Talk:Language committee

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

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

  • Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.
  • Please only add a request for update if there is something to update; and mention it.

Archives of this page

2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015

See also: Requests for new languages/Archives

Support : Request to include Latin script Konkani in the gom Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Language Committee, Painstakingly I have worked to build up articles in the Latin script Konkani on Gom Wikipedia. I have added more than 800 pages approximately. And also others have contributed. There is a lot of Konkani knowledge available in Latin Script which needs a platform to put it together in one place. This will be accessible to the Konkani speaking community spread world wide. We are not getting any grants. It is our love for our Mother tongue and the desire to make its knowledge accessible to our community worldwide.

The Konkani speaking community located outside India speak the mother tongue Konkani at home. But the script is an issue for them to access. As not all of them can understand the Devanagiri or Kannada Script. The Latin script is internationally known. There are many languages which do not have script of their own but use Latin Script. Tourist and other people who do not know the vernacular scripts will find the Latin script helpful also, Since Goa is also a Tourist destination.

I have used a software to transliterate articles from Latin Konkani to Devanagiri Konkani and these have been posted in the Gom Wikipedia. But as I have mentioned not all can read the Devanagiri or Kannada Script, Latin Script becomes handy since all know the Latin script. It would be injustice to the Konkani language and spread of its knowledge if the Latin Script is not included as many who cannot understand the vernacular script will have no access. They will find Gom Wikipedia unaccessible just becuase of the script. I also intend to continue transliterating literature available now on Gom Wikipedia into Latin Script.

Do consider this earnest and sincere request to include the Latin Script articles of Konkani in the Gom Wikipedia. Together the Devanagiri and Latin Script Konkani will enrich each other for the spread of knowledge in Konkani to Konkani speaking community which are spread all over the world. They are mostly settled in Canada, United Kingdom, Portugal, Australia, USA, Pakistan and the Middle East. These people do not know the vernacular script but know the Latin Script and will be able to read and understand Knowledge in their Mother tongue - Konkani. Hope Wikipedia does no injustice to the Latin Script Konkani articles. It is already suffering due to suppression from various sources.

Hope the Language Committee does not suppress the Latin Script Konkani which has been used for more than 400 years and is still being used daily

Thanking you in anticipation of a positive action

Rosario Fernandes

Saraiki Language[edit]

Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Saraiki is sent for Saraiki. Kindly look in to matter. Create Saraiki Wiki. Saraiki is an important language. Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989[1] and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan[2] was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad,[3] and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five T V channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language.

Request for early creation of Khowar Wikipedia[edit]

wikipedia laki[edit]

we working on Wikipedia laki test edition and we cmplate it's but my languge not exist in languge list test like wiki incbotor or wiki media ....pleas add to list for final cmplate to translation for me languge -Hosseinblue (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikinews and Wikivoyage Thai[edit]

Please Open that by final decision please Now Wiki Thai want to open them [1] [2] --Parintar (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Esperanto[edit]

Hi! Can you please decide about our project and create a new wiki? We have a strong and active community, and, what is really necessary, a lot of content. --Ochilov (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016[edit]

{{edit semi-protected|Requests for new languages|answered=no}} May I post a link my page for a language suggestion for Wikipedia? HorseSnack (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. Why is this an editprotect request?
  2. To which page exactly do you want to link from where? --MF-W 01:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource Hindi[edit]

Language committee/Status/ws/hi hasn't been updated in 7 years. Currently, Hindi texts are hosted at s:mul:Category:हिन्दी, and there are enough to warrant a new wiki. We also have Bengali, Sanskrit, Marathi, Telugu, Oriya, and Tamil Wikisources, so Hindi is long due. When can we expect a Hindi wikisource? Aryamanarora (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Mongolian written in Mongolian script"[edit]

In Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mongolian written in Mongolian script, the request were put onto hold because "Mongolian script is written from top to down and MediaWiki doesn't support it yet". But as I can see from ASL Wikipedia, it seem like vertical writing direction is supported. So why is this still on hold? C933103 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: Look like an incubator for it have been created at [3]. It use mvf because it's the ISO 639-3 code for the "Peripheral Mongolian" (South-Eastern Mongolian) which is the stanadard version of Mongolian used in Inner Mongolia and also the main place where the (Traditional) Mongolian script is used (whereas the Mongolian written in Cyrillic script as they are on the current Mongolia Wikipedia were mainly used in Republic of Mongolia), but they are not satisfied with this code usage because:


1.According to what's written in the request and my own understanding, they believe the version of Mongolian used in Inner Mongolilan are more predominant than the Mongolian used in Republic of Mongolian and written in Cyrillic Script, which according to standard, the more predominant language can be represented by the macrolanguage code (Note that Cyrillic Mongolian user might oppose this), and thus they think they should get the code of mn while let the existing Mongolian Wikipedia become khk if the final decision is to create two separate Wikipedia base on the language different to reflect the different use of script, and 2. While most Traditional Mongolian Script user are Inner Mongolian user, there are also RoM Mongolian users which support the creation of a Traditional Mongolian Script Wikipedia, which shows the script difference does not lie entirely along the line of language different, and 3. mvf only represent South-Eastern Mongolian language and there are also North Eastern Mongolian (bxu) and Western Mongolian (xal) speaking in Inner Mongolia which some might collectively call them Inner Mongolian. (despite the ISO standard does not view bxu/xal as part of the Mongolian macrolanguage, there're actually a language continuum there which make people there consider they're same language with different regional speaks.)

But set the language code conflict aside, most people spoken in the request apparently does not reject the idea of creating an separate Inner Mongolian Wikipedia written in Traditional Mongolian Script if it is impossible to facilitate intrawiki script conversion or create another Wikipedia base on script different.

Note#2: Another proposal for it exist at Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mongolian (Traditional Mongolian Script) which probably can be consider as a duplicate request?

Note#3: Someone in the request also mentioned about if it is not possible to create an alternative Wikipedia simply due to C933103 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@C933103: American Sign Language Wikipedia is using the Signwriting Gadget. However, the Traditional Mongolian is originally designed as a vertical script.
Note that currently the source codes (i.e. when editing) are still left-to-right, only vertical rendering is supported. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I saw support editing vertically (despite I am not clear about what implementation they used) but that mean it should be doable. C933103 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Language proposal policy's Requisites for eligibility[edit]

For languages under revitalization efforts, should clause 4 of the eligibility requisite be relaxed a bit? It currently require "living native speakers to form a viable community and audience", but if you look at revival of Hebrew, people start using Hebrew for daily conversation since year 1880s, and Tel Aviv established in 1909 as a Hebrew-speaking city, however it's only during Mandate period which start after WWII where people start teaching children Hebrew as their mother language. It'd probably take at least 20 years for children to grow into people who can form a contributor community and to articulate enough amount of native speaker. So even in this idealistic Hebrew revitalization case, it would still take 60 years for Wikipedia before Wikipedia would create a Hebrew version for them if we already have Wikipedia back then. Probably it would be a good idea to put the requirement for Language under revitalization effort down to the same line as the requirement for artificial languages? C933103 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, waiting 60 years before creating a Wikipedia in a resuscitated language is a good idea. Wikipedia needs sources in the language, which need to be created first. Nemo 21:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Realistically, a resuscitated language can't help being to some significant degree artificial, exactly because of the unavailability of native speakers. The main trouble with applying the artificial-language standards to a resuscitated language is that those resuscitating it will probably have political reasons for denying the artificiality. --Pi zero (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thus I suppose it'd be a good idea to reword the section to say language under revitalization effort can also be accepted under certain condition even with no or close to no native speaker.C933103 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Take Hebrew's case as an example again, according to the wp article, after Mendele start writing Hebrew in a new style by discarding some rules, people already start writing Hebrew in Newspaper, Magazine, and translating scientific books into Hebrew which I think these could already been treat as sources for Hebrew Wikipedia back to the 19th century. C933103 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
incubator:Wp/hbo? Note that Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Hebrew has rejected. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I am talking about an hypothetical situation for modern Hebrew in 19th-20th century, with the intention that if Langcom agree to changes its policy, then it might be able to apply on some other languages that are currently under revitalization efforts without having to wait for the born of new native speakers.C933103 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
On consideration, I agree that languages undergoing revitalization should be treated as favorably as artificial languages; as I remarked above, for many practical purposes such languages are artificial languages — with the important asset of an advocating community — except that it's usually tactless to call them "artificial". It seems appropriate to recommend a specific edit to the policy text, with the purpose of clarifying that languages under revitalization can be treated similarly to artificial languages (so that it isn't necessary for those promoting revitalization to swallow the bitter pill of calling their language "artificial"). How about inserting into the subitem of clause 4, following the word Esperanto and its comma, the phrase "or a language undergoing revitalization efforts such as Irish," so that the entire clause would become
  • If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, or a language undergoing revitalization efforts such as Irish, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language committee).
--Pi zero (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Do others agree with the change and is it suitable for me to directly edit the policy as suggested above?C933103 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No. I will bring this topic to the Langcom mailing list. --MF-W 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The relevant data point about Hebrew is not the establishing of Tel Aviv as a Hebrew-speaking city in 1909, but the establishment of Hebrew-medium schools in the 1880s. So, if Wikipedia was available in the 19th century, the children in these schools wouldn't be able to find homework help in the language of their school.
By 1909 there was already a generation of young adults who spoke Hebrew. When done right, it takes much less than thirty years, not sixty. Hebrew is an extreme example of language revitalization done right, but comparable things happened with some languages of Russia, as well as with Catalan and some other languages. If outside of Wikipedia the language is used in any kind of education, then a Wikipedia in it is definitely eligible.
Also, the lack of sources in the same language is not a blocker at all. People who are motivated enough to read external sources in a different language can learn a different language. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

“Wikipedia Burushaski”[edit]

Hello. I found an isolated page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Burushaski, but I probably should not touch it. Could anyone dispose of it in an appropriate way? --Eryk Kij (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it. --MF-W 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope that someone who is eager to establish someday will post there in an appropriate way. --Eryk Kij (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Jamaican Wikipedia[edit]

Hi! I would like to ask for approval of this project. SPQRobin stated that "the required localization has been done" and we have a a lot of articles with new editions every day. --Katxis (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata at Meta[edit]

Please see Template_talk:New_wiki_request#Language's item at Wikidata.

There is now also a list of codes at d:Help:Wikimedia language codes/lists/all. It includes those where the language's item includes it. --Jura1 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Teochew Wikipedia[edit]

In Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Teochew, the request to create a Teochew Wikipedia were put on hold due to its lack of individual ISO 639 1-3 code. However, according to discussion down below the page, it seems like Teochew language actually meet the requirement needed to obtain a separate language code, just that because doing so would affect the nan code, they doesn't give Teochew a new code. The language proposal policy say "The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language. The information that distinguishes this language from another must be sufficient to convince standards organizations to create an ISO 639 code.". In Teochew's case they seems to fulfill all these rationale listed behind the ISO code requirement in the policy but they still unable to get their own ISO code. Is an exemption possible in this case? C933103 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)