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.

Archives of this page

See also: Requests for new languages/Archives

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

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

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

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

  • Now that the project is eligible, would it be possible to adopt as a Wikipedia project? Although it is not necessary to be desirable due to situation of wikipedia accessibility in china. C933103 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    @C933103: In principle, if that wiki was created under similar (or more lenient) access/licensing rules than we have here, then it could be imported to Incubator. That said, think long and hard about whether or not it wouldn't be better off staying in a domain that won't be blocked. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
    Additionally, @C933103: what's the copyright status of uhaan site that you pointed? If not under public domain/CC BY(-SA)/GFDL/GPL/MIT/BSD... then I don't think we have opinion to reuse them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Humm the site claims they're free and open but no particular license have been claimed. When user edit articles there are also no info on copyright status that I can see. Although it seems like many of the site's content were translated from Mongolian Wikipedia that the share alike clause might help? C933103 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Montenegrin language[edit]

Regarding the comment that Montenegrin language is not authentic, but a jekavian variant of Serbian language, I am hereby sending you the arguments which prove it is not correct. After the decay of SFRY the agreed artificial so called Serbo-Croatian or Croatian-Serbian language officially ceased to exist, so the logical consequence was for the following separate socio-linguistic languages of Shtokavian origin to evolve as independent: Bosnian, Montenegrin, Croatian and Serbian. Naturally, within these languages certain structural specificities developed. Such specificities are not negligible and cannot be annihilated by a thesis that if there are no communication obstacles, we cannot speak about different languages. Montenegrins created their language in the process of their own development in the capacity of an authentic and self-grown nation in specific natural and historical conditions. As such, it has three layers: 1. first part are general Shtokavian language features (common in Bosnian, Montenegrin, Croatian and Serbian languages); 2. second part are the features from general Montenegrin language layer (macro-structure); and 3. third layer comprises features of local speech patterns pertaining to Montenegrin dialects (micro-structures).

Basic structural difference between these languages, among others, is their phonemic composition. “Surplus” Montenegrin phonemes are ś and ź. In Montenegro, they are commonly acknowledged, which is why they have been included in the Montenegrin standards. Confirmation of their phonemic nature are numerous: Śoga : šoga, śenka : Senka, Źagore : zagore, Źagora : Zagora, 3avala : zavala, śetni : ćetni, śenica : šenica, śutra : jutra, śenka : ženka; źenica : ženica, źato : zato, Źale : Zale. Numerous authors have pointed out to the general presence of voices ś and ź in Montenegrin dialects, as well as to the custom of the voice з in these speeches (even though the last one often alternated with z under the influence of Serbian language which is still officially in use in Montenegro, and because it was impossible to write it). Based on the Montenegrin onomastic substance, the omnipresence of voices ś and ź in Montenegrin language is irrefutably evident. Contrary to the mentioned phonological system of Montenegrin language, Serbian standard language has 30 phonemes. Montenegrin specific phonemes mentioned above appear very rarely in Serbian speeches, and thus pertain to the dialectical layer of that language.

Serbian standard language does not know voices ś and ź as products of jekavian iotation. There, it is always: sjekira, sjesti, sjetiti, brezje, klasje, osje, kozji, pasji, zjenica, izjesti etc. Instead of these forms, in Montenegrin language the following forms are standard and omnipresent: śekira, śenica, śesti, śetiti, śutra, klaśe, ośe, paśi, iźesti, iźelica, koźi, źenica, źenični etc. As such, these forms have a dialectical, or mostly local status. In Serbian language, they are very solitary part of the dialect, thus not being part of its standard. These forms entered Serbian language mostly from the territory of Montenegro by mass migrations starting from the 15th century. In Montenegrin language, these voices are its unavoidable and distinguished part. In view of the creation and development of consonants ś and ź, they cannot always be replaced with sj and zj, because they did not appear only as a product of jekavian iotation. The following examples can prove it: Śoga, Śota, Daśko, pośljednji, źatiti, groźđe (in Montenegrin speeches), iźđeljati etc. Voices ś and ź did not appear in Montenegrin language only as a product of jekavian iotation, but its appearance is widely confirmed in hypocoristics: hypocoristicity is certainly the grounds on which (…) voices ś and ź developed. And subsequently, as it is the case with other hypocoristics, it was possible for the generalization process to appear and for the hypocoristics to grow into non-hypocoristics, which is what actually did happen. Due to the lack of adequate graphemes in the standard alphabet and Cyrillic script, Montenegrin writers have noted these voices in different (inadequate) manners. Along with the most frequent use of groups sj and zj instead of typical ś and ź, they often used šj and žj, or even š and ž as substitutes.

Once it was formed, one way or the other, as a formant, the consonant ś could act and spread completely independently, without any connection with the voice j. Phonemes ś and ź were formed by the so-called new or jekavian iotation and alignment to the place of creation: śever, śutra, śen, śenopadina, uśečenije, Śekloća (surname), in nouns expressing dearnes (hypocoristics): Śata, Paśo, Śaka and in toponyms and hydronyms: Paśeglav, Śenica, Śerava, Preśeka, Śenokos(i), Koźe pogledalo, Koźevići, Glavica koźa, Koźi brijeg, Koźa, iźelica, iźesti, źđeljati, Źaga, Źajo.

The importance of these phonemes as substantially recognizable features of Montenegrin language, a renown Croatian professor of general linguistics and sociolinguistics Dubravko Škiljan indicates as follows: The closest to the option of detaching as a separate language is not Croatian, but Montenegrin language – the moment they introduce in their standard language soft forms of š and ž as special phonemes (…), they will make a more resolute move than any other alterations made here for the purpose of the language separation. For, that is something that firmly defines the language structure, number or phonemes system.

Apart from the said differences, as an outstanding feature of Montenegrin standard language and its recognizable difference in comparison with Serbian language, there are voices ć and đ, which appeared by jekavian iotation. In Serbian standard language, the only ones acknowledged as normative are the results of jekavian iotation of consonants lj and nj (ljeto, ljepota, voljeti, njegovati, snježan etc), whereas all other are qualified as dialectical. In Serbian literary speech of jekavian pronunciation only sonants l and n are aligned: ljeto (for ekavian leto), ljepota (for ekavian lepota), njegovati (for ekavian negovati), nježan (for ekavian nežan), while consonants (s, z, d, t) remail unaltered: djevojka, vidjeti, tjerati, sjekira, izjesti etc. Such forms without iotation are absolutely unknown in all the Montenegrin language territory. All the linguistic research of Montenegrin speeches so far has shown that voices ć and đ as products of jekavian iotation of consonants t, d and c are omnipresent in all the terrain. It is a common thing t, d, c + je (đe was an old grapheme of jat) > će, đe: ćerati, lećeti, ćešiti (but also tješiti), vrćeti; đe, đed, neđelja, đegođ and in onomatics: Ćetko, Ćetna, Ćetković, ćetalj, Ćetanski pod, Ćedilo, Ćeklići, Šćepan, Šćepo, Šćepanović, Šćepan polje, Šćepandan, Neđeljko, Međeđe, Međedović. Consonants d and t in Montenegrin standard language are not subject to iotation only in rare cases: a) in complex verbs, when their prefix ends in d and the other part starts with j: nadjačati, odjuriti, odjeziditi, podjarmiti, odjednom, odjedanput, podjariti etc; b) in foreign complex words: adjektiv, adjunkt; d) in lexemes: tjeme, tjelesni, tjelesina. Considering such a use of phonemes đ and ć in Montenegrin language, they had to become part of its standard (exactly as the voices ś, ź mentioned earlier), since they represent imposing characteristics of that language.

The analysis of phonetic-phonological features of Montenegrin and Serbian languages lead to a conclusion that the basic differences among them are as follows: the rank and status of phonemes ś, ź, ć i đ, namely the presence/absence of phonemes ś, ź in their standards and phonemes ć and đ created as the result of jekavian iotation.

These features can be associated with jekavian script, because ekavian script is a recognizable Serbian language feature, and it can be assumed that the status of jekavian script in that language will be rather marginal in the near future. And so forth. The truth is that during the times of Yugoslavia, the education was mostly carried out in Serbo-Croatian language, because the Montenegrins were attached to the idea of the common state. Yugoslavia fell apart not due to Montenegrins and all the nations returned to their languages, which they used before. I would like to note that the state of Serbia officially introduced Montenegrin language as official language of the Montenegrin minority in Serbia, and that it is financing publications, school education and manifestations in Montenegrin language from the state budget, which is prescribed by the laws of the state of Serbia. Ookuninusi (talk) 14:00 30. December 2017 (UTC)

@Ookuninusi: As I said on your talk page, your this comment is too large to be useful, can you please please and please rephase by removing or short saying some points? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 When someone asks questions and argues about the Montenegrin language, then you can not expect for the comment to be simple and banal. The comment has to be professional and it is not possible to summarize that in a few ordinary and everyday sentences. This is a summarized comment about something that has hundreds of written pages and if it is shortened it would be incomprehensible and it wouldn't complete its purpose. --Freemanmne (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Freemanmne

@Freemanmne: You mean, a paragraph with 1434 characters is even short (:p)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 The question of a language is not a question that can fit into a short answer. I am a Montenegrin, my native language is Montenegrin, the language of my father, grandfather, great-grandfather and all of my ancestors, and denying of my language is the same as denying my nationality, which is chauvinistic and unacceptable. But that style of commenting doesn't address elementary questions of differences between the Montenegrin language and the other ex-Yugoslavian languages. Linguistically speaking, the Montenegrin languages has more differences from Serbian than Bosnian, and I don't see there was this much problems during the verification of the Bosnian Wikipedia. --Freemanmne (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Freemamne

@Freemanmne: I'd personally break it down into smaller paragraphs. People just have a hard time navigating "walls" of comment text. Also: this whole exposition would be much more effective if you provided academic sources to support your arguments. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 First of all, let me wish you and your colleagues a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Since I myself am part of the Montenegrin academic community having published hundreds of works, of course my comment raised the discussion to an academic level. That is why I did consult a professor at the Faculty for Montenegrin Language from Cetinje. The comment comprises 90% of the text she sent me in writing, and I had it translated by a professional philologist for the accuracy of the professional terms (I am talking about my comment taken by [[User:Ookuninusi|Ookuninusi] -]). Breaking up the text is practically impossible, because it is a maximally concise text, and its division would cause the loss of the substance.--Freemanmne (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Freemanmne
@StevenJ81 Language issues cannot be reduced to chatting. It demands precisely academic debate. Although language issue is par excellence a sociolinguistic issue, I have intentionally neglected that aspect and stated only linguistic arguments of the esteemed professor. I would once more like to emphasize that Bosnian language resembles much more to the jekavian variant of the S/H language than the Montenegrin language, even though I consider Bosnian to be a separate language for sociolinguistic reasons, and it did not cause so much debate. It cannot really be the logic of numbers and the size of nation population? Language must not be an instrument of assimilation, because that is what this is about.--Freemanmne (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Freemanmne

Happy new year to you, too!
  1. Suspected, but couldn't be certain, that either you or your correspondent was an academic. For the purpose of letting this be considered a reliable argument, please email me with both of your actual identities. Will post them on LangCom email list—private one if you wish—but not on-wiki.
  2. Someone has broken it up above. Nice for you to say "its division would cause the loss of substance"; if it's too dense for people to (be willing to) read, you have no substance, anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:14 am, Today (UTC−5)
(Edit conflict.) Separately: people should not use tinyurl links and the like on WMF projects. They're frequently blocked here because they are used so frequently for spamming purposes. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Freemanmne. (Added to get a fresh ping.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of inh.wikipedia[edit]

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

Hello. The LangCom intends to approve Ingush Wikipedia. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days.

For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Balochi, Balochi, Balochi...[edit]

The Balochi problem is also discussed in the past a whole decade, but looks like still have no decision. In summary we have 1+3 Balochi test wikis, and all are having their corresponding requests:

  1. Wp/bal (RFL started in 28 June 2010) in Balochi Macrolanguage (165 total pages, 38 total editors, localisation is rejected per gerrit:212982);
  2. Wp/bcc (RFL started in 10 June 2008, verified as eligible in 12 August 2008) in Southern Balochi (1379 total pages, 63 total editors, required localisation is 72% done);
  3. Wp/bgn (RFL started in 9 October 2014) in Western Balochi (8088 total pages, 92 total editors, required localisation is 96% done);
  4. Wp/bgp (RFL started in 10 August 2010) in Eastern Balochi (14 total pages, 13 total editors, localisation is rejected per gerrit:206732);

How should we select some of them? Start only a balwiki and merge 2-4? Or (probably) start 3 Balochi variets wikis and merge the first one to one of 2-4? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I was getting close to these in my run through long-open projects. Will take it up with LangCom shortly. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
At the moment it looks @Satdeep Gill and Ladsgroup: supports bal and oppose bcc+bgn+bgp, but most of users (e.g. @Siebrand:) doesn't agree bal. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's likely to be a problem at this point. I've added the number of total pages (from Catanalysis, not looking at mainspace vs. template vs. whatever) to what you wrote above. I suspect it would be difficult to put the djinn back in the bottle, even if we wanted to. We can try to determine what language the macrolanguage content is in and move it to the correct place. But doing the opposite would be very hard work, and I doubt there's much of an interest from the community in doing that. I want to wait until next week to put this one up at LangCom (for unrelated reasons), but will do so then. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Satdeep just dropped a note on LangCom on the subject. And the other possibility, I increasingly see, is that regardless of whether we settle on "bal" or "bcc+bgn+bgp", the surviving material would be what is currently found in "bgn". StevenJ81 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Sir what you think about blc code, is this code for any language?:))Bloch khan (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

blc is already taken. It is the code for Nuxalk language. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir:)) Bloch khan (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about closure of Cebuano Wikipedia[edit]

The discussion at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Cebuano Wikipedia has been going on for a while. Would it be possible for Langcom to look at it, now that the discussion has had a large amount of time to proceed? DraconicDark (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion has been underway at LangCom since 1 February. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Closed as unsuccessful (project remains open). StevenJ81 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Approving Pashto Wikivoyage[edit]

Pashto Wikivoyage ( Wy/ps) project has very good activity during the last six months, and we had 3 users at first afterwards we became four In January we became 7 people's. There is more than 200 main space pages. I request Language committee to take decision regarding its launch. Thanks. Bloch khan (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Basque Wikisource[edit]

Hello! As stated by StevenJ81 here, we have been working on Basque Wikisource for a while. All the criteria in Catanalysis are now on, and we have translated all the messages in Translatewiki. So, I ask again to activate Basque Wikisource in its own subdomain. Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Theklan: Let me ask you a question. Are these "cool projects to add more texts in the next months" now complete? Or are they going to go on for a while?
I ask for two related reasons. First, LangCom does not want to spin off separate projects unless they are going to remain active. Especially with Wikisource, there is not really a downside to the content remaining on multilingual Wikisource for a while. So if you are going to keep working on this for a while, then there is a reason to spin off the project. If you're done for a while, then things should stay where they are. Second, the Basque content is still just a little small. The smallest independent Wikisource that remains open and was not grandfathered in is about 144 pages right now. There is not a formal minimum, to be sure, but if you got your content to 150 pages, it would make your case better. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: We are doing them, we have a group of librarians starting to work on Wikisource, we had a meeting last week with the Secretary of Culture and some works are currently being done (can't explain them in public now, sorry)... we had a workshop with wikimedians, and this year some university texts are going to be free so we can upload here. And we are starting a project with a basque literature database that has all the classics digitalized. So yes, there will be work.
On the other hand, we have much more than 150 pages. Look at the subcategories. @KRLS:, maybe you can give us some numbers of the pages you moved to subcategories in the last month. -Theklan (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. (On multilingual Wikisource, it's a good idea to keep all your pages in the language root category, as well as in subcategories, so that it's easy for LangCom to see quickly what's going on.)
Give me about a week to clear a couple of other things up at LangCom, and then I'll take this to them. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It would be a good idea if we were planning to be there forever. But as we are growing, categorization, making templates or organizing it as a real thing is a better idea. Everything is in subcategories, by the way. -Theklan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Theklan: Pages can be in both subcategories and the root category. I fully agree that organizing what you have is important. But the parser function {{pagesincategory}} is dumb, and doesn't count pages in subcategories, too. So as long as you're in Multilingual Wikisource, it's still good to have pages in the language root category (also). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Now, there are 186 pages "Not proofread‎", 345 pages Proofread,‎ and 6 pages validated (more info: Category:Zuzenketa-egoeraren orriak) from 27 indexs (more info Category:Indizeak euskaraz). This number will grow quickly, because there are 284 transcribed works that it doesn't use proofreading extensions yet. For example, there is the transcription Gero (629 pages), but it's not migrated to proofreading extensions Index:AxularGero.djvu. I see that you did 54 contributions to multilingual wikisource, consequently you know that Multilingual Wikisource is an hostile environment for newbie users, because a category tree is not the best way to begin and a category or a subpage is not the best showcase. We need this subdomain, because we need a friendly environment, own gadgets, common and translated templates and a great showcase for this "cool projects".--KRLS (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Currently discussing at LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Hello committee, I would like to point out that the "Translate this page" link, does not work and Standard Moroccan Tamazight can not be selected from the list of languages and preferences. when the cursor hovers over the language link, a small bubble appeaappears indicate that the language is "Undefined". I think that the problem might be resolved on this page, Which contains this file with many ISO codes for many languages except the Standard Moroccan Tamazight ISO code. I think the problem will be will be resolved by changing that file with this updated one. Brahim-essaidi (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You probably need to take this to Phabricator. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81 I have tried but I can't login to Phabricator on my server. This is the message I get (Forbidden, You don't have permission to access / on this server.) I will ask another user to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brahim-essaidi (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg and Amire80: Perhaps one of you guys can help with this? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Updating codelookup's list of codes will not have any effect on which languages you can translate to using Special:Translate. The solution instead is, I guess, to translate zgh's MediaWiki interface to such an extent that it will be exported from and therefore be made known to MediaWiki that this language exists. --MF-W 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg I don't understand enough, can you please explain more. What do we need to do exactly? Brahim-essaidi (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Brahim-essaidi: I see the problem now. Here's what you need to do:
  • Go to Get yourself added as a translator for zgh (and any other language you'd like, such as shi).
  • Start working on translation interface. First, start with "MediaWiki (most important messages)" here. Then continue with "MediaWiki core" here.
  • The first group is a subset of the second group. Once the second group is over 13% complete, that will trigger a download to the Wikimedia wikis, and zgh will become active. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikiquote Sakha[edit]

IMHO, this project is now a little active, although it's still premature to consider its creation, shouldn't we mark this proposal as eligible? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (Marked eligible.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancash Quechua[edit]

IMHO, this project is now a little active, although it's still premature to consider its creation, shouldn't we mark this proposal as eligible? -- Michael junior obregon pozo (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You never answered my question there: Do you have community consensus to combine these tests? At minimum, you need to leave a question open for a week to see if anyone responds. But I'm concerned you've been acting unilaterally on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: I just gave a proposal, then a user unified the 2 projects into one.-- Michael junior obregon pozo (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I know. I'm not happy he did so. But he did it because you said you were combining the tests. So I kick that back to you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
So how can a vote be held to have the consensus of the community-- Michael junior obregon pozo (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Put a page in each test ... one can actually redirect to the other ... posing the question, and asking for community comment. Also place a notice of it at Incubator's Community Portal. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. -- Michael junior obregon pozo (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Not marking this "eligible" yet, pending the above. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)