You have not explained who this project is targetting. When the editors are
the audience it fails on principles. I disagree that this is an eligible
On 12 June 2018 at 17:21, Steven White <koala19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think the difference between this case and the "Romanized Persian"
> situation is that in the "Romanized Persian" case, there is already an
> active, solid project in Persian. Thus, anyone wanting to create this
> project has to work through the Persian Wikipedia community to make this
> happen. In the case of Khorasani Turkic, there is nothing else created in
> this language. And the language is inherently eligible. So I think by
> policy I need to mark it eligible. By the time it comes to approve the
> project, if ever, one of the following will have happened:
> - Because the general script of the language is Perso-Arabic, people
> will have come along and changed the content to that script.
> - That doesn't happen, but there is evidence of a community that will
> make use of the project in Latin script.
> - Some combination of the above, where they will have worked out a *
> modus vivendi* between the two while the test is still in Incubator.
> For that reason, I'm not too worried about marking it "eligible".
> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:29:52 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
> Subject: Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia requests from the second half of 2017
> (first group)
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> It only makes sense to do so when there is a public. It is not a hobby.
> On 6 June 2018 at 19:37, Michael Everson <sior...@evertype.com> wrote:
> > I have no objection to a Roman alphabet version of editors wish to create
> > one.
> > > On 6 Jun 2018, at 16:17, Steven White <koala19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Khorasani Turkic (kmz): In theory, the language ought to be eligible.
> > But the test is written in a Romanized form, which neither Ethnologue nor
> > the enwiki article shows as an ordinary variant. Thoughts?
> Langcom mailing list
Langcom mailing list