It is very difficult to set specific criteria for this, as this risks forming a minimum set of behaviors to meet the criteria.
>From my perspective of posting requests for approval, I generally use somewhat safe and conservative criteria. 1. At least 6 months of activity, unless there are special linguistic circumstances (special = the number of speakers is significantly lower than in other languages, etc) 2. There must be at least 3 users with valid edits in a month of activity, which is a very minimal standard; excluding all edits by users of other projects for bot editing, lint error fixing, and LTA editing, etc 3. Reevaluate whether 6 months is appropriate, taking into account whether there is a previous log of activity, whether there are more than 3 editors who are consistently active, or whether there are temporary bursts of activity, etc.. It may be down(6-) or up 4. Whether only the minimum behavior to meet the number of editors continues It's very difficult to put a specific number on this because there are so many factors that go into modifying this 6 month period, even though I've only listed the factors that come to mind. But generally speaking, if the 6 months criterion is met, at least in Wikipedia's case, it is rare for it to be abandoned after approval. Sotiale 2025년 3월 3일 (월) 오전 8:44, Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]>님이 작성: > Hi, > > For as long as I remember being involved with the Language committee, > there hasn't been a clear definition of what does "active in the Incubator" > exactly mean. Is there a specific number of articles, number of users, or > number of weeks or months of continuous activity? > > My impression is that the committee does it by intuition. It's not > necessarily bad, because every language community has its own story. Quite > often, however, various people ask me about it, and I would really love to > have a better answer than "intuition". > > Unless I'm missing something, a precise definition cannot be found on any > of these pages: > * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy > * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(requesters) > * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee) > > Something a bit closer to a definition appears on language request pages > on Meta through the template: "The community needs to develop an active > test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, > recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at > least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the > previous few months." > > The words "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors" are quite > precise, but "the previous few months"—not really. > > Some things to consider: > * If "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections > for the previous few months" is the policy, can it be copied to > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy ? > * Is "three active, not-grayed-out editors" good as it is? Too strict? Too > lax? Too easy to game? > * Should we perhaps write something like "at least three active, > not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months, > ^but every case will be checked manually by Language committee members > separately^"? This is the actual practice anyway, as far as I can tell. > > Other suggestions are welcome. > > -- > 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] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
