|Language committee (contact page about requests)|
Please add any questions or feedback to the language committee here on this page.
Archives of this page
See also: Requests for new languages/Archives
- 1 Livvi-Karelian Wiki (olo)
- 2 Question about Hokkien Wikipedia
- 3 Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016
- 4 What it take to move a proposal from "discussion" phase to "verified as eligible"?
- 5 Status of Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Mongolian_written_in_Mongolian_script
- 6 Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Arabic
- 7 Ancient Greek Wikisource
- 8 Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Greek
Livvi-Karelian Wiki (olo)
Подскажите, как быть дальше. На данном этапе в Olo-wiki около 1000 статей, активная работа продолжается. Как нам выйти из инкубатора? There is about 1000 articles in Wiki-OLO. What we should do next? - Ilja.mos
Question about Hokkien Wikipedia
This isn't a request, but I'm not sure exactly where to ask this. I'm just wondering why Holopedia is written in POJ Romanization rather than Han characters. My understanding is that Han character based writing, at least for Taiwanese, is far more common than any Romanization based system.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Prisencolin: Maybe the comment of Sunshine567 at nan:Wikipedia:Chhiū-á-kha#有關Wikia漢字版閩南語維基百科 will help you? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016
What it take to move a proposal from "discussion" phase to "verified as eligible"?
There are some really short proposals like the proposal for Wikipedia Reunionese Creole getting verified really quick, while on the other hand there are some proposals like Wikipedia Kupang Malay or Wikipedia European Portuguese 3 having some more detailed introduction/discussion and still not getting verified. What it take to make a proposal being move on to either on-hold or verified as eligible? C933103 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @C933103: Since you mentioned Wikipedia European Portuguese 3, I'm wondering what's the problem in Portuguese wikis, only Brazil vs. Portugal? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
In the request, it said the request is on hold because "Mongolian script is written from top to down and MediaWiki doesn't support it yet. (Actually, even browsers don't support it yet, except Internet Explorer.) The request is on hold until software starts to support it.". However, it is no longer true in the current point of time. The Mediawiki software can also support displayinh top to down text to some extent although the interface is not ready, and both the latest Firefox and Chrome as well as some other browsers all supported top to down writing, as evidenced by navigating  in those browsers. Thus I believe the project status shall switch from on hold to verified as the computer support for the language is no longer a problem. C933103 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Can we get some comments from the Language committee members about the status of the Wikivoyage Arabic request? The test project has been in Incubator since November 2012 and the required localization is at 100% for MediaWiki core and Extensions used by Wikimedia. (Check localization statistics.) The test wiki currently has 729 articles. --Meno25 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Ancient Greek Wikisource
I have just accidentally discovered that the request for Ancient Greek Wikisource had been verified as eligible project. The only condition is that English will be the default language for the interface.
I guess this status for the Ancient Greek Wikisource is still valid. But what is standing on the way to receive the final approval.
- Ousia there does not seem to be any active community there, and even more problematic is the fact that it's not really ancient Greek but mostly modern Greek. However, there is an ancient Greek Wikipedia incubator that is content rich, has strong support and is community engaged (see below). Gts-tg (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is the lack of activity. It seems there are only 5 pages so far. --MF-W 01:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The project has been having:
- strong support,
- has been localised,
- has been having 4-6 active editors for 6 months in a row,
- and has 2000+ articles written.
- @Gts-tg: I'm just not sure what do you think about #4 of LPP#Requisites for eligibility. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: I think that there are 2 ways #4 can be addressed. One is via providing some evidence of living speakers, something which the proposal's request page has attempted to do in the best way that it could. The 2nd way, is to simply see the forest for the tree, in other words that there is a strong demand, an active community, there is content, and there are tons of available material in the language for the wiki proposed, so in the event that the proposal is going to be rejected based on a strictly bureaucratic reading then maybe this could lead to a major and constant push for a policy change so that oxymorons like these are avoided. The Latin Wikipedia is one successful example of a Wiki in a classical language (100+k articles). Ancient Greek is too much of an important and core language to not have its own Wikipedia. The argument that Latin Wikipedia (as well as Sanskrit and others) were created before the policy changed in 2008 and ever since no other classical languages can be created, fails to see that the demand for this language to have it's own wiki is not going to go away, no matter how many years or decades go by. Gts-tg (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)