Yes. "On hold" has two main usages: (1) instead of approving (or rejecting) the project if the request for the *first* project hasn't been made by a native speaker (and the native population has at least one serious obstacle to have a valid project, like very small population or lack of access to Internet); and (2) instead of rejecting the project if the request for the first project is not valid according to the present rules (ISO 639-3 code doesn't exist) or technical conditions (mn-mong and ASL in the past), but there are chances that those obstacles would be overcome.
In all other cases not approving the project for creation is the method for dealing with the projects which have some serious issues around them. On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > The elegibility of a project is a pure technical assessment. When a project > exists in a language typically a new project with the same language code is > elegible. The exception is for macro codes and the codes where the language > content is not what the ISO-639-3 code represents. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 5 December 2017 at 15:53, Steven White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here are three more open RFL requests for non-Wikipedia projects dating to >> 2010: >> * Romanian Wikiversity >> (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Romanian_2): >> Marked as "eligible" >> * Albanian Wikiversity >> (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Albanian): >> Marked as "on hold", only because there is no Albanian content at all in >> Beta Wikiversity. If someone starts creating content, I will switch it to >> "eligible". >> * Khowar Wikinews >> (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Khowar): >> In principle, this should be "eligible". But after the fiasco with Wikipedia >> Khowar last March, MF-W reset the status on that to "open" instead of >> "eligible". I wasn't sure if that was intentional or an oversight. But >> notwithstanding that fiasco, there is no reason that either project >> shouldn't be "eligible". So I intend to mark both projects as "eligible". >> However, I'll hold off on these two for a few days to give MF-W (and anyone >> else) a chance to respond. >> >> Steven >> >> >> Sent from Outlook >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [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
