To summarize: yes to eligibility and interface translation?

2017-07-21 19:22 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <[email protected]>:

> I follow Gerard's line of argumentation and agree that there must be
> enough documents in Coptic out there which aren't yet on the web and would
> be a great playing field for Coptic Wikisource editors. Hence I'm also in
> favour of localization.
>
> +1
>
> Oliver
>
> On 21-Jul-17 14:19, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> I am all in favour of having a Wikisource to start off with. When they
> have reasonable activity and a substantial part of the user interface
> localised, I would even consider a Wikipedia.
>
> Having a Wikisource is something I want to be liberal with; it is a great
> way of producing tangible results for a language and it is very much a
> project aimed at editors.. not much traffic to be expected. The work though
> may be picked up elsewhere.
>
> So yes to a Wikisource and yes to localisation.. Wikipedia maybe when
> there is sustained activity.
>
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 21 July 2017 at 09:46, Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Apparently there is some activity in the Coptic Incubator Wikipedia:
>> portal: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/cop
>> activity: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0&t
>> itle=Wp/cop&wiki=incubatorwiki#distribution_2017-02
>> request: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/
>> Wikipedia_Coptic_3
>>
>> And there's a request to translate MediaWiki into this language:
>> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incubator:
>> Community_Portal&oldid=4099303#Translatewiki
>>
>> However, translatewiki and UniversalLanguageSelector are not yet enabled
>> in this language. As far as I know, the language is not exactly alive as a
>> modern language. It's definitely eligible for Wikisource, so it can be in
>> the UniversalLanguageSelector (although I need to make sure what is the
>> autonym - "ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ"?).
>>
>> But what about a Wikipedia, and what about translating the MediaWiki user
>> interface strings into it? These would probably be revivalist projects
>> because there are no L1 speakers.
>>
>> If it's not eligible, I'd rather not enable it on translatewiki.
>> Personally, I would support marking it as eligible, but are there other
>> opinions?
>>
>> It was already rejected in 2008:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/W
>> ikipedia_Coptic_2
>>
>> ... But that was long ago, and maybe it's worth reconsidering?
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> ‪“We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_4574436041654692490_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing 
> [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply via email to