Talk:Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages

Please reduce the chatter

This RfC has been dominated by a very small number of people making a huge lot of posts, drowning out comments by everybody else. People at LangCom have rightly complained that the RfC was becoming unreadable, and it's already on the same path again. In the first phase, as archived now, there were 138(!) signed comments by User:Gifnk dlm 2020 (that's 42% of the total of 332 comments taken together!), 34 by User:Liuxinyu970226, and 27 by User:JimKillock. In the current phase, we've again seen 29 by JimKillock, 17 by Gifnk dlm 2020, and 12 by Liuxinyu970226, together accounting for amost 3/4 of the total (counting only the signed postings, not the unsigned summary texts and all that). Much of this talk is procedural meta-discussion, personal squabbles, and badgering of opponents.

Could people please muster the self-discipline to at least move these threaded comments out of the main page and into this talkpage? This is an RfC; it's purpose is to have as many people as possible have their say and then let everybody's opinions stand for themselves. Less talking, more listening please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a very good suggestion. I am sorry I did not think of it myself, I agree that a lot of the responses are tangential. --JimKillock (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Middle English Wikipedia to be deleted

• Comment slightly unrelated comment but I realize Middle English Wikipedia will be deleted soon. I would like to download an archive of the articles to be viewed offline. How can this be done? I don’t want an xml file that can be uploaded to a free hosting service, I want to be able to view the articles and the revisions offline. Also @JimKillock, why did you archive large parts of the discussion? Will they at least be all together when this request for comment is concluded? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

On downloading archives or exports, MediaWiki does all this I am sure, you should read up on exports. On the archive here, the discussion is just too big - nobody can be expected to parse all of it or find the proposal we have drafted – see the comment above. I can't say what the Committee will do, but what they need is the proposal text, and the minimum possible background. We should ensure they do not need to read anything else, as they have the information they need in the proposal. --JimKillock (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@JimKillock, Ok I understand thanks. I remember seeing something about this once but I think it’s only if one user initiated it and if I’m not wrong there’s a website WMF runs where you can download static zip archives from different years but only of large wikis like English Wikipedia. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Querying status of Haoreima

• And I'm not sure if @Haoreima: should be a valid supporter or not, since their enwiki block rationale is "Abusing multiple accounts: Goutamkumar Oinam", someone may check en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goutamkumar Oinam/Archive. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226, but that user you referred to hasn’t voted on this request for comment. It’s not allowed to use Sockpuppets to make an idea look more popular than it actually is however since he only voted once it’s fine. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ST47 Is this true? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226, ST47, and Gifnk dlm 2020: Gifnk dlm 2020 is right! User:Haoreima isn't a sock puppet in meta, though it's in en wikipedia. So, if I don't abuse multiple accounts, then I can vote in anywhere in meta like others. Regards! Haoreima (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Productivity of Greek

(Moved from discussion as per suggestion above) @Prosfilaes: Re Greek, There have been novels translated into Ancient Greek; Harry Potter springs to mind, by the same author that did this for Latin, which indicates that symbiosis of interest and training. There are at the very least continuous production of poetry at a high level, and learner texts. For academia, I would highly expect there to have been some limited output to at least the early twentieth century. I don't study Ancient Greek so I am not the best person to ask about its current productivity, but I am noticing a steady uptick of courses, materials and discussion around the language. This is in no small part due to the revival of interest and proficiency in Latin. The same institutions (Polis in Israel; Accademia Vivarium Novum in Italy, to name just two) are driving standards up in both and producing large numbers of highly competent (functionally fluent) speakers and (very well read and thus idiomatic) writers. I am sure you must have noticed this. However this policy discussion not the place to assess whether Ancient Greek is at an appropriate level, we both agree it is less productive than Latin. --JimKillock (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis was translated by Peter Needham, and ΑΡΕΙΟΣ ΠΟΤΗΡ : και η του φιλοσοφου λιθος was translated by Andrew Wilson, two different people. And there have not been novels translated into Ancient Greek; there has been one novel translated into Ancient Greek. I linked Ancient_Greek#Modern_real-world_usage before, and there is no other long-form translation listed. The preface to ΑΡΕΙΟΣ ΠΟΤΗΡ says it's the longest work translated into Ancient Greek in millennia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I would love to spend some time looking at this; perhaps it should be part of the policy assessment process, in the evidence gathering assessment I have proposed. There are two groups of languages that need to be considered. One is the group of languages inside of Wikimedia. However you are raising the question of languages that are outside of current scope; what could they offer and what would be their challenges for reaching the proposed threshold. Perhaps the right thing to conclude is that the prospects for at least Greek under this proposal are assessed as part of a wider review. --JimKillock (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Accusation against User:C933103

separating this block of discussion since this is totally unrelated to the RFC C933103 (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Why "no offense though"? Isn't C933103's word "汉诃 (i.e. chink)" an offensive word? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226, listen I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. I meant no offense for calling the archives a mess. If I wrote “chink” somewhere then it was most likely a typo and I meant something else. Are you sure you replied to the correct comment? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020 Let me tell you why I'm concerning this: s:zh:Special:Diff/2073726:

“ ...固然，如果文言文獨立成為維基文庫，中文維基文庫會面對漢訶白話文歷史較短，只有少量內容已進入公有領域... ”

“ ... of course, if the Literary Chinese has got their independent Wikisource, the Chinese Wikisource will face-to-face the chinks' modern texts which are having short history, and only rare contents that are entering public domain ”

This user is trying to let me support this RFC, using ad hominem words that insulted the entire Chinese wiki community. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I have no idea why you think "汉诃" mean "chink"

Second, that was a comment on Chinese Wikisource discussion on the Request for Language Proposal for Classical Chinese Wikisource, and I fail to see any relation of anything happening there related to this RFC.

Third, as I have explained on Chinese Wikisource, the mistaken input character is a typing mistake. As I am not a native Mandarin Chinese speaker, I do not use the pinyin Mandarin Chinese phonetic input method for when typing Chinese characters, but instead use a few different tools according to what's being available, and when I was typing that comment, which I was using Firefox on a Windows 10 computer, the input method I used was Stroke Input Method, an input method which allow users typing Chinese characters by inputting the strokes of characters in order, thus depends on shape of the character, unlike the pinyin input method used by most Chinese users which depends on sound of the character. Because the character 訶 is formed by stroke 丶一一一丨フ一一丨フ一丨, being same as the beginning part of strokes for the character 語, which is 丶一一一丨フ一一丨フ一丨フ一, I selected a wrong character while the strokes was only partially typed, and thus resulted in such character choice. I have already stroked the mistyped character in my original comment, corrected it, and offered apology to anyone who might be offended by such typing mistake. The intended word, 漢語, simply mean "Chinese language".

Fourth, Google searching the word "漢訶" only return a result which is part of a Chinese translation of a Russian name. results later down are all having these two character being part of different words but appeared together and be indexed by Google search engine, and appear in search result despite the use of "" because Chinese do not use spaces to delimit words. Where do you get the idea this is supposed to mean "chink"?

Fifth, Google searching only the character "訶" reveal it mean "bashing in large voice", and then it say the character is also being used in Buddhist translation text as "摩訶", which would be "mahā" in romanized form, meaning "The Great", and say it's often used on names to reflect positive connotation. I failed to understand how such mistyped character can be understood as an insult.

Sixth, my comment that, if Classical Chinese text is to be moved off Chinese wiki into another wiki for better international cooperation, leaving only text written in modern language on the wiki, and due to the shorter history of Standard Modern Written Chinese language there are fewer text material available, especially in term of text that have already entered public domain, due to the time limit, is intended to be a neutral one, and reflect the difficulty of some other language wikisources, including Korean and Vietnamese wikisource, which have limited written tradition. Such comment would also apply to my native Cantonese, if a Cantonese Wikisource is to be established. Thus this is not intended to be a comment to diminish the status of Chinese language nor the Chinese Wikisource projects nor any Chinese language users.

Seven, due to circumstances mentioned here, I personally suspect User:Liuxinyu970226 might have connection with Chinese government misinformation campaign. Thus, from this point forward I would attempt ignoring comments made by the user in order to avoid polluting the discussion environment.

Eighth, I have no idea how you can conclude "This user is trying to let me support this RFC" from all the content you have written previously.

C933103 (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

For "訶", you may find a meaning from [1]: 大声斥责、怒骂。通「呵」。 (lit. scold with large sound, fulminating, per "呵"). But as it's fixed by you and said it's a typo that you don't know it, I don't need to say anything under this topic. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Topics which are distractions from the ask

A few of the topics being raised are distractions from the proposers core ask, which is effectively to allow the creation of new wikis using Ancient Greek. They are:

• The history around the editing of the language policy in 2007
• The way the language policy treats constructed languages
• Whether other ancient language wikis are being properly supported or promoted

Whether the policy revision followed some specific consultation or not could not be more irrelevant. It is not some technical ruling that is going to be overturned by unearthing a technicality many years later. Everything necessary to determine whether an exception or policy change is appropriate now is immediately available.

LangCom has a specific charge, and it doesn't to my knowledge include ongoing support and promotion for the wikis which it has approved (or for wikis which were created before LangCom was born).

In any event, the proposer should really consider the effectiveness of the strategy being deployed. I would count it certain that no change of the language policy will go into effect without the support of LangCom, and the approach here appears to be singularly ineffective at achieving that end. Nathan ^T 19:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Nathan:; I have cut the top section at your suggestion.

(The proposal is a little wider: Ancient Greek gets a consideration; so do new Wikis in Latin or Sanskrit, eg a Latin Wikiversity. This is also disallowed right now.)

Unfortunately this proposal will not go anywhere, no matter how it is framed or presented. The responses from LangCom have been a solid 'no' so far, with one dissenting voice. The arguments for 'no' have been that there is nothing new within it, no new arguments to be answered, that ancient languages are inherently incapable of meeting the WM mission as a class, so there is no need for any examination of the arguments within it.

I have had no response on a call for a project to gather evidence to understand whether ALWs are capable of meeting WM's mission. Presumably, no evidence is needed, as it is impossible.

That is why I went back to the origin of the policy; it is clear that it was not designed well, the process was not good, and the results were not good. Perhaps a better way to say this would have been that after 14 years, a policy review would be a good idea.

However, I am certain that argument will also be dismissed, as LangCom's prominent or so far vocal members are certain that after 14 years, they have heard all the arguments, so it is impossible that they have misunderstood anything.

This is why I included the parts about LangCom's Charter, I admit out of a loss of patience. Recognising my loss of patience and accepting your feedback - and as this is meant to be a collaborative effort - I have removed them.

The point about Als vs CongLangs is perhaps abstract, but the basic point is that the LangCom Charter envisages a consistent approach, based on "quantative indictators" but instead it is based on quality (ancient banned, conlangs allowed). Since this is inconsistent with the Charter, I hoped this may be enough to allow the policy to be looked at and critiqued, but I am told no, that is not necessary.

It is also why the pages on support and AL strategy were produced - because they demonstrate willing to problem solve. If it is believed that it is impossible for ALW's to meet the mission (this is LangCom's position) then perhaps support can help find evidence to show how they can, and improve matters where they don't.

(LangCom's remit does extend to ensuring support exists, at least according to their Charter. Perhaps it does not in practice. I am merely reading the Charter.)

In the end tho, I am left wondering: how does anyone even get LangCom to consider that they might need to listen or change their stance? And if they are not open to consideration, where does that leave Wikimedia's commitment (I presume) to evidence-based policy? What routes to resolution are available?

This proposal may not be the right one, but there has to be a means to seek change and ensure that Wikimedia policies are evaulated from a position of evidence. So my remaining hope for this process is that:

(1) LangCom make their decision to reject this proposal speedily, so we can move forward;

(2) When LangCom rejects this proposal, that they give clear have reasoning for that

(3) LangCom explains what evidence they would accept as sufficient to re-open the question of whether an Ancient Language can ever qualify for a new, non-Wikisource Wikimedia project.

I am not sure confident that we will be given a clear statement on these, but I do believe these are the minimum that we should have as a response. --JimKillock (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been following the LangCom public list since it was established, and while the committee has its weaknesses (which have varied over time) others have been successful in persuading the committee to re-evaluate its decisions. Some consideration for a productive approach is necessary.

Additionally, I definitely read the support elements of the charter differently than you do. That is exemplified by your selective editing of the charter when you restated it for this RfC. The words you elided are, however, key - they focus and limit what "support" means: cross-language projects (not wikis), documentation, efforts to streamline localization tools and use of MediaWiki. The committee is not asked to help guide wikis to long-term success when they are faced with inherent challenges like few or no speakers etc.

Fundamentally, LangCom's purpose is to create a funnel and a filter for new project requests - allowing every requested wiki to be created is not additive to Wikimedia's goals, so some filtering process is necessary to permit clearly beneficial projects and reject most others. Your frustration seems to rest, in part, with the essential nature of the committee - it is designed to say no.

My suggestion to you is to reflect on the fact that there is no deadline here and to let this RfC reach its natural end, then to revisit this at some point in the future using a different strategy. Maybe in the meantime follow the list and get a sense of the personalities and priorities involved. You can also look at other areas of WMF's development, like the strategy process, and get involved there to support some of these same goals. Certainly as the executive leader of an NGO in the same space as WMF, your voice will be welcomed. Nathan ^T 17:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nathan: Thank you for the kind words. I will amend the support sections, as ever I am happy to be corrected.

I fully agree on being constructive. I would hope I have been constructive with every engagement with individuals on this page. I fully admit I did lose my patience in the last day or two. And I stand corrected on this.

I agree the day to day job of LangCom is of course to say "no"; but that is very different from its more important and fundamental job of drawing the line in the right place. In this, it must say both "yes" and "no", with reasoning. My frustration, I believe, is that there appears to be little or no willing to work through the issues, or to respond to my requests for a minimum of help to build an evidence base.

If there is something we should be able to agree on, it is collecting some evidence.

The RfC has not evolved for a week or so, really. How is it brought to a conclusion? --JimKillock (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

Support role of LangCom

I'm now somewhat confused by this @Nathan:. Bullet 4 of LangCom's Charter says in full: "support and coordination for cross-language projects, helping smaller communities share resources and maximize their results;"

Since it appears Ancient Languages lack a support structure for their specific needs, could benefit from a cross-language project, are smaller communities, and have a set of common problems, surely it should be squarely in LangCom's remit to at least help something develop, and guide them in formation of some policies? --JimKillock (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In my reading, that refers to projects like anti-vandal work or WLM where barriers of localization can be a challenge to executing the projects goals. I don't think the LangCom members are necessarily the right group to advise on how to achieve critical mass of contributors (their primary skillset being, in general, linguistic expertise). Nathan ^T 22:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nathan: So perhaps the right focus here is on the language requirements of these projects. This would include activities like policing the language standards where less experienced editors will come along; ensuring there are clear policies and sources for new concepts, to avoid new coining by Wiki projects; to agree language standards where those languages have variants over time; building relations with acknowledged sources of expertise to support high standards; perhaps having policies to ensure new and relevant content relating to the areas where the language has particular productivity to ensure the mission is met. --JimKillock (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New support group for all ancient language communities

Hi @Giorno2, Steinbach, Pere prlpz, Amahoney, Cuzkatzimhut, Heracletus, Sigur, Zoozaz1, 扎姆, Anaxicrates, Haoreima, Awangba Mangang, Robbinorion, Jackattack1597, Sailor Ceres, Whycantusernamesbe21, Sabon Harshe, Iohanen, Sahaib3005, C933103, Oofas, Vikipad, AnotherEditor144, Kitabc12345, Pavlov2, Mmh, Wolverène, and Gifnk dlm 2020:, we are setting up a Wikimedia User Group to promote the use of Ancient Languages on Wikimedia.

Sign up by adding your name at ALPES Ancient Language Promotion, Education and Support – we would really value the support of everyone here who works on Ancient Language Wikis. --JimKillock (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@JimKillock:, looks good but if I’m not mistaken there’s a wiki written in Old Church Slavonic but not (new) Church Slavonic. The distinction is important AFAIK. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both of the WP en:Church Slavonic / en:Old Church Slavonic link to the WP project, so I cannot tell which it is, or whether it uses both. If anyone has definitive information please let me know. --JimKillock (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The distinction is not one made by ISO 639; the same code, cu, stands for both of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks question

@JimKillock: Then how do you consider this mail, where Gerard said that one supporter (I'd love to not ping them) is doing "personal attacks". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That accusation was levelled at me; I will leave it to others to judge. --JimKillock (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say that that mail isn't making you as the accusation target, though I'm having no idea if @C933103: is however the actual target or not as per

“ On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick <c933103(a)gmail.com> wrote: ” — click "..." to find this

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

GerardM Langcom membership

Huh, you wanna remove Gerard's langcom membership? But even so, you need another new RFC rather than discuss here, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not my object at all. I want LangCom to deal with this RFC. However it is Gerard's views that seem to matter. --JimKillock (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Economical problems if RFC is approved

Given that Gerard's [2], it looks like that all the proposals that this RFC mentioned are unlikely to be supported by any grants? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? LangCom is not involved in grants approval. dwadieff ✉ 02:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for answers, that why the "About raising money" thread even can't be the official response of this. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what is unclear above the response above? These are not related points. --JimKillock (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The email was wrongly sent into langcom-l. It was supposed to be sent to wikimedia-l, as the subsequent emails clarified. dwadieff ✉ 10:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Classical / Literary Chinese Wiktionary

Hi @C933103:, you mentioned on the LangCom email list that a user or users had tried to build a Classical / Literary Chinese Wiktionary, by appending entries into the modern Chinese Wiktionary. Do you have more information about this, as it seems a very good example of the problems with the current blanket restriction and reliance on LangCom policy discretion (ie, the issue never reached their attention, and everyone would assume such a project could not be granted)? --JimKillock (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

First, please call it "Literary Chinese", not "Classical Chinese". Second, what means deletion by you? By looking incubator:Wt/lzh, this project is already existing at lzh:維基大典:維基爾雅. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, yes that is I think what was mentioned. In other words, because getting a Literary Chinese Wiktionary would be denied under the current policy (as it is classed by the ISO as "historical") the Literary Chinese Wikipedia project inserted it into their Wikipedia instead. Which violates all kinds of Wikipedia policies about notability and the content that is meant to be allowed; and is generally suboptimal from a data perspective; but is the inevitable result of the current rules as publicly stated (whatever flexibility might be applied, if the project owners knew to ask). --JimKillock (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Classical Chinese Wikipedia's help page at https://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%AB%E5%8A%A9:%E5%87%A1%E4%BE%8B , they mention the purpose of such on-site dictionary is that, since there are some Classical Chinese characters which are more difficult, a dictionary is created to collect different words, and be shown in green link, in order to help users. C933103 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I see; so to be fair it is hard to know if it is a direct replacement for a Wiktionary, or something more limited; or whether this explanation is there in part to explain why it doesn't violate WP policies. Still, it is at least a bit messy, IMO, and may not have happened if they could be granted a proper Wiktionary; they clearly need something that lets users find word definitions. --JimKillock (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving RFC forward and recent process

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm sorry you feel I've dominated the discussion in an unhelpful way. I am very happy to leave this for a period of a few weeks to get further feedback. I hope it is clear that I've worked with whoever was available to narrow the proposal as much as possible to something acceptable to as many people as possible. The other thing that was necessary was simpliication of the proposal. LangCom did not want to look at the detail of what was proposed and worked through with yourself, so the only realistic option was to simplify it to a point where the key issues can be addressed without distraction, which really amounts to whether wholly second language natural languages can be disregarded on the basis of what they are.

You'll understand that this has been a very hard RFC to deal with, as it has been a call for comments on a proposal without any real detail, at a level of expansiveness that would never succeed. On top of that the feedback that is really needed is from LangCom, who decide whether to deal with this, or not. With very little feedback from them, it is hard to make progress; nevertheless I do think we have now found the kernel of the problem and a way to solve it.

I am very happy to be guided as to how to move this forward. --JimKillock (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also the most happy to know that which "forward" you would love to "guided as to how to move", because, I realllll...(65535*"l")ly don't know what's the reason that you can't think Gerard isn't against you, even their responses are repeated for more than 10 times, even the most recent one [3]. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Policy is the product of discussion, analysis, and problem solving; we have identified a problem, so it needs to be either (i) solved; (ii) shown that the problem does not exist and the current policy is sound, with reasons that make sense, or (iii) given a genuine explanation as to why the problem may not or should not be solved. We are still waiting for such explanations. This dynamic is separate to the opinions any person expresses. --JimKillock (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@JimKillock The reason why I asked you is just based on RFC policy , "When an RFC concerns a project...consensus should be evaluated primarily based on the evidence and external review by the uninvolved global community". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Response requested and process so far: moved from main page

Moved from main page

I do think the Committee should review this carefully. We've engaged in a very serious attempt to narrow down the problems and focus on what matters, especially in listening and taking on your feedback, in order to give the Committee a chance to improve the policy. You will remember

• We started with a policy that said "allow everything old"
• Now we have a policy which says "allow four or five currently functional languages"
• We have identified problems with the no native speaker criteria, as it doesn't fit the Classical language use case
• We have not yet heard why adjusting this is not possible, despite its clear unsuitability.
• Instead you say the proposed solution is deterministic, the closed list is, that is fair criticism. Nevertheless we put it forward because from your previous advice we thought you wanted something simple to implement.
• However the tests we propose in the "#Open list version" version are not deterministic, but require careful assessment (such as showing language formation exists, can show modern usage, etc)
• Thus the "Open list version" version above is non-deterministic as you require
• The current bar, no native speakers is very, very deterministic, in an unfair manner, and really does prevent people from thinking.
• In any case it best, most transparent and fairest to produce criteria suitable to make consistent determinations.
• (And all the other actively used language groups have usage criteria to establish their suitability.)
• Finally Your own criteria, that you apply and believe in, we have applied to the "Open list version" version above.
• To put it another way: You have won. We listened to all of your advice and applied it. We have designed a proposal in your image. --JimKillock (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

And then? You even didn't define the meaning of "second language vehicles", which you mentioned too many times on the entire RFC page. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this isn't clear. I mean "a language that is used exclusively by second language people for communication". "Vehicle" is just a word for "medium" or "language", but "second language language" sounds weird. --JimKillock (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, we are still waiting for a response from the Committee on this. I believe we have explained the problems with the current position sufficiently clearly to show some change is necessary (and not a matter of consensus, merely that the Committee has a problem contained in the current policy which it needs to address). If the Committee feels otherwise, it would be helpful to know what those reasons are, so we can assess if those are correct. --JimKillock (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)