Talk:Language committee

Language committee (contact page about requests)

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 31 days.

Archives of this page

---

2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025

---

See also: Requests for new languages/Archives

Notifications from Langcom about proposed approvals

Notification about proposed approval of Minangkabau Wikisource

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T408317

Hi. The language committee intends to approve Requests for new languages/Wikisource Minangkabau. If you have any objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please tell us here on this page in the next 7 days. Meanwhile, the community is asked to check (and if necessary, complete) the wiki settings as indicated on the request page. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zhilal Darma: What is namespace 'Rundiang Portal' for? Index: ? --Sotiale (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Sotiale, 'Rundiang Portal' is the same as Village pump. Zhilal Darma (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. MF-W 20:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussions

Interslavic Wikipedia, third request

Dear Language committee. Since 2015 I have been subscribed to the Langcom mailing list, occasionally even sharing some unsollicited but hopefully useful expertise. My impression from the discussions has always been that the minimum requirement for approval is three active contributors over a period three months. At this point, Wp/isv has 12 full months with at least five active contributors each month. Our wiki currently has 1050 articles (not counting redirects), 67 of which have more than 10K bytes, as well as 821 categories, 316 templates and 68 modules. All the necessary localisation work has been done, too. Therefore, I reiterate my request to approve the Interslavic Wikipedia.

Earlier this year, in January, one of our users requested approval on this very page, arguing that "the Interslavic Wikipedia has been active for the last 5 months". To be precise, the number of non-anonymous users with more than 10 edits during these five months had been 6, 10, 12, 12 and 10, successively. These numbers alone should have been more than enough, especially considering how several other projects with much less activity have been approved in the meantime. Nevertheless, the request was ignored and archived after two months.

Five weeks ago, I posted a similar request. Again, no answer, even though similar requests with regard to other projects did receive a response from Langcom member @Sotiale. And this is the point where I really don't understand anymore what's going on. If you think there is something wrong with our wiki, then at least tell us what should be done to make it right. Already in January Langcom member @Jon Harald Søby wrote that "in theory the project is ready for approval. However, for artificial languages the approval is not as "automatic" as for natural languages; see m:Language_proposal_policy#fictional – there is some room for interpretation in the language committee, so we will have to take it (Interslavic) up for discussion. I think it will be fine, but I can't promise for sure."[1] However, to date no such discussion seems to have taken place. Besides, I can't see why the label "constructed language" should make any difference at this point, since the project was already marked as eligible in October last year, also considering that Wikipedias in two constructed languages with only a handful of users (Lingua Franca Nova and Kotava) were approved in recent years.

Please understand that your persistent silence on the matter is causing people to become disheartened and even cynical. Some contributors already seem to have given up on the project. Even I don't know anymore how to explain this situation to our people. So please, Langcom, at least give us some perspective! Regards, IJzeren Jan (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello there!

I'm one of the contributors to the Interslavic wiki. I just wanted to share a few thoughts on the constructiveness and artificiality of the Interslavic language.

As one of its speakers, I often feel the urge to correct people or join the conversation when someone refers to Interslavic as an artificial language. The reason is quite simple: Interslavic is different from any other artificial language. While it certainly has the qualities of a constructed auxiliary language, it possesses a very distinctive trait that sets it apart from all other auxlangs. Interslavic can be understood even by people who have never studied it or heard of it before. It is easily comprehensible to monolingual speakers of any Slavic language without any prior learning!

I strongly suggest taking this point into consideration, as it does make a significant difference. GlěbDyndar (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your frustration. As other members have already mentioned, LPP is very strict when it comes to non-natural languages. While countless non-natural languages can be created at any time, it's important to consider how much they can contribute to the dissemination of knowledge. This isn't to say your language doesn't meet this requirement, but rather that we must approach the discussion with caution. We need to start a discussion, but I've been busy with business trips recently, so I can't act quickly as a volunteer. I hope another member will initiate this discussion and actively lead the discussion. If not, I'll try to initiate it within this month. --Sotiale (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Sotiale, I appreciate that, and for the record, I totally agree with the policy regarding constructed languages. It's just that I was under the impression that the feasibility of the language was already dealt with at the moment when it was marked as eligible, and that the second phase is more about demonstrating whether the project is viable.

Anyway, the dissemination of knowledge is, in fact, the main purpose of Interslavic. As my colleague @GlěbDyndar noted, any (if not most) Slavs are practically monolingual, and Interslavic can serve to give them access to information that is not available in their native language. Something to consider when the discussion is started! Best regards, IJzeren Jan (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! I hope that the discussion about approval of Interslavic Wikipedia will start soon. Indoeuropejczyk (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion has begun and I will contact you if necessary. --Sotiale (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sotiale, thank you, I appreciate it. Although to be honest, I haven't seen anything on the Langcom mailing list yet. Anyway, I'll be happy to answer any questions. IJzeren Jan (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It's very good! I really hope that the discussion about approval will end successfully. ~2025-27224-46 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sotiale, now that five weeks have passed, may I enquire about the status of the discussion? Regards, IJzeren Jan (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion isn't going well, but there doesn't seem to be any negative feedback. I sent a reminder to the mailing list. --Sotiale (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I want to hear as soon as possible that everything is okay. ~2025-29104-46 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it's been two months, but there's still nothing new. Has the discussion not started yet? ~2025-31100-24 (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Solicitud de aprobación para Wikipedia en Náhuat de El Salvador (Wp/ppl)

Estimado Comité de Idiomas, Reciban un cordial saludo.

Mi nombre es Héctor Josué Martínez Flores, fundador de Timumachtikan Nawat, un proyecto comunitario e independiente dedicado a la enseñanza, revitalización y preservación del náhuat de El Salvador. Desde 2023 coordino la Wikipedia en esta lengua, actualmente en la incubadora bajo el código “pipil”.

El náhuat está en peligro crítico: según el Censo 2024, existen menos de 1,135 hablantes, de los cuales unos 150 son hablantes originales, ancianos de edad avanzada. El resto han aprendido gracias a proyectos de revitalización como el nuestro. Es importante aclarar que náhuat ≠ náhuatl, y que el término “pipil” es considerado peyorativo por nuestra comunidad, ya que fue impuesto durante la colonia con un significado despectivo y burlesco por nuestra forma de hablar.

El proyecto Wikipedia en Náhuat fue iniciado en 2010 por el lingüista británico Alan Roy King y quedó inactivo tras su fallecimiento.

Desde que nosotros lo retomamos lo retomamos en el 2023, hemos:

• Creado más de 600 artículos con la ayuda de los ancianos de la comunidad, los maestros y nuestros estudiantes.

• Incorporado un módulo de Wikipedia en nuestro plan de estudios en nuestra escuela.

• Realizado editatones y contribuciones a Translatewiki y Wikimedia Commons.

Todo nuestro trabajo es voluntario, sin apoyo financiero externo. Hemos contado con el acompañamiento de Tyap Wikimedians (África), que nos han orientado en el proceso, ya que ni Wikimedia El Salvador nos ha querido acompañar o asesorar.

Solicitamos la aprobación de Wikipedia en Náhuat, ya que:

1. El proyecto tiene actividad constante y contenido sustancial.

2. Existe una comunidad activa y organizada que mantiene y expande la Wikipedia.

3. El lanzamiento oficial es clave para la revitalización lingüística y la visibilidad de la lengua a nivel global.

4. La permanencia del nombre “pipil” en la incubadora genera tensión cultural, y la aprobación permitiría fortalecer la reivindicación del nombre correcto.

Enlaces de referencia:

• Wikipedia en Náhuat (Incubadora): https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/ppl/Achtu_Iswat

• Nota en La Prensa Gráfica: https://www.laprensagrafica.com/cultura/Editaton-acerca-el-sueno-de-Wikipedia-en-Nahuat-20250314-0061.html

• Nota en El Salvador.com: https://www.elsalvador.com/entretenimiento/cultura/cultura-pueblos-indigenas-wikipedia-nahuat/1201363/2025/

• Nota en Revista Culturel: https://revistaculturel.com/articulos/primera-editaton-en-nahuat-de-el-salvador/#:~:text=Fecha%3A%20S%C3%A1bado%201%20de%20marzo,30%20AM%20%E2%80%93%2012%3A00%20MD

• Nota de Conexión: https://conexion.sv/digitalizando-de-nuestra-lengua-en-la-primera-editaton-en-nahuat-de-el-salvador/

Nuestro sueño es demostrar que el náhuat está vivo y floreciendo, y que merece un espacio digno y permanente en el ecosistema Wikimedia.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimumachtikanNawat (talk)

Change of policy regarding ancient languages

Hello! I am not sure if this topic can be dealt here, but I am wondering if it possible to change the policy Meta currently has regarding ancient languages. I think it is too strict and goes against what Wikipedia stood for in the past, which allowed the creation of amazing Wikipedias in Latin, Old English, Sanskrit, Gothic, and Church Slavonic. The current policy affects specifically Ancient Greek, whose request was recently denied for the fourth time. I believe that if the languages mentioned above have their own wiki edition, why Ancient Greek can't if it is probably the most studied classical language after Latin. I don't know if it is possible to change that, so I officially propose the change or ammend. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What is amazing about those Wikipedias? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

First of all, fairness. If Latin, Old English, and even Gothic have their own Wikipedia editions, why Ancient Greek can't, despite its undeniable importance?

Second, there are people who speak those languages.

And finally, the main purpose of Wikimedia is to be a reservoir of knowledge, the most accessible to every person in the world, which means that having editions in as many languages as possible is the best way to achieve that mission. Per Meta-Wiki, "Wikipedia is a project dedicated to the building of free encyclopedias in all languages of the world". Banning ancient languages having their own Wikipedia contradicts that statement. I'd be happy to do my best to change the current language policy, or even make some exceptions for non-living languages that are valuable enough (personally I believe all languages are valuable) to have their own Wikipedia editions. Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The point here is not that Latin Wikipedia can be created, and Ancient Greek can not. Simply Latin Wikipedia was created before the rules for creating projects changed. If there were no Latin Wikipedia now and it was proposed to create, then it would not be created either. 85.249.174.129 02:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Rules can be changed. The request for Ancient Greek to become a Wikipedia was done before the rule was created, and for some reason that I still don't understand, it was rejected. I don't agree with the current role, so I propose a change. Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Humberto del Torrejón Do you have evidences where users can speak Ancient Greek? Just putting babel templates on their user pages would however be not enough. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Humberto del Torrejón Keke. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What Keke?! ~2025-67605-8 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, just bumping to prevent early-bird archiving. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, what is amazing about those Wikipedias? No, having editions in as many languages as possible is not the best way to achieve the mission of being accessible to every person in the world. Everyone who reads Ancient Greek also reads another language well supported at Wikipedia. Our concern should be on the languages of India and Africa, and I don't see any way to do much without improving the internet situation there.

Latin is a passable Wikipedia, but the others you mention aren't. Part of my objection to the Ancient Greek Wikipedia is that observers who know Greek have been dismissive of its quality; a Wikipedia that's written in a poor quality version of its language may actually hinder learning and understanding. Also, the gap between Latin and Ancient Greek is huge. The en.WP article on Ancient Greek mentions "Alfred Rahlfs included a preface, a short history of the Septuagint text, and other front matter translated into ancient Greek in his 1935 edition of the Septuagint", which is interesting as such front matter for Ancient Greek works was done in Latin at the time. Dissertations would still sometimes be written in Latin through the 1950s, and every so often papers are written in Latin today, like Definitio nova algebroidis verticiani (2006). Gothic and Old English Wikipedias were a bad idea and always have been.

Finally, prove it. There's various free Wiki sites out there, if the Incubator is not to your taste. Part of the reason there is a Toki Pona Wikipedia being created is because when they were rejected, Toki Pona users went out and eventually created wikipesija.org. If you build it under a compatible license, it can be imported back in. But it seems like everyone wants a Wikipedia for their language, but the number of people who (a) know the language and (b) are willing to write in it for Wikipedia is a lot lower. It's hard to argue with success.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes It looks like another (at least I very familiar with) pro-Ancient Greek user provided something against the current policy which I can't easily make doubts: this reply of deletion request regarding Wp/grc. Under their suggestion, the policy should not be "retroactively applied"?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that if the Ancient Greek Incubator is improved, then it could be approved despite this outdated language policy that would prohibit it? Because if that's the case, then I will start editing as much as I can, and in a year it will look acceptable. There are other ancient Greek speakers who are also interested in improving it. Because this discrimination against Greece cannot continue! Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Humberto del Torrejón There were too many suggests in the past several decades to propose amendments to the LPP, with finger-countable rare proposals got successful on minor and trival wording changes (the last successful change, if you're really interested in it, is changing "artifical languages" to "constructed languages" to represent Esperanto, Ido, Toki Pona...), none of those shook up the current position to ban extinct and historical languages, really, it seems that this has retroactively applied per that 5th rejection, and indeed, even I also agree that such a situation is unfair for the whole Wikimedia movement and hence I filed a U4C case, but then? I even failed to re-start such a motion to re-consider this situation. So still, I'd also love to ask you, and/or other supporters of Ancient Greek e.g. @Anaxicrates, that what makes your community amazing? Because at least from my part, I don't feel any "amazing" stuffs on those topics. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The Classical Greek language itself is amazing. What I find amazing about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia is the possibility to teach about the classical world in the Classical Greek language itself, and also to provide a Classical Greek perspective from the linguistic point of view, by applying the Classical Greek language to a modern encyclopedia. Of course, this aim is far from being fully accomplished yet, but we are progressing towards it little by little.

I would like to point out the fact that we are emending one of the main flaws of the project, i.e. poor quality standards, by revising every single article that there is. Since we introduced the "revised article" template a couple of months ago, we have revised more than one hundred pages, and we are also expanding topics on Ancient Greece.

Regarding your doubts about our ability to master the Classical Greek language, I and other users are willing to provide you scholarly certificates, if that can reassure you. Anaxicrates (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Anaxicrates What I'm doubting isn't how to "master the Classical Greek language", but rather 1. Are we discussing same language? If all of your discussed concepts are generated for "Classical Greek", then it probably is a new language that SIL didn't register a code for it and hence contributing Wp/grc is already enough making a lie, as iso639-3:grc said "Ancient Greek (to 1453)", or 2. Who are able to speak the Ancient Greek? This is the most reason for e.g. Prosfilaes above to oppose such bumping of policy amendment discussions, as such policy changes have to reflect the benefits of some certain speakers in the real world, instead of random putters of Babel templates which may be misused to just represent political stuffs. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Goodness gracious... I had already explained this, but I can repeat myself. Classical Greek is the standard variety of Ancient Greek that gets normally studied. As if one says e.g. "English", one usually means Standard British/American English, which is the variety that one normally learns, even if there are actually many different dialects that one could study (like e.g. the Scottish dialect, or even the Manchester dialect). So, "Ancient Greek" and "Classical Greek" are usually synonyms, and no, even if SIL only had one code for English, without distinction between the London and the Manchester dialects, that would not mean that one could not write an article in Standard British English, or that he would be lying if he presented that article as written in English, or that Standard British English would be a "new language" that SIL didn't register a code for.

A million people around the world (but mostly concentrated in Greece and Italy) are now studying Classical Greek at school/university, which is very often called simply Ancient Greek (like Standard British English is often simply called English), so I really don't understand your talk about "Babel templates which may be misused to just represent political stuffs". What political stuffs are you actually referring to? I don't understand. Anaxicrates (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, it would have benefits to point out, that the "ancient languages" concept seems confusing, which is the reason why SIL no longer lists any languages under "Ancient". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

SIL classifies Ancient Greek as a "living, historical language", which essentially corresponds to the concept of "classical language" (in a broad sense), so that's the category we should be referring to. Anaxicrates (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

So @Prosfilaes, as Anaxicrates said here, Ancient Greek is probably indeed a living language, but unfairly categorised as "historical" by SIL, should we support this user on submitting a code change request, to change its Type to Living? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

According to what SIL wrote to me, Ancient Greek, as well as other classical languages, is considered by them as both "historical" and "living". This is not in contradiction, because "historical language does not imply extinct".

In my opinion, a more sensible proposal would be to implement a new category ("classical") for the languages that they now consider "historical" and "living" at the same time. Anaxicrates (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anaxicrates What I'm asking is for Prosfilaes, not you, so I don't know why were you rushing to answer here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I only replied because you discussed about "supporting this user [i.e. me] on submitting a code change request, to change its Type to Living", which is something I did not propose in the first place. I then proposed to ask for a change of Type to "Classical", which fits best with SIL's characterization of Ancient Greek as both an "historical" and "living" language. That being said, let's hope that also @Prosfilaes replies. Anaxicrates (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You could try, you know, writing an encyclopedia, or you could try gaming the rules until you get what you want. As I said, the Toki Pona people, when denied a Wikipedia, went away and built an encyclopedia elsewhere. Had they not got permission to have a Wikipedia, they would still be working on an encyclopedia. That indicates they didn't just want the glory of Toki Pona Wikipedia, they actually wanted an Toki Pona encyclopedia. We've argued over whether Ancient Greek fits the qualifications, and the conclusion has been no. SIL's classification of Ancient Greek is no longer really relevant; it doesn't tell us anything that hasn't already been debated over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Prosfilaes, thank you very much for your answer!

We don't want the "glory" of an Ancient Greek Wikipedia (why must we face these prejudices?), we want an Ancient Greek encyclopedia, and indeed we are trying to write it, because we think it is useful.

We regret the fact that the LangCom cannot understand that Classical Greek is not an ordinary historical language, and closes the door to the project in principle. Your own arguments stood out in the discussion for their factual basis - focusing on quality control and contributor base rather than ideological preconceptions. We interpreted your position as one of conditional support, dependent on meeting practical benchmarks.

On the other hand, the ideological ban against Ancient Greek is a primary obstacle to the development of the encyclopedia itself, as it prevents the project from even having a perspective. If you say that the SIL classification is not key to lifting this ideological ban, I accept your advice; but then, what is? How can we transition the discussion from an a priori rejection to a practical evaluation? Thank you! Yours, Anaxicrates (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not a primary obstacle. If you want an encyclopedia, there's several free Wiki sites, or MediaWiki can be hosted on a personal server or cloud service.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

While not false, that solution would probably make the encyclopedia less visible, and certainly preclude the possibility of comparing an article in a different language with the Ancient Greek one through interlinks. Anaxicrates (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Approval request for the Urdu Wikisource

Greetings Language Committee, The Urdu Wikisource project has been active for the past seven months. We kindly request a review of the project for final approval. -- KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It's very positive, and I think I can begin the approval process after reviewing a few of the things. However, I can't review this right now, so I'll get back to you later. Thank you for your efforts. --Sotiale (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

About Okinawan wikipedia

There are 2672 articles in Okinawan wikipedia, and User interfaces have translated to Okinawan. So would you like let Okinawan wikipedia graduate from incubator? さきじょーぐー (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Although it has recently begun, it still doesn't meet the criteria for community sustainability. I'm confident that with more active editors continuing to edit, it will gain approval. --Sotiale (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

There are 14 handreds of people in Okinawa prefecture.I think that if Wikipedia incubator have be known morely, Editors increase. Can it advertise Okinawan wikipedia by wikimedia fundation?

There are several media in Okinawa. さきじょーぐー (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Okuwa ngaka dentaku kotateni ~2025-29629-13 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

My absence

I'm hesitant to write about my absence here, but I'm afraid it'll lead to questions about why the approval review is delayed, so I'm writing this in advance. I'll be traveling soon, which will limit my internet access. However, I am currently conducting the expert verifications and approval processes via email, which I have already initiated, and this will continue during my business trip. The trip is expected to last approximately 10 days, and I will review and respond to all requests after I return, unless they have already been processed by my other colleagues. --Sotiale (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Mon Pali

I have conceived the idea of establishing a Wiki Project for the Mon Pali language due to its current critically endangered status. The primary reason for this is the extreme scarcity of individuals proficient in Mon Pali, which is leading the language toward potential extinction. Mon Pali is a traditional language of the Mon people, essentially a variant form of the Pali language. As it is a lesser-known language, it has not yet been assigned a language code. Currently, proficiency in Mon Pali is limited to only a few scholars within the Mon community. Tragically, many highly proficient Mon Pali scholars have passed away, leaving only a few disciples, including myself, to carry on their knowledge. For the reasons stated above, I am requesting guidance and recommendations from the relevant Wikimedia authorities on how we may proceed to preserve the Mon Pali language.𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 23:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Languages without language codes are not approved for Wikimedia projects. You can try contacting ISO to obtain a code. Some people from the Wikimedia world succeeded at doing this, for example ltg, hyw, and rsk.

Is this a language that people use to say or write new things or it a literary language with a specific corpus?

Do you want to write new encyclopedic content it, write a dictionary, transcribe already-published texts, or something else? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Mon Pali is an extremely ancient traditional language of Mon literature. This language is primarily used in the context of Buddhism. Mon Pali has been in use for over a thousand years, continuing up to the present day. Currently, Mon monks use the Mon Pali language for various purposes, including taking exams, preaching sermons, offering prayers, and creating amulets. However, the majority of them do not understand the meaning; most only read what is written in the books. Only a small number of people truly understand the meanings of those Mon Pali words. Those who are proficient in and understand Mon Pali are recognized and certified as Mon Scholars by the Mon community. When Mon people challenge each other intellectually, they also compete using their proficiency in this Mon Pali language. Today, after the Mon lost the war, the Mon Pali language is now on the verge of extinction due to the influence of other ethnic groups' languages. The reason for this is that although there are Mon monks who teach Mon Pali, the majority of the teachers themselves do not understand the meaning and are merely reading from books and teaching. Those who genuinely understand the meaning of Mon Pali are extremely rare. Mon Pali is used in both Buddhist scriptures and in sorcery/occult practices. Due to the Burmese government's 1966 order prohibiting the teaching of Mon script and the subsequent arrests and legal actions, the number of people who are proficient in and understand the Mon language and Mon Pali language has become very rare today. As for myself, I am proficient in Mon Pali, Old Mon, and Modern Mon, and I am capable of translation. I am currently struggling alone, using various methods to prevent this language from disappearing. My main objective is to use both the simple (Modern) and the traditional (Pali) languages simultaneously, similar to the Chinese Wiki project, to ensure that both are preserved at the same time. The majority of people use Mon Pali, but they do not understand its meaning. Only a small number of people are proficient in Mon Pali and can translate it. I currently do not have the necessary contacts to request an ISO code for Mon Pali. Extensive documentation regarding Mon Pali can be found in Thailand and Myanmar, thanks. 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 12:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's a variant of the Pali language, can it be under the pi language, the same as Pali? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Project closures in limbo

What is the status of Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Greenlandic Wikipedia and Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Cree Wikipedia? They were closed as accepted but it doesn't look like any steps have been taken to carry out the closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 02:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Approval Request for Hausa Wikiquote

I'm still writing for the approval of Hausa Wikiquote. We have thousands of articles (2500 or more) and many editors editing it. Kindly start approval process.[2]

Best regards Uncle Bash007 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Approval Request for the Levantine Arabic Wikipedia

The project has had a decent amount of activity for the past 12 months. Although it fell a bit for the last 2 months, I believe it will recover soon. The project has an active Discord server and a volunteer Instagram account with ~450 followers, mostly from Turkey. Here are some additional points for the case for approval

• The most interested group of native speakers are in Turkey, but they are not familiar with the Arabic script. They use the latin script to communicate. We need the official launch to start working on the dual writing system and recruit more contributors.
• The language is the 33rd most commonly spoken natural language in the world. Wikipedia has already editions in more than 300 languages, it is definitely not unrealistic to assume that this one is legitimately a viable project.
• The Incubator project has sufficient number of good articles, it could even be one of the notable written works in this language, so it deserves to be officially launched and get the inter-language links: which would even bring more contributors.

Adding @HitomiAkane, @FunLater, @A455bcd9 if they want to add anything. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to post something similar today. @Liuxinyu970226 recently removed Levantine from the featured list. It's the 3rd largest project here by number of articles (see: Incubator:Incubator:Wikipedia projects). Unclear what the next steps are. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Well, because in the last two months, only 2 users (TheJoyfulTentmaker and HitomiAkane) are active, will the activity be re-populated up? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't criticize your decision. It's just unclear when/how long the project has to stay active for before a decision is made and this might discourage contributors. A455bcd9 (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the drop in the activity in the last 2 months is not ideal, but also please look longer term. The contributors to the Levantine Wiki are experienced Wikimedians with multiple project involvements. And not all activity is visible in the Incubator logs, Discord, Instagram, merge requests to ISO to merge apc and ajp, which was primarily motivated for setting up the Levantine Wiki. Also, the Language Committee used judgement in the past, e.g. raising the bar for artificial languages. Here we are discussing a language that is a natural language and within the top 35 in the world, and we have already a meaningful collection of content. Overall, the most important aspects from Wikimedia mission's perspective are "is this a different language" and "can the project survive?", and the answer to both is a clear yes, as far as I see it. Multi-script is essential so people from Turkey and the Lebanese diaspora can join the project, and that either would require a separate incubator wiki (which will be wasteful in terms of the effort needed to set that up) or simply approve and launch and we can start working on the multi-script system, similar to the one used in the Kurdish Wikipedia (Latin, Arabic). TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker And how do you consider those users who said oppose? Aren't they answer to both questions you asked as really no instead of yes? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 Those users who said oppose (Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Levantine Arabic) are the exact same ones using the exact same arguments as those who opposed Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Moroccan and Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic. And yet those were created. So of course the answer to the first question is yes. "can the project survive?" is a different question, but again: what is the criterion? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

As a sidenote, Levantine Arabic is the largest language (in terms of both total speakers and native speakers) without its own Wikipedia edition. I wonder what the second one is but it might have just a few million speakers. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)