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

Notification about proposed approvals[edit]

Hello dear community!

Already some time ago, the Board decided that it does not need to be informed anymore by the language committee for a possible veto when a new language version should be approved. It was then decided that “the community“ will be informed before an approval and be given one week to raise objections, if there is something serious Langcom didn't see. So far, we always forgot to do this. However now we remembered and inform you that we want to approve

If you have objections, please use this page and base your argumentation on the language proposal policy. --MF-W 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is nice news for us. We have quite active users and we are ready to work as an independent project.--ZUFAr (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The creation of these wikis will now be requested. --MF-W 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. See phabricator tasks as above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5[edit]

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

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

Notification about proposed approval of hif.wiktionary[edit]

Cf. #Notification about proposed approvals

Hello. The Langcom intends to approve Fiji Hindi Wiktionary. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page. --MF-W 19:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian and Japanese Wikivoyages[edit]

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

@Dcljr: Note: Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Innu-aimun, Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Khowar and Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Tabasaran are likely (marked as Verified as eligible on RFL list but still submitted on their subpages). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dcljr, Liuxinyu970226, and MF-Warburg: I can't speak to those Wikivoyages, which fall under a special transitional rule that I don't completely understand. As for the three that Liuxinyu970226 mentioned:
  • I boldly went ahead and edited Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Innu-aimun to read "eligible", based on the fact that MF-Warburg actually wrote a comment to that effect on the page.
  • With respect to Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Tabasaran: Liuxinyu, you added that entry yourself, with a status of "eligible", at this diff: Special:Diff/16256268. Unless you actually saw this discussed in the LangCom discussion group around that time, you should have inserted it with a status of "open". I'll let you decide what the right thing to do there is.
  • As far as Wikipedia Khowar goes, I'm not going to rehash the whole situation there. I suspect that MF-Warburg didn't really intend to change the status all the way back to "discussion". At the same time, the general frustration level at the time was such that when a different user edited that page to status "eligible", MF-W reverted him, because he didn't want to risk an edit war. So that's where it stands now. I suspect that the status should really be "eligible"—it's a real language, with a language code, and a reasonable population of speakers. But to avoid stirring up old problems, I'm going to let MF-W decide for himself how he wants to handle it. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've reset the Tabasaran one, no idea why I made such mistake when digging unlisted requests in that time. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A user has just boldly tried to "rationalize" the Wikivoyage-requests table and was reverted. Presumably, explaining the situation in a comment= on the request subpages (as I suggested in the first post in this thread) would reduce the probability of this happening again. MF-Warburg, would you like to do that, since you seem to know what the situation is with these wikis? - dcljr (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Wikisource[edit]

Requests for new languages/Wikisource Hindi has been in limbo since 2008, while many other Indic languages now have their own Wikisource... we need a Hindi Wikisource for the hundreds of texts in s:mul:Category:Hindi and s:mul:Category:हिन्दी. Aryamanarora (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: I'd urge you to combine those categories into s:mul:Category:Hindi so that LangCom members can get a better sense of the overall picture of this test.
Additionally, for projects to be exported from their incubators (whether from Incubator, or from Multilingual Wikisource or from Beta Wikiversity), there needs to be a regularly active community. That means that every month (for a minimum of three months) there are at least three editors who make at least ten edits each in the test project. Since Hindi Wikisource is divided into two categories, it's not clear to me whether you actually reach that level now, but it doesn't really look like it to me. So please try to pull together a community to contribute regularly, and then LangCom can look into approving the project. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Let me say it again: since 2008. 9 years. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do once I'm on my computer. Aryamanarora (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Sorry, but I'm afraid that mostly doesn't matter. The concern of WMF and LangCom is that when it approves a project, the project will continue to have active participation. And it judges that by whether the test project is currently active, not that it's been out there for 9 years. (Note, also, that WMF and LangCom do not want to approve a project which is primarily the work of a single individual. That, too, helps explain this "community" requirement.)
My guess is that because Hindi Wikisource test has been out there 9 years, LangCom will give you every benefit of the doubt. But there still needs to be an active community involved. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Thanks for the help, I'm just a bit frustrated with how long it's been. It'll be easy to get 3 contributors I'm sure. Aryamanarora (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Thanks for your understanding.
To some extent, LangCom went quiet for a while. I (and some others) have started pushing them along, so I think things are getting better. (Counting the projects that are approved and awaiting creation, we have more approvals this year than in 2015 and 2016 combined.) I don't really work on Old Wikisource or Beta, though, so people like you have to bring them to my attention (or to LangCom's attention, really). So thanks for doing that. If you can work on 3 contributors, then when the time comes I will help you get out of Old Wikisource. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Seraiki Wikipedia[edit]

First message was originally posted to the 2016 archive page. Moved here. StevenJ81 (talk)
I Support Support creation for the Seraiki language Wikipedia. Most work on localization has been done. so the Wikipedia be verified. Sraiki 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your test project at incubator:Wp/skr is coming along nicely. Keep up the good work.
  • Aim for 500 article pages, at least half of which are not stubs (and preferably no more than 25% are stubs).
  • Try to find more contributors. We need to see evidence of community participation. Every month there should be at least three editors with at least ten edits each. And this has to be continuous. So far, your project has never had three active editors in the same month.
  • I could not find much evidence of localization at Please continue to translate this group of messages.

Good luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Work on this wiki is done. This wiki be created so that many other people may get benefits of this wiki.Sraiki 12:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
    • You need one more month (November) with at least three editors before you will have reached the activity requirement.
    • I'm still wondering whether the content is substantial enough. You may need to defend this when Language Committee gets an expert in your language to review the wiki for approval. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Board liaison[edit]

Hey All Have taken on the position of board liaison for the language committee. Just stopping by to let people know I am avaliable to discuss concerns. Do realize that your group functions well and fairly autonomously. No intention of changing that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) (administrator at Incubator, and frequently clerking at LangCom pages) 18:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Consider merging Palembang request to Musi request?[edit]

As per SIL change request 2007-182, the code for Palembang (plm) was merged to Musi (mui) for 10 years, but idk why there's two requests that still make both as "different"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm confused because Palembang request is "verified as eligible"?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I am confused as to why you are confused. But I merged both pages on the older one. --MF-W 14:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Future of Wiktionary[edit]

I understand that one problem for the Wiktionary future plans is the difficulty (some would say the impossibility) of converting from free-form (including templated) definitions into a proper database, while still respecting the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA. With that in mind, perhaps the language committee should consider, as a temporary measure, not approving any additional languages for Wiktionaries, or only approving them under the same license as Wikidata (which is CC-0). I understand that this would greatly facilitate the conversion from the old free-form wikitext system into a structured database. (Please ping me if you need a reply; this page is not on my watchlist.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose placing arbitrary restrictions based on hypotheticals. Wiktionary is a successful projects which should be allowed to thrive. Nemo 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding licencing. I am not sure that the Language committee can change it. It is up to the board to decide. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I try to stay neutral on issues like this, though I'm inclined to agree with @Nemo. At the same time, I will mention that aside from Fiji Hindi Wiktionary, which was just approved and is awaiting creation of its wiki, there are not other Wiktionary test projects that are extremely close to approval. So if there is a reason that WMF needs to stop and take a look at the issue, we don't have to go out of our way to push along Wiktionary tests in the Incubator, either. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that there are no such plans. Structured data will supplement the existing Wiktionaries, not replace them. Much as Wikipedia is not having all of its content moved to Wikidata, Wiktionary will similarly only move structured data to a database. Definitions are unstructured free-form text, and would not be moved even if it were legally possible. There is no reason to refrain from approving Wiktionaries in new languages. --Yair rand (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Minor Support Support, I don't know why we can't change Wiktionary's license only because of "hypotheticals". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I didn't comment the licensing proposal because it has nothing to do with this talk page; the matter is being discussed elsewhere though. --Nemo 15:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary Saraiki[edit]

Work on incubator:Wt/skr is in progress.

  • More than 500 pages are created.
  • Translations in Translate wiki are done in Saraiki language
  • Saraiki is an important language in respect of population and is Educational language. .This shows the need of Saraiki language work.
  • So Saraiki Wiktionary be approved--Sraiki 14:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Clerking notes:
  • At minimum the project needs to stay active through October (meaning three editors, with at least ten edits each).
  • If someone who is more of a Wiktionary expert (or an expert in languages of that part of the world) than I am can weigh in: The 500 pages of content basically contain basic bullet point definitions. The mainspace pages are not as developed as one typically sees in more mature Wiktionaries. I can really use someone with more experience to weigh in on that question.
StevenJ81 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Work on incubator:Wt/skr is in progress. Wiktionary be created so that many other people can get benefits of this Wiktionary.Sraiki 12:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sakizaya[edit]

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

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

Atayal Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Rather recent is the project re-approved. They claim to be a free news source where everybody can write. Unfortunately, one of the administrators has a strange view on this freedom. In a few solo-actions he made clear that that freedom is depending on his personal approval and grudges. To mention a few things procedureel: "Behandelde verzoeken worden standaard verwijderd van deze pagina." Verder wil ik niet langer tegen die ruziezoekende Banner aankijken die het project kapot wilde maken op Meta (English: procedural: "Processed requests will be removed by default on this page." Furthermore, I no longer want to look at that quarrelling Banner that wanted to break the project on Meta.). And another with as text (translated by Google): Own direction means playing in court and does not concern me. You have told Meta to know nothing about Wikinieuws. I therefore like to block and quickly. You have been warned, because this project is intended for people who want to build it. There is no doubt about that.

This type of behaviour flies in the face of everything Wikimedia is standing for.

I like advice what to do know! The Banner (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's starting to look like cross wiki vandalism today. He is blocked on Dutch Wikinieuws because of non-constructive behaviour, importing it to Dutch Wikipedia by attacking my talk page there and he is trying his luck here now. He is not a contributor to Dutch Wikinews by the way. Please neglect him or block him (and view his blocking list on several projects). Ymnes (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You blocked me because I was critical about your behaviour. And you judged me on critical remarks outside Wikinieuws. An administrator blocking someone to solve a conflict in which he is involved, is a complete nono and behaviour not befitting an administrator. The Banner (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. You reverted my clean up of a page according to local regulation. After I undid that and gave you a warning with explanation on your talk page, you reverted me again. You were warned, now you are blocked, and now you are crying out loud overhere. In fact importing a wiki coflict to this project. Ymnes (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And you are confirming taht you acted out of revenge: Ik weet niet wat je van hem houdt, maar hij heeft tig malen aangegeven dit project de nek om te willen draaien. Vandaag was hij hier, op Wikipedia en op Meta wederom niet constructief. Je mag in zijn vrijheid geloven. Maar de feiten liggen bij The Banner anders. Hij laat eerst maar eens een héle lange tijd zien dat hij constructief wil zijn. Anders blijven de deuren hier voor hem dicht. We weten inmiddels wat hij heeft gedaan. En niet gedaan, want hij heeft op geen enkele manier aangetoond dat dit in de toekomst anders zal zijn. Daarbij kreeg hij deze blokkade hier regulier. Maar niettemin mooi dat je denkt dat het ooit nog goed komt met hem. Zo niet, dan loert er een blokverdubbeling, en ik ben ook bereid die tot o.t. door te voeren. Het is zijn gedrag, het is zijn keuze. and as you stated when clearing the page Verder wil ik niet langer tegen die ruziezoekende Banner aankijken die het project kapot wilde maken op Meta. The Banner (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Enfin, back to the beginning: to my opinion this behaviour is a threat to the sheer existence of the Dutch Wikinews. And it makes a joke out of the concept "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" The Banner (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The concept of Wikinews is not to be an encyclopedia. Stop this discussion, and let everybody work what he/she/x likes to do. If it's on Wikinews, Wikipedia or another project.Livenws (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I tried to do something useful on Wikinews but some out of order administrator decided that he did not like me, imported a non-Wikinews problem, censored me because of that and now blocked me over that with a threat to block me permanently. An absolute abuse of admin-rights. The Banner (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of who has done what where, this is not the place to have this discussion. The Language Committee exists mainly to open and close projects (wikis), not weigh in on disputes between users. I suggest you try bringing this to Requests for comment. - dcljr (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, by now you know my concerns. I was told to go elsewhere to relieve Ymnes of his duties and status, so I have taken that road. The Banner (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to alter requisite for eligibility #4[edit]

(if this is not the proper place to post this, let me know)

The first 3 prerequisites for eligibility are reasonable, and I think the ISO rule in particular should stay. However, I take issue with #4. It states that a proposed language must have a pool of L1 speakers, with an exception for artificial languages, which are judged by the different standard of a "reasonable degree of recognition". This is problematic for a number of reasons. If artificial languages can have the L1 requirement waived, why not historical languages which have L2 speakers and an active community? The "reasonable degree of recognition" metric (or some variant thereof) should be applied to any language that does not fulfill the L1 requirement -- to not do so is inconsistent. Not only that, but we have approved Wikis in historical/classical languages such as Sanskrit, Classical Chinese, Old Church Slavonic, Old English Gothic, and notably Latin. My understanding is that these were 'grandfathered in' due to being approved before the eligibility requirements were changed. But this leads to the arbitrary situation in which a classical language is allowed depending on whether it was submitted before or after a certain date. What we need is a consistent rule that applies to all Wikis. I'm not saying we should delete active and successful projects, that would be a far worse alternative. I am advocating for a more consistent and sensible requirement that would support the existing classical language wikis, and allow for any new project that is viable.

Given that some languages can have the L1 requirement waived, but not others; and given that some historical languages are allowed, but not others; I think this proves that the current rule is arbitrary and inconsistent in nature. Therefore, I propose that the fourth requirement be replaced with an alternative, such as the one on the community draft:

The proposal has a sufficient worldwide number of people able to express themselves at a fluent level, in the written, spoken or signed form, to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for a language without native speakers, it will need to be demonstrated that it is well attested in written texts, and is in current use as a special, auxiliary, engineered, classical or learned language.

Note that I only advocate replacing the fourth requisite for eligibility, with either the alternative I quoted, or some other variant that accomplishes the same purpose: a consistent rule that judges Wikis based on overall viability, rather than an L1 requirement that is inconsistently applied.

I hope that the language committee will take my words into consideration. Xcalibur (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk's note for Xcalibur: This is the right place to post. LangCom may (not will, but may) be amenable to this for the purpose of Wikipedias. It's unlikely they will be as amenable for other projects. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. To clarify, I do have Wikipedias in mind. Other projects (Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, et al) are built around different ideas, thus they must be governed by different standards, i.e. what is good for one project may not be right for another. I make no demands, this is meant as a reasoned suggestion. I'm willing to discuss this with anyone who is interested. Xcalibur (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Xcalibur, let me add one other thing; consider how this might change your wording. Even if LangCom is otherwise amenable to this idea, I don't think LangCom or WMF has an interest in hosting projects in historical languages that don't have well-attested written forms. From their perspective, it's one thing to host projects in living (even near-extinct) languages that don't really have a written form, but where a project could help preserve a living language. It's another thing to host projects in long-extinct spoken languages without a written form. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course, historical languages must have established written forms. There must be something to work with -- if not L1 speakers, then L2 speakers and an established literature/orthography/etc. This is reflected in the alternate requirement I quoted from the community draft. That draft was vetoed, probably because they tried to nix the ISO rule, which I think should remain as a bright line rule. My proposal is only to fix the fourth prerequisite, so that viable historical languages (with L2 speakers, literature, ISO code, and community support) are not rejected due to a technicality. Xcalibur (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi, can you respond on phabricator tickets: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].. I uploaded a patch on gerrit for this tasks: Zoranzoki21 (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a LangCom member, but I wonder: what exactly do you need people to "respond" to? I don't see a request for outside opinions about anything on any of those tasks. (If it's a request to approve your patch, this is not the place to request that; Phabricator itself would be the place for that.) Perhaps it will be obvious to anyone who can "respond" in the way you need, but it's probably a good idea to be explicit here about what you are requesting. - dcljr (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Any from LangCom need to respond, to patch be deployed. See comment in patch on gerrit. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I see: "Because there's no langcom approval yet for thse codes". - dcljr (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I have stopped approving because there was no response to the reason why language codes are added.. It gives the impression of a stamp collection and no longer a real use case. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews Scots[edit]

This could be updated alongside Scots Wikipedia based on its news article, and expanded using Scots Wiktionary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)