Hoi,
The original reason why we first provide eligibility prior to localisation
at translatewiki.net was that we do not want to disappoint people who did a
lot of work only to be denied.
There is now a second issue; it is with Wikidata and enabling the addition
of labels and descriptions. The original question was to allow the use of
language codes within Wikidata for use of monolingual strings ( use case
the name in Ottoman Turkish for an Ottoman Turkish citizen). Now the idea
is to have AI and people knowledgeable in Arabic languages add labels and
descriptions.
When the Egyptian Wikipedia was added there was a lot of blow back. The
result is that we have been negative about new Arabic languages. IMHO they
are eligible not only for this use in Wikidata but also for a Wikipedia. I
would like to hear from James / the WMF board their current stance on
Wikipedias in Arabic languages.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 February 2018 at 10:36, Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's something that I had to consider several times recently: If there
> are doubts about a language's eligibility for having its own Wikipedia, but
> it does have an ISO code, is there any reason to deny translation into it
> in translatewiki?
>
> More precisely: The language definitely passes criterion 2 in "Requisites
> for eligibility" [1] ("The language must have a valid ISO 639 1–3 code"),
> but there is no conclusive decision about whether it passes criterion 3
> ("The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a
> more general wiki").
>
> Example 1: Montenegrin (cnr), which was discussed lately, and about which
> most of the Language committee seems to have the opinion that it doesn't
> pass criterion 3.
>
> Example 2: Ancash Quechua (qwh). There is some discussion about it at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_
> languages/Wikipedia_Ancash_Quechua , but I cannot find any discussion by
> committee members (other than Steven). (I don't have an opinion about it
> myself, and I'm not opposed to marking it as eligible.)
>
> Example 3: Dari (prs). This was already rejected by the committee with an
> explanation similar to Montenegrin, but it is already enabled in
> translatewiki. (Curiously, translatewiki also has Zoroastrian Dari [gbz];
> I'm not sure why, but I'm not really opposed to it.)
>
> I'd say that in such cases, localization in translatewiki should usually
> be allowed. In translatewiki we have English, UK English, and Canadian
> English; German and Formal German (Sie); Hungarian and Formal Hungarian. If
> these are eligible for translatewiki, then I'd say that cnr and qwh are
> eligible for translatewiki, because both seem to have at least some
> differences from related languages.
>
> Of course, there's the question of whether Language Committee decisions
> apply to translatewiki at all, given that it's not really a Wikimedia
> project, but it's probably legitimate to at least express an opinion.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#
> Requisites_for_eligibility
>
> --
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
