Talk:Language committee

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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

2013 non-Wikipedia requests[edit]

I think verifying them can be easier than any ongoing verifications, and here are what I suggest:

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was planning to try to address 2017 requests next, but will get at these soon. StevenJ81 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, IMHO the Pipil Wikinews is a problem, because it's the only one Wikinews that is under Nahuatl languages umbrella. The solution is still waiting for that, which as a Collection of languages (see iso639-3:nah), Nahuatl does illegally have a Wikipedia that mixed a huge number of member languages. -- 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Good point, some months ago, this problem bumped a question: should we rename nahwiki to nciwiki or nhnwiki? and why? After that, the entire discussion dead, nothing happened on this panorama, really, nothing. Now the Wikidata issue bumped this problem again, because an IP user on that sent me an email that he wanna use nci, nch, ... instead of confusing nah, so we need a final target now, that nahwiki really need to be splitted finally, otherwise there're really no answer for all questions about Nahuatl. Note that I said three "really", so this is really a long-term problem now! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It really is. There is a LangCom member who said he would address this; let me bug him again. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

See latest updates above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

More updates above. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet other updates above. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Last updates of non-Wiktionary projects before New Year's Day. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Finished with all of these. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Saraiki[edit]

As Wikipedia is thinking about creating projects in also in those language which have no ISO_3 code. In this sense if saraiki is given code sar. It would be easy to understand that it is saraiki language. So it is suggested that be created.Sraiki 15:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Saraiki already has code skr, and that is the code that will be used for Saraiki-language projects. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81 Thanks, Wikipedia be approved so that work be made faster.Sraiki 16:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Why don't you use the word will in any place? -- 09:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Now we have improved Saraiki Wikipedia. Now stubs are less than 20%. so this wiki be approved.Sraiki 11:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Sraiki: I will look at the test late next week. (That's the soonest I can do it.) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Sraiki: I'm still checking on a couple of things, but I'm hoping to present Saraiki Wikipedia to LangCom by next week. Keep up the good work. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226 @StevenJ81, Saraiki language speaking people are in wait for Wikipedia in Saraiki.Sraiki 15:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sraiki: This is now waiting on LangCom to find an expert who can verify that the test's language is Saraiki. (Don't take this personally. This is a requirement every time the first project in a new language is to be approved, and happened because of problems in the past.) Do you have the name of an academic or professional linguist—preferably one not strongly involved in your test project—whom LangCom could contact? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81 Dear, These are some professors in Saraiki.

See: 1. 2. Sraiki

@Sraiki: Thank you. I will forward to LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:, The Saraiki ethnic community of Saraikistan area and all over the world is thankful to you and whole Wikipedia team for helping us to promote our language and culture through knowledge. Saraikis are expecting the approval of Saraiki wikipedia and its own website of wikipedia. Your kindness in this regard will be remebered forever. So we are waiting for good news from you. Thanks. Engr.ismailbhutta (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:, @Liuxinyu970226 @StevenJ81, @Engr.ismailbhutta:, If Wikipedia is approved, the work will became fast, Approval is very close. Sraiki 04:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:, @Liuxinyu970226 @StevenJ81, @Engr.ismailbhutta:, It is requested that language committee should take the notice of so delay in this matter. It is hoped that lang comm will try their best for this creation as soon as possible. Sraiki 15:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

We want to work for wikivoyage, wikibooks, wikinews and wikiquote projects of saraiki language. Please consider these for approval. Engr.ismailbhutta (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Mongolian language written in Mongolian script[edit]

Actually is it supposed to be represented by the ISO-639 language code cmg: Classical Mongolian? C933103 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference between modern Mongolian written with the script and the extinct en:Classical Mongolian language. --MF-W 15:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The thing is Encyclopedia Britannica list Classical Mongolian as an alternative name for Literary Mongolian, and then Harvard University also wrote on introduction to their Mongolian program in a way of "Classical (literary) Mongolian". There's also book that describe "Classical Mongolian" as the literary language of Mongolian. Is the "Classical Mongolian" being described by the code "cmg" being the same thing as what the Encyclopedia Britannica is describing, or is it some other thing that is not being well documented? What exactly is the "Classical Mongolian" being described? C933103 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
We follow ISO 639-3. According to that, Classical Mongolian is an extinct language. So I guess this follows the definition of "some scholars [who] restrict that term [=Classical Mongolian] [...] to the latest period of its history (17th-20th centuries)" (quote from the Britannica snippet that is visible at your link). --MF-W 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
However, an language is consider "extinct" when there are no speakers anymore. Since Literary Mongolian is a language specifically for writing, there should not be any speakers of the language and thus the language should be extincted as it is supposed to even if there are still active use of the language in writing. I think it is similar to Literary Chinese or use of Latin after middle age era. Anyway, I think it would be the best if someone can ask ISO 639-3's RA what that Classical Mongolian actually isC933103 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand the issue. There is no request to create a Classical Mongolian Wikipedia at the moment, so we don't need to know what it is. --MF-W 10:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: There are request to create a Wikipedia for Mongolian written in Mongolian script, and then also a request to create a monolingual value for Mongolian text in Mongolian script, however both of them are not proceeding at least partially because of the language code problem. If Classical Mongolian with its language code being cmg was actually the intended code for Mongolian language written in Mongolian script, then those requests can be proceed accordingly. C933103 (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@C933103 and MF-Warburg:
  1. Indeed, the status on SIL can sometimes be confusing, too. This is just the problem that Ancient Greek meets.
  2. For "and then also a request to create a monolingual value for Mongolian text in Mongolian script", it looks like that you're asking phab:T137810, that said, @GerardM: will not allow introducing any new codes with dash, if they're begin with macrolanguage code, and I was also actually asked SIL that if changing Mongolian from macrolanguage back to an individual language is possible or not, the Melinda from SIL respond me two emails that No, there are really variets of Mongolian that make benefit to define "Mongolian" as macrolanguage", so I cried to ask you, C933103, can you please accept the Azerbaijani mode? To allow using mvf on Wikidata, and just by local definding that "mn-mong=mvf" on modules? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The Azerbaijani comparison isn't really appropriate, see my user talk page reply for further detail. C933103 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Another example to what I mentioned: xwo, "Written Oirat", is listed as "extinct" despite information indicate that Oirat people are still writing in such script. That indicate language would still be marked as extinct despite they are written language and in active written use. Therefore the ISO labelling for languages extinct status is meaningless for language that are only written but not spoken. C933103 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So I asked SIL via email about information of what is the Classical Mongolian language in ISO 639-3. They pointed me to but the site seems to be having problem now. However as I understand the Multitree site would show users a list of resources on Lingulist. And thus there are about a dozen or so different form of materials about Classical Mongolian that are available on Lingulist. It also linked a few Linguists who are listed as related to Classical Mongolian. Some of those linked document specify Classical Mongolian = Written Mongolian, some of those doesn't mention it, some of those imply they're talking about written language with classical mongolian listed as subject language for their mail, but some of them seems to be using the code to talk about ancient speaking language and some even seems to be using the code to talk about vowels of the language being spoken in modern time in Chinese part of Mongolia. Not sure what it imply. Maybe someone can contact one of those listed linguist for detail? C933103 (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM: Will you have time to contact them? Because for random one of those 6 linguists, their email address are not publicly shown, and by clicking that blue button I got a captcha-like popup, but between texts and login button, I can only see "404 Not Found" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: You can google the name and institution of those linguists listed on the site and you can usually find their email or social network accounts in the first few results. C933103 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@C933103: I've tried, but non of all those linguists published their email addresses in anywhere. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: How about emails listed at or or (page 2 left hand side) or or C933103 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Then @C933103: I can confirm that the wickhamsmith is failed, because I've got an automated refusion message that "host[] said: 552 For explanation visit (in reply to RCPT TO command)", I'm trying other four. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@C933103:I've transfered a copy of response email (from Benjamin) to you, please read it in your inbox. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, so it seems like it is inappropriate to use cmg: Classical Mongolian to represent Mongolian written in Traditional Mongolian Script. And then mvf is also an ill choice to represent anything. So, what now? C933103 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Oh and by the way, from the mail it seems like you haven't briefed the professor with enough context when you send him the mail. I hope you have written an appropriate follow up reply to the professor afterward. C933103 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

In this situation, what would be the most suitable code? C933103 (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think no alternates are good to you, then you have to withdraw directly requesting Monolingual text codes, but just add mn values, with qualifier writing system (P282) Mongolian script (Q1055705). If you even can't agree this, then you have to drop your efforts. Just a reminder that langcom wasn't, isn't, and won't agree any ideas for mn-mong, because if there's a separated individual code available for i18n, then its "father" macrolanguage code will be PROHIBITED for any usages in anywhere of WMF. -- 07:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It would probably help if you signed in, especially if you want to continue to speak as an authority on the subject. I don't know where you're getting "PROHIBITED" from; both and exist, so there is a precedent that mn-mong could be used for language tag for a Wikimedia project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes,, C933103, and StevenJ81: FWIW, in that Phabricator task GerardM said these sentences which to the best of my knowledge, they vetoed mn-mong:

... I don't know how old this quote is. Current policy is that macrolanguages require a 2/3 vote, not that they cannot be approved at all. Mind you, Gerard, nearly always will vote against a macrolanguage. But if two people vote against him, it can be allowed. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

And as per **two emails** I've got in the last year, SIL will never agree any "cancel" requests of macrolanguages, and Mongolian (mn) is also a macrolanguage even you don't think so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It was unclear what the problem was, though if it's accepted that Mongolian in the Cyrillic script and Mongolian in the Mongolian script need to reside on different wikis, given the current existence of mn, I find it unreasonable to reject mn-Mong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pause to restate the problem (25 November)[edit]

Could everyone please stop for a moment?

I need someone to define clearly what the problem even is here. Are we talking about a potential project eligibility? Are we just talking about identifying text strings in Wikidata? Those aren't the same thing, and might be handled differently?

  • Note: people don't need to keep quoting @GerardM. And note that not everyone on the Committee always agrees with his interpretation of the rules. In particular,
    • when the "constituent languages" of the "macrolanguage" are highly mutually intelligible, and/or
    • when the "constituent languages", even if not mutually intelligible in speech, are basically the same in writing
then LangCom should and will permit the macrolanguage.

It seems to me, then, that if we're talking data strings in Wikidata, then one or more of the following will, absolutely be permissible:

  • If the reference is only from Classical/Literary Mongolian, then code it that way
  • If the reference is modern, then either one of the language codes of constituent languages within mn, or else mn-Mong itself, has to be eligible. The real question here would then be, "are the data strings we're talking about correct in multiple types of Mongolian? If so, either code it multiple times in the corresponding Wikidata entries, or show me that from a written point of view, it's really a single language. And do that here, not phabricator.

If we're talking about a project approval, the appropriate place to discuss is on the RFL page. In that case, LangCom's first preference would be either (a) a project in the individual variety of Mongolian, and/or (b) a script converter on the current mnwiki. But if neither of those is possible, and the community clearly demonstrates on Incubator that all varieties in Mongolian script are welcome, we can work with that—provided it is consistent with modern usage of this script. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We do not accept macro languages except as an artifact of days gone bye. (Thank your deity). Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@GerardM: You are the only member of the Committee who feels that strongly about it. And current policy says "2/3" (see voting page), not "we do not accept". StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
We also have a history of seeking consensus. Your notion is not argued but a power ploy. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
If you say so. Yeah, I'm really gunning for power here. What nonsense. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Total consensus based systems only work when people are willing to concede. Otherwise it's just tyranny by the people who are only interested in getting their way. The cases where a two-thirds majority can't win a consensus should be rare and be very stressful to the system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. It is about both of them, the wikidata text value identifier and also the creation of Mongolian in Classical Mongolian script Wikipedia.
    @C933103: Please, as I'm crying with tears to ask you to, do not suggest site creation using a code with dash, that can result speedy veto from server operations e.g. @Reedy (WMF):. -- 08:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    I am not making such recommendation in this message, although it doesn't really make sense to speedy veto site creation with dash when it have already be done in the past.C933103 (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. After contacting Mongolian linguistic professors, it have been shown that "Classical Mongolian" as in the iso language code cmg is not supposed to represent the written language that use Classical Mongolian script, so it would be incorrect to use the language code "cmg" here for this purpose.
  3. You can check the description on the Written Mongolian here: [1]
  1. Then what do you think would be an appropriate language code for Mongolian text written in Mongolian script? Given that mvf is inappropriate as already clarified by Doctor Benjamin Brosig in his email to User:Liuxinyu970226.
C933103 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@C933103: To the best of my knowledge, the decision of langcom is kindly like the Permanent five of UNSC, where I'm 99.999% sure that your proposals can be vetoed just by one oppose vote. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
That is no longer technically true, though most of the time it is still true in practice. However, that applies to a formal LangCom discussion forum; just because a LangCom member has expressed concerns here does not mean this discussion should be stopped. It does mean, though, that proponents need to know their chances are slim. StevenJ81 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81 and GerardM: That rule (I mean, the "2/3 agreetion") requires "within langcom-l mailing list" mail vote, and do you both send such emails to start a refreshed new vote? If not, then it's still true that mn-mong is one-oppose-vetoed by GerardM. -- 08:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mention anything about that in this particular section. C933103 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid no one can accept any creation of new WMF sites (if by site creation you mean domains) now, just if the language code has dash. The likely case is Korean in Hanja, which C933103 was proposed ko-hani but, not only langcom members but also Korean Wikipedia communities e.g. @-revi: oppose it. -- 03:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, you speak as if on high, but as an anonymous editor, I don't see why anyone should accept your assertion that "no one can accept". If there are language communities divided by script that can not be held on one Wikipedia, we would have no option but to include a script tag or some other (standard or non standard) disambiguator. Korean in Hanja doesn't strike me as a likely case at all, given that both Koreas write Korean in Hangul, and I don't think there's any other major groups of Korean speakers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
And @Prosfilaes: How did your comments be effectively here? Nearly all of your this comment are addressing no problem at all, which looks just like a "three sentences" bushwa to me, if a vote can also be happened for Korean Hanja, then it should be bumped within langcom-l, if not, just non-admin close it, thx. -- 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding your sentences. Korean in Hanja fails the test of being a real problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: "Not a real problem", hehe. -- 02:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@GerardM: So can you suggest a language code for use for purposes listed above? C933103 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
AFAICS that is at least not mn-mong, just because that's vetoed by GerardM, you must select a proper alternative code, C933103. -- 08:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
At issue is the use of standards. My oposition is based on my understanding of standards. I reject the notion that we are free to just select something because it is convenient. When there is a need for something where the standards are problematic, there is ampple room to go different and indicate this in the code used. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we please close this section by this way?![edit]

1. @StevenJ81: Do you, or @Amire80, Maor X, GerardM, Jon Harald Søby, and MF-Warburg:@Millosh and Satdeep Gill: do you all have anytime to start an official within-member [VOTE] in langcom-l mailing list regarding this? As that IP user pointed, the "2/3 agreetion requires a vote held within langcom member, and within mailing list", if not, then it's very likely that the normal "one-oppose veto" has applied. I will continue filling other steps after your responds. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What you propose is against the voting policy. Topics should be discussed first, and only afterwards there will maybe be a vote. So far, this topic has not been discussed by langcom at all. --MF-W 13:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No need to, the C933103 is also having their wrong behaviors e.g. forking CC BY-SA 3.0 contents to Wikinews which is CC BY 2.5. -- 05:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me why a script converter on the current Mongolian Wikipedia is not a viable solution? StevenJ81 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Chinneeb, Danzanjamts, MongolWiki, Munkhzaya.E, and Zorigt:@Доромжлол шүүгч:. -- 08:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't think the 117.* comment should be striked, because, as per s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#文言文维基文库很可能将会设立 and Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2017-11#question_on_wikinews_license_compatibility., C933103's comments are also sometimes "untrustful". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've got other things to put before LangCom at higher priority than this. I will get this to them, probably some time in February. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When to approve Western Armenian Wikipedia?[edit]

It's already approval ongoing for over 3 months! -- 02:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's awaiting language verification. Can a registered user who has been contributing either at hywiki or on the Incubator please provide contact information on language experts (substantially) independent of the work here? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have reviewed all the translations and everything is ok.--Azniv Stepanian (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Would you mind confirming from your WMAM account? In the meanwhile, over the weekend, I'll try to get a final OK from LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I confirm what I said above.--Azniv Stepanian (WMAM) (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Western Armenian Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Language committee, please solve the issue of the separation of Western Armenian Wikipedia. I send an email to committee mailing list. Thanks! --WikiTatik (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@WikiTatik: The (probably) good news: [2]. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much!--WikiTatik (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

։;Dear Liuxinyu970226, I checked there is no (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@WikiTatik: Not yet. Probably will be approved in the next few days. Then it will take some time to get content moved from hy.wikipedia and from Incubator into the newly approved project. But progress is being made. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This project was approved on 24 December 2018 and is in the process of being created. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Guianan Creole Wikipedia[edit]

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

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

For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Don't forget us, please ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeGuyanaisPure: First of all, see this below. Nothing is moving so fast right now, anyway.
Second, though, please see my email response to you: I could not locate your language expert on the Internet. I looked at three websites in detail (the Collectivité, the Département and the Université). I also did a general Google search, and found only one possibility: a teacher in a private school in New York. Can you make sure you gave me the correct information? Tell me where you found him, and why he's the best expert—or please provide a different possibility. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I sent you an email...! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary Minangkabau[edit]

Hello. The Minangkabau Wiktionary recently saw a significant increase in its activities. We now have a regular pool of active contributors and recently-acquired dictionaries and other needed resources for a new project. Therefore, we would like the Committee to consider it for the next step into final approval. Thank you. Muhraz (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Activity only really started in December. It would be good to wait at least a little bit more. There should usually be at least 3 months of consecutive activity. Please also work to complete the interface translation (at least the most-used messages). --MF-W 16:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
As our Wiktionary has been steadily (and increasingly) active since the last message and the core messages are being translated, I would like to request for the Committee to reconsider it for release. Thanks. Muhraz (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You and the community are doing a great job, @Muhraz. Still, I'm going to hold this request until you have sufficient activity in April, for two reasons:
  • 3 months is the minimum activity requirement, but 4—5 months is better.
  • There is still a technical problem in creating new wikis. See phabricator:T212881. Right now, there are three approved projects (Western Armenian Wikipedia, Neapolitan Wikisource, Hindi Wikisource) and two other wikis ahead of you in line. So nothing will happen on this for a while, anyway. It's better to continue to show your community's commitment by continuing to create content in Incubator for right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Very well then, we would be content to wait until next month. We expect to maintain the same level of activity, and I hope that the Committee would immediately consider our project for approval when the technical problems are fixed. Muhraz (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Hindi Wikisource[edit]

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

The LangCom intends to approve Hindi Wikisource. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, Any update of this proposal?? Jayantanth (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It's still under discussion in LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: , @Amire80, Maor X, GerardM, Jon Harald Søby, and MF-Warburg:,@Millosh and Satdeep Gill: , Dear all, I know that you are so busy with so many request. If you have a little time to approved this 10 years old request, then Hindi Community will be very happy. Please consider to took at this request. Thanks you. Jayantanth (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jayantanth: I am trying to bring this to a close now. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jayantanth: Please see below: Nothing will happen until March anyway. Please be patient. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Just wondering, if Finnish Sign Language can be considered as at least eligible (inter alia through a SignWriting MediaWiki Plugin), then shouldn't Braille be considered for use in some way too? Are there not technologies for converting electronic Braille symbols into tactile bumps? And is Braille not a writing system with numerous users??
Maybe this should be implemented as alternative scripts in relevant existing Wikipedias, like the two scripts available in the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia:

—DIV ( 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

Agreed, see also Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Braille. --MF-W 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, MF-W. I have to admit that I don't know Braille myself, so I can't comment on how useful it'd be. It seems more of a question to me of whether those who could potentially benefit are even aware that there might be (?) technology that can allow this to happen.
I can see the formal process for requesting a new Wikipedia be created for a "language", but I cannot see what the process is for creating additional pages within an existing Wikipedia in a new script. Presumably if I wanted to create an Arabic-script page for "Astronomy" on the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia, then something would prevent me. Other examples, such as a romanised/pinyin version of a (Mandarin) Chinese article might be more justified. (Actually, the Chinese article on "Astronomy" at 天文學 includes a menu for 'conversions' into 5 or 6 other {languages/dialects/orthographies/scripts/???}, such as for "zh-tw" [天文學] and for "zh-sg" [天文学]. Hard to tell (for me) if this is an automatic conversion or not.) But what would be the procedure to propose it, and what would be the procedure to get it approved?
—DIV ( 01:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC))
Maybe I am wrong? Maybe this is the kind of thing that Braille users would obtain through client-side 'reading' technology, i.e. some kind of 'text-to-Braille' converter connected to the user's device? Or could it be good fodder for a Braille e-book?
—DIV ( 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC))
I can't imagine that blind people would get a better deal from an automatic conversion, like at the Chinese Wikimedia projects, then they would from their local systems; at the very least, with their local systems, they'd get the same spellings here they'd get elsewhere on the web. Given the rarity of Unicode braille and the ease of conversion, I can't imagine anyone who can afford a braille board who doesn't have a decent conversion system along with it.
It's like languages; demand from people who aren't going to use it isn't of much help. People who actually need this are the ones to be driving the project forward.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikisources: Latin vs. other old languages (re: Chinese)[edit]

As per some recent conversion on langcom, I might point out that taking Latin as the model for all old Wikisources might have negative repercussions. Should Middle Dutch works be removed from the Dutch Wikisource if the Afrikaans Wikisource becomes a thing? Should Old and Middle English works be removed from the English Wikisource if some English creole language gets a Wikisource? Or likewise for French and its many creoles? I can see an argument for Old and Middle English works being moved if Scots speakers decided to leave the English Wikisource, but I'd like to think that could be handled by discussion between the two groups and not by some hard and fast rule.

Latin, as I frequently have to say here, is sui generis; trying to compare another language to it is almost always going to be unhelpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, we would not be having separate language editions for Wikisource, exactly because of these frequent overlaps of languages. With regards to Chinese, it is already reality that many Chinese languages already have their own language edition. It just happens to be that Classical Chinese works have been submitted to the project (originally) designated to Mandarin Chinese, which does not follow linguistical logic. I am not arguing for forcefully moving Classical Chinese content away from there, but if there is someone who does not want to submit his works under that false domain, but on mulwikisource (under the lzh code) instead, that should be allowed. Political arguments like "the main language of modern China is Mandarin, and thus Classical Chinese belongs to there" or "non-Mandarin speakers rarely edit Classical Chinese content" should not count. --Vogone (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
We're not talking about mulwikisource; we talking about the creation of the Classical Chinese Wikisource. Political arguments, as you put it, are the reason for structuring projects; it's about bringing together a bunch of people who can work together. It's helpful to have a Wikisource to be largely intelligible by its admins; I can imagine working a Wikisource of Latin-script languages, but Arabic, Indian and Chinese script languages would be impossible for me to even compare to the scans. The Mandarin Chinese Wikisource has a group of people willing to work together to on Classical Chinese, and they've agreed to include those (rare) people who don't speak Mandarin Chinese but want to work on Classical Chinese.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
We are talking about the possibility to create an independent Classical Chinese Wikisource, provided there being at least 5 community members regularly editing its test content on mulwikisource, nothing more. I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that we structure projects for political reasons, the reasons are - and as well are supposed to be - linguistic. As the policy itself puts it: "The project will be assessed on its linguistic merits" and "the number of users that support or oppose the project is irrelevant". Also, multilingual administration is far from uncommon (think of meta, wikidata, commons, …). --Vogone (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The two of you seem to be talking at cross-purposes: (national) politics on the one hand, and wiki administration on the other hand. —DIV ( 03:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC))
LPP says "The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki." and "Wikisource wikis are allowed in languages with no native speakers, although these should be on a wiki for the modern form of the language if possible". Mandarin Chinese is a descendant of Classical Chinese; that is a linguistic reason to keep Classical Chinese there. The goals of these rules are to avoid opening a new project that covers the same area as an old and zh.WS does cover that area quite well.
You name three projects out of hundreds (303 Wikipedia projects alone); I think that qualifies as uncommon. Both here and on Commons I do not think I would feel nearly as welcome if I did not speak English, and on Commons I regularly see admins asking for help and using Google Translate for messages in various non-English languages. As I said, the ability to patrol changes and recognize vandalism on the English Wikisource would be much harder if I couldn't even process the script.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify a couple of issues with respect to this situation, which LangCom is in the middle of discussing.
  • To some extent, these are judgment calls.
    Still, most of the time, there is a pretty obvious principal descendant language that would be the home of documents in historical versions of the language. ([Modern] English is still the principal descendant of Old English and Middle English, and [Modern] Dutch—not Afrikaans—is still the principal descendant of Old Dutch.)
  • You are quite right to describe Latin as sui generis in this regard. Many languages are descended from it, and if anything it is a little hard for anyone to say that Latin is a closer ancestor of one than of another. (Italian, I suppose, maybe, but I don't think anyone could make a strong case that Latin Wikisource documents would be more appropriately housed in Italian Wikisource than in French or Portuguese Wikisource.)
  • Concerning Classical Chinese (lzh):
  1. For now, we are talking about possibilities. Mostly, no one is talking about (currently) splitting off current lzh content into a separate project. The question is more whether we are willing to risk some potential of overlapping projects and duplicated content. [That's one reason that some people (like @Vogone and @MF-Warburg) would prefer there to be only a single, multilingual Wikisource project.] The question is also whether we might eventually consider splitting off current lzh content. But that's for later, not for now.
  2. You can argue both sides of this debate from a policy perspective.
    • Pro: It's pretty equivalent to Latin: (1) Most people would say that lzh is fairly different from modern versions of Chinese. (2) It has been argued than lzh is as much the early ancestor of Japanese, Korean, etc. as Latin is the early ancestor of French, Portuguese, etc. So it should be treated that way.
    • Con: lzh is unarguably an early version of Chinese, and probably Chinese is still the "principal descendant" of lzh. (But is Mandarin any more entitled to that description than, say, Cantonese?)
    I suspect that if we were just starting out with lzh content now, we'd say yes to this. But given that an enormous amount of lzh content already exists on Chinese Wikisource—and that most contributors do not favor separating the projects—that answer is not so simple.
  3. Over the course of this debate, the Chinese Wikisource community has come to appreciate that non-Mandarin speakers may have a real stake in lzh content, so they have opened an English-language (meaning non-Mandarin) Scriptorium there. Whether that solution is sufficient or just a first step is a good question, but the community is trying to be mindful of this issue.
StevenJ81 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
lzh is not the early ancestor of Japanese, Korean, etc. Both of them are language isolates unrelated to lzh. The Cantonese-Mandarin relationship seems pretty similar to the Scots-English relationship; both are equal descendants of the older language, but one is a regional language and the other is a national/supernational language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
So I guess we all agree that Mandarin and Classical Chinese are sufficiently unique: They are neither "regional dialects" nor "different written forms of the same language", but plainly two different languages.
Further, the policy you cited only recommends to include the projects of wikisource of old languages within the versions of the corresponding modern languages, but it does not prohibit they have it independently (and there are some valid arguments in favour):
Literary Chinese is not comparable with Old English or Middle Dutch or almost any other dated version of a current language: While these only have a cultural influence limited to their national cultural environments, Literary Chinese has, without doubt, a world-wide importance. The truly international character of Literary Chinese, which is in that extent only comparable with Latin and Ancient Greek (which both have been marked as eligible a decade ago) is obvious (it is even more comparable with Latin than with Greek, since it has different equally important descendants, which would be possible hosts of the language). Decoupling can attract the participation of a wider international audience. I think that can also encourage the use of Literary Chinese as language to use in discussions, as in Latina Wikipedia.
That does not prohibit using Mandarin or Kantonese for administrative purposes, nor does it prohibit using English to communicate with administrators who are not capable of the language, so I don't think there would be significantly more communicative difficulties than on zhwikisource. This is also the obvious solution to the problem you devised: The community simply has the duty to also elect administrators, who speak e. g. Mandarin to allow a trouble-free communication, but that's nothing specific about this very wiki and it works quite well on most wikis. Regards, KPFC💬 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Technical delays in creating new wikis[edit]

For Neapolitan Wikisource: @Candalua, Chelin, Ruthven, Lismia, and Parma1983.
For Western Armenian Wikipedia: @Armeniki, Davit Saroyan (WMAM), and Werldwayd.

I wanted you to know that there are some technical problems at phabricator with new wiki creation. See T212881. That's why these projects have been stalled for a while. Please continue to work on the test projects at Multilingual Wikisource and Incubator in the meantime. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is code config still in progress? -- 23:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? StevenJ81 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
When are the new Wikis going to be created. -- 03:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear StevenJ81, thanks for the notice. I have subscribed to the phabricator ticket and I know that there is an issue in creating new wikis. However, it has been already the third month that the issue is not solved and I see almost no progress on the ticket page. While I really understand that the solution takes time, I have no explanation and any dates to provide to the community on this. The community is really excited and waits for the creation of the new Wikipedia. It gets harder and harder to explain why there's no progress (or simply we don't see it) and why they shouldn't get demotivated. Do you have any news, dates, or anything regarding the issue? When will it get fixed? What's being implemented to fix the issue? --Davit Saroyan (WMAM) (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Davit Saroyan (WMAM): I am afraid that I am not the right person to ask. I'm just not that up on the technical side of these matters. I suggest you ask the question right on the phabricator ticket. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Status of Czech Wikivoyage request[edit]

The request for Czech Wikivoyage is labeled as "Verified as eligible" on the Requests for new languages page, but on the page of the request itself, the request is only marked as submitted. Which is the correct status? DraconicDark (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Eligible. Will fix. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)