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

Please start allowing ancient languages[edit]

In the page Language proposal policy it’s written: “Only Wikisource wikis in ancient or historical languages are accepted, because resources in such languages continue to be important to the world, even in the absence of native, living speakers of those languages. Where possible, such languages should be bundled with the modern equivalent Wikisource project (such as Old English with English), though that is not required.” There is already a Wikipedia in latin, and a Wikipedia in Old English, which are not very small. In my opinion, ancient languages should be allowed for all Wikipedia projects, however with stricter policies to make sure there is a large enough community to expand those wikis. Best regards, Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello? Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/933456357 Professional Latinists say the articles in Latin Wikipedia are very good. I don’t see a reason why there shouldn’t be Wikipedias in other ancient languages. Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not what that link says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
We've had this argument. A lot. There's a Wikipedia in Old English; let's look at one of the pages linked from its main page: Beowulf. Let's compare that to Vietnamese, which about as far out from Beowulf's cultural sphere as possible. Oh, you say that Vietnamese is a major language; let's try Welsh. Yes, Swahili and Lithuanian are roughly comparable, but we also picked an article that should have been a good example for Old English. The list of countries shows that several don't have articles, and most of their capitals don't. Let's grab the top one with an article, Egypt (Cairo, the world's 15th largest city, and a city older than Old English, doesn't have an article). Note that this is the article after I reverted vandalism that had been there for more than a year: "Ǣgypte is land in Middlum Ēaste, þe hæfþ þā ēa Nilum." plus a couple pictures and a linking template.
The Old English Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. There is no reason for anyone to ever look anything up in it. Except for stare decisis, there's absolutely no reason Wikimedia should have it around. For the Latin Wikipedia, I can at least imagine that someone might have a set of languages such that for a particular subject, the Latin Wikipedia is the best Wikipedia for them. Not so with the Old English Wikipedia. Latin could be defined as a living language; it is the language of a (marginal) nation, it is being taught to young children as one of their mother tongues, and works are actually written in the language even today. I don't know about Sanskrit or Classical Chinese, but no other ancient language has that, and I can't imagine any other ancient language actually ever being useful as an encyclopedia to anyone. Latin might be known by someone who's not familiar with one of the languages of the huge Wikipedias; scholars who know some more obscure tongue generally know English, French, German, Chinese, Arabic or Russian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
So can you at least allow wikitionary in ancient languages? Because right now the language committee allows just wikisources in ancient languages. Thanks in advance, Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello? Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello? Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dino Bronto Rex: Using multiple "Hello"s won't help your questions if you don't explain the benefits to answer your concerns, if you think such ancient languages are also having benefits to have projects other than Wikisources and Wikipedias, better to discuss at GRFC (not Meta:RFC, because your RFC would rather affect globally). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

May I request Pa'o language[edit]

Pa'o are the large ethnic people,the 5th largest population in Myanmar, small number in Laos, Thailand.They have own language. But can't write and read in browser, wiki and other. So, I want to add our language. What should I do? Help me please Khun Yum Htun (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Where can I do?

Khun Yum Htun (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Khun Yum Htun: You can start a new Wikipedia test project for Pa'O language at Wikimedia Incubator. The manual can be found at here and language code (ISO 639-3) for Pa'O language is blk. Please feel free to contact me if you have any question or difficulties. NinjaStrikers «» 09:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Khakas Wikipedia. Хакасская википедия.[edit]

Hello, I want to ask about the Khakass Wikipedia. It already contains more than 1000 articles, and is well developed. I believe that it is time to transfer it from the incubator to public access, at its URL. Здравствуйте, я хочу спросить о хакасской википедии. Она уже содержит более 1000 статей, и хорошо развивается. Я считаю что пора перенести ее из инкубатора в открытый доступ, на собственный URL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Дмитрий Аланов (talk) 2020-01-04 07:17

@Amire80: Can this be approved? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Nehiyaw Wikipedia[edit]

Shall we reopen it? The closed-it user isn't a member of langcom, and wrongly pointed the proposer as "LTA" without any evidences. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I'VE reopened it, I agree that that user has lack of evidences for LTA claim, though I have no time to discuss the real metter. --117.136.55.130 02:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI proposer is locked as LTA. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding giving self-URL to Awadhi incubator[edit]

The Awadhi incubator is quite active and a total of 3374 pages have been created on it so far. Please be pleased to give it the actual URL, which will speed up the development of its encyclopedia. Amire80 (talk) 07:10, 02 February 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian Wikinews[edit]

Are there any other objections to fully deleting Bulgarian Wikinews without transfer to another project, like Russian Wikinews? What about phab:T233322? The matter was previously discussed at a user talk page. George Ho (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Cantonese Wikiquote[edit]

Hi, I want to talk about the cantonese wikiquote. The Wq:Cantonese project was launched in the Incubator more than three years ago. There has been regular and significant activity for over last twelve months, also there is about several active contributors each month. Now it has more than 75 pages. So, I request that this Wikiquote be approved. Regards!--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) Wasami007 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Masry[edit]

  • Sorry to bother you with this question. I am not sure if Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Masry is now eligible for its own URL. would you be kind enough to let me know if it is. If not , would you mind letting me know how to progress from here. User:Mahmudmasri and User:Ramsis II have been the most active users on this project apart fro me. It has been in the development for a few years now. I think it is ready for its URL. Thank you very much for your help. --Ghaly (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Kotava Wikipedia[edit]

@Jon Harald Søby, @James Heilman

The WP:Kotava project was launched in the Incubator more than two years ago. There has been regular and significant activity for over last twelve months, with about 10-12 active contributors each month. To date, it has 5469 articles (see Catanalysis) , making it the most dynamic and consistent project of all projects in the Incubator. And to quote his main administrator: This project is actually one of the best, highest-quality, most serious projects I have seen in my three years [...] as a sysop on Incubator.

The project meets all the requirements of the policy, and we have patiently fulfilled all the conditions and respected the procedures defined by the Langcom.

A discussion on the public mailing-list sept- nov- was launched on September 26th for its final approval. Three members of Langcom spoke explicitly for, and none of the titular members expressed opposition. I personally responded, through the members who answered me, to the legitimate questions raised in the discussion.

At a time, I was even asked to validate the namespaces of the project, which I did willingly and without delay.

But since then, nothing! It has been more than two months since nothing came of it, even though six other projects, much less advanced, were validated at the same time, and some after short and formal discussions.

I perceive in this bogging a kind of disdain that does not say its name, even a contempt for the kotavusik community which, even if it is small and does not meet the codes of pseudo-specialists in constructed languages, reveals its involvement, its linguistic mastery and its ability to produce quality encyclopedic work.

I'm asking for things to be unlocked. And if there is a surreptitious problem in the functioning of Langcom, at least the Wikimedia board is informed.

Personally, I am ready to make further and further clarifications (although I have the feeling that everything has already been said and produced on several occasions) that the full members of Langcom may wish.

Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC) (test administrator of WP Kotava project)

"disdain that does not say its name"? Is that a reference to "w:The love that dare not speak its name"? It seems like a poorly chosen phrase.
Yes, obscure conlangs are hard sells, for reason that can be well-explained, and don't deserve such sarcasm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Axel xadolik: Are you really from langcom? If not, please do not use clauses like "Notification about proposed approval of", but "Request for approval of Kotava..." instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The topic is still under discussion in Langcom. --MF-W 19:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Jon Harald Søby, @James Heilman, @MF-Warburg:
Where is this discussion? Nothing seems to have changed... the silence that is reserved for the reprobate people, the unworthy... but unworthy of what?
Today, the project has 6003 articles (ie more than many official WP, it would even be in 170th place, out of 309), and once again more than 10 active contributors this month. Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I am sure that MF-W will let use know. Ping me in a couple of weeks if you still do not hear anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Hello James, nothing is changed since your last message. So I'm asking you to intervene. Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
----
Les choses sont désespérantes. Le WP Kotava projet est le plus beau projet en développement dans l'Incubator (6700 articles, 10-12 contributeurs actifs tous les mois depuis plus d'un an, des articles originaux de qualité, systématiquement sourcés, etc.). Dans la discussion lancée en septembre 2019, 3 membres du Langcom ont voté pour, et aucun contre. Mais depuis, il ne se passe plus rien, le résultat de ce vote est absolument ignoré, mais cela semble ne gêner personne ! Est-ce cela l'esprit collaboratif de Wikipedia ? Qui bloque le processus et pour quelles raisons avouables ?
@Doc James:, @Jon Harald Søby:, @MF-Warburg: forgive me for being publicly direct, but I appeal to you who are the only members of Langcom who are somewhat actively overseeing the projects being developed in the Incubator. You have the power to validate the project, so please do so.
Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Supposedly was discussed at in the private Wiki. Would someone be so kind as to give me access? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Approval of Cantonese Wikiquote[edit]

Moved from my talk page --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Hi, I want to talk about the cantonese wikiquote. The Wq:Cantonese project was launched in the Incubator more than three years ago. There has been regular and significant activity for over last twelve months, also there is about several active contributors each month. Now it has more than 75 pages. So, I request that this Wikiquote be approved. Regards!Angus Leii (talk)-- 01:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Good time to consider approving Japanese Wikivoyage or not?[edit]

By checking the automated statistics, it looks like that this project has fair enough activities that like many projects we approved before. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@User:Liuxinyu970226 Are you serious about this project activity?
  • Only two contributors have more than 100 contributions; 103 articles in total; 5 published in December 2019; only 1 new page in 2019; 0 active editor in 2019!!!
For simple comparison, the WP.Kotava Wikipedia project whose positive approval vote and the active, quality work being done by his community are ignored for months:
  • about 7,000 articles; 5 editors with more than 1,000 contributions; an average of 1,600 edits per month and an average of 700 new pages; an average of 10/12 editors active each month for more than a year... Axel xadolik (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Axel xadolik: The Kotava, as pointed in the above sections, is affected by langcom's indoor judging of constructed languages, why compare these two? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: See this statistical page about the activity of all Wikivoyage projects on Incubator. Axel xadolik (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
That's unuseful, a large scale test without eligible status can be rejected by any possible reasons, e.g. rural dialect of XXX, vetoed by WMF staffs privately, affected by sanctions to Iran, etc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Certes, mais les statistiques objectives sont toujours un indicateur intéressant, davantage que bien des commentaires oiseux. Lorsque des critères sont publiquement affichés, indépendamment de raisons plus obscures d'appréciation, la moindre équité implique de les respecter. Axel xadolik (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Alors, c'est la raison pour vous, de comparer une demande éligible avec une autre demande, qui peut éventuellement être rejetée? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Comprenez-moi bien : des règles ont été établies et écrites, très détaillées sur l'acceptabilité de projets lancés dans l'Incubator, dans un but de transparence et de donner des repères objectifs aux communautés et contributeurs qui travaillent sur ces projets. Parmi ces règles opposables, il est notamment question de volume d'activité, de qualité linguistique et encyclopédique des contenus, de continuité dans les contributions et d'un nombre suffisant et attesté de contributeurs actifs. Cela me semble normal pour garantir la qualité et la crédibilité de Wikipedia et ses divers domaines.
Lorsque ces critères sont respectés (et les statistiques sont précisément là pour prouver la chose), alors il est normal et souhaitable que les projets soient validés en tant que projets autonomes. Mais il est également normal qu'une certaine file d'attente soit respectée, que les projets les plus avancés et les plus actifs ne soient pas systématiquement doublés par certains autres bien moins développés, sous le simple prétexte que untel ou untel s'en fait le héraut. Et cela d'autant plus que les membres du Langcom semblent malheureusement de moins en moins impliqués dans le suivi des projets. Axel xadolik (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Axel xadolik: Ihr Projekt muss also zuerst genehmigt werden, bevor Sie darüber nachdenken, andere Testprojekte zu genehmigen? So your project must be approved first before considering approving other test projects? Votre projet doit donc être approuvé avant d'envisager d'approuver d'autres projets de test? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not specifically the project for I am the test administrator, but several other projects also. And at the very least, any project that is sufficiently advanced should be entitled to a serious discussion, within a reasonable timeframe. Axel xadolik (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
So your project can just be eligible right now? Per your comments? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Approval of Pu-Xian Min Wikipedia[edit]

@Jon Harald Søby, @James Heilman

Hi, I would like to ask about the approval of Pu-Xian Min Wikipedia. It is now already contains 2172 articles, and is well developed. I believe that it is time to transfer it from the incubator to public access. Appreciate if you could approve it. Thank you.--Henrytanck (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the recent activity is very low. Projects can only be approved if there are at least several (3+) regular contributors (more than 10 edits per month) over at least several months. --MF-W 02:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikipedia eligible?[edit]

I haven't been a fan of the project, but it's still not been rejected or marked as eligible. With the exception of one month, the period between 2016-03 and 2016-10 met that requirements for activity, so it seems possible and even likely that given the green light, they could achieve the activity requirements. That was three years ago; I think it fair for them to either have it marked as eligible, subject to whatever activity requirements, or rejected, wherein it could be kept in the Incubator or copied to several webhosts; I'd probably support creating an ancient Wiki if it was a matter of moving an active wiki in house. In any case, I think it's time for Langcom to make up their mind here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am, I have to admit, confused. Language_proposal_policy/2019-04_proposed_revision made no change about the rule that "in ancient languages, only Wikisources are accepted". However, on 26 February 2019, StevenJ81 wrote to Langcom " I will rework this to remove anything relating to historical languages for now. (I'll let the Committee know when the new draft is ready.) After March 1 (to put everything on the same archive page) I am going to make a one-off proposal to mark Ancient Greek Wikipedia as 'eligible'. After that, I'll make a proposal on historical languages more broadly." It seems like so far he has not gotten around to do so. I will investigate this further. Maybe it makes sense to put forward this one-off proposal now. --MF-W 23:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)