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

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)

. ~2025-41348-49 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 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)

Still nothing :( ~2025-35755-71 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If it has already been marked "eligible", we shouldn't have any concerns about it being a constructed language, right? That belongs to the eligibility discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker You're right, I can't imagine that would be the problem. Last August, Toki Pona Wikipedia was approved without any discussion: one member asked if there were any objections against approval, within a few hours two other members replied that they had none, and after two weeks the deal was done. Neither the fact that Toki Pona is not really an auxiliary language (at least, in the traditional sense), nor the absence of an active test project in the Incubator turned out to be a problem, and even a linguistic check wasn't deemed necessary. So yeah, once eligibility is established, the language itself shouldn't be subject to discussion anymore. The way I understand it, the idea of those discussions is establishing whether the project is active enough, whether it has enough critical mass, and whether it is written in the right language. I really don't see how these things can be a problem for Interslavic, especially since several other projects with much less activity have been approved in the meantime. IJzeren Jan (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m really not aware of how things work within the language committee or what the possible objections and concerns might be. The only concern I’ve encountered so far was raised by @Sotiale, who said that there has to be some kind of analysis or consideration of how Interslavic contributes to “the dissemination of knowledge”.

I’d like to give an example of how we are trying to use Interslavic precisely as such a tool for the dissemination of knowledge: many new articles that appear on the Interslavic wiki are written on relatively lesser-known topics that do not necessarily have articles in all Slavic languages on the main Wikipedia. By having an article in Interslavic, however, we effectively cover all Slavic languages at once.

@IJzeren Jan, for instance, is writing a series of articles on Cyrillic symbols. Even though there is still some work left to do, the Interslavic wiki is already probably the best Wikipedia-based source for a random Slavic speaker to learn about the Cyrillic alphabet. GlěbDyndar (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

If we're talking outside of wikipedia, I have a good example for that too!

There's a polyglot event coming up soon (I'm not sure if I can say names and post URLs here) and we got the opportunity to translate their website to Interslavic. As of now, the only Slavic language this website fully speaks (i.e. was translated to) is Interslavic! GlěbDyndar (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @GlěbDyndar, that's precisely the point indeed. The Interslavic Wikipedia is not primarily meant to serve as a source of information for users of Interslavic, but mostly as an additional source for speakers of other Slavic languages. That's why I am doing my best to write decent articles about subjects that are underrepresented (or not represented at all) in other Slavic Wikipedia projects, whereas at the same time, we I think we can do with relatively short, concise articles about common subjects that might serve as a model for translation into smaller languages (a bit like the Simple English Wikipedia). And that is precisely why I've been asking the Language Committee for a reaction since more than a year by now: our lifeline are interwiki links, but as long as our stuff is in the Incubator, nobody will even be able to find it. IJzeren Jan (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@IJzeren Jan, "a continuing effort to translate the MediaWiki interface" into Interslavic is also a requisite for final approval of a Wikipedia besides having an active Incubator project. But I don't see any MediaWiki messages translated into Interslavic. I don't know if LangCom is hesitant to approve because of the lack of MediaWiki translation; I'm not a member of LangCom.

Requisites for final approval

2. There is a continuing effort to translate the MediaWiki interface into that language so that nobody is excluded from participating if they do not understand the English-language user interface. As a baseline, it is recommended that you begin by translating the "most used MediaWiki messages". These are the messages that are of highest importance to our readers and users. If a Wikimedia project in your language already exists and these messages have already been translated, we ask that you show evidence that localisation is continuing to be improved and maintained at a reasonable pace.

06:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Lovelano (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lovelano, actually, the contrary is true: quite a lot has been translated already: isv-latn and isv-cyrl. The probleem seems to be that the system treats Interslavic written in Latin and Cyrillic orthographies as two separate languages, but I've no idea how to fix that, nor whether it even needs to be fixed. IJzeren Jan (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

So maybe that's why langcom members are in no hurry to approve interslavic wiki? ~2026-11833-5 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe we're missing some files for the isv code where isv_latn and isv_cyrl already exist, including but not limited to mediawiki/core/languages/messages/MessagesIsv.php. We'll need to create some fallback cases. I am going off what I have seen done on the Serbo-Croatian Latin and Cyrillic support. This is stuff for Phabricator. –Vipz (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for Approval for Cebuano Wikisource, Hiligaynon Wikisource, Kapampangan Wikisource and Waray Wikisource

On behalf of the Wikisource Loves Manuscripts Philippines, I would like to request for approval for Cebuano Wikisource, Hiligaynon Wikisource, Kapampangan Wikisource and Waray Wikisource projects. Our team has been consistently working on the said projects for more than 12 months for developing the local editions. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Filipinayzd The RFL for second is still not got its eligibility verified, still need to include this one? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 How does the language get verified? Thanks. Here are the links that support that Hiligaynon is an existing language: 1 2 3. --Filipinayzd (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, may I have an information about these please? Thank you for kindly attention. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 Any update on the request? Thanks. --Filipinayzd (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Approval request for the Wikipedia Luba‑Kasaï

Hello to all members of the Language Committee, @Amire80 and Sotiale:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Incubator Wikipedia Luba-Kasaï project community to request the official approval of our Tshiluba Wikipedia so that it may become an autonomous wiki (with its own subdomain) under lua.wikipedia.org.

We believe that all the required criteria according to the Language Proposal Policy have now been met. Please see the page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Luba‑Kasaï, the project is quite active since August 2024.

We are also ready to propose or put you in contact with a linguistic expert (professor, native speaker) to verify the quality of the existing content if necessary.

We remain at your disposal for any additional information or clarification you may need.

Thank you in advance for your time and for your support of linguistic diversity on Wikimedia. @Shayi ngolu and Chrisdanielkazadi:

Kind regards, CapitainAfrika (talk)

On the admissibility of a Traditional Greek Wikipedia

Respected members of the Language Committee,
In the course of the development of the Ancient Greek Wikipedia, our community noticed that many modern concepts (expressed through Katharevousa terms) are appropriate in order to create a modern encyclopedia. Therefore, we have created a dialect template, in order to distinguish articles written in Atticizing, Koine or Katharevousa Greek.
As you know, the project is active, but cannot gain approval because of the ban on "ancient" languages.
I have read the motives for the rejection of the Traditional Greek Wikipedia: "There is only one interested editor and no test project. [...] Note that this is not at all a rejection of the language itself. Feel free to work on the Wikimedia Incubator, attract a larger community, and make a new request in the future".
Do you still hold these views? In your opinion, would it make sense for us to redirect our project towards Traditional Greek, thus giving more space to Katharevousa, in order to find a possible compromise solution? In that case, what language code should we use? How would you evaluate this possibility?
Thank you very much for your attention!
Yours faithfully,
Anaxicrates (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Traditional Greek, then this was written in April 2007, before the policy on ancient languages was updated. If you define "Traditional Greek" as an older writte variant of modern Greek, such as Katharevousa, then this was disallowed in the policy already in April 2007: The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language. That's why Valencian, pre-1918 Russian, or Biblical Hebrew are not eligible. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Amir E. Aharoni,

Thank you very much for clarifying the chronological sequence of events! I somehow missed that.

Regarding the rejection of Wikipedia Ancient Greek 2, don't you agree that there was a procedural irregularity at the time in applying retroactively the new policy? Indeed, the request for Wikipedia Ancient Greek 2 was opened on 9 January 2007. On 26 May 2007, it was stated:

"The test project has been deemed a success. The only step left before the creation of a Ancient Greek Wikipedia is the translation of the basic wiki interface."

However, following the introduction of the new policy on 21 October 2007, this statement was invalidated and crossed out on 23 February 2008, with the justification that the new policy "does not allow Wikipedias in ancient languages".

A fundamental basis of legislation is that law is not to take effect retrospectively. Shouldn't this principle apply also here?

Thanks again for your attention!

Yours faithfully,
Anaxicrates (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

What happened in 2008 is not a particularly important question. The important question is whether an Ancient Greek Wikipedia should be created in 2026, and the answer to this question is that it shouldn't. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't it really? The implicit premise of your assertion is that an Ancient Greek Wikipedia would be useless; on the contrary, it would in fact be beneficial, at least for those who cultivate this field of knowledge. I've already tried to explain that Latin and Ancient Greek are classical, vehicular languages, which can aggregate particular knowledge, and which can be a cultural bridge for classicists and other scholars of different backgrounds, e.g. a Greek and a South American, who might even lack any other common language. Its usefulness, even if marginal, is a positive fact. Indeed, you can find classes taught directly in Ancient Greek (even online, e.g. this commentary of the Apology of Socrates); it is even possible to learn other languages through Classical Greek, such as Ancient Persian: this is particularly interesting, because it is not easy to find classes of Ancient Persian even in English. So, the presumption that an Ancient Greek Wikipedia would be useless, which implies denying the role of Ancient Greek as a vehicular language, is totally unfounded.

Do you really consider the Latin Wiki useless too, a mistake of the past? Even if so, you should not absolutize your own viewpoint. I understand it's useless for you, but it's not so for many other people. Ancient Greek is globally recognized for its cultural value: Greek, with particular reference to Ancient Greek, is one of the only nine languages which UNESCO consecrated a "world day" to. Furthermore, you also know the stats of the Latin Wiki, how many people consult it. Do you really think all of them just open it by mistake or out of misplaced curiosity? Why don't you put a banner on the Latin Wiki, and ask directly the users if they find that Wiki culturally meaningful or not, useful or not? In that way, you'll know how many people use it profitably, and whether it is relevant to the mission of Wikimedia.

You said that the procedural irregularity that took place in 2008 is not particularly important, but I think it is, because it still has negative repercussions on the present. Anaxicrates (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Approval Request for Bole Wikipedia

Hello, Language Committee! It has been more than six months that wp/bol test project has been active. We would like to request to review the project for the final approval. El-hussain14 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Call for the approval of Wp/wlx

It has been quite sometime now since we requested for the approval of Wp/wlx. On our local social media platform, questions have been asking concerning the approval. The approval also shows that our effort we are putting on as language community is significant. We humbly request once again. Zakaria Tunsung (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Approval of Interslavic Wikipedia (fourth request)

Dear Langcom, it's more than a year ago that I asked you for an evaluation of the Interslavic Wikipedia, currently still incubated. It has been on the list of projects titled "These are active and might get their own site soon" since October last year now. How long do we have to wait before our project is finally approved? The way I understand it, the Incubator is meant for new projects to demonstrate their viability. Well, we have more than 1300 mainspace articles (not counting redirects) with an average size of 5,000 ~ 6,000 bytes at the moment. Practically all core messages have been localized, and we never had less than five active contributors for 17 successive months now. The eligibility issue was solved in October last year, and in January one of your members wrote that "in theory the project is ready for approval" but that it needed to be discussed first. Finally in August we were told that the discussion had begun, and in October that a reminder had been sent (I haven't seen any of that on the mailing list BTW). But now – almost three months later – still nothing... even though several other projects with much less content and much less activity have been approved in the meantime. Is our work really that meaningless to you, or are there other issues at hand? Please, @Sotiale, @Amire80, @Jon Harald Søby, @MF-Warburg, give us your approval or at least let us know what else must be done to warrant approval. Best regards, IJzeren Jan (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's a bit intrusive to make another request; I think it'll only make things worse. Everything has its time, and the Interslavic Wikipedia will have its turn. ~2025-43392-05 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe the Language committee should already be given a proper answer as to whether they will approve it or not? --~2025-43635-90 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for Approval for Cebuano Wikisource, Hiligaynon Wikisource, Kapampangan Wikisource and Waray Wikisource

On behalf of the Wikisource Loves Manuscripts Philippines, kindly review our the following projects: Cebuano Wikisource, Hiligaynon Wikisource, Kapampangan Wikisource and Waray Wikisource projects. Thanks. --Filipinayzd (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at requests for closing projects...

There appears to be overwhelming consensus to close Bosnian Wiktionary. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)