaria relativamente rapido, ya q se pueden copiar articulos de Wikiquote en español--Aldo Cazzulino 555 00:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

La solicitud ya está abierto a Requests for new languages/Wikiquote Aragonese 2. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:33:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page renamings at Incubator

The following discussion is closed.

Just to inform you of the latest policy change at Wikimedia Incubator: The main pages will be renamed from "Wx/xx" to "Wx/xx/Main_Page" where the title "Main Page" is of course translated, e.g. "Wp/nl" to "Wp/nl/Hoofdpagina". The old page will contain a template with information. Greetings, SPQRobin (inc!) 16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Multi-script feature should be added to some wikipedias

The following discussion is closed: Not a subcommittee task

I think it would be fair to add multi-script feature to all languages which have more than one well-established and widely used written form, such as Romanian, Tatar, Kazakh etc, like it was done with Serbo-Croatian. This would put end to our endless debates about reopening Moldovan Wikipedia and other issues.--Nxx 12:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a feature is not that obvious. Typically there is no round trip algorithm from one script to the other.. Such an algorithm needs to be developed as well, who is going to do this ??? ... Thanks, 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Such features are created and implemented by system administrators, not the language subcommittee. Multilingual MediaWiki is a good starting point for what you're looking for, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:44:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought MediaWiki developers do that? Btw, see also bug 15161. SPQRobin (inc!) 11:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The system administrators are MediaWiki developers, and are the ones who review and implement extensions for Wikimedia wikis. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:38:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

community is requesting to change current language proposal policy

The following discussion is closed: Draft not complete, no consensus

hi, langcom members.

Many people strongly disagree with current language proposal and request you for a change.

community has made a draft, that you can check here. Community respectfully guess you have made a mistake, and request you a little humility.

take our suggestion for a change.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazymadlover (talk • contribs) .

You may wish to post a notice about that to Metapub. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That draft is a work in progress, and there is no consensus to use it yet. Please discuss this on Meta talk:Language proposal policy/Community draft or Metapub rather than here. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:02:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Masry

The following discussion is closed: updated

please update the page of unoficial analysis of the Masry wiktionary[18]thanks----Ramsis II 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:30:18, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of the fact that the translation of all the messages has been performed now, I would like to ask if this means that the project is going to be eligible for approval like its sister wikipedia Masry, many thanks . Ghaly 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The last requirement to be met is for an active test project, measured by the analysis script. As a general rule of thumb, the test project will be considered active if the analysis lists at least four active, not-grayed-out editors contributing meaningfully over multiple months (although practical considerations, such as the use of bots, are taken into account). —{admin} Pathoschild 18:56:53, 03 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think on the analysis script now shows 14 editors, including 6 non grayed editors four of them are known active users for a long time on wikipedia Masry and on wikitionary Masry as well , would that make any difference to the possibility of approval? Ghaly 07:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Malay

The following discussion is closed: one requirement left

Please have a look at Wikisource Malay. Thanks! Aviator 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The last requirement to be met is for an active test project, measured by the test project analysis. As a general rule of thumb, the test project will be considered active if the analysis lists at least three or four active, not-grayed-out editors contributing meaningfully over multiple months (although practical considerations, such as the use of bots, are taken into account). —{admin} Pathoschild 17:15:19, 08 September 2008 (UTC)
But I saw four active contributors listed in that analysis. Aviator 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my description wasn't very clear. The requirement is for roughly three active editors each month for the last few months. This is not currently the case. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bakhtiari

please update the page of unoficial analysis of the bakhtiari Wikipedia[19]thanks--Behdarvandyani 18:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. The last remaining requirement is to maintain the test project activity. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:12:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello I propose the final approval of the bakhtiari Wikipedia[20] [21] [22]--Behdarvandyani 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bakhtiari

please update the page of unoficial analysis of the bakhtiari Wikipedia[23]thanks--Behdarvandyani 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Kirmanjki

Wikipedia Sepedi

Done. GerardM 12:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Masry status page

The following discussion is closed.

please update , the localization is done [26] thanks--Ramsis II 16:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Pathoschild 21:53:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Existing wikis are not managed by langcom.

Hoi. There are two projects w:ak: and w:tw: which both mean the same language, Akan/Twi. The Twi understand themselves as Akan, cf. w:tw:Twi, they claim to have the same dialects (Asante Twi, Akuapem Twi, Akyem Twi) that are usually described for Akan. Both wikis have 40-50 articles (many of them not encyclopedic, but dictionary-like stuff, empty pages or stories (note the note at the very bottom...). Wouldn't it be better to (at least) fuse the two wikis to one Akan/Twi wiki? According to the actual criteria for new languages, Twi itself (in its narrow sense as other name for the Akuapem dialect of Akan) would not get a project since it doesn't have an ISO-3 code. This posting was written by Thogo (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

1. The language comitee is not responsible for existing wikis, 2. Twi has a code, 3. go and request it at Proposals for closing projects, if your reasons are good it will be accepted. -- Prince Kassad 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You refer to Ethnologue, but that's documentation; in these situation SIL should be used, and SIL says aka (Akan) is a macrolanguage of twi (Twi) and fat (Fanti). So (at least for future wikis) the code "ak" can't be used (Langcom doesn't accept macrolanguages). SPQRobin (inc!) 12:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no precedent against macrolanguage tags if they are applicable, but new wikis are synchronized with existing wikis. Even if the existing wikis use an incorrect tag, new wikis will be created using the same tag to keep them in synch. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:12:16, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

Reopening of closed wikis

The following discussion is closed: No precedent, but possible

I need some clarification: should a closed project follow the normal procedure here, or should it be just asked at Bugzilla? Because, previously, it was just asked, but now (see bug 10443) you're referred to here if you want to open it. And also, the Langcom doesn't decide for existing wikis: "existing" in the sense of editable or an existing subdomain? Please clarify, thank you, SPQRobin (inc!) 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no precedent, but wikis that were closed due to lack of activity could be requested through this procedure. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Alabama

The following discussion is closed: Done

Could somebody please add it to the Requests for new languages list? I can't because I am not registrated.

--Ulohnanne 14:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Pontic

Hello, I thought that we 'll should be formally make the proposal here. The Pontic Wikipedia has fulfilled all the requirements of the unofficial analysis that puts the language comitee. And we want an answer on whether it will be approved.

--Consta 07:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We made the edits for the month October, and we are "active" (for this month). How many months must continue even? --Consta 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On using namespaces for languages on oldwikisource

On oldwikisource: we have many languages tossed in together, both as a type of specialised incubator, and also as storage unit for texts which will never have a functioning community because the language is not in use. Would it be more appropriate to create a namespace for each language. This would allow for pages in each namespace to be automatically served with the right language code, and if a community develops, the pages can be imported to the new wiki without being renamed. Are there any negatives? Is this feasible or desirable? John Vandenberg 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for new languages /Wikipedia Simple Spanish

The following discussion is closed: Request rejected

can you please add this to the Requests for new languages list? NYC43 20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That request has been rejected as not meeting the requirements for eligibility. —Pathoschild 21:42:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tabrizi

please update the page of unoficial analysis of the tabrizi Wikipedia[27]thanks--Tabrizi 09:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no request for this language and consequently there is no reason to have an unofficial analysis. Thanks, GerardM 10:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Diversity of net-languages/Diversidad de lenguas de internet /Diversité des langues d'internet

Hello/Bonjour/Salam/Buenos dias/Ni hao etc...

I find pity that there is no Surjyk Wikipedia. Each dialect, creole and language can be in Wikipedia. To say eligible or not is not understable, every form of language has to be on the net. Because there are not just "big" languages or "States" languages in the world. Je tenais à dire cela car cela me tient à coeur. Diversidad hace nuestro mundo ¿ y porqué hay barriera para expresarla? No sé.


I cannot find anything about the Surjyk language. There are certain requirements for a language in order for it to get a Wikipedia. Knowing that a language exists is the first thing. By this name I cannot find a thing. Thanks, GerardM 11:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello GerardM,

OK but a language is very mobile and can be just oral sometimes -by the way there is a Wikipedia article on Surzhyk: -( Singlish : English of Singapore, and many others possible examples... ). You can read articles in books and on internet made by professors about Surjyk speaking. I give you a link on internet:

and at the end you have a bibliography of the question of disglossy and multilingualism in Ukraine. Thanks for answering

Good reading

Please study the requirements for a language proposal. Surzhyk does not have an ISO-639-3 code and consequently does not qualify. Please consider applying for a code. Thanks, GerardM 20:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hej, So criteres must be changed, it is a peculiar form of language, it is just oral and daily life. Dank U voor de detaillen

Babel templates and language discussion in the German Wikipedia

In the German Wikipedia, there is a discussion about (missing) ISO codes for local languages of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Tyrol, and few more languages related to German. It came up from a proposal to delete (or change) Babel templates and categories using "invented" codes conflicting with existing ISO 639 (1-2-3) codes. I believe that, LangCom members who understand German sufficiently should have a glance at the lengthy discussion, and if possible, provide suggestions or guidance. No problem to do that in English. My major point for this suggestion is the obvious lack of background knowledge (or even deliberate ignorance) that some expressed durung the discussion, that imho should be offset. See de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/23._Oktober_2008#LAs_zu_Babeldialekten, but best start with the TOC of de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/23._Oktober_2008 so as to get an overview.

Thank you.
--Purodha Blissenbach 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Igpay Atinlay

Is there a Wikipedia in Pig Latin?

No. —Pathoschild 02:49:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Transparency for everyone

the clause for transparency is met for every member of langcom except for two.

Why is possible that 2 people are excepted, by their choice of a rule as important?

I think it is inadmissible.


Historic low in new languages

Hi everybody! Just now, I've had quick look at the list of recently closed requests for new languages. Is my perception correct that there has been only one new Wikipedia in the second half of 2008 (i. e. a grand total of one new language [Egyptian Arabic])? And if that should indeed be correct: what are the main reasons for this standstill - despite the record high number of serious requests, substantial Incubator activities and a special committee responsible for new language issues? Thanks in advance for any replies! --ARBE0 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, there are many highly active proposals just waiting to be accepted, but they're just ignored for some reason. -- Prince Kassad 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pontic Greek