Hoi,
A comparison with Ancient Greek does not serve as a reason for consistency.
It was only accepted because of it being actually used in schools.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 8 May 2018 at 18:37, Steven White <[email protected]> wrote:
> These three are the only pending requests for Wikiquote and Wikivoyage
> projects dating back to 2012.
>
>
> Wikiquote Pashto
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiquote_Pashto>
> (ps): Eligible.
>
> Wikivoyage Malayam
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikivoyage_Malayalam>
> (ml): Eligible.
>
>
> Wikiquote Syriac
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiquote_Syriac>
> (syc): Syriac, of course, is a historic language. Frankly, there are
> arguments to be made on either side of this one.
>
>
> *Leaning towards "eligible":*
>
> - There is a Wikipedia in this language already. Frequently, languages
> with Wikipedias are allowed to expand into other projects.
> - In 2010 Milos marked a Wikiquote test in Ancient Greek as
> "eligible". Possibly this case isn't much different, except that more
> people know Ancient Greek than know Classical Syriac. (But see below.)
>
> *Leaning towards "reject" (outright):*
>
> - The written policy on historical languages reads, "The proposal has
> a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community
> and audience." I have the impression that at this point, LangCom is
> starting to loosen up a little about whether the speakers are "native"
> speakers, as long as there are enough (reasonably) fluent speakers to form
> a viable community. But that "loosening" seems to apply mostly to
> Wikipedias *(e.g., *Coptic), and certainly not to Wikinews or
> Wikivoyage. I'm not sure about Wikiquote, as Ancient Greek is the only
> example to look to. And in any case, I'm not sure that Classical Syriac
> really has enough speakers to create a community; in that, the case
> potentially differs from Ancient Greek.
>
> *What about "reject" (stale)?*
>
> - There are about 14 pages in the test; all (except maybe one) were
> created in the first three months of its existence. Since then, the test
> has been pretty dormant. So far, tests that I have closed as stale have had
> no more than five pages created, and those generally within the same month
> of starting the test project. So while this test has been fairly dormant,
> it's been more active than that.
>
>
> I'd appreciate some opinions on what to do here. I will say straight out
> that even if the decision is to reject, I see no reason that the test can't
> stay on Incubator, as it meets the less stringent requirements for a test
> to be hosted on Incubator. So you're deciding between
>
>
> - Rejecting outright, but test remains on Incubator, probably
> permanently
> - Marking eligible (consistent with what was done with Ancient Greek)
>
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
