[Langcom] Re: Moroccan Tamazight (Wp/zgh)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as
ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic
Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic
understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.

There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code
they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why
many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new
> language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of
> Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't
> think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard
> Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be
> disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created
> prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.
>
> The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no
> multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at
> the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native
> speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In
> general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be
> on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia
> jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same
> language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to
> be abused as such.
>
> Sotiale
>
>
> 
>  바이러스가
> 없습니다.www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> 2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>
>> Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,
>>
>> Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had
>> also other engagements.
>>
>> So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct
>> language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber
>> languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara)
>> not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and
>> is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are
>> many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and
>> historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a
>> written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the
>> Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base
>> the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some
>> languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Anass
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> NB: there has also been a discussion at <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Moroccan_Amazigh#Clerking_note>.
>>> I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would
>>> be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into
>>> multiple incubator test-wikis.
>>>
>>> Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki <
>>> sotiale...@gmail.com>:
>>>
 Thank you for your kind explanation.

 If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic
 (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct language
 because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is
 true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written
 forms of any language.

 Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be
 recognized.

 Sotiale

 2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:

> Hello,
>
> I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and
> speak Berber. The standard Tamazight (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a
> spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official
> Academy of Berber languages in Morocco (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) in
> an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are many of them
> spoken in Morocco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages).
>
> So to answer you, standard Tamazight is exactly like modern standard
> Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic). It is
> a standardized language with rules, but not a spoken one (nobody speaks
> standard Arabic as a mother tongue, every Arab country has its own 
> dialect).
>
> This is to explain 

[Langcom] Re: Haryanvi - script issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

A script may exist but when it is in complete, does it serve its purpose?

Op ma 14 aug. 2023 21:29 schreef MF-Warburg :

> The script exists and is being used.
>
> Gerard Meijssen  schrieb am Mo., 14. Aug.
> 2023, 20:47:
>
>> Hoi,
>> You can not really write a script when it is incomplete. Script
>> conversion can come in several ways including dictionary based but it
>> starts with the expression of the writing and that means script.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:03, MF-Warburg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the issue here is not with fonts or Unicode, but with the fact
>>> that the language is written in two different scripts, which don't have
>>> (and maybe can't have) a script converter between them.
>>>
>>> Am So., 6. Aug. 2023 um 09:29 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> In the past the Wikimedia Foundation paid for the development of
>>>> characters that became part of Unicode. Missing characters in an existing
>>>> characterser are "easy. More complicated is to populate fonts withe these
>>>> added characters..At the time the design of a non-Unicode font was used
>>>> with permission.
>>>> thanks,
>>>>  Gerard
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 16:22, Mark Williamson  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's actually possible to automatically convert between Devanagari and
>>>>> Urdu scripts, but it would require quite a lot of work. It's not a trivial
>>>>> task with straightforward character-to-character correspondences like
>>>>> Serbian, but it is possible and it has been done (not within Wikimedia, 
>>>>> but
>>>>> by researchers in India)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, 4:21 AM MF-Warburg 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see the comment signed Ameen Akbar at <
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Haryanvi
>>>>>> >.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to be only one ISO code but two (incompatible?) writing
>>>>>> systems. Thoughts?
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Haryanvi - script issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You can not really write a script when it is incomplete. Script conversion
can come in several ways including dictionary based but it starts with the
expression of the writing and that means script.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:03, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> I think the issue here is not with fonts or Unicode, but with the fact
> that the language is written in two different scripts, which don't have
> (and maybe can't have) a script converter between them.
>
> Am So., 6. Aug. 2023 um 09:29 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> In the past the Wikimedia Foundation paid for the development of
>> characters that became part of Unicode. Missing characters in an existing
>> characterser are "easy. More complicated is to populate fonts withe these
>> added characters..At the time the design of a non-Unicode font was used
>> with permission.
>> thanks,
>>  Gerard
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 16:22, Mark Williamson  wrote:
>>
>>> It's actually possible to automatically convert between Devanagari and
>>> Urdu scripts, but it would require quite a lot of work. It's not a trivial
>>> task with straightforward character-to-character correspondences like
>>> Serbian, but it is possible and it has been done (not within Wikimedia, but
>>> by researchers in India)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, 4:21 AM MF-Warburg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please see the comment signed Ameen Akbar at <
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Haryanvi
>>>> >.
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be only one ISO code but two (incompatible?) writing
>>>> systems. Thoughts?
>>>> ___
>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Haryanvi - script issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In the past the Wikimedia Foundation paid for the development of characters
that became part of Unicode. Missing characters in an existing
characterser are "easy. More complicated is to populate fonts withe these
added characters..At the time the design of a non-Unicode font was used
with permission.
thanks,
 Gerard

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 16:22, Mark Williamson  wrote:

> It's actually possible to automatically convert between Devanagari and
> Urdu scripts, but it would require quite a lot of work. It's not a trivial
> task with straightforward character-to-character correspondences like
> Serbian, but it is possible and it has been done (not within Wikimedia, but
> by researchers in India)
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, 4:21 AM MF-Warburg  wrote:
>
>> Please see the comment signed Ameen Akbar at <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Haryanvi
>> >.
>>
>> There seems to be only one ISO code but two (incompatible?) writing
>> systems. Thoughts?
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Min Nan aliases

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In the past many requests for changes to the domains for projects just did
not happen. It is quite complicated we were told... It would be cool when
it is technical feasible.

Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 13:14, Danny B.  wrote:

> I agree with removal, however, before such removal all wikis should be
> searched for such links and those should be obviously fixed.
>
> It should be kept in mind, that they don't have to be only as simple as
> [[minnan:Foo]], but more combined such as [[w:minnan:Foo]],
> [[minnan:w:Foo]], also with leading colon like [[:minnan:Foo]] or
> [[:w:minnan:Foo]] or even as obscure as [[:m:w:minnan:Foo]]. The same
> applies for zh-cfr of course.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Danny B.
>
> -- Původní e-mail --
> Od: Sotiale Wiki 
> Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> Datum: 23. 1. 2023 5:08:11
> Předmět: [Langcom] Re: Min Nan aliases
>
>  used in ISO 639-3 is the current Min Nan language, and the interwiki
> is working.
> So if  and  aren't being used, I don't guess there's much
> of a problem removing them.
>
> Sotiale
>
> 2023년 1월 22일 (일) 오전 1:00, MF-Warburg 님이 작성:
>
> We were requested to give input on <
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T230382>: "Remove aliases `minnan` and
> `zh-cfr` for the Min Nan Wikipedia". This concerns interwiki links only.
> Does anyone have any thoughts? Personally, I don't see what speaks against
> the removal, if these are unused.
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Request for comments on approval of Sassarese Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are right. Are the most used messages fully translated?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 09:59, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> No, having the most used messages fully translated has been the rule. That
> is not the same as core.
>
> lør. 26. mar. 2022, 08:53 skrev Gerard Meijssen  >:
>
>> Hoi,
>> It was the rule from the very start.
>> Gerard
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 08:35, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:
>>
>>> What? That has never been the rule, Gerard. 類
>>>
>>> Also, the codelookup link in Sotiale's mail doesn't work. Try this
>>> instead: https://codelookup.toolforge.org/sdc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lør. 26. mar. 2022, 08:20 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Core messages, all of them, is a minimum. I am against.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>  GerardM
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 07:42, Sotiale Wiki 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Language committee members,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello. Happy Saturday in March.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *Wp/sdc*. It has
>>>>> been active since August 2021, and it has been 4 months(including March
>>>>> 2022) that 3 or more editors have been active[1]; 11/21 ~ 03/22: 2, 3, 5,
>>>>> 4, 4. There are about 1744 pages including templates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most used core messages have already been translated[2]. The request
>>>>> has already been submitted[3].
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to ask for your opinion on the approval of this, thank
>>>>> you for your consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/sdc=incubatorwiki#editors_per_month
>>>>> [2] https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=sdc
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Sassarese
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Sotiale
>>>>>
>>>>> 본 이메일은 Avast로 보호되는 안전한 컴퓨터에서 발송되었습니다.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>>>>> <#m_-443785702051847802_m_4335655456543835038_m_-476856897720908595_m_-740041989170089_m_2628986506518642997_m_-2372614392355974258_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Request for comments on approval of Sassarese Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It was the rule from the very start.
Gerard

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 08:35, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> What? That has never been the rule, Gerard. 類
>
> Also, the codelookup link in Sotiale's mail doesn't work. Try this
> instead: https://codelookup.toolforge.org/sdc
>
>
>
>
> lør. 26. mar. 2022, 08:20 skrev Gerard Meijssen  >:
>
>> Core messages, all of them, is a minimum. I am against.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 07:42, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Language committee members,
>>>
>>> Hello. Happy Saturday in March.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *Wp/sdc*. It has
>>> been active since August 2021, and it has been 4 months(including March
>>> 2022) that 3 or more editors have been active[1]; 11/21 ~ 03/22: 2, 3, 5,
>>> 4, 4. There are about 1744 pages including templates.
>>>
>>> Most used core messages have already been translated[2]. The request has
>>> already been submitted[3].
>>>
>>> I would like to ask for your opinion on the approval of this, thank you
>>> for your consideration.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/sdc=incubatorwiki#editors_per_month
>>> [2] https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=sdc
>>> [3]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Sassarese
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Sotiale
>>>
>>> 본 이메일은 Avast로 보호되는 안전한 컴퓨터에서 발송되었습니다.
>>> www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
>>> <#m_-476856897720908595_m_-740041989170089_m_2628986506518642997_m_-2372614392355974258_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Georgian Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For Wikisource there is little need to be cautious. It is largely a hub for
activity.. Finding an audience for the work done is the challenge.
Thanks,
 Gerard

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 07:06, Satdeep Gill  wrote:

> Yes, please. We should approve it as separate Wikisource.
>
> Best
> Satdeep
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 12:30 AM Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Can we perhaps approve Georgian Wikisource already? :)
>>
>> It has LOTS of pages in the Multilingual Wikisource, and recently, they
>> were recategorized.
>>
>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/?title=Georgian=1=sourceswiki
>>
>> I can't think of a reason to keep it there.
>>
>> --
>> 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 -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Serbocroatian

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem will be that we open a can of worms when we go this route.
Arguably there is no such language as  Croatian and Serbian became separate
languages.. The question would be who is its public.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 05:18, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> A user has asked about starting a new project (namely Wikivoyage) in the
> Serbo-Croatian language. I see no problems with the eligibility of such a
> project, does anyone?
> (One would have to wonder about the ISO code, as it's ISO 639-3 hbs; but
> we already have Wikipedia and Wiktionary under "sh" as a deprecated code in
> 639-1, but that's a different issue).
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No.. you are right.. wrong audience
Sorry,
 Gerard

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 14:31, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> Did you mean to send this to the langcom list? It doesn't seem very
> langcom-specific
>
> fre. 24. sep. 2021, 14:08 skrev Gerard Meijssen  >:
>
>> Hoi,
>> There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much
>> money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make
>> this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need
>> money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year
>> enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money
>> and raising expectations.
>>
>>- We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people
>>donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This 
>> sense
>>of ownership is to be distributed more equally around the globe
>>- With our projects owned more equitably around the globe, the notion
>>that "any child of nine year old can find pictures in Commons" is
>>reasonable and self-evident; the world pays for  results that
>>are globally relevant ..
>>- We need a delivery manager, his/her task is to research and define
>>what it is our projects deliver to their public. The objective is to
>>increase both quantity and quality of what is delivered by a project and
>>discuss with project communities what it is that can be done to improve 
>> the
>>service to its public. Commons does provide material to Wikipedia, that is
>>good but not  enough.
>>
>> Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to
>> document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an
>> important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two
>> projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer
>> ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these
>> benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.
>>
>> For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the
>> current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the
>> data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own
>> software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept
>> that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may
>> find a partner in this endeavour.
>>
>> The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no
>> urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is
>> lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF
>> raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project
>> and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient
>> for who,for what and for how long.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much
money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make
this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need
money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year
enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money
and raising expectations.

   - We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people
   donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This sense
   of ownership is to be distributed more equally around the globe
   - With our projects owned more equitably around the globe, the notion
   that "any child of nine year old can find pictures in Commons" is
   reasonable and self-evident; the world pays for  results that
   are globally relevant ..
   - We need a delivery manager, his/her task is to research and define
   what it is our projects deliver to their public. The objective is to
   increase both quantity and quality of what is delivered by a project and
   discuss with project communities what it is that can be done to improve the
   service to its public. Commons does provide material to Wikipedia, that is
   good but not  enough.

Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to
document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an
important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two
projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer
ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these
benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.

For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the
current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the
data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own
software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept
that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may
find a partner in this endeavour.

The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no
urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is
lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF
raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project
and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient
for who,for what and for how long.
Thanks,
   GerardM
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for the personal attacks.. They make me look good.

What people do in any language is not the remit of the language committee.
The period of Erasmus, More and Newton is before the date the Wikimedia
language policy was enacted. Everything before that time is not part of the
remit of the language committee.. You may like to know that new
taxonomic descriptions may still be written in Latin and English.

As to Pāṇini [1], read the article, it is not unlikely that he spoke and
wrote Sanskrit on a daily basis. My first thoughts about a Wikipedia in
Sanskrit would be about the NPOV...

How languages are used is not relevant to the WMF language policy nor its
language committee. What is relevant is that the language used has to be
appropriate for a general purpose encyclopaedia.and has as its intended
public people who will find encyclopaedic information in their language.
That is the scope of a Wikipedia and it is of a higher order than what the
language policy or committee is there for.

You noted that I do not pronounce on the likelihood of new projects. That
is not up to me, it is up to the entirety of the language committee in the
face of a bona fide proposal. The reason why the committee works so well is
because so many points of view are expressed.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 18:34, Jim Killock  wrote:

> (I note Gerard hasn’t answered the question about new Latin projects, so I
> assume these are denied under the current policy.)
>
> I think the argument that "*People may bastardise a dead language and
> come up with anything*" is quite flimsy, if I may say.
>
> Back to the 99.99% of Latin, Sanskrit and Classical Chinese that will be
> written outside their Classic period, by second langauge authors, *they
> will be full of non-Classical neologisms.*
>
> By Gerard’s formula, Erasmus, Newton and More were writing “bastardised”
> Latin which would be unacceptable for a Wikimedia project.
>
> Panini presumably is even worse because he constructed new grammatical
> forms for Sanskrit, invalidating nearly the entire Sanskrit corpus.
>
> Has Langcom every consulted with any users about the way that these
> languages are used? Because it does not feel like it.
>
> From that perspective the currrent process could be an ideal chance to
> gain some more knowldge and accomodate these languages in a sensible manner.
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2021, at 15:35, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> People may bastardise a dead language and come up with anything. It does
> not become part of the canonical language. Arabic demonstrates this by
> analogy; the Arabic of the Prophet is not the language as used today. There
> are many Arabic languages recognised in ISO-639-3, they are what is spoken
> and written today. The language and the concepts of the Arabic of the
> Quran is well defined and is static.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick  wrote:
>
>> What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
>> Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
>> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
>> But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
>> wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
>> nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
>> wikiprojects written in such ancient language.
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen  於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
>> >
>> > Hoi,
>> > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
>> Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
>> essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
>> language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new
>> terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species
>> name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and
>> being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language
>> mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
>> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
>> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
>> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
>> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
>> >>
>> >> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
>> >>>
>

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
People may bastardise a dead language and come up with anything. It does
not become part of the canonical language. Arabic demonstrates this by
analogy; the Arabic of the Prophet is not the language as used today. There
are many Arabic languages recognised in ISO-639-3, they are what is spoken
and written today. The language and the concepts of the Arabic of the
Quran is well defined and is static.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Phake Nick  wrote:

> What about other applications for other wikiprojects in Latin?
> Indeed, the fact that some people write new poems or essays in
> Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead language.
> But it contradicts your claim that such language would have a closed
> wordbase and cannot be expanded to express new concepts. And thus
> nullified such explanation being used as rationale in rejecting
> wikiprojects written in such ancient language.
>
> Gerard Meijssen  於 2021年9月22日週三 下午8:25寫道：
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
> Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
> essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
> language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:
> >>
> >> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new
> terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species
> name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and
> being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language
> mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
> >>
> >> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
> >>>
> >>> Hoi,
> >>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
> solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
> they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
> better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
> fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
> terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
> means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
> >>>
> >>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>GerardM
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Gerard and Committee
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that
> >>>>
> >>>> consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved by
> defining a class of “Classic Languages” to be given the same status as
> nativelangs  and conlangs,
> >>>> this being on the grounds that they are “across millenia proven
> second language vehicles”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
> language speakers; and
> >>>> this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to solve
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order
> to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly
> unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?
> >>>>
> >>>> Classical languages
> >>>> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical
> Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing
> traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and
> learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply
> for new Wikis in these languages.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit
> “Ancient Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed PGP part
> >>>> Der Gerard
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hoi,
> >>>> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing
> langua

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Latin is outside of the remit of the language committee because its
Wikipedia already existed. The fact that some people write new poems or
essays in Classical Chinese does not alter the fact that it is a dead
language, it is not eligible for a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 14:13, Phake Nick  wrote:

> Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new terms
> in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species name,
> which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and being
> used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language mean it
> cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead
> language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay
> in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new
> vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot
> see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
>
> 在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen  寫道：
>
>> Hoi,
>> The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
>> solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
>> they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
>> better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
>> fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
>> terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
>> means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
>>
>> You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Gerard and Committee
>>>
>>> Given that
>>>
>>>1. consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be
>>>solved by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the
>>>same status as nativelangs  and conlangs,
>>>2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven
>>>second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of
>>>first language speakers; and
>>>3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>>>solve
>>>
>>>
>>> *as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order
>>> to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly
>>> unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
>>>
>>> *Classical languages*
>>> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical
>>> Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing
>>> traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and
>>> learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply
>>> for new Wikis in these languages.
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
>>> Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> Der Gerard
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing
>>> language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
>>>
>>>
>>>- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
>>>current policy and that will not change.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
>>> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>>>
>>>
>>>- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
>>>arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and
>>> hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
>>> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>>>
>>>
>>>- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating
>>>against ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux 
>>> of
>>>defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus 
>&g

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a
solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases
they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is
better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages
fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new
terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it
means that it explains how the existing policy operates.

You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Dear Gerard and Committee
>
> Given that
>
>1. consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
>by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the same
>status as nativelangs  and conlangs,
>2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven
>second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first
>language speakers; and
>3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to
>solve
>
>
> *as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to
> solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable
> with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
>
> *Classical languages*
> The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese
> and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of
> second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and
> their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis
> in these languages.
>
>
> For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
> Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Der Gerard
>
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
> policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
>
>
> Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
>
>
>- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
>current policy and that will not change.
>
>
> However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the
> possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
>
>
>- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
>arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
>
>
> It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and
> hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily
> fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
>
>
>- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
>ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
>defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
>the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
>introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
>terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
>
> On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of
> discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the
> current policy.
>
> On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not
> have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”,
> so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
>
>
>
> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
> waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
> way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
> pictures in Commons in the language they know.
>
> In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
> do.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
>> Dear Committee,
>>
>> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very
>> limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical
>> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with
>> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage.
>> There are two options along these lines
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Compromise_Proposal_Option_Two>
>>  at
>> the RFC, which seems stable to me.
>>
>>

[Langcom] Re: Ancient Languages: Current Proposals and feedback

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language
policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.

   - Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
   current policy and that will not change.
   - When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
   arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
   - The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating against
   ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of
   defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of
   the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the
   introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new
   terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.

For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a
waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive
way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find
pictures in Commons in the language they know.

In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to
do.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Dear Committee,
>
> I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very
> limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical
> Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with
> proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage.
> There are two options along these lines
> 
>  at
> the RFC, which seems stable to me.
>
> I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble
> 
>
> *Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious
> identities*
>
> *The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against
> people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by
> placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The
> importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be
> seen regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical
> Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox
> Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the
> languages of most important theological debates.*
>
>
> There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from
> the current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which
> is a Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be
> interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by
> Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is
> dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and
> unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something
> which of course it does have.
>
> Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu
> politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will
> want you to ensure are mitigated.
>
> I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did
> not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of
> the current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to
> any particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.
>
> Thank you for your consideration,
>
> Jim
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This committee predates the charter.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 13:42, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Do any of the other Committee members have an opinion about this below?
>
> I do not believe it the problem here to be a "process issue”.
>
>
>1. The orginal consultation was faulty, in breach of the Committee
>Charter and has produced a problematic AL policy;
>2. The Committee’s current is in likely breach of the Committee’
>Charter language policy as it is not based on “quantative indicators” but
>instead changes these indicators according to preference;
>3. This tension between the Committee’s Charter and the AL policy is
>being consulted on now, there is an alternative approach available, but so
>far the Committee do not seem to wish to respond or to discuss these
>mitigations
>
>
> Gerard, this does not need a response from you at this stage as we have
> that already
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 20:31, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
>> Dear Gerard,
>>
>> I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very surprised
>> how much effort this is taking, especially given that *the request for
>> policy change in the RFC is very limited*, and would help the Committee
>> deal with issues around the ancient language wikis which are not performing
>> well. Furthermore I have no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would like to
>> work with the Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language
>> Wikis (ALWs) to meet WM’s mission.
>>
>> As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer, having found
>> the email archive. This is important, because some members of the Committee
>> want to leave the current policy in place, should the current RFC be
>> rejected.
>>
>> However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be seen to be
>> developed fairly and responsibly, and to have dealt with all of the issues
>> properly, at the time. Looking at the email discussion that led to the
>> change I would observe that:
>>
>>
>>1. The change to the status of Ancient Languages was *presented as a
>>minor change to the Language proposal policy*
>>2. The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent
>>3. *Only three issues were raised*; being the need to meet the
>>mission; a "need for native speakers"; and the need for a “natural 
>> audience”
>>4. There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed
>>5. There was *no mention of a public discussion or consultation*,
>>which *appears to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter commitment
>>to transparency*
>>6. There was no discussion of whether *qualitative factors* (ancient
>>versus constructed languages) could be appropriately combined with 
>> *different
>>treatment of objective factors* (numbers of native speakers) which 
>> *appears
>>to be in breach of the Committee’s Charter, which commits to using
>>objective factors alone.*
>>
>>
>> Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a
>> consensus, and should not be the property of the Committee to determine by
>> itself, or via a Board rubber stamp.
>>
>> All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just want
>> to be plain that the current RFC process is already a much more thorough
>> and developed policy process than that in 2007 - quite naturally, given we
>> have 14 years of further experience to apply. A review would be quite
>> natural after this length of time in any case.
>>
>> So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I would
>> however like the Committee to approach the current RFC positively, and use
>> it to take a fresh look.
>>
>> Thank you again for your time,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Once Wikis have started, it is outside the remit of the language committee.
As far as I am aware the committee does not seek authority outside of the
current remit. Every now and again we are asked to look at a specific
project because it is not functioning well, particularly when people find
that the language produced is not the language that is advertised.
Consequently the policy does not need to be revisited because of projects
created before the genesis of the policy and the committee and specifically
in the interest of languages we would not approve anyway.

When the committee had an advisory role, I would look for those areas where
the WMF does not make the sum of the data available to us in all supported
languages particularly where it easily could.

In your arguments you seek to redress a potential "unfairness" you seek
procedural arguments why the RFC is to be considered. At the time there
were two potential scenarios. The one favoured by many people of  the board
was to delete dysfunctional projects and not allow for any new projects.
The alternative was provided in the creation of the language committee and
the language policy. It was considered unfair to remove existing projects
and consequently the remit of the committee is proposals for new projects
only. Your arguments would increase the remit of the language committee and
make it easier for people to ask for the removal of active projects.
Arguably the balance created that allows for new projects is unfair when,
like you, you want room for projects that is not available. The big
difference between dead languages and artificial languages is that for dead
languages there is a finite vocabulary and consequently they do not fulfill
a mission where we want to share in the sum of all knowledge.

Given the structure of the WMF you may like to know that chosen board
members are selected from the communities but they do not represent the
communities. Global representation is an objective because it provides a
more balanced view within the board. Consequently the notion that the WMF
is democratic and representative is false. Nothing new here.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 20:31, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Dear Gerard,
>
> I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very surprised
> how much effort this is taking, especially given that *the request for
> policy change in the RFC is very limited*, and would help the Committee
> deal with issues around the ancient language wikis which are not performing
> well. Furthermore I have no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would like to
> work with the Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language
> Wikis (ALWs) to meet WM’s mission.
>
> As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer, having found
> the email archive. This is important, because some members of the Committee
> want to leave the current policy in place, should the current RFC be
> rejected.
>
> However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be seen to be
> developed fairly and responsibly, and to have dealt with all of the issues
> properly, at the time. Looking at the email discussion that led to the
> change I would observe that:
>
>
>1. The change to the status of Ancient Languages was *presented as a
>minor change to the Language proposal policy*
>2. The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent
>3. *Only three issues were raised*; being the need to meet the
>mission; a "need for native speakers"; and the need for a “natural 
> audience”
>4. There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed
>5. There was *no mention of a public discussion or consultation*,
>which *appears to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter commitment to
>transparency*
>6. There was no discussion of whether *qualitative factors* (ancient
>versus constructed languages) could be appropriately combined with 
> *different
>treatment of objective factors* (numbers of native speakers) which *appears
>to be in breach of the Committee’s Charter, which commits to using
>objective factors alone.*
>
>
> Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a consensus,
> and should not be the property of the Committee to determine by itself, or
> via a Board rubber stamp.
>
> All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just want to
> be plain that the current RFC process is already a much more thorough and
> developed policy process than that in 2007 - quite naturally, given we have
> 14 years of further experience to apply. A review would be quite natural
> after this length of time in any case.
>
> So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I would
> however like the Committee to approach the current RFC positively, and use
> it to take a fresh look.
>
> Thank you again for your time,
>
> Jim
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> 

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is unclear to you about the policy? The only thing I am convinced
about is that you do not accept the policy. Sad you are wasting everyone's
time.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 15:17, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Thank you again Gerard
>
> This is very helpful information. I understand that the Committee was
> created by the Board.
>
> I have seen far les about
>
> (1) How the Board accepted the revision to the language excluding Ancient
> Languages;
> (2) How this was explained to the Board;
> (3) Whether the Board was given information about any prior consultation,
> or whether that was not seen as necessary at that point
>
> The Board of course will have records, papers and minutes, (maybe public?)
> so this should not be too hard to find, or to point me to where I can find
> it.
>
> Thank you very much
>
> Jim
>
> On 13 Sep 2021, at 13:52, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> No the policy was accepted by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. The
> start of the committee was also the result of a board decision. The notion
> that it was the language committee is a nonsense because it only existed
> from that moment.
>
> Explicitly the existence of projects predating the start of the committee
> are outside the remit of the language committee
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 13:44, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
>> Dear Gerard
>>
>> Thank you, this kind of feedback is very help. You say:
>>
>> *The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all
>> arguments that were used before. There is no point in looking in older
>> history, at best it shows the genesis of the policy.*
>>
>> What I take from this is that
>>
>> (1) The decision was made as an internal matter by LangCom without
>> consultation
>> (2) It is primarily designed to shut down arguments about Ancient
>> Languages
>>
>> I fully sympathise with why you did this, re (2). You received may
>> requests for AL projects that made no sense, some got through the gate no
>> doubt and you needed to make this stop.
>>
>> However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for
>> the Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of
>> whom are disqualified from further progress. There is a question as to how
>> this plays out for potential funding or project building, and how LangCom
>> ensures the existing projects meet their mission (in my view it seems to
>> leave this problem aide, despite the remit of the committee). Finally there
>> is a question as to whether Ancient Greek in particular deserves a shot at
>> a project.
>>
>> My point is simply that issues like this require a consultation process,
>> to *test for such problems, and mitigate against them*.
>>
>> The current proposal attempt to mitigate such problems by creating a very
>> slightly looser ruleset. As such it is not a consultation on the
>> mitigations and effects of the current policy.
>>
>> So tthe Committee must not simply assume that is if does not like the
>> current RFC it can simply leave the current policy in place. The current
>> policy still lacks consultatation and carries all the rough edges you would
>> expect.
>>
>> Thank you again for responding
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On 13 Sep 2021, at 07:19, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments
>> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at
>> best it shows the genesis of the policy.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 00:57, Jim Killock  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg  wrote:
>>>
>>> (NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as
>>> a list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <
>>> j...@killock.org.uk>:
>>> > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a
>>> rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place
>>> are left with *no formal explanation *as to why the Language Committee
>>> devised the rules as it did.
>>> >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from
>>> 2007 showing how the decision was made. If it is or 

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No the policy was accepted by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. The
start of the committee was also the result of a board decision. The notion
that it was the language committee is a nonsense because it only existed
from that moment.

Explicitly the existence of projects predating the start of the committee
are outside the remit of the language committee
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 13:44, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Dear Gerard
>
> Thank you, this kind of feedback is very help. You say:
>
> *The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments
> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at
> best it shows the genesis of the policy.*
>
> What I take from this is that
>
> (1) The decision was made as an internal matter by LangCom without
> consultation
> (2) It is primarily designed to shut down arguments about Ancient Languages
>
> I fully sympathise with why you did this, re (2). You received may
> requests for AL projects that made no sense, some got through the gate no
> doubt and you needed to make this stop.
>
> However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the
> Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of
> whom are disqualified from further progress. There is a question as to how
> this plays out for potential funding or project building, and how LangCom
> ensures the existing projects meet their mission (in my view it seems to
> leave this problem aide, despite the remit of the committee). Finally there
> is a question as to whether Ancient Greek in particular deserves a shot at
> a project.
>
> My point is simply that issues like this require a consultation process,
> to *test for such problems, and mitigate against them*.
>
> The current proposal attempt to mitigate such problems by creating a very
> slightly looser ruleset. As such it is not a consultation on the
> mitigations and effects of the current policy.
>
> So tthe Committee must not simply assume that is if does not like the
> current RFC it can simply leave the current policy in place. The current
> policy still lacks consultatation and carries all the rough edges you would
> expect.
>
> Thank you again for responding
>
> Jim
>
> On 13 Sep 2021, at 07:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments
> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at
> best it shows the genesis of the policy.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 00:57, Jim Killock  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg  wrote:
>>
>> (NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as
>> a list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)
>>
>>
>> Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <
>> j...@killock.org.uk>:
>> > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a
>> rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place
>> are left with *no formal explanation *as to why the Language Committee
>> devised the rules as it did.
>> >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from
>> 2007 showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available,
>> that would be great. I have listed what I know at
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions
>>
>> I really don't understand this. 2007 is prior to my time in Langcom and I
>> have no knowledge I could share about the decisions made back then.
>> However, I also don't see how this would help now. Some members have
>> previously commented in the "start allowing ancient languages" RFC with
>> good reasons as to why such projects shouldn't be approved. If there are
>> "secret reasons from 2007", they can only further support not allowing
>> ancient languages, probably.
>>
>> >This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the
>> upset felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a
>> policy, but it is not explained. the justifications are communicated to
>> them adhoc and it is extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has
>> this policy, as it is in fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead,
>> people whose projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc
>> explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. This is 

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments
that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at
best it shows the genesis of the policy.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 00:57, Jim Killock  wrote:

>
>
> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg  wrote:
>
> (NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as a
> list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)
>
>
> Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond.
>
>
>
>
> Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <
> j...@killock.org.uk>:
> > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a
> rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place
> are left with *no formal explanation *as to why the Language Committee
> devised the rules as it did.
> >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007
> showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that
> would be great. I have listed what I know at
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions
>
> I really don't understand this. 2007 is prior to my time in Langcom and I
> have no knowledge I could share about the decisions made back then.
> However, I also don't see how this would help now. Some members have
> previously commented in the "start allowing ancient languages" RFC with
> good reasons as to why such projects shouldn't be approved. If there are
> "secret reasons from 2007", they can only further support not allowing
> ancient languages, probably.
>
> >This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the
> upset felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a
> policy, but it is not explained. the justifications are communicated to
> them adhoc and it is extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has
> this policy, as it is in fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead,
> people whose projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc
> explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. This is bound to cause friction and
> grievance.
> >If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very
> helpful.
>
> If this is a legitimate concern, I feel like the already existing short
> explanation at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues
> should be made more detailed, with some of the reasons already given, if
> the current "disallowing" of ancient languages stays in place. That seems
> better than digging up 2007 discussions.
>
>
> That is exacly what I mean by “reverse engineering”. If you don’t have the
> reasoning available, and can’t show the consultation process that helped
> arrive at this, then any reasoning now is purely gueswork, or the preferred
> but unconsulted view of the Committee.
>
> In essence, it remains an untransparent process and open to accusations of
> being arbitrary.
>
> I don’t think that is a sound way forward.
>
>
> [...]
>
> *>The way forward*
> *>Publish if available, but do not engineering the 2007 decision:* I do
> not think the committee should now reverse engineer the reasons for the
> 2007 decision, if it turns out to be unavailable, especially as it probably
> was made without much public consultation or evidence gathering.
> *>If the documentation does turn up*, it is still twenty years old and
> there is still a need to take a look at the performance of the current ALWs
> and think about how they should be best supported.
>
> As above.
>
> *>Pause before looking again at the recommendations made on the current
> RFC.* Rather I think there should be a period of evidence gathering and
> reflection about ALWs. Once this evidence is gathered, some observations
> and recommendations can flow back to the RFC process.
>
> Can I also ask you to take a pause? I, too, mean this in good faith. But
> every time I try to follow what is happening at the RFC, new walls of texts
> have appeared and the RFC now has 5 appendices - it's like every day a new
> one pops up, and they all were created by you. Indeed I like to assess
> things thoroughly and carefully, which I feel like I cannot do if the
> proposals are piling up at such speed.
>
>
> Yes, absolutely. I am at the end of my own intellectual journey on this. I
> do appreciate I have created a lot of material anjd I would appreciate
> feedback.
>
> The next step IMO is the evidence gathering to see what kind of policy is
> justifed
>
> But also, I believe there is a way forward which would start to deal with
> the actual substantive problems - that is starting a programme of support
> for the Ancient Language Wikis or ALWs, once we know what state they are in
> and what they do well.
>
> As I explain at
> 

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We have a set of rules. They are designed to prevent problems. They work.

You may differ in your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. It
does not follow that you are convincing given the objectives of the rules.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 12 Sept 2021 at 09:24, Phake Nick  wrote:

> But why only "officially"? For many languages, either endangering or newly
> revitalizing, official use are the least likely ground they would survive.
> Like gow long it took for Hebrew revitalization movement to gain ground
> from.being an ancient language to being an official language somewhere?
> Languages like Classical Chinese is generally considered ancient language,
> as people generally do not write in such language anymore in their nornal
> daily life. It's a literary language, not a spoken language, so no one
> speak it. But still, it's an language still commonly taught across and
> beyond Greater China area, and people do use the language to create new
> content, for instance a number of recent years' "Best Chinese essay writing
> from China's National university entry exam", was written in Classical
> Chinese, reflecting the language's continued usage, including usage for
> content creation, despite being seen as a historical language.
> Indeed, it's unavoidable that words from.old languages in their original
> meaning might not be sufficient to reflect new cobceot and thus new word
> are needed, but how would it be different from some living smaller
> languages, or even larger languages like Japanese or Chinese or English,
> which saw the import of foreign culture and technology throughout their
> history? For example, the word "wiki", is a word which existed in no
> language other than Hawaiian, and even in Hawaiian the word does not mean
> what we're now using it on this website, but does that prohibit all
> languages around the world, be it living or not, to simply borrow such term
> into their vocabulary and use them as part of the language? If let say,
> someone wrote a Classical Chinese sentence, 維基乃吾所欲, with 維基 being a common
> transliteration and WMF trademarked term for "Wiki", and 乃吾所欲 mean "is what
> I want", does that make the whole sentence "Wiki is what I want" not
> Classical Chinese simply because it included a transliteration odmf the
> modern word "Wiki", in the same way the word "Wiki" is being transliterated
> into every other languages around the world?
> The term Television is a term invented in English, with tele- meaning
> faraway, and vision meaning vision. In modern Japanese, the term is simply
> transliterated and shortened from English, into "Terebi". In modern
> Chinese, the term is translated as 電視, meaning "Electric vision". Why there
> need to be a formal institute using the language, instead of some general
> committee around the world, using a language, in.order for new concepts to
> be officially accepted as translated into historical languages, and cannot
> achieve the same among communities of.old language users, especially when
> such communities are usually where endangered languages would last stay and
> where historical languages would first revitalize?
>
>
>
> 在 2021年9月9日週四 19:01，Ilario Valdelli  寫道：
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I suggest to don’t consider “Latin” an ancient language for the simple
>> reason that is still “officially” used as “lingua franca” in some
>> institutions like the catholic church.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/world/vatican-introduces-latin-to-21st-century-with-new-dictionary.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I can assure that in several catholic schools and universities *and* in
>> the “formal” communication the *latin is written, read and spoken* (yes,
>> spoken).
>>
>>
>>
>> When Benedict XVI resigned, he did his announcement *only in latin*:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/urgent-pope-announces-resignation-on.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that we must consider a language “ancient” only when is *not
>> used* in “formal” linguistic registers and doesn’t have an evolution, so
>> it’s basically “frozen”:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)
>>
>>
>>
>> But if an institution like the catholic church continues to keep it
>> updated to translate “new words”, is not ancient anymore.
>>
>>
>>
>> Latin must be kept updated in order to write something like that
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical and to have it as the “official
>> language” of the legal codes of the Vatican (
>> https://www.vatican.va/latin/latin_codex.html).
>>
>>
>>
>> So this discussion may not have a sense for Latin exactly because Latin
>> users may consider it a form of “discrimination” of a minority of users
>>  while Wikiverse should be inclusive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ilario Valdelli
>>
>> Education Program Manager and Community liaison
>>
>> Wikimedia CH
>>
>> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>
>> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>>
>> Associazione per il 

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What difference does it make. The policies are clear, the arguments why
have not been refuted. The discussions have been followed over time by
committee members..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 14:04, Jim Killock  wrote:

> Do you happen to know when the previous RFC’s were brought forward? it
> ould be helpful for me to reference these discussions on the current RFC
> alongside any information about the reasons they were rejected.
>
> On 8 Sep 2021, at 06:45, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> The arguments inherent in the policy are not affected by the "fear
> mongering" by some. At  the same time in the later suggestions there is
> nothing new.
>
> From my perspective there is no reason to revisit the criteria for a new
> Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 02:00, Phake Nick  wrote:
>
>> The RFC in past have suffered from fear-mongering by some users on
>> multiple Wikiprojects both internally on sites like Chinese Wikipedia and
>> Chinese Wikisource and then also via some other channels, describing the
>> RFC as a conspiracy to enable the creation of a Literal Chinese Wikisource
>> and to tear apart Chinese Wikimedian communities, despite later
>> clarification that the RFC isn't intended to alter the circumstances around
>> Wikisource since the current language policy already allow creation of
>> Wikisource in ancient languages, yet such misunderstanding generated a lot
>> of unnecessary debate inside the page.
>>
>> 在 2021年9月7日週二 18:44，MF-Warburg  寫道：
>>
>>> News from this RFC. The ultra-long discussion was archived by this user
>>> in favour of his new proposal, which already generated much text again.
>>>
>>> Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <
>>> j...@killock.org.uk>:
>>>
>>>> Dear LangCom,
>>>>
>>>> I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and
>>>> Latin Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong
>>>> to a community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own
>>>> Latin is still intermediate at this point. However, I can appreciate that
>>>> Latin takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and thus I suspect this
>>>> is true for some other ancient languages, which are, in the end, still
>>>> employed and varifiably so. Thus I am sympathetic to the claims made that
>>>> some other ancient languages may also have communities in a similar
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>> You may have seen that some users have asked for the policy that makes
>>>> an auto0matic refusal for ‘ancient and historic languages’ to be
>>>> revisited
>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Discussion>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> After checking through the rules and procedures, it seems this is
>>>> something you as a committee need to decide, rather than being a matter of
>>>> general debate, so I am emailing you to ask you to consider revising the
>>>> policy, in a manner which allows a little more flexibility for languages
>>>> which are *historic, learnt, but in use*.
>>>>
>>>> I think there is some need to do this, as can be seen from your
>>>> archives, which show that it is hard to achi9eve a consistent approach
>>>> while constructed alnguages with a body of current usage are allowed, but
>>>> an ancient language with similar levels of fluent usage, is not allowed.
>>>> This I note has been a matter of discussion relating to Ancient Greek, for
>>>> which a discussion is still open.
>>>>
>>>> I drafted a proposal that would try to create consistency between the
>>>> constructed and ancient language situation, while recognising that most
>>>> historic languages should not normally qualify for inclusion. Nevertheless,
>>>> in some important exceptions, where there is a *credibly large enough
>>>> number of language users, with sufficient skill, and attestable external
>>>> usage of that language,*, these languages could be allowed without
>>>> opening the floodgates, with a well-crated policy.
>>>>
>>>> I would also like the committee to note that I would be happy to help
>>>> frame this policy in a sensible way, if that is of interest.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your time,
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>&

[Langcom] Re: Request to revist Ancient Language policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The arguments inherent in the policy are not affected by the "fear
mongering" by some. At  the same time in the later suggestions there is
nothing new.

>From my perspective there is no reason to revisit the criteria for a new
Wikipedia.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 02:00, Phake Nick  wrote:

> The RFC in past have suffered from fear-mongering by some users on
> multiple Wikiprojects both internally on sites like Chinese Wikipedia and
> Chinese Wikisource and then also via some other channels, describing the
> RFC as a conspiracy to enable the creation of a Literal Chinese Wikisource
> and to tear apart Chinese Wikimedian communities, despite later
> clarification that the RFC isn't intended to alter the circumstances around
> Wikisource since the current language policy already allow creation of
> Wikisource in ancient languages, yet such misunderstanding generated a lot
> of unnecessary debate inside the page.
>
> 在 2021年9月7日週二 18:44，MF-Warburg  寫道：
>
>> News from this RFC. The ultra-long discussion was archived by this user
>> in favour of his new proposal, which already generated much text again.
>>
>> Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <
>> j...@killock.org.uk>:
>>
>>> Dear LangCom,
>>>
>>> I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and
>>> Latin Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong
>>> to a community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own
>>> Latin is still intermediate at this point. However, I can appreciate that
>>> Latin takes up a large part of many people’s lives, and thus I suspect this
>>> is true for some other ancient languages, which are, in the end, still
>>> employed and varifiably so. Thus I am sympathetic to the claims made that
>>> some other ancient languages may also have communities in a similar
>>> position.
>>>
>>> You may have seen that some users have asked for the policy that makes
>>> an auto0matic refusal for ‘ancient and historic languages’ to be
>>> revisited
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> After checking through the rules and procedures, it seems this is
>>> something you as a committee need to decide, rather than being a matter of
>>> general debate, so I am emailing you to ask you to consider revising the
>>> policy, in a manner which allows a little more flexibility for languages
>>> which are *historic, learnt, but in use*.
>>>
>>> I think there is some need to do this, as can be seen from your
>>> archives, which show that it is hard to achi9eve a consistent approach
>>> while constructed alnguages with a body of current usage are allowed, but
>>> an ancient language with similar levels of fluent usage, is not allowed.
>>> This I note has been a matter of discussion relating to Ancient Greek, for
>>> which a discussion is still open.
>>>
>>> I drafted a proposal that would try to create consistency between the
>>> constructed and ancient language situation, while recognising that most
>>> historic languages should not normally qualify for inclusion. Nevertheless,
>>> in some important exceptions, where there is a *credibly large enough
>>> number of language users, with sufficient skill, and attestable external
>>> usage of that language,*, these languages could be allowed without
>>> opening the floodgates, with a well-crated policy.
>>>
>>> I would also like the committee to note that I would be happy to help
>>> frame this policy in a sensible way, if that is of interest.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time,
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> Definition of *ancient or historic language*[edit
>>> 
>>> ]
>>>
>>>1. For Wikimedia projects' purposes, an *ancient or historic
>>>language* is one which
>>>   1. Was used historically and has an extant corpus of works;
>>>   2. Is typically acquired by formal learning;
>>>   3. Is typically fixed in form, eg by grammar rules developed and
>>>   documented while the language was in common usage;
>>>   4. May or may not not be used in modern linguistic domains, such
>>>   as: trade; education; academic discourse; music; poetry; religious
>>>   discourse; etc.
>>>
>>> Qualification of an *ancient or historic language* for a Wiki project[
>>> edit
>>> 
>>> ]
>>> The same basic eligibility criteria should apply in a similar but
>>> somewhat stricter manner than artificial languages, recognising that
>>> acquisition is likely to be harder than is typical for constructed
>>> languages, but also that acquisition *may* be more common and resources
>>> more developed; and also that practical usage is likely to be *lower* than
>>> for many contemporary natively-acquired languages.
>>> Therefore I propose 

[Langcom] Re: Wikipedia Levantine Arabic

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the language policy was defined, we accepted any and all living
ISO-639-3 languages. It follows that many languages in the Arabic language
family are eligible. What it takes for a Wikipedia to be realised is a
community who create a resource for their language. At the end, when it is
to be decided if the project can be created, we need an expert to certify
that the texts in the Incubator are that specific language.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 16:17, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:

> I agree with you that this proposal should not be rejected until expert
> opinion is sought. This is in line with my argument that this language
> needs to be justified as not at the level of a common dialect. LPP states
> that the language must be unique: "The language must be sufficiently unique
> that it could not coexist on a more general wiki."
>
> I'd like to get some expert advice from linguists, can someone recommend a
> linguist who can answer this case?
>
> Sotiale
>
> 2021년 8월 1일 (일) 오후 11:02, Amir E. Aharoni 님이
> 작성:
>
>> It should not be rejected outright without at least consulting with
>> actual experts. I know a tiny bit of Standard and Levantine Arabic, but I'm
>> definitely not an expert.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, it's as eligible as Moroccan and Egyptian Arabic,
>> which we've already approved. And this is true even though Levantive is
>> often mentioned as one of the closest variants to standard Arabic.
>>
>> There isn't a lot of published written content published in any of the
>> Arabic variants other than Modern Standard Arabic, including Levantine. For
>> the particular case of Levantine, I am aware of a complete translation of
>> The Little Prince. There was a recent political campaign in Israel, with
>> some written material in the local dialect, which is one variety of
>> Levantine. There were also attempts to publish newspapers and books in it
>> in Lebanon, but I know less about that.
>>
>> It's also widely used in writing on social media. It's informal, but it
>> is a thing nevertheless; if a language is popular on the web in general, it
>> can contribute to its success in a Wikipedia.
>>
>> So no, it probably shouldn't be rejected outright.
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> ‪“We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>>
>>
>> ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 1 באוג׳ 2021 ב-15:39 מאת ‪Sotiale Wiki‬‏ <‪
>> sotiale...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>>
>>> * related:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Levantine_Arabic
>>>
>>> It was proposed in 2015 and has been abandoned for about 2 years, but
>>> has received intermittent attention over the past few years. ISO 639-3 code
>>> is assigned to this language, and there is a test project in Wikimedia
>>> incubator, but there are 5 pages except templates, categories, talkpages,
>>> and modules.
>>>
>>> Looking at the discussion, it seems that speakers of this language can
>>> speak Arabic for granted. Arabic speakers seem to perceive this as a
>>> dialect of some sort.
>>>
>>> I wonder what you think of this proposal. I think it is appropriate to
>>> be rejected unless evidence is presented that this is not at the level of a
>>> dialect that does not differ to an incomprehensible degree from Arabic.
>>>
>>> Sotiale
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Wikipedia Levantine Arabic

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
it is a recognised language. With enough people supporting a new project,
there is no reason not to have it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 14:39, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:

> * related:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Levantine_Arabic
>
> It was proposed in 2015 and has been abandoned for about 2 years, but has
> received intermittent attention over the past few years. ISO 639-3 code is
> assigned to this language, and there is a test project in Wikimedia
> incubator, but there are 5 pages except templates, categories, talkpages,
> and modules.
>
> Looking at the discussion, it seems that speakers of this language can
> speak Arabic for granted. Arabic speakers seem to perceive this as a
> dialect of some sort.
>
> I wonder what you think of this proposal. I think it is appropriate to be
> rejected unless evidence is presented that this is not at the level of a
> dialect that does not differ to an incomprehensible degree from Arabic.
>
> Sotiale
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Langcom Digest, Vol 92, Issue 8

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Eligible means that we accept the validity for the language to have a
project. When it fulfills all the requirements for a project it becomes
accepted.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 11:59, Trond Trosterud 
wrote:

>
>
> I agree with Kimberli on all points. Hijacker proposals and extinct
> languages not behaving like Latin should be rejected.
>
>
>
> Also, if a language is not capable of creating a wp, it follows that we
> should block wikinews as well.
>
>
>
> At the outset, one would think a se.wiktionary.org had a future, since
> e.g. fr.wiktionary.org has an astonishing se-fr part. Also, if the idea
> of a monolingual se dictionary would gain ground, se.wiktionary would be a
> good framework for it. But for now: probably not.
>
>
>
> Then to Gerard Meijssens comment " I take it that you mean that they are
> not eligible. For me that means that we will not approve at a later date."
> :
>
>
>
> Here I disagree. For Northern Luri, I see no reason why a "no" for a wp
> project today would imply a "no" at a later stage. The language has 4
> million speakers, if the world were a place with an equal language policy
> for all, we would expect it to have a wp version with 50 articles. This
> is of course not the case, but at least we should not reject the
> possibility that some of these 4m speakers would knock on wp's door in the
> future.
>
>
>
> (or perhaps I misread you, and we agree after all). In any case,
> housekeeping is a useful activity.
>
>
>
> Trond
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Lähettäjä: *langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Päivämäärä: *torstaina, 1. heinäkuuta 2021 klo 15.01
> *Vastaanottaja: *langcom@lists.wikimedia.org lang...@lists.wikimedia.orge
> *Aihe: *Langcom Digest, Vol 92, Issue 8
>
>1. Some housekeeping (Kimberli Mäkäräinen)
>2. Re: Some housekeeping (Gerard Meijssen)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:31:57 +
> From: Kimberli Mäkäräinen 
> Subject: [Langcom] Some housekeeping
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
> 
> Message-ID:   .eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="_000_HE1PR0802MB2137
> 0AC50CCB613D17A1A71DF5009HE1PR0802MB2137_"
>
> Hei! Sorry for the long mail.
>
> Since the Northern Luri wp was closed, I think it would make sense to
> reject the remaining Northern Luri proposal on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Northern_Lurish.
> Also the "Sumerian" incubator (Wp/sux) is back and should be nuked again
> and this request rejected<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Shumerian
> >.
>
> This Wiktionary has no proposal<
> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wt/yux>, but it was created
> by a notorious "Wiki hijacker" (to use a term from last week's Arctic Knot
> conference) who did not know the languages he was supposedly saving so I
> say nuke it. The wp version of this has already been nuked.
>
> Other proposals that would be sensible to reject:
>
>   1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ter_Sami
>   2.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Tundra_Yukaghir
>
> This proposal for Norn was rejected since it's extinct and has very few
> written sources<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Norn>,
> which makes me wonder if this is written in actual Norn or some version of
> Nynorn or some other language:
> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wp/nrn
>
> I think that the Northern Saami wiktionary project should probably also be
> nuked and buried as a lot of it was created by someone with no grasp of the
> language (cf. "Wiki hijacker"), but I'll ask around in the community if
> there is any reason they think it should be saved.
>
> mvh.
> -K
>
> -- next part --
> A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/html
> Size: 4831 bytes
> Desc: not available
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 07:22:31 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen 
> Subject: [Langcom] Re: Some housekeeping
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
> 
> Message-ID:
> <
> cao53wxuxstxsbbhtuvbyjgieappoa2gsdz_wgtys9pz03th...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>   

[Langcom] Re: Some housekeeping

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I take it that you mean that they are not eligible. For me that means that
we will not approve at a later date.

The proposals in your mail.. OK
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 04:32, Kimberli Mäkäräinen <
kimberli.makarai...@tuni.fi> wrote:

> Hei! Sorry for the long mail.
>
> Since the Northern Luri wp was closed, I think it would make sense to
> reject the remaining Northern Luri proposal on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Northern_Lurish
> . Also the "Sumerian" incubator (Wp/sux) is back and should be nuked
> again and this request rejected
> 
> .
>
> This Wiktionary has no proposal
> , but it was
> created by a notorious "Wiki hijacker" (to use a term from last week's
> Arctic Knot conference) who did not know the languages he was supposedly
> saving so I say nuke it. The wp version of this has already been nuked.
>
> Other proposals that would be sensible to reject:
>
>1.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ter_Sami
>2.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Tundra_Yukaghir
>
>
> This proposal for Norn was rejected since it's extinct and has very few
> written sources
> ,
> which makes me wonder if this is written in actual Norn or some version of
> Nynorn or some other language:
> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wp/nrn
>
> I think that the Northern Saami wiktionary project should probably also be
> nuked and buried as a lot of it was created by someone with no grasp of the
> language (cf. "Wiki hijacker"), but I'll ask around in the community if
> there is any reason they think it should be saved.
>
> mvh.
> -K
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Requesting approval for Javanese Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The font exists when users know the font exists and are able to find it in
MediaWiki.
Thanks,
   Gerard


On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 20:08, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> Yes, that's why by "resolved" I obviously mean they seem to exist now.
>
> Am Do., 17. Juni 2021 um 19:53 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> When people ask for the development of UNICODE definitions and associated
>> fonts, there is no such thing as "resolved" when there is a need for them.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 19:18, MF-Warburg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Di., 15. Juni 2021 um 19:37 Uhr schrieb Nicolas VIGNERON <
>>> vigneron.nico...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi y'all,
>>>>
>>>> Sure, done: I made a comment on
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Javanese#General_discussion
>>>>
>>>> That said, I would like to know where the members of the Language
>>>> Committee stand on this matter.
>>>> Should it be only an advice/comment and should it be more enforced? (I
>>>> know the Wikisource Community itself is on the fence and most don't have a
>>>> strong opinion either way).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks! I have to admit I'm not aware of the Wikisource community
>>> discussions on this matter. Would there be a good way of enforcing the use
>>> of the extension anyway? I'd think it's best to make it as easy as possible
>>> to use -- surely the practicality of the extension itself is already the
>>> best advertisement for it?
>>>
>>> @ Gerard:
>>> is your comment about the comment on the wiki page from 2008? I think
>>> that issue was already solved.
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Requesting approval for Javanese Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

When people ask for the development of UNICODE definitions and associated
fonts, there is no such thing as "resolved" when there is a need for them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 19:18, MF-Warburg  wrote:

>
>
> Am Di., 15. Juni 2021 um 19:37 Uhr schrieb Nicolas VIGNERON <
> vigneron.nico...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi y'all,
>>
>> Sure, done: I made a comment on
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Javanese#General_discussion
>>
>> That said, I would like to know where the members of the Language
>> Committee stand on this matter.
>> Should it be only an advice/comment and should it be more enforced? (I
>> know the Wikisource Community itself is on the fence and most don't have a
>> strong opinion either way).
>>
>
> Thanks! I have to admit I'm not aware of the Wikisource community
> discussions on this matter. Would there be a good way of enforcing the use
> of the extension anyway? I'd think it's best to make it as easy as possible
> to use -- surely the practicality of the extension itself is already the
> best advertisement for it?
>
> @ Gerard:
> is your comment about the comment on the wiki page from 2008? I think that
> issue was already solved.
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Requesting approval for Javanese Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Why not ask for funding improving the font? It is not the first time money
for UNICODE development was paid for by the WMF.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 19:37, Nicolas VIGNERON 
wrote:

> Hi y'all,
>
> Sure, done: I made a comment on
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Javanese#General_discussion
>
> That said, I would like to know where the members of the Language
> Committee stand on this matter.
> Should it be only an advice/comment and should it be more enforced? (I
> know the Wikisource Community itself is on the fence and most don't have a
> strong opinion either way).
>
> Cheers, 
>
> Le mar. 15 juin 2021 à 17:41, MF-Warburg  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Notification_about_proposed_approval_of_Javanese_Wikisource
>>
>> @ Nicolas: Would you be willing to contact the community and suggest the
>> increased use of the proofread extension yourself? :-)
>>
>> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Requesting Approval for Balinese Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given enough interest, I do not mind a Wikisource early and quickly. As it
is, Wikisource has as its prime beneficiaries its editors.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 06:45, Satdeep Gill  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I believe Balinese Wikisource should be moved to a separate domain now.[1]
> There are thousands of Indexes in the language already and *18 users with
> 10+ edits* and there has been more than enough activity in the last 3
> months.[2]
>
> The most used messages have already been translated as there exists a
> Balinese Wikipedia already and ProofreadPage related messages have also
> been translated.[3]
>
> The community has been regularly engaging with the project and there are a
> few WMF funded grants that prove this.[4][5]
>
> I strongly support the creation of this new Wikisource as soon as
> possible. More so because it relies on certain gadgets and tools which
> would be better supported on a separate wiki as default gadgets rather than
> making community members to add it on their Common.js.
>
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Balinese
> 2. 
> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=1=%E1%AC%AA%E1%AC%B5%E1%AC%B1%E1%AC%A9%E1%AC%AE%E1%AC%B6=sourceswiki
>
> 3. https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=ban
> 4.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/PanLex/Balinese_palm-leaf_transcription_platform_on_Wikisource
> 5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite/grant/Balinese_WikiLontar
>
> Best
> Satdeep
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Wikipedia Emoji

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The sooner we indicate that this is a "no-hoper", the better.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 06:45, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:

> I think this proposal should be rejected. Their test project page has been
> deleted from the incubator.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Emoji
>
> First of all, this is not a language and it violates the requirements of
> the LPP as it has not been assigned an ISO 639 code. The proposal itself
> feels like nonsense to me, but I am not sure if I can reject it alone, so I
> post it.
>
> Sotiale
>
> 본 이메일은 Avast로 보호되는 안전한 컴퓨터에서 발송되었습니다.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-6662061423367326822_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Langcom] Re: Approval of Dagbani Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I concur.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 05:56, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:

> I have been watching the activities of Wp/dag, and I think it is steady
> and stable. I believe that if there are no other issues, there will be no
> issues with approval.
>
> Sotiale
>
> 본 이메일은 Avast로 보호되는 안전한 컴퓨터에서 발송되었습니다.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-7797216140833918237_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> 2021년 4월 26일 (월) 오전 9:21, MF-Warburg 님이 작성:
>
>> Looks good to me. I had an eye on it already but so far the most-used
>> messages were always incomplete.
>>
>> Am Sa., 24. Apr. 2021 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Jon Harald Søby <
>> jhs...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose the approval of the Dagbani Wikipedia. The
>>> activity [1] is really good and stable, and the most used messages have all
>>> been translated [2] (this was finished today actually – there were some
>>> 40ish untranslated messages a couple of days ago, so I prodded Sadik
>>> Shahadu, one of the main contributors, to complete them, and he responded
>>> very swiftly). The community is really active not only on the Incubator,
>>> but in various other areas of Wikimedia as well – as some of you may have
>>> heard, it was selected as one of the focus languages for the Abstract
>>> Wikipedia project [3]. In addition, they also have an active Wikimedia User
>>> Group [4], which I believe is the only language-based user group for a
>>> language that's still in the Incubator.
>>>
>>> As for external validation, I am not sure that is necessary in this
>>> case, but according to Amir, who has been helping them out with some
>>> things, it should be rather easy to obtain if any of the committee members
>>> deem it necessary.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe - especially in this case? ;)
>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/dag=incubatorwiki
>>> [2] https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=dag
>>> [3]
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/Focus_languages
>>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dagbani_Wikimedians_User_Group
>>>
>>> --
>>> mvh
>>> Jon Harald Søby
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Langcom] Middle English Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Indeed.
Gerard

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 17:05, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> Some users who started a test-project on Incubator made a request:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Middle_English_4
>
> As you can see, it's the fourth one for that language already. I see no
> reason why this time it's different, so it should be rejected.
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Removal of inactive language committee members

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you..
Gerard

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 15:11, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> For the record: Per the inactivity policy we decided on in 2017 [1], I
> have removed three members from the language committee today (it was
> discussed beforehand on the private mailing list), due to inactivity. Thank
> you very much to SPQRobin, Millosh and Klbroome for all their efforts
> through the years!
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/langcom/2017-July/001595.html
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] language code for Multilingual Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are right. One other solution could be to support it in the same way as
Commons; without a language code.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 13:49, Nicolas VIGNERON 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> English is clearly and obviously wrong. "mul" or "und" are not perfect but
> far better (and "mul" seems to fit better I guess).
> Anyway, the multilingual wikisource is meant to be a temporary incubation
> so maybe we don't need perfect here as the point will solve itself
> eventually as the language gets its own Wikisource.
>
> @Gerard: yes title can easily be changed (or not used, whatever and what
> not) but here we are talking about the language of the sitelink (which also
> raises the question of the language of the website which is also "en" right
> now), and that part can't be changed by the user (and AFAIK is unique for a
> wikimedia project).
>
> Cheers, ~nicolas
>
> Le mer. 24 févr. 2021 à 13:28, Gerard Meijssen 
> a écrit :
>
>> Hoi,
>> In Wikidata there is a property "title" is has a mandatory parameter in
>> the language. It is also used for books and other publications... It is
>> completely separate from the link to the Wiki .. it being English is
>> totally irrelevant, it can be removed changed whatever from the Wikidata
>> item.
>> Thanks,
>>Gerard
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 09:56, Amir E. Aharoni <
>> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Wikidata is adding support for sitelinks to the Multilingual Wikisource.
>>>
>>> There's a discussion there about which language should it use. Currently
>>> it's "en", which is not quite correct: technically, the site language of
>>> Multilingual Wikisource is English, but most of the content is in other
>>> languages.
>>>
>>> Ideally, each link should specify the language of the page to which it's
>>> linking, but currently this is not possible technically.
>>>
>>> Until it's possible, suggestions to use "und" or "mul" have been raised:
>>>
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#language_of_https://wikisource.org/_:_currently_%22en%22_(_phab:T138332)
>>>
>>> I don't have an opinion about this myself. Does anyone else have
>>> thoughts about it?
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] language code for Multilingual Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In Wikidata there is a property "title" is has a mandatory parameter in the
language. It is also used for books and other publications... It is
completely separate from the link to the Wiki .. it being English is
totally irrelevant, it can be removed changed whatever from the Wikidata
item.
Thanks,
   Gerard

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 09:56, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Wikidata is adding support for sitelinks to the Multilingual Wikisource.
>
> There's a discussion there about which language should it use. Currently
> it's "en", which is not quite correct: technically, the site language of
> Multilingual Wikisource is English, but most of the content is in other
> languages.
>
> Ideally, each link should specify the language of the page to which it's
> linking, but currently this is not possible technically.
>
> Until it's possible, suggestions to use "und" or "mul" have been raised:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#language_of_https://wikisource.org/_:_currently_%22en%22_(_phab:T138332)
>
> I don't have an opinion about this myself. Does anyone else have thoughts
> about it?
>
> --
> 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
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Meitei / Manipuri (mni) Wikipedia and Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are two arguments, you only address one.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 07:46, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Gerard, we already discussed this: Wiktionary hasn't yet been replaced by
> Wikidata and won't be any time soon, so this argument is irrelevant.
>
> בתאריך יום ב׳, 9 בנוב׳ 2020, 08:12, מאת Gerard Meijssen ‏<
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> From my point of view, depending on what project, we always followed the
>> notion that for a second project we require more quality in localisations.
>> So no, first Wikipedia then Wiktionary. Wiktionary as a project is being
>> made redundant by the lexical support in Wikidata, so giving it a priority
>> is wrong. So even with my love for Wiktionary, no rather not as a first if
>> at all. Wikisource is a totally different proposition.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 06:26, Amir E. Aharoni <
>> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd just approve both, but Wiktionary first and Wikipedia later is OK,
>>> too.
>>>
>>> I should mention that over the last year and a half I've been speaking
>>> to them and providing them tech support, mostly for translatewiki activity.
>>> Their relevant questions caused me to improve some things in
>>> translatewiki's configuration and documentation in a way that hopefully
>>> makes working there easier for everyone.
>>>
>>> בתאריך יום ב׳, 9 בנוב׳ 2020, 04:49, מאת MF-Warburg ‏<
>>> mfwarb...@googlemail.com>:
>>>
>>>> The activity of Wt/mni looks quite good:
>>>>
>>>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wt/mni=incubatorwiki#distribution_2020-11
>>>> This is the 7th month of continuous activity as usually defined, and
>>>> the project is semi-continuously active since mid-2018.
>>>> The most-used msgs are almost complete:
>>>> https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=mni
>>>>
>>>> I'll add that the test-Wikipedia also has considerable activity:
>>>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/mni=incubatorwiki#distribution_2020-11
>>>>
>>>> I propose to approve mni Wiktionary as the first project in that
>>>> language, and hope that the Wikipedia can soon follow. Thoughts?
>>>> ___
>>>> Langcom mailing list
>>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Meitei / Manipuri (mni) Wikipedia and Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
>From my point of view, depending on what project, we always followed the
notion that for a second project we require more quality in localisations.
So no, first Wikipedia then Wiktionary. Wiktionary as a project is being
made redundant by the lexical support in Wikidata, so giving it a priority
is wrong. So even with my love for Wiktionary, no rather not as a first if
at all. Wikisource is a totally different proposition.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 06:26, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> I'd just approve both, but Wiktionary first and Wikipedia later is OK, too.
>
> I should mention that over the last year and a half I've been speaking to
> them and providing them tech support, mostly for translatewiki activity.
> Their relevant questions caused me to improve some things in
> translatewiki's configuration and documentation in a way that hopefully
> makes working there easier for everyone.
>
> בתאריך יום ב׳, 9 בנוב׳ 2020, 04:49, מאת MF-Warburg ‏<
> mfwarb...@googlemail.com>:
>
>> The activity of Wt/mni looks quite good:
>>
>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wt/mni=incubatorwiki#distribution_2020-11
>> This is the 7th month of continuous activity as usually defined, and the
>> project is semi-continuously active since mid-2018.
>> The most-used msgs are almost complete:
>> https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=mni
>>
>> I'll add that the test-Wikipedia also has considerable activity:
>> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/mni=incubatorwiki#distribution_2020-11
>>
>> I propose to approve mni Wiktionary as the first project in that
>> language, and hope that the Wikipedia can soon follow. Thoughts?
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Closure of Northern Luri Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This is not the first time we had to deal with similar issues. The end
result was everything between the Wiki was deleted, the texts were
revisited to make it consistent for the language and what is indeed an
option, have it included in a different language.

Essential in the understanding is that the identity of an ISO 639 language
code is separate from what activists have to say. It is about the
definition given for that language by the organisation that maintains the
standard.

Different from a Wiktionary, a Wikipedia has to be in the language as
indicated there is little/nothing to salvage from a text in whatever
gobbledigook.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 08:01, Phake Nick  wrote:

> If it turns out the pages in the Wikipedia are actually content in another
> language/language variation, then it seems like the proper action is to
> rename and redirect the wiki. But can this be achieved?
>
> 在 2020年10月8日週四 11:15，Amir Sarabadani  寫道：
>
>> Two things:
>> * I have asked a friend who studies in Tehran university (top university
>> in humanitarian sciences like linguistics in Iran) to ask his friends to
>> ask their professors to take a look and give their opinion. I will tell
>> them to send their email here. I don't know what they are going to say, I
>> don't even know who that person would be. I hope that's impartial enough.
>> * Actually the attack post gave me a clue. It had a hashtag like
>> "#LakIsLur" or "LakiIsLuri". And this actually helps clear the smoke and
>> mirrors a bit. From the definition of Laki in Wikipedia
>> :
>>
>> Laki; (Kurdish: لەکی, لکي ,Lekî‎, Persian: لکی‎) is a vernacular that
>> constitutes of two dialects; Pish-e Kuh Laki and Posht-e Kuh Laki.[6] Laki
>> is considered a Kurdish dialect,[3][7][8][9][10][11][12] by most
>> linguists,[4] while others argue that Laki is closely related to Kurdish
>> but refrain from deciding its place among the Northwestern Iranian
>> languages.[6] Laki has also been classified as a Lur dialect, but speakers
>> of Luri claim that Laki is "difficult or impossible to understand".[7]
>> Linguist Shahsavari argues that Laki is sometimes seen as 'a transitional
>> dialect between Kurdish and Luri'.[13]
>>
>> I think that's why Kurdish people say they understand the wiki while Lur
>> people say they don't. There is a wiki of Laki in incubator actually:
>> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lki
>>
>> The Iranian government considers Laki a separate language and not a
>> dialect of Kurdish which Kurdish activists strongly criticized as a way to
>> oppress Kurdish people in Iran by splitting them to subgroups (one of the
>> reason for oppression of Kurdish people is that they are mostly Sunni but
>> Lur and Lak people are mostly Shiite similar to the government's official
>> religion which would explain why some Lak people are insistent to be
>> identified as Lur and not Kurd). I'm sorry this is getting so complicated
>> and convoluted to geopolitical issues and identity matters but that happens
>> with every language, especially in the Middle east (and I don't claim I
>> understand even half of it). At the end, this doesn't matter and I need to
>> wait for the professor to take a look and shed some light on it.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jon Harald Søby  wrote:
>>
>>> So sorry you're getting abuse over this Amir, that is really undeserved.
>>> Looking through my archives, there was much more discussion than usual
>>> about the (Northern) Luri Wikipedia when it was proposed for approval. I
>>> think it would be worthwhile for us to try to find independent linguists to
>>> confirm that the language is indeed not the one it is purported to be, and
>>> add that to the proposal for closure.
>>>
>>> tir. 6. okt. 2020 kl. 00:15 skrev Amir Sarabadani :
>>>
 I don't know where to say this but it seems people are creating attack
 posts in instagram against me, calling me Pan-Persian and "faggot" and etc.
 Calling for people to go and write on the page or respond to my tweets
 saying they understand the wiki.

 Here's an example: https://www.instagram.com/p/CF15M5insF_/

 On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:52 PM Amir Sarabadani 
 wrote:

> Hey,
> This is a notification that I started the discussion of closing
> Northern Luri Wikipedia:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Northern_Luri_Wikipedia
>
> I have asked again from different people, and again I got "we don't
> understand this and we can't read it". Mardetanha independently asked too
> and he also got the same thing. Funnily enough, some people told me that
> they don't speak Luri (they are Kuridish or Lak) and they actually can
> understand the wiki which puts us in the similar situation of scowiki but
> with no hope that we can fix the wiki.
>
> Now some new users are being created to 

Re: [Langcom] Proposed approval of Inari Sámi Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What I like about this project is that there is a plan to grow this wiki.
Everyone gets involved including people of a school attending age. As a
result even with the low numbers of people speaking the language there is a
real chance that it will actually be useful not only for reading but also
for promoting language skills.

I do approve.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 10:58, Kimberli Mäkäräinen <
kimberli.makarai...@tuni.fi> wrote:

> If I may, I second the approval of the Inari Saami Wikipedia. Of course,
> my vote can be discarded since I'm involved in the project, but even if I
> weren't, I think this project should be approved since the quality of many
> articles is high enough that I use them as the source articles when
> creating articles into Northern Saami via translation.
>
> -K
>
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:16 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* [Langcom] Proposed approval of Inari Sámi Wikipedia
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose the approval of the Inari Sámi Wikipedia [1].
>
> The activity has been good and stable all year, with several active
> contributors [2], and the most used messages have all been translated [3].
>
> We can safely bypass the verification step for this project, since our
> very own Yupik is one of the active contributors and knows Inari Sámi; in
> addition, Trond Trosterud (User:Trondtr), who is a professor of Sámi
> language technology at the Giellatekno department of the University of
> Tromsø, is also one of the active contributors. Trondtr wrote a request for
> us to approve the Inari Sámi Wikipedia, which I'm pasting in its entirety
> below, as it gives a much better overview than what I could:
>
> Proposal for a Wikipedia version for Inari Saami
>
> We hereby propose that the Inari Saami incubator Wikipedia be converted
> into a full-fledged Wikipedia, smn.wikipedia.org
>
> The language community
>
> Inari Saami has appr. 450 speakers. This makes it a small language
> community in Wikipedia terms. It is still worth noting that Inari Saami is
> probably one of the most, if not the most successful revitalisation
> processes in the world. During the last decades the language community has
> organised language nests for a generation of Inari Saami children, and it
> has taught the language to key members of the middle generation. The third
> phase of the revitalisation, strengthening the literacy of the language, is
> now in its initial phase. This phase is named “100 new writers of Inari
> Saami” and has “1000 new pages of youth fiction” as one of its subprojects.
> The last decade has also seen language technology projects for Inari Saami,
> resulting in a spellchecker, comprehensive online dictionaries, keyboards
> with predictive writing, and programs for machine translation.
>
> At present, Inari Saami is one of the four official languages of the Inari
> municipality and the Finnish Saami parliament. It is taught at all levels
> of instruction from kindergarten up to and including PhD level courses. The
> activists behind the “100 new writers of Inari Saami” are planning a
> campaign for children in high school to contribute to the Inari Saami
> Wikipedia.
>
> The Wikipedia
>
> Inari Saami has been in the incubator since 2012, with several quite good
> articles from an early stage. In spring 2020, the Inari Saami Language
> Association (Anarâškielâ servi) arranged Wikipedia writing workshops. Over
> the past six months, the Inari Saami Wikipedia version has seen edits every
> day, usually 30–50 edits a day. There are more than 1,000 articles and a
> substantial part of these are of good quality. The short articles form good
> and coherent article sets. Finnish municipalities, countries of the world,
> languages in the Uralic language family, Finnish authors, grammar and
> society are all such categories for which there is reasonably good coverage
> of short but informative articles. A list has also been made of the
> articles that are vital to the Inari Saami Wikipedia. As for localisation,
> the basic requirement has been met, as all strings in the set of core
> messages have been translated into Inari Saami.
>
> We expect that a separate Wikipedia for Inari Saami will make it more
> visible than it is today, and make its users compare it with the much
> larger North Saami Wikipedia.
>
>
> [1] https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/smn
> [2]
> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/smn=incubatorwiki
> [3] https://robin.toolforge.org/?tool=codelookup=smn
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Langcom] Malagasy Wiktionary (existing project)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I understand the problem. The definitions are generated by machine
translations. This is presented as an unredeemable issue and I disagree
with that.  I have provided arguments why this is not great but not
something that makes it unusable. You do not need to agree with me and you
are invited to convince me. But so far there has been a lack of arguments
because it is thought to be obvious.

As you may know, I have quite a lot of experience with Wiktionary and with
lexical work in a digital setting.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 15:08, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Perhaps at this point the rest of the committee could share thoughts and
> move towards a decision.
>
> I submit further attempts to point out the problem to Gerard would have
> diminishing returns.
>
>A.
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, 08:18 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/valid#Translations
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 17:39, MF-Warburg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How are bad translations a valid resource?
>>>
>>> Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> First, a specific spelling stands for an article. It can be in any
>>>> language.  Each lemma in Wiktionary has its own translations. So you can do
>>>> without descriptions and still have meaningful information. Yes, that only
>>>> works when you are at least bilingual.
>>>>
>>>> When a bot moves data between Wiktionaries, the validity of these
>>>> translations exists because of it being moved from one Wiktionary to
>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>> What is sad is that this is not  understood or considered as a valid
>>>> resource.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>GerardM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Jan Wohlgemuth 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gerard and others,
>>>>> hello greetings from the new guy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to object an "anything is better than nothing" argument. Let's
>>>>> just say the bot accesses an article "fork" and takes the first
>>>>> definition. With some luck, something like "a tool for eating" will
>>>>> then
>>>>> be translated as definition. That leaves out all other meanings of
>>>>> "fork", like when a road splits up into two, but ok, that is a
>>>>> completely different thread of discussion. But if "a tool for eating"
>>>>> becomes the new lemma instead of the translated definition, that's
>>>>> when
>>>>> the entries start becoming unusable, especially if translated again
>>>>> and
>>>>> again. The bot programmer's fallacy is that there are 1-on-1
>>>>> equivalents
>>>>> in translation. Sometimes there are, more often there are not.
>>>>> Automated
>>>>> "translations" liek the ones used in this case can not pick up on
>>>>> one-to-many relations and can not adequately post them. Another thing
>>>>> is
>>>>> register of synonyms. We certainly do not want any curse words to be
>>>>> listed as the general term for certain body parts etc. This needs to
>>>>> be
>>>>> verified by people who speak both languages or at least can make sure
>>>>> the entry makes sense in the metalanguage (here Malagasy).
>>>>> The review has shown that the output of these bot "translations" in
>>>>> Malagasy Wiktionary are not good. Some of them might be acceptable (by
>>>>> chance), but the majority must be considered questionable. The least
>>>>> that should be done is mark them as unpatrolled bot translations and
>>>>> hope that some speaker can check the accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings from Depok,
>>>>> Jan (Janwo)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.09.2020 22:12, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>>>>> > Asaf,
>>>>> > That is not how I understand it. First, I do not mind bots. When
>>>>> > Wiktionaries have information on words in Malagasy, I am perfectly
>>>>> > happy for the translations to be copied from one Wiktionary to
>>>>> > another. When the descriptions are translated using machine
>>>>> > translation, the question

Re: [Langcom] Malagasy Wiktionary (existing project)

[Gerard Meijssen]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/valid#Translations

On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 17:39, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> How are bad translations a valid resource?
>
> Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> First, a specific spelling stands for an article. It can be in any
>> language.  Each lemma in Wiktionary has its own translations. So you can do
>> without descriptions and still have meaningful information. Yes, that only
>> works when you are at least bilingual.
>>
>> When a bot moves data between Wiktionaries, the validity of these
>> translations exists because of it being moved from one Wiktionary to
>> another.
>>
>> What is sad is that this is not  understood or considered as a valid
>> resource.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Jan Wohlgemuth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard and others,
>>> hello greetings from the new guy.
>>>
>>> I have to object an "anything is better than nothing" argument. Let's
>>> just say the bot accesses an article "fork" and takes the first
>>> definition. With some luck, something like "a tool for eating" will then
>>> be translated as definition. That leaves out all other meanings of
>>> "fork", like when a road splits up into two, but ok, that is a
>>> completely different thread of discussion. But if "a tool for eating"
>>> becomes the new lemma instead of the translated definition, that's when
>>> the entries start becoming unusable, especially if translated again and
>>> again. The bot programmer's fallacy is that there are 1-on-1 equivalents
>>> in translation. Sometimes there are, more often there are not. Automated
>>> "translations" liek the ones used in this case can not pick up on
>>> one-to-many relations and can not adequately post them. Another thing is
>>> register of synonyms. We certainly do not want any curse words to be
>>> listed as the general term for certain body parts etc. This needs to be
>>> verified by people who speak both languages or at least can make sure
>>> the entry makes sense in the metalanguage (here Malagasy).
>>> The review has shown that the output of these bot "translations" in
>>> Malagasy Wiktionary are not good. Some of them might be acceptable (by
>>> chance), but the majority must be considered questionable. The least
>>> that should be done is mark them as unpatrolled bot translations and
>>> hope that some speaker can check the accuracy.
>>>
>>> Greetings from Depok,
>>> Jan (Janwo)
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 18.09.2020 22:12, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>>> > Asaf,
>>> > That is not how I understand it. First, I do not mind bots. When
>>> > Wiktionaries have information on words in Malagasy, I am perfectly
>>> > happy for the translations to be copied from one Wiktionary to
>>> > another. When the descriptions are translated using machine
>>> > translation, the question becomes only slightly different.
>>> >
>>> > The question becomes about the quality of the machine translation. Now
>>> > I do not mind key words in Malagasy without definitions. With dodgy
>>> > translations it is ok because it is still better than providing
>>> > nothing. When the quality of the machine translation is such that it
>>> > is understandable but not quite there, I am  of the opinion that it is
>>> > much better than providing nothing.
>>> >
>>> > The biggest problem I have with the notion of perfection is that it is
>>> > the enemy of the good. The good is to provide the best we can offer.
>>> > When it needs work, it is acceptable because it is a wiki.
>>> >
>>> > The biggest problem with language support is that products that are
>>> > perfectly functional like Special:MediaSearch are not promoted because
>>> > "the next iteration will be even better". It  also shows the extend we
>>> > have moved away from our Wiki roots.
>>> >
>>> > The notion that a bot operator is not people... really...
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >GerardM
>>> >
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Malagasy Wiktionary (existing project)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
First, a specific spelling stands for an article. It can be in any
language.  Each lemma in Wiktionary has its own translations. So you can do
without descriptions and still have meaningful information. Yes, that only
works when you are at least bilingual.

When a bot moves data between Wiktionaries, the validity of these
translations exists because of it being moved from one Wiktionary to
another.

What is sad is that this is not  understood or considered as a valid
resource.
Thanks,
   GerardM



On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Jan Wohlgemuth  wrote:

> Gerard and others,
> hello greetings from the new guy.
>
> I have to object an "anything is better than nothing" argument. Let's
> just say the bot accesses an article "fork" and takes the first
> definition. With some luck, something like "a tool for eating" will then
> be translated as definition. That leaves out all other meanings of
> "fork", like when a road splits up into two, but ok, that is a
> completely different thread of discussion. But if "a tool for eating"
> becomes the new lemma instead of the translated definition, that's when
> the entries start becoming unusable, especially if translated again and
> again. The bot programmer's fallacy is that there are 1-on-1 equivalents
> in translation. Sometimes there are, more often there are not. Automated
> "translations" liek the ones used in this case can not pick up on
> one-to-many relations and can not adequately post them. Another thing is
> register of synonyms. We certainly do not want any curse words to be
> listed as the general term for certain body parts etc. This needs to be
> verified by people who speak both languages or at least can make sure
> the entry makes sense in the metalanguage (here Malagasy).
> The review has shown that the output of these bot "translations" in
> Malagasy Wiktionary are not good. Some of them might be acceptable (by
> chance), but the majority must be considered questionable. The least
> that should be done is mark them as unpatrolled bot translations and
> hope that some speaker can check the accuracy.
>
> Greetings from Depok,
> Jan (Janwo)
>
>
> Am 18.09.2020 22:12, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > Asaf,
> > That is not how I understand it. First, I do not mind bots. When
> > Wiktionaries have information on words in Malagasy, I am perfectly
> > happy for the translations to be copied from one Wiktionary to
> > another. When the descriptions are translated using machine
> > translation, the question becomes only slightly different.
> >
> > The question becomes about the quality of the machine translation. Now
> > I do not mind key words in Malagasy without definitions. With dodgy
> > translations it is ok because it is still better than providing
> > nothing. When the quality of the machine translation is such that it
> > is understandable but not quite there, I am  of the opinion that it is
> > much better than providing nothing.
> >
> > The biggest problem I have with the notion of perfection is that it is
> > the enemy of the good. The good is to provide the best we can offer.
> > When it needs work, it is acceptable because it is a wiki.
> >
> > The biggest problem with language support is that products that are
> > perfectly functional like Special:MediaSearch are not promoted because
> > "the next iteration will be even better". It  also shows the extend we
> > have moved away from our Wiki roots.
> >
> > The notion that a bot operator is not people... really...
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Malagasy Wiktionary (existing project)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Wiktionaries true strength is not so much in its definitions, it is in the
translations that exist for a concept. When you take a concept in any
language, you have to have something to base it on. The words for a concept
in another language are always and at best similar to what was originally
defined for a concept in the original language. So when you take the
translations as used for a concept with a translated definition you have
something that is useful because it has its value against the labels, the
words for that concept in all the other languages.

The point is that most often a decent machine translation gets there most
of the time. Without it we offer nothing at all.

As a movement we are terrible at supporting other languages. We don't
really. What we have is mostly a stamp collection and our support is that
you can translate from English. When we want dictionary services in all our
languages, we have to be smart about it. We are not smart about it, that
has been our choice. When we have a tool like Commons with 64.236.643
freely usable media files, we have hidden it in English. Now that we can
open up its use in other languages we don't.

That is what is terrible.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:17, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> "Perfect" is not good's only enemy, Gerard. "Terrible" is one as well. And
> this definitely seems on the terrible side.
>
> fre. 18. sep. 2020, 17:12 skrev Gerard Meijssen  >:
>
>> Asaf,
>> That is not how I understand it. First, I do not mind bots. When
>> Wiktionaries have information on words in Malagasy, I am perfectly happy
>> for the translations to be copied from one Wiktionary to another. When the
>> descriptions are translated using machine translation, the question becomes
>> only slightly different.
>>
>> The question becomes about the quality of the machine translation. Now I
>> do not mind key words in Malagasy without definitions. With dodgy
>> translations it is ok because it is still better than providing nothing.
>> When the quality of the machine translation is such that it is
>> understandable but not quite there, I am  of the opinion that it is much
>> better than providing nothing.
>>
>> The biggest problem I have with the notion of perfection is that it is
>> the enemy of the good. The good is to provide the best we can offer. When
>> it needs work, it is acceptable because it is a wiki.
>>
>> The biggest problem with language support is that products that are
>> perfectly functional like Special:MediaSearch are not promoted because "the
>> next iteration will be even better". It  also shows the extend we have
>> moved away from our Wiki roots.
>>
>> The notion that a bot operator is not people... really...
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 16:33, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>>
>>> I am surprised you consider it "people add content", Gerard.  It is
>>> explicitly *not* people adding content, but a bot using machine
>>> translation.  Machine translation is problematic enough for just reading
>>> some text, but a machine-translated *dictionary* is literally worse than
>>> nothing.  It is a travesty, and it is better to *not* offer dictionary
>>> entries in Malagasy than to offer machine-translated ones with zero human
>>> supervision.
>>>
>>> I encourage this committee to consider whether it is beneficial to the
>>> mission to allow this to continue.
>>>
>>>A.
>>>
>>> Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)
>>>
>>> Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>>>
>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>>> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:18 PM Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> An error rate is expected when people add content, this is true for any
>>>> project. Given that the information is based on what other
>>>> Wiktionaries offer, from a Wikimedia point of view, no new errors are
>>>> introduced. What we do not have atm is a process where translations are
>>>> shared in one database. This is possible at OmegaWiki but that is outside
>>>> of WMF.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective, a good effort as with any project it has its flaws.
>>>> Thanks,
>

Re: [Langcom] Malagasy Wiktionary (existing project)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Asaf,
That is not how I understand it. First, I do not mind bots. When
Wiktionaries have information on words in Malagasy, I am perfectly happy
for the translations to be copied from one Wiktionary to another. When the
descriptions are translated using machine translation, the question becomes
only slightly different.

The question becomes about the quality of the machine translation. Now I do
not mind key words in Malagasy without definitions. With dodgy translations
it is ok because it is still better than providing nothing. When the
quality of the machine translation is such that it is understandable but
not quite there, I am  of the opinion that it is much better than providing
nothing.

The biggest problem I have with the notion of perfection is that it is the
enemy of the good. The good is to provide the best we can offer. When it
needs work, it is acceptable because it is a wiki.

The biggest problem with language support is that products that are
perfectly functional like Special:MediaSearch are not promoted because "the
next iteration will be even better". It  also shows the extend we have
moved away from our Wiki roots.

The notion that a bot operator is not people... really...
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 16:33, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> I am surprised you consider it "people add content", Gerard.  It is
> explicitly *not* people adding content, but a bot using machine
> translation.  Machine translation is problematic enough for just reading
> some text, but a machine-translated *dictionary* is literally worse than
> nothing.  It is a travesty, and it is better to *not* offer dictionary
> entries in Malagasy than to offer machine-translated ones with zero human
> supervision.
>
> I encourage this committee to consider whether it is beneficial to the
> mission to allow this to continue.
>
>A.
>
> Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)
>
> Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:18 PM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> An error rate is expected when people add content, this is true for any
>> project. Given that the information is based on what other
>> Wiktionaries offer, from a Wikimedia point of view, no new errors are
>> introduced. What we do not have atm is a process where translations are
>> shared in one database. This is possible at OmegaWiki but that is outside
>> of WMF.
>>
>> From my perspective, a good effort as with any project it has its flaws.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 20:54, MF-Warburg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_audit/Malagasy_Wiktionary
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Small_wiki_audit/Malagasy_Wiktionary
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Malagasy Wiktionary (existing project)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
An error rate is expected when people add content, this is true for any
project. Given that the information is based on what other
Wiktionaries offer, from a Wikimedia point of view, no new errors are
introduced. What we do not have atm is a process where translations are
shared in one database. This is possible at OmegaWiki but that is outside
of WMF.

>From my perspective, a good effort as with any project it has its flaws.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 20:54, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> FYI: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_audit/Malagasy_Wiktionary
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Small_wiki_audit/Malagasy_Wiktionary
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Scots

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am in two minds about this one. Yes, the sco.wikipedia is a fiasco.
However, when we concentrate on what is bad, there will be people who will
obsess with using this mechanism on other  Wikipedias. The Cebuano
Wikipedia comes to mind, Waray-Waray.

Given language constructs, with a little bit of luck we can replace
languages structures that are wrong. We can ask the people of Abstract
Wikipedia to consider this. For them it is an exercise that is relatively
easy (only one language other than English) and it solves an actual
problem. How do you like this suggestion?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 20:33, Michael Everson  wrote:

> On the Scots Language Forum on Wikipedia the following was said:
>
> One reads that a group of volunteers will endeavor to correct the Scots
> Wikipedia pages.
> Might it be a good idea if they were to flag the pages they have
> corrected, or judged to be devoid of unreliable language, so visitors know
> whether a page can be trusted or not ?
>
> A response was made:
>
> We certainly need a process for this. I think Wikipedia can do a lot of
> flagging with automatic bots.
>
> There are two parties to this. One is WikiMedia and the various volunteer
> admins, who have the tools and technical knowledge to deal with critical
> incidents like this. The other is the Scots language 'community'. The
> online discussion yesterday was mostly among the former, but they were
> clearly looking for guidance from the latter on what to do
>
> ==
>
> Can this be facilitated?
>
> Michael
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Darija (Moroccan Arabic) in the Incubator Situation

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the Egyptian Wikipedia was approved at Wikimania in Alexandria, we got
into a lot of problems, board level problems, because this was "not
acceptable". I am all for it but be on notice.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 03:02, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> <
> https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/ary=incubatorwiki#distribution_2020-06
> >
> 
>
> This looks ok. I propose to approve.
>
> Am Fr., 15. Mai 2020 um 18:02 Uhr schrieb Wikimedia Morocco <
> wikim...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello dear language committee,
>>
>> As some of you might know, a number of Moroccan Wikimedians are working
>> on developing a new version in the Wikimedia incubator, regarding Darija,
>> also called Moroccan Arabic (language code: ARY). The User Group in Morocco
>> is actively supporting the effort, and many members are involved in it so
>> that the quality is improved, and overall the result is better. You can
>> find the home page at this link
>> 
>> There you can also see that more than 1200 articles were written so far,
>> and a number of new ones is created on a daily basis.
>>
>> The reason why we are sending this email is that we feel close and ready
>> to launch the project as an own Wikipedia, and we wanted to hear your
>> opinions and feedback, on what eventually needs to be done before that. Do
>> you have any specific comments or ideas that you think we must really think
>> about before making our submission? We would really appreciate your
>> expert-eye and return so that we can improve this project to the best,
>> before making the submission for a full-wikipedia, probably during this
>> year.
>>
>> Thank you very much in advance for your kind attention, and support, and
>> have a good Friday so far!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Anass - on behalf of Wikimedia Morocco Darija project Team
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Request Approval of Shan Wiktionary (wt/shn)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Three days is not a reasonable time showing continued attention for
localisation. The quality of the arguments is exactly what we lost .. clear
objective criteria.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 20:42, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> I agree with approval as well.
> While activity on TWN only seems to have restarted 3 days ago, I'm fine
> with it as the most-used messages are already translated and it seems like
> the contributions to shn.wp and wt/shn are at least not heavily impeded by
> missing interface translations.
>
> Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 13:35 Uhr schrieb Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>:
>
>> Both parts of your objection go against current written policy, Gerard.
>>
>> If you want to start rejecting all Wiktionary projects because you don't
>> like it and because Wikidata is better (at least according to you), this
>> must be discussed separately.
>>
>> And the policy about localization is: "If a Wikimedia project in your
>> language already exists and these messages have already been translated, we
>> ask that you show evidence that localisation is continuing to be improved
>> and maintained at a reasonable pace." There is activity in Shan in
>> translatewiki, so this is not a problem.
>>
>> As for myself, I checked the activity and the quality of the pages and
>> both look fine. I support the approval of this.
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> ‪“We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>>
>>
>> ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 24 במרץ 2020 ב-12:38 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> You may know that I have a history with Wiktionary .. Given that
>>> Wikidata is superior in supporting lexical content, I am wary to approve.
>>> That and I do care about localisation.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 07:27, Kimberli Mäkäräinen <
>>> kimberli.makarai...@tuni.fi> wrote:
>>>
 Activity is fine. I won't hold the localization level against them, so
 I think it should be approved.

 -K

 --
 *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
 Harald Søby 
 *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 2:29 PM
 *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee <
 langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
 *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Request Approval of Shan Wiktionary (wt/shn)

 I am satisfied with the activity here, so I would be happy to approve.
 The only thing which could need some improvement is the localization on
 Translatewiki, Shan is currently at 57 % translated
 
 for MediaWiki core. But I don't want to hold that against them, but just
 encourage a bit more translation there.

 fre. 20. mar. 2020 kl. 20:13 skrev Kyi Phyo Htet <
 leonhart@googlemail.com>:

 Dear respectful LangCom Members,

 The Shan Wiktionary project is active enough[1] and has more than 9500
 entries.[2] The Shan community's first Wikipedia Project (Shan Wikipedia)
 was approved and created on 2018.[3] Please review their second project[4]
 for the final approval. Thanks.


 [1]
 https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=wt/shn=incubatorwiki
 [2]
 https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wt/shn/%E1%81%BC%E1%82%83%E1%82%88%E1%82%81%E1%80%B0%E1%80%9D%E1%80%BA%E1%82%81%E1%82%85%E1%81%B5%E1%80%BA%E1%82%88

 [3] https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:News#2018

 [4]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wiktionary_Shan

 On behalf of Shan Wiki Community,

 Kyi Phyo Htet / User:Ninjastrikers
 

 Myanmar Wikimedia Community User Group
 



 Sent from Mail  for
 Windows 10


 ___
 Langcom mailing list
 Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom



 --
 mvh
 Jon Harald Søby
 ___
 Langcom mailing list
 Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>

Re: [Langcom] Request Approval of Shan Wiktionary (wt/shn)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You may know that I have a history with Wiktionary .. Given that Wikidata
is superior in supporting lexical content, I am wary to approve. That and I
do care about localisation.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 07:27, Kimberli Mäkäräinen <
kimberli.makarai...@tuni.fi> wrote:

> Activity is fine. I won't hold the localization level against them, so I
> think it should be approved.
>
> -K
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 2:29 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Request Approval of Shan Wiktionary (wt/shn)
>
> I am satisfied with the activity here, so I would be happy to approve. The
> only thing which could need some improvement is the localization on
> Translatewiki, Shan is currently at 57 % translated
> 
> for MediaWiki core. But I don't want to hold that against them, but just
> encourage a bit more translation there.
>
> fre. 20. mar. 2020 kl. 20:13 skrev Kyi Phyo Htet <
> leonhart@googlemail.com>:
>
> Dear respectful LangCom Members,
>
> The Shan Wiktionary project is active enough[1] and has more than 9500
> entries.[2] The Shan community's first Wikipedia Project (Shan Wikipedia)
> was approved and created on 2018.[3] Please review their second project[4]
> for the final approval. Thanks.
>
>
> [1]
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=wt/shn=incubatorwiki
> [2]
> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wt/shn/%E1%81%BC%E1%82%83%E1%82%88%E1%82%81%E1%80%B0%E1%80%9D%E1%80%BA%E1%82%81%E1%82%85%E1%81%B5%E1%80%BA%E1%82%88
>
> [3] https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:News#2018
>
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wiktionary_Shan
>
> On behalf of Shan Wiki Community,
>
> Kyi Phyo Htet / User:Ninjastrikers
> 
>
> Myanmar Wikimedia Community User Group
> 
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Eligibility of Prussian Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is the current status as to localisation, the number of articles ?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 15:37, Steven White  wrote:

> Please see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Prussian_2
> .
>
> Prussian was considered to have gone extinct in the 18th century, and for
> a while was listed in ISO 639-3 as "extinct". Indeed, that was the
> situation when the project was first proposed in 2007.  However, in 2009,
> its listing in ISO was changed from "extinct" to "living", due to a robust
> effort to revive the language. Indeed, the Wikipedia article
> 
> suggests that there are now a few children who are natively bilingual.
>
> The revival effort is not based on this Wikipedia. The test project has
> been moderately active over the years, but certainly not at a level that
> would start us contemplating approval. But to me this is further evidence
> that the revival is real and legitimate on its own, and not the very reason
> for a Prussian Wikipedia project.
>
> One person commenting on the request page suggests that prg should not be
> the language code for the revival. Still, the fact that the ISO listing was
> changed to "living" suggests that at least for now, the standards authority
> is willing to accept that, so we should be, too.
>
> Accordingly, I recommend that this project be marked "eligible".
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

rd back from the first person [1] I emailed now, and he
> basically echoed what Satdeep said: All pages he checked, except the one I
> mentioned in the first email, are in Saraiki.
>
> While there may be a close similarity to Western Punjabi, I agree with
> Steven's point that the right time to bring that issue up would have been
> when we decided whether to mark the language as eligible. We *did* mark
> it as eligible (by Satdeep just over 2 years ago), and that has to mean
> something. To walk back on that now, after volunteers have spent hundreds
> and hundreds of hours working on it, is just not ok.
>
> Therefore I would like to officially propose that we approve the Saraiki
> Wikipedia, as they meet all of our criteria.
>
> [1] I'll be happy to disclose his name and details on the private list if
> anyone on the committee wants me to, but I don't want to do so here on the
> public list since I never brought that up with him.
>
> ons. 16. okt. 2019 kl. 18:04 skrev Jon Harald Søby :
>
> I have not gotten a reply yet. Yesterday I emailed to more people from
> Pakistani universities with Saraiki departments, but no reply from any if
> them yet either.
>
> ons. 16. okt. 2019, 16:29 skrev Steven White :
>
> Have we heard from the expert yet?
>
> On a related subject:  Do we have any Wiktionary experts here?  Saraiki
> Wiktionary is also now approvable in theory (assuming that the language
> issue on the Wikipedia clears). My concern about the Saraiki Wiktionary is
> only that compared to a lot of Wiktionary projects, this one appears pretty
> basic to me: just a straight Saraiki dictionary, with little in the way of
> bells and whistles (pronunciation, translations to other languages, etc.).
> But that's just based on the gross appearance of pages, as I do not read
> Saraiki (or any other language written in Perso-Arabic script). So Satdeep
> and anyone else: Does the content look ok? Are there greater expectations
> of what a Wiktionary should contain—expectations we have not communicated,
> I will add—or is this project appropriate and acceptable?
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlook=02%7C01%7C%7C068e7dc2150941c9230e08d75aef1ee4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637077855372258761=IGPUr9peR48UjQDnnr5lVxSPRioTAKpfPQSVFiVLLqg%3D=0>
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:38 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki
>
> I am still waiting to hear back from the expert. If he says the rest of
> the pages look fine, then I think we can move forward – Steven makes some
> good points as usual.
>
> tor. 10. okt. 2019 kl. 21:03 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> The final stage is that we verify if the language it is said to be. When
> we find it is not or are not certain we have all the room to seek another
> authority to move forward. At this stage it becomes confusing and I am not
> convinced at all that we should.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Steven White  wrote:
>
> This is effectively the same problem as we saw in the discussion of
> Montenegrin Wikipedia—although since all but two of us are from Europe,
> North America or Israel, we feel more confident making calls in a case like
> Montenegrin than we do here. (And, candidly, there is less chance in the
> Montenegrin case of being accused of racism/Euro-centrism, even if that
> accusation would be totally without merit in this case.)
>
> But as I said back then, the rule as currently written is fine when the
> language area starts with a clean slate. If there were no Western Punjabi
> Wikipedia now, we could reasonably try to get a single project to try to
> accommodate both Western Punjabi and Saraiki. (Whether that effort would be
> successful is a different question, but we could try.) However, I take
> Satdeep's comment below to indicate that there would be serious problems
> trying to integrate a new Saraiki-language community into a ten-year old
> Western Punjabi-language community, and that he recommends against it,
> based on the current "facts on the ground". Besides, to some extent the
> time to say "no" has passed, since Satdeep marked the project as "eligible"
> in 2017. So I think we need to move forward with this.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlook=02%7C01%7C%7C068e7dc2150941c9230e08d75aef1ee4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637077855

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For the Saraiki Wiktionary full localisation is required.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 16:29, Steven White  wrote:

> Have we heard from the expert yet?
>
> On a related subject:  Do we have any Wiktionary experts here?  Saraiki
> Wiktionary is also now approvable in theory (assuming that the language
> issue on the Wikipedia clears). My concern about the Saraiki Wiktionary is
> only that compared to a lot of Wiktionary projects, this one appears pretty
> basic to me: just a straight Saraiki dictionary, with little in the way of
> bells and whistles (pronunciation, translations to other languages, etc.).
> But that's just based on the gross appearance of pages, as I do not read
> Saraiki (or any other language written in Perso-Arabic script). So Satdeep
> and anyone else: Does the content look ok? Are there greater expectations
> of what a Wiktionary should contain—expectations we have not communicated,
> I will add—or is this project appropriate and acceptable?
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:38 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki
>
> I am still waiting to hear back from the expert. If he says the rest of
> the pages look fine, then I think we can move forward – Steven makes some
> good points as usual.
>
> tor. 10. okt. 2019 kl. 21:03 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> The final stage is that we verify if the language it is said to be. When
> we find it is not or are not certain we have all the room to seek another
> authority to move forward. At this stage it becomes confusing and I am not
> convinced at all that we should.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Steven White  wrote:
>
> This is effectively the same problem as we saw in the discussion of
> Montenegrin Wikipedia—although since all but two of us are from Europe,
> North America or Israel, we feel more confident making calls in a case like
> Montenegrin than we do here. (And, candidly, there is less chance in the
> Montenegrin case of being accused of racism/Euro-centrism, even if that
> accusation would be totally without merit in this case.)
>
> But as I said back then, the rule as currently written is fine when the
> language area starts with a clean slate. If there were no Western Punjabi
> Wikipedia now, we could reasonably try to get a single project to try to
> accommodate both Western Punjabi and Saraiki. (Whether that effort would be
> successful is a different question, but we could try.) However, I take
> Satdeep's comment below to indicate that there would be serious problems
> trying to integrate a new Saraiki-language community into a ten-year old
> Western Punjabi-language community, and that he recommends against it,
> based on the current "facts on the ground". Besides, to some extent the
> time to say "no" has passed, since Satdeep marked the project as "eligible"
> in 2017. So I think we need to move forward with this.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlook=02%7C01%7C%7C27b14763c84b4b786fe808d74db9839a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637063331479640783=%2Be5t%2F8MN7boQ1F1ZLIYwwDG0L5Y2w685G48TmpiTLN8%3D=0>
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2019 4:44 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki
>
> ...
>
> As for the Western Punjabi/Saraiki issue, I don't know enough about that
> to have any opinion either way.
>
> tir. 8. okt. 2019 kl. 19:00 skrev Satdeep Gill :
>
> ...
>
> P.S. Western Punjabi and Saraiki are pretty similar and my personal view
> is that this should be accommodated on one Wikipedia but the
> sociology-political situation in Pakistan calls for a separate Wikipedia
> for Saraiki.
>
> Regards
> Satdeep Gill
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcom=02%7C01%7C%7C27b14763c84b4b786fe808d74db9839a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637063331479640783=vRDOwHRLv%2B6qFNok%2BLJNeiRAFrzuBWGo6pRn1BO1%2B9g%3D=0>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Lan

Re: [Langcom] Approval of Mon Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Wonderful.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 09:58, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I reached out to the two scholars suggested by Mon Wikipedia [1]
> contributor Htawmonzel on Talk:Language committee [2], and one additional
> Mon language expert I found online, and the all confirmed that the content
> is in Mon. The localization criteria are met [3], and the activity level
> [4] for the test wiki in Incubator looks very good.
>
> I would therefore like to suggest the approval of the Mon Wikipedia,
> unless there are any well-founded objections within one week.
>
> [1] https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/mnw
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Mon_WP
> [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/robin/?tool=codelookup=mnw
> [4]
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0=Wp/mnw=incubatorwiki
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The final stage is that we verify if the language it is said to be. When we
find it is not or are not certain we have all the room to seek another
authority to move forward. At this stage it becomes confusing and I am not
convinced at all that we should.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Steven White  wrote:

> This is effectively the same problem as we saw in the discussion of
> Montenegrin Wikipedia—although since all but two of us are from Europe,
> North America or Israel, we feel more confident making calls in a case like
> Montenegrin than we do here. (And, candidly, there is less chance in the
> Montenegrin case of being accused of racism/Euro-centrism, even if that
> accusation would be totally without merit in this case.)
>
> But as I said back then, the rule as currently written is fine when the
> language area starts with a clean slate. If there were no Western Punjabi
> Wikipedia now, we could reasonably try to get a single project to try to
> accommodate both Western Punjabi and Saraiki. (Whether that effort would be
> successful is a different question, but we could try.) However, I take
> Satdeep's comment below to indicate that there would be serious problems
> trying to integrate a new Saraiki-language community into a ten-year old
> Western Punjabi-language community, and that he recommends against it,
> based on the current "facts on the ground". Besides, to some extent the
> time to say "no" has passed, since Satdeep marked the project as "eligible"
> in 2017. So I think we need to move forward with this.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2019 4:44 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki
>
> ...
>
> As for the Western Punjabi/Saraiki issue, I don't know enough about that
> to have any opinion either way.
>
> tir. 8. okt. 2019 kl. 19:00 skrev Satdeep Gill :
>
> ...
>
> P.S. Western Punjabi and Saraiki are pretty similar and my personal view
> is that this should be accommodated on one Wikipedia but the
> sociology-political situation in Pakistan calls for a separate Wikipedia
> for Saraiki.
>
> Regards
> Satdeep Gill
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No we have an indefinite ban on incubator for the people posing as if they
speak a language they do not speak.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:25, Steven White  wrote:

> This really upsets me. But if the content is in Urdu, then (a) we ask
> what's going on, (b) we don't approve, and (c) in all likelihood, we
> propose an indef block on Incubator, given that many of the same characters
> were involved in a problem around the Khowar project a couple of years back.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of Jon
> Harald Søby 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 7, 2019 5:33 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki
>
> Hi all!
>
> I wanted to let you know that I'm in touch with an expert with regards to
> verifying Wikipedia in Saraiki
> 
> (skr). It was previously mentioned by Seven in an email titled "Final
> approval for four projects" from August 16.
>
> The expert checked one page and said it is in Urdu and not Saraiki
> (although it is *about* Saraiki topics). He said he will get back to me
> to check more pages in a week or two.
>
> However, after he said that, I've checked several pages with Google
> Translate from Urdu to English, and they all produce very legible content
> (for Google Translate). That makes me suspicious that maybe all the content
> is in fact in Urdu – if it was in fact in a smaller language, I would
> expect a certain amount of words that Google Translate just doesn't
> understand.
>
> So the question is, what do we do if it turns out that most/all content is
> in Urdu?
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Approving Wikipedia in Balinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This is EXACTLY why we provided an initial approval where we allowed for
installation when the language has been established of what is in the
project. There was no room for community objections.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 16:57, Steven White  wrote:

> Technically, project approvals are supposed to be announced on Meta in
> case there are community objections. (There never are at this stage of the
> game, but we need to provide the opportunity.) I will go ahead and post
> Balinese at Talk:Language Committee. If 7 days pass with no objection, then
> we can go forward.
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikimedia Movement Strategy Recommendations

[Gerard Meijssen]

There is nothing in there relating to the language committee.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 16:58, Steven White  wrote:

> Someone who is involved on the Meta Language Committee pages has suggested
> that the committee look at, and potentially comment on, this
> recommendation:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Sprint/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/2%263
> .
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikinews Literary Chinese (also Wikinews Old English)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me both projects have no future. Particularly the Old English project
is to be rejected with prejudice.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 15:47, Steven White  wrote:

> MF-W, do you still want to support the request for a Wikinews in Literary
> Chinese
> ?
> As mentioned previously, because Literary Chinese is considered a
> historical language, this project is technically against policy. (This also
> means we would need 2/3 in favor, if there is not consensus.)
>
> Similar question to all: a request just came in for a Wikinews in Old
> English
> .
> Can I just reject?
>
> Let me point out: Wikinews projects are difficult even under ideal
> circumstances. I doubt either of these would prove to be ideal
> circumstances.
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Approving Wikipedia in Balinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Happy for it to proceed.
Thanks,
 GerardM

PS is the process for new wikis no longer an issue?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:55, Ramzy Muliawan 
wrote:

> Hi --- an Indonesian Wikimedian here.
>
> I've followed the Balinese project since LangCamp 2012
>  and I can vouch for their
> approval. The community is focused in Denpasar and has been well-supported
> 
> by Wikimedia Indonesia in past two years; they even have their own
> community co-ordinator and regularly-scheduled edit-a-thons.
>
> Should the Committee need to be in touch of any person in academia, I can
> refer to the Balinese Studies department
>  at Universitas Udayana;
> although I think that Tjahja and Revi themselves are sufficient, they both
> speak and write Balinese to a level.
>
> *Ramzy Muliawan*
> linkedin  / keybase
>  / meta.wiki
> 
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:48 PM Jon Harald Søby  wrote:
>
>> I asked Biyanto Rebin from Wikimedia Indonesia, and he writes:
>>
>> Dear Jon,
>>>
>>> Yes. It is definitely Balinese language. I know the community very well
>>> and since last year, they have held a lot of meetups and editathon events,
>>> that is why they are very active.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>
>> I also asked Revi Soekatno (User:Meursault2004) on Facebook, and he
>> writes:
>>
>> Yes it unmistakenly Balinese and some articles are very nice
>>>
>>
>> That should be enough confirmation, no? If not we could reach out to
>> BASABali like Eddie suggested.
>>
>> tor. 26. sep. 2019 kl. 18:07 skrev Eddie Avila :
>>
>>> Maybe Wikimedia Indonesia is already in touch with the BASABali
>>> organization, but if not, I can put them in touch with their staff.
>>>
>>> https://basabali.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2019, at 10:53, Amir E. Aharoni 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I support this, and I was just about to propose this myself.
>>>
>>> I already spoke about this to Tjahja Wirjadisastra from Wikimedia
>>> Indonesia, and he approves it, so I would say it's good to go.
>>>
>>> בתאריך יום ה׳, 26 בספט׳ 2019, 18:39, מאת Jon Harald Søby ‏<
>>> jhs...@gmail.com>:
>>>
 Hi all!

 I would like to suggest approving Wikipedia in Balinese
  at ban.wikipedia.org.
 The Incubator wiki has had a lot of activity, with more than 1,300 articles
 – of which a random sample looks very promising. The most used messages and
 more have been translated
 ,
 and there is steady activity
 
 in Incubator.

 As for experts, I think it would suffice to contact someone in
 Wikimedia Indonesia to confirm this language – it is, after all, a
 relatively well-known language, at least in the region, so it should be an
 easy task for them to confirm its validity.

 --
 mvh
 Jon Harald Søby
 ___
 Langcom mailing list
 Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>>
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Eddie Avila
>>> Director, Rising Voices
>>> Global Voices
>>> http://globalvoicesonline.org
>>> @risingvoices
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> mvh
>> Jon Harald Søby
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Comments on this?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is about this particular case.. so I take it the board concurs.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 05:34, James Heilman  wrote:

> The board is not opposed to langcomm actions.
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 13:15 Steven White  wrote:
>
>> One other point: Better LangCom be accused of pushing the envelope
>> slightly than to open a precedent where people can swoop in and take over
>> dormant projects to promote an agenda. LangCom is mostly not aggressive
>> about such things. But we need to have the backing to get involved when
>> it's appropriate.
>>
>> Steven White
>> koala19...@hotmail.com
>> Sent from Outlook  for iOS
>> --
>> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of
>> langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 22, 2019 8:00:03 AM
>> *To:* langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> *Subject:* Langcom Digest, Vol 71, Issue 12
>>
>> Send Langcom mailing list submissions to
>> langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcomdata=02%7C01%7C%7C3418ddb4fd54499efeb608d73f54cd4a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637047505755023818sdata=m8jSSYjzw6eR8mmrjbWhjkQKQ7NadnjxtbqyspOoBF4%3Dreserved=0
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> langcom-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Langcom digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Comments on this? (James Heilman)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 10:14:11 -0700
>> From: James Heilman 
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
>> 
>> Subject: [Langcom] Comments on this?
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> caf1en7xt1gcszho5-hv7doiyjqx0ur0qxeqh7fvc7bggeit...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ADoc_James%23Bulgarian_Wikinewsdata=02%7C01%7C%7C3418ddb4fd54499efeb608d73f54cd4a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637047505755033829sdata=0CEa36JKHz8Cb2noutR29bFO%2BQ5hOPCqHthQaaHFIBY%3Dreserved=0
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fpipermail%2Flangcom%2Fattachments%2F20190921%2F81377efd%2Fattachment-0001.htmldata=02%7C01%7C%7C3418ddb4fd54499efeb608d73f54cd4a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637047505755033829sdata=AifEo3LeSGi2b1ntx6IH9ilXRCIDkkmwii0wh8QOAGU%3Dreserved=0
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcomdata=02%7C01%7C%7C3418ddb4fd54499efeb608d73f54cd4a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637047505755033829sdata=7%2BjmUE2FimoP%2FKSdoynTBaSZknm0k7R171R3kUkglaU%3Dreserved=0
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> End of Langcom Digest, Vol 71, Issue 12
>> ***
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Langcom Digest, Vol 71, Issue 5

[Gerard Meijssen]

ld scream bloody murder. But if we
> want to go there, I want a Board vote on that, not just our vote.)
>   2.  Do we shut down Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia as redundant (which it
> basically is), making sure that appropriate content goes to one or more of
> the other projects? (We could put up a trial proposal on Meta and see what
> people say.)
>   3.  Do we let all of of these operate in parallel as they are now?
> (Action by inaction)
>   4.  Do we allow a Montenegrin Wikipedia? (As people know, I favor this.
> If #2 above were to happen, I think we'd really have to allow this. If #3
> happens, in theory you could say that Montenegrin is part of Serbo-Croatian
> and can contribute there. But Serbians still control that project, and the
> Montenegrin POV is routinely ignored or overturned. So in any world where
> the three grandfathered parallel projects [Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian]
> exist, one has to concede that the rule on parallel projects is already not
> in force in the world of Serbo-Croatian, and therefore allowing a
> Montenegrin project simply allows a Montenegrin POV the same footing the
> others already have.)
>
> Any other question, such as whether Croatian Wikipedia currently so
> violates WMF's overarching practices, principles and rules for
> intervention, is something for the stewards, T and the Board.
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook<
> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlookdata=02%7C01%7C%7C326e84df7f7a468a4e5508d73148b37f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637032060625248484sdata=MToJlBu5B%2BqX2WV%2Fvkmu4SH2FxfQVHpbZFBdSeflUEo%3Dreserved=0
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fpipermail%2Flangcom%2Fattachments%2F20190904%2Fc7f9b8b4%2Fattachment-0001.htmldata=02%7C01%7C%7C326e84df7f7a468a4e5508d73148b37f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637032060625248484sdata=cRs%2BObiSjGnDJOyKHpFc%2F7puocaQOELyQCCuvldAE7s%3Dreserved=0
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:00:36 +
> From: Steven White 
> To: "langcom@lists.wikimedia.org" 
> Subject: Re: [Langcom] Croatian Wikipedia
> Message-ID:
> <
> bn8pr04mb63564b37e47a6a22b29878479e...@bn8pr04mb6356.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Gerard wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When the language committee takes the lead and decides one way or the
> other, it makes a recommendation to the board of trustees. Ultimately the
> decision is theirs. We do not need to consider that this is a situation
> where nobody was willing to act.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> Just for the record, this is disingenuous. This position is only formally
> true in the case of project creations, and only slightly more realistically
> true in the case of project closures and deletions. Basically, the Board
> has delegated these responsibilities to this Committee. (We don't even have
> to notify the Board officially of project creations any more, only of
> closures.) Unless the Board actively intervenes, it takes this Committee's
> action (or inaction) as the official WMF position on a question.
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook<
> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlookdata=02%7C01%7C%7C326e84df7f7a468a4e5508d73148b37f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637032060625248484sdata=MToJlBu5B%2BqX2WV%2Fvkmu4SH2FxfQVHpbZFBdSeflUEo%3Dreserved=0
> >
>
> 
> From: Langcom  on behalf of
> langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 5:50 AM
> To: langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Subject: Langcom Digest, Vol 71, Issue 3
>
> Send Langcom mailing list submissions to
> langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcomdata=02%7C01%7C%7C326e84df7f7a468a4e5508d73148b37f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637032060625248484sdata=F7dOwVHvP6g4Fv%2BTgfOmb%2FAcUtULWSHRtlbqAr5t0xQ%3Dreserved=0
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> langcom-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Langcom digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Croatian Wikipedia (Ilario Valdelli)

Re: [Langcom] Croatian Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the language committee takes the lead and decides one way or the
other, it makes a recommendation to the board of trustees. Ultimately the
decision is theirs. We do not need to consider that this is a situation
where nobody was willing to act.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 09:30, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> I think that the problem is so serious and it exists for long time that a
> single committee cannot do a lot eventi if it does not concern their tasks.
>
> Anyways it has been communicated several times and if it remains the
> solution has never been taken.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Get Outlook for Android 
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of James
> Heilman 
> *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2019 7:25:01 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee  >
> *Subject:* [Langcom] Croatian Wikipedia
>
> Wondering if this group would be interested in bringing forwards a
> proposal?
>
> This was just published
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Opinion
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Croatian Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We could. However, we are not the best positioned group to do so. The
stewards come to mind. The trust and safety committee.. but to be honest
the board of trustees is the organisation that indicates the importance of
these issues, has a responsibility to us as a movement and it can direct
the WMF to do whatever.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 07:25, James Heilman  wrote:

> Wondering if this group would be interested in bringing forwards a
> proposal?
>
> This was just published
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Opinion
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Proposed amendment to LPP (was: Final approval for four projects)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am happy to be more relaxed on experts. When they are published
scientists we can ask for an ORCID, VIAF of Google Scholar identifier to
learn more about the scientist involved.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 21:51, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> Thank you for this, Steven, and thanks for all the great work you have
> done for us so far. I agree that this is a sensible change – we should be
> ashamed that it has taken us this long to get moving on these languages,
> and we need to do better.
>
> One thing that I believe we have been reluctant to in the past is
> accepting experts referred by the communities themselves. However, I feel
> like that would be something that could be changed as long as we are able
> to independently verify such experts' credentials. Don't know how/if that
> could be worked into the LPP somehow?
>
> tir. 20. aug. 2019 kl. 19:31 skrev Steven White :
>
>> Gerard wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hoi,
>> Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to
>> expect a result.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>> 
>>
>> For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is
>> fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects,
>> and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
>>
>> James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture.  Please
>> remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane
>> Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I
>> wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being
>> provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon
>> WP) is perhaps a month newer.  But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was
>> provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any
>> standard.  Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these
>> along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely
>> nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the
>> committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry,
>> Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far
>> less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to
>> complete language verification.
>>
>> To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision
>> about language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing
>> projects to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable.
>> Where this amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's
>> Handbook, Final Approval
>> ,
>> item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
>>
>> 4. The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
>> provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language
>> verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language
>> verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the
>> assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved.  If an
>> expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an
>> additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no
>> language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by
>> then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally
>> approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed
>> to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within
>> 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
>>
>> I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without
>> requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment.  This would
>> apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on.
>> But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects
>> around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized
>> language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally
>> approved.
>>
>> Steven
>>
>> Sent from Outlook 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Proposed amendment to LPP (was: Final approval for four projects)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No. When you consider our context, this is not something to overregulate
with constraints like time limits. This is not for us to be a shamed in a
position whereby we lose track of what the language committee is there for.
Preventing from shit happening.

The situation where we are in is one where a project that has been approved
is not created. Where essential maintenance on language related technology
is not happening or only happening when it is done in volunteer time. I
like to remind you that the original idea was to have two phases to the
approval; one whereby we consider the technical issues of a language first
and after this first approval it is a matter of gaining sufficient weight
to the to be approved project to be approved. The nod of a specialist is to
prevent the highjacking of the project by people who have an agenda for
that language.

Finding a specialist is something that can happen from the first approval
moving forward.

Now ask yourself, why does the Hindi Wikisource not exist. What we do is
pissing in the wind, it makes no difference in the big picture. This notion
of 30 days will not make one iota of difference in the actual realisation
of a project. There are all kinds of other impediments for the support of
languages so this whole situation is trivial in the big picture.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:31, Steven White  wrote:

> Gerard wrote:
>
> 
> Hoi,
> Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to
> expect a result.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> 
>
> For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is
> fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects,
> and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
>
> James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture.  Please
> remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane
> Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I
> wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being
> provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon
> WP) is perhaps a month newer.  But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was
> provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any
> standard.  Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these
> along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely
> nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the
> committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry,
> Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far
> less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to
> complete language verification.
>
> To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about
> language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects
> to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable.  Where this
> amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final
> Approval
> ,
> item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
>
> 4. The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
> provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language
> verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language
> verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the
> assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved.  If an
> expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an
> additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no
> language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by
> then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally
> approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed
> to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within
> 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
>
> I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without
> requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment.  This would
> apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on.
> But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects
> around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized
> language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally
> approved.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Langcom Digest, Vol 70, Issue 8

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What my job is, is defined by me. Am at Wikimania and yes, I have been
talking working towards solutions where language is the deciding factor.
Steven you have to reflect on what you are doing.You certainly piss people
off and it undoes you.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 04:11, Steven White  wrote:

> As long as Amir is actually trying to contact experts, I am ok to wait.
> The fact that no one on the committee was bothering to work on language
> verification was my principal problem.
>
> And, Gerard, when you start doing your job on this committee, I will
> answer you.
>
> Steven White
> koala19...@hotmail.com
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Final approval for four projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to
expect a result.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 11:19, James Heilman  wrote:

> Do we have other suggestions for how to solve the problem of proposed
> projects being in limbo for unreasonable periods of time?
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 11:16 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> When the language committee was formed, it was exactly good faith that
>> proved problematic.
>>
>> It has proven extremely problematic to end projects so no, that is
>> exactly the wrong sentiment.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> Op vr 16 aug. 2019 10:41 schreef James Heilman :
>>
>>> Thanks Steven
>>>
>>> In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to
>>> these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no
>>> one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation
>>> should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not
>>> that hard to roll back an approval.
>>>
>>> James
>>> P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board
>>> position.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten
>>>> us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these
>>>> threats.
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four
>>>>> projects:  Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya)
>>>>> Wiktionary.  No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the 
>>>>> fault
>>>>> of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language
>>>>> Committee, which did not do its job.  Accordingly, I will approve and send
>>>>> to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on
>>>>> Monday, 19 August.  I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of
>>>>> the following happens:
>>>>>
>>>>>- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
>>>>>concerned about the validity of the language.
>>>>>- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
>>>>>immediately.
>>>>>- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
>>>>>identified the expert to the mail list.
>>>>>- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if
>>>>> one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and
>>>>> we'll delete the project.  But I've been watching all of these projects 
>>>>> for
>>>>> the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I
>>>>> have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person.  Sorry, but at this
>>>>> point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to
>>>>> become active again and do its job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Langcom mailing list
>>>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Langcom mailing list
>>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Final approval for four projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How is that an answer to the points that I made?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 15:45, Steven White  wrote:

> Gerard, does this mean that you are reaching out to language experts?
> Which ones? Thanks!
>
> Steven
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Final approval for four projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the language committee was formed, it was exactly good faith that
proved problematic.

It has proven extremely problematic to end projects so no, that is exactly
the wrong sentiment.
Thanks,
 GerardM

Op vr 16 aug. 2019 10:41 schreef James Heilman :

> Thanks Steven
>
> In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to
> these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no
> one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation
> should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not
> that hard to roll back an approval.
>
> James
> P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board
> position.
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us
>> and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these
>> threats.
>> GerardM
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four
>>> projects:  Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya)
>>> Wiktionary.  No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault
>>> of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language
>>> Committee, which did not do its job.  Accordingly, I will approve and send
>>> to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on
>>> Monday, 19 August.  I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of
>>> the following happens:
>>>
>>>- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
>>>concerned about the validity of the language.
>>>- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
>>>immediately.
>>>- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
>>>identified the expert to the mail list.
>>>- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one
>>> of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll
>>> delete the project.  But I've been watching all of these projects for the
>>> last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
>>>
>>> If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have
>>> outlined above, I intend to ignore that person.  Sorry, but at this point,
>>> the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become
>>> active again and do its job.
>>>
>>> Steven
>>>
>>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Final approval for four projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us
and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these
threats.
GerardM

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White  wrote:

> Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four
> projects:  Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya)
> Wiktionary.  No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault
> of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language
> Committee, which did not do its job.  Accordingly, I will approve and send
> to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on
> Monday, 19 August.  I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of
> the following happens:
>
>- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
>concerned about the validity of the language.
>- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
>immediately.
>- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
>identified the expert to the mail list.
>- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
>
> Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of
> these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll
> delete the project.  But I've been watching all of these projects for the
> last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
>
> If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have
> outlined above, I intend to ignore that person.  Sorry, but at this point,
> the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become
> active again and do its job.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Are language codes like mul-latn, mul-cyrl, etc. valid?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The example used on the Wikidata website is for it to be used for names..
NOT a good idea.
Thanks,
 GeraRDm

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 15:34, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand.
>
> My question is not whether names are written the same way in the same
> alphabet. Of course sometimes they aren't.
>
> My questions is also not whether the idea of fallback by script is good.
> It is to be discussed in Wikidata discussion pages.
>
> My questions is whether a code like mul-latn is valid. Is it standard to
> use "mul", which is a somewhat special code with a script code? The codes
> sr-latn and sr-cyrl are clearly valid, but sr is a usual language code,
> whereas mul is a bit different. So can mul be used in such a context just
> like a code for an actual language? Does anyone know for certain?
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 13 באוג׳ 2019 ב-15:55 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
>> Hoi,
>> I do not think so. Names are in the same script not commons.. Hungarian
>> comes to mind. It will create a mess,.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:47, Amir E. Aharoni <
>> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In Wikidata there was a proposal to add special fallback
>>> pseudo-languages to make it possible to have labels that work by writing
>>> system rather than by language:
>>>
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/06#Multilanguage_label
>>>
>>> The proposal was to use language codes such as mul-latn, etc.
>>>
>>> It kind of makes sense to me, but I'd like to ask the language code
>>> standards experts in the committee: is such usage standard?
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Are language codes like mul-latn, mul-cyrl, etc. valid?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not think so. Names are in the same script not commons.. Hungarian
comes to mind. It will create a mess,.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:47, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In Wikidata there was a proposal to add special fallback pseudo-languages
> to make it possible to have labels that work by writing system rather than
> by language:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/06#Multilanguage_label
>
> The proposal was to use language codes such as mul-latn, etc.
>
> It kind of makes sense to me, but I'd like to ask the language code
> standards experts in the committee: is such usage standard?
>
> --
> 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
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] N'Ko Wikipedia approval suggestion

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Happy
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 09:57, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I suggest approving the N'Ko Wikipedia at nqo.wikipedia.org .
>
> The Incubator[1] has been fairly active, the translation of all the most
> used messages is complete[2] and the localization activity is going on[3].
>
> Dr. Coleman Donaldson, a linguistic anthropologist who investigates
> language, literacy and society in Manding-speaking West Africa,[4] and
> author of several papers on N'Ko language and culture says that the texts
> in the Incubator are indeed written in N'Ko (see the forwarded email below).
>
> Any objections?
>
> [1] https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nqo
> [2]
> https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate?filter=%21translated=translate=nqo=core-0-mostused
> [3] https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Portal:Nqo
> [4] https://www.colemandonaldson.com/
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> מאת: Coleman Donaldson 
> ‪Date: יום ב׳, 5 באוג׳ 2019 ב-10:39‬
> Subject: Re: N'Ko incubator
> To: Amir E. Aharoni 
>
>
> Morning!
>
> I just had a look and a few random pages and indeed, they were all written
> in "proper N'ko".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Coleman
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 12:24 PM Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> How are you?
>>
>> We spoke about the N'Ko Wikipedia incubator once.
>>
>> I am thinking about approving it for a full domain, which will be at
>> https://nqo.wikipedia.org .
>>
>> For this we need a confirmation from somebody who knows the language that
>> this is indeed written in it. Can you please check that the pages in the
>> list at
>> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Wp%2Fnqo=0=1
>> look like they are written in proper N'Ko?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> ‪“We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>>
>
>
> --
> Coleman Donaldson
> +49.1525.1587689 (Germany)
> +1.267-269-6243 (US)
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] [OT] Are you going to Wikimania? Submit session proposals until June 9th!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Michael you may get funding to come. I have asked for it as well .. am
preparing a presentation..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 17:07, Michael Everson  wrote:

> I don’t have funding for such activities.
>
> Michael
>
> > On 29 May 2019, at 14:55, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I just sent this message to the general Wikimedia language
> mailing list. However, I wanted to send it here too because there are
> probably subscribers to this list (both committee members and observers)
> who don't follow the other list. I hope you don't mind the disturbance. :-)
> >
> > -- Forwarded message -
> > Fra: Jon Harald Søby 
> > Date: ons. 29. mai 2019 kl. 15:46
> > Subject: Are you going to Wikimania? Submit session proposals until June
> 9th!
> > To: Languages discussion and Wikimedia Indigenous Languages <
> langua...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I am one of the co-leaders of the Language space for this year's
> Wikimania in Stockholm. There are many different "spaces" (think "tracks",
> but a bit wider) this year, and one of them is the language space.
> Unfortunately, there have not been too many proposed sessions for it yet
> (that actually goes for many of the spaces), so I would like to invite
> anyone who is planning to attend Wikimania and has something cool and
> language-related to talk about to submit a session proposal for our space
> (or any other space you might be interested in).
> >
> > A session doesn't have to be a presentation – the aim this year is to
> make Wikimania a more interative experience than it has been previously. So
> the format of a session is very open – you could hold workshops to e.g.
> implement cool ideas from your language's community in other languages, or
> hold a panel or roundtable discussion. We could even have a language quiz,
> just something relaxing and fun. So if you have any ideas that you would be
> able to, please submit a proposal. The deadline was just today extended
> until June 9th (it was originally in 2 days), but sooner is better. :-)
> >
> > You can submit proposals for the language space in the link above, or
> check out the other spaces here.
> >
> > Thank you, and see you (hopefully) in Stockholm!
> >
> > --
> > mvh
> > Jon Harald Søby
> > ___
> > Langcom mailing list
> > Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikisource Literary Chinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We have wasted too much time. Please reject wih prejudice.

We do not agree that the situation is similar to Latin. Latin is used on a
daily basis.
Thanks,
  GerardM

Op wo 24 apr. 2019 18:10 schreef Steven White :

> There are still different opinions on this: Gerard and Michael would
> reject the proposal, MF-W would accept it as eligible. Let me outline
> points of agreement first, then points of disagreement. Then I'd like to
> propose a next step, and see what people think.
>
> *Agreement:  *
>
>1. Even MF-W agrees that, at least in the short-to-mid-term, nobody is
>talking about pulling apart the current zhwikisource, and spinning the lzh
>content into a new project.
>2. (I think) All agree that lzh served a role in East Asia similar to
>the role of Latin in Europe. Accordingly, policy allows a separate lzh
>project and doesn't demand that lzh content be moved into a zh project.
>
> *Disagreement:*
>
>1. If we mark this as "eligible", does that mean that when the test on
>Multilingual Wikisource becomes approvable (if ever), we categorically MUST
>move all the lzh content from zhwikisource into the new project? Or can lzh
>content exist in both places?
>2. (I think) Just because policy *allows* a separate lzh project
>doesn't mean it *requires* one; we can still require all lzh content
>to be put into the zh project.
>   - If #2 is true, though, there is still a concern that the zh
>   project will not meet the needs of non-Mandarin speakers with respect to
>   lzh content.
>
> The only reason we really even have a problem is the bullet point under
> "Disagreement #2". If not for that, we could reject the language request
> without a problem. And I'm convinced that at present, that's more of a
> theoretical issue being put out by the proponents of an lzh Wikisource than
> it is a practical problem people are having right now. Still, we can't
> entirely discount it.
>
> In the short run, I think we could keep everyone happy by not touching
> current lzh content on zhwikisource, while allowing other lzh content to be
> created on oldwikisource. (There is precedent for allowing content on
> oldwikisource in parallel to content in a separate Wikisource, though in
> the main case I think of, Polish, that's done for copyright reasons. And
> we'd want to encourage some ground rules about duplication of documents,
> since that's not a concern in the Polish case.) Even if we agree to that,
> though, the question remains: How do we resolve the status of the language
> request? So here's how I see all the possible options playing out:
>
>- *Eligible.  * This does mean that at some point, if the lzh test
>becomes approvable, we agree it can be approved. I'm OK with this option if
>the answer to "disagreement #1" is that we are not necessarily committing
>that all lzh content would have to be moved to an lzh Wikisource. We can
>kick the can down the road, and also don't have to commit that lzh content
>will not be moved, either. If we do this, I would make it clear on
>eligibility that we are not committing to what that means for the future
>for the current lzh content of zhwikisource.
>- *Place on hold. *(option 1) We can see if enough contributors
>actually come to work on lzh content on oldwikisource to make that viable,
>or whether by a year from now it becomes a non-issue. (option 2) It goes on
>hold because we decide that we're just not going to decide now, and we'll
>revisit it if and when that's appropriate.
>- *Reject.  *This doesn't actually mean we don't allow lzh content to
>stay on oldwikisource. After all, there are a number of projects in ancient
>languages that have been rejected by LangCom but where tests still exist on
>Incubator because the rules for Incubator are less strict than the rules
>for subdomain project eligibility/approval. Since the rules for
>oldwikisource are even less strict than the rules for Incubator, the lzh
>"test" could stay on oldwikisource. But this option basically says that
>this content will always stay on oldwikisource.
>
> *My recommendation*
>
>- I think we need to leave the content of zhwikisource alone now, but
>allow additional lzh content on oldwikisource, with rules against
>duplication.
>- By process of elimination, I'd recommend "placing on hold" for now.
>I really don't see consensus coalescing here.  Also, I think there's a good
>enough chance that this test never goes anywhere that we may as well wait
>to see what happens before committing to a decision.  (And, to tell the
>truth, in most cases like this, where there is little actual activity in
>the test, that's what we actually usually do until there is proof of
>activity.)
>   - If you're not willing to do that, I would go for "eligible" IF
>   AND ONLY IF that doesn't mean we're committing to the 

Re: [Langcom] Unicode requirement

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The WMF does have the technology to provide the font from its servers. It
is not the case that characters would not show properly.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 03:07, Michael Everson  wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2019, at 18:28, MF-Warburg  wrote:
> >
> > For all I know, it is only a de facto matter.
>
> It would not be good for a language to have an encyclopaedia in PUA
> characters, and their browsers would perpetually be substituting CJK
> characters encoded in that space too.
>
> Michael
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Unicode requirement

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Unicode has funding drives where they ask the PUBLIC to support one
character.. Why not have the WMF fund the missing characters in scripts we
need for our projects?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:49, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> I'm not talking a missing font, even though this would be a problem, too.
> I'm talking about scripts that aren't encoded at all, for example the
> Zaghawa alphabet.
>
> And I understand, of course, that it's technically problematic. What I'm
> asking is whether there's an explicit written Language committee policy
> about it, or is it just a de facto practical matter.
>
> בתאריך יום א׳, 14 באפר׳ 2019, 19:41, מאת Gerard Meijssen ‏<
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> In the past the WMF has funded the creation of a Unicode font. Having a
>> Unicode font is essential when we are to support it in MediaWiki. Not
>> having a fully developed font is what hinders the necessary follow up of
>> projects in SignWriting ie all the signed languages.
>>
>> I do agree that a language with a default script not supported in Unicode
>> is hugely problematic.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:36, Amir E. Aharoni <
>> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a vague recollection that we require Unicode support to create a
>>> new language, but I cannot find it in the policy. Do we indeed require this
>>> explicitly, or am I just making things up?
>>>
>>> Or is it just a de facto practicality—that it's technically difficult to
>>> host a language in a script that isn't supposed in Unicode?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Unicode requirement

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In the past the WMF has funded the creation of a Unicode font. Having a
Unicode font is essential when we are to support it in MediaWiki. Not
having a fully developed font is what hinders the necessary follow up of
projects in SignWriting ie all the signed languages.

I do agree that a language with a default script not supported in Unicode
is hugely problematic.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:36, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a vague recollection that we require Unicode support to create a
> new language, but I cannot find it in the policy. Do we indeed require this
> explicitly, or am I just making things up?
>
> Or is it just a de facto practicality—that it's technically difficult to
> host a language in a script that isn't supposed in Unicode?
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Requests for new languages: Wikisource Literary Chinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Consider, the proposed thing amounts to a lot of work.. hassle. Who is
going to do that?
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 17:14, Steven White  wrote:

> Where this discussion stands at present is this:
>
>- Gerard is opposed to allowing this, on the grounds that there is a
>solid community of contributors on zh Wikisource that opposes, and only
>evidence for one or two people who support it.
>- MF-W favors marking this as "eligible", as to a great extent
>Literary Chinese is to the modern group of Chinese languages as Latin is to
>Romance languages. Just as neither French Wikisource nor Italian Wikisource
>would really be the right place for Latin content, so too neither Mandarin
>Wikisource nor Cantonese Wikisource, say, is inherently the right place for
>Literary Chinese content.
>   - That having been said, MF-W also appreciates that there is a lot
>   of Literary Chinese content already in Chinese/Mandarin Wikisource. 
> Also,
>   if I read his email of 21 February (19:50 UTC) correctly, he is not
>   proposing that we move the Literary Chinese content out of Chinese
>   Wikisource (at least at the present time).
>- I think that we agree that in the long run we don't need or want
>duplicated content in these projects.
>
> I'm open to suggestions. But at present, the compromise position I would
> like to suggest is this:
>
>- We mark this request as "on hold", pending evidence that a community
>exists that will create content in a Literary Chinese Wikisource test on
>oldwikisource. This is completely consistent with our practice in many
>other cases. We often have requests that are nominally eligible, but where
>no content is ever created—or perhaps a few pages are created right after
>the request is, and then people walk away. If a year passes with no further
>meaningful contributions, we close the request as "rejected-stale",
>inviting a new request in the future. By taking this approach, on-wiki
>activity would drive the subsequent result:
>   - If, as Gerard assumes, only one or two people are involved, we
>   can decide that there is not an independent community for this project, 
> and
>   we can reject it.
>   - If there is a community that is seriously interested in this, the
>   "on hold" will become an "eligible", as MF-W wishes.
>- I am going to suggest a special rule here: that documents in
>Literary Chinese that already exist on zh Wikisource not be
>duplicated on, nor moved to, oldwikisource.  (I suppose, to be fair, that
>the rule needs to cut the other way, too.)
>   - I am also going to suggest that even if the proposal becomes
>   "eligible" in the near future, we are explicitly withholding our 
> opinion as
>   to how to execute any final approval until that problem is actually 
> before
>   us.
>
> I would appreciate the Committee's feedback on this.
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Approval for Hindi Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

It is a sad day that we are to vote.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 00:49, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> I look forward to the first-ever vote to be held in Langcom. However, I
> would like to explain my point again: Setting up wikis is a very cumbersome
> procedure (as we also see with the current bug), but  closing wikis is an
> even more cumbersome procedure, therefore I always want to be very sure
> that the activity is sustainable enough for a longer period than three
> months, since I would be very sad to see any wiki being closed again as per
> "Note that a project may be closed if there is little or no activity after
> it is created" only very shortly after its creation. That would be fun for
> nobody. So, while "three months" is always mentioned, it is what I consider
> truly an absolute minimum, not a trigger which says "now it's high time"...
> In fact, the Language Proposal Policy does not mention "three months" at
> all, for good reasons.
>
>
> Am Fr., 22. Feb. 2019 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Steven White <
> koala19...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> In principle, I agree with Satdeep. But that said, there happens to be a
>> technical logjam in creating any new wikis right now. See phabricator
>> T212881 .  So approving this
>> project now, vs. approving it in ten days (once we're up to five qualifying
>> months), will make no difference as a practical matter. If MF-Warburg does
>> not agree once March has at least three editors with ten edits each, I will
>> formally call a vote.
>>
>> Steven
>>
>> Sent from Outlook 
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Requests for new languages: Wikisource Literary Chinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
One person really want this  the community does not. There are no real
arguments in favour, I am against.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 00:03, Steven White  wrote:

> MF-W, I felt the same way you did at first. But in truth this is an
> extremely borderline case that the policy can allow to go in either
> direction. There have been further discussions both here
> 
> and here
> .
> Let me summarize a key point here, and then suggest what I think the real
> issue is.
>
> Culturally, the comparison to Latin is apt. Literary Chinese was
> unquestionably the lingua franca of the region, and people everywhere used
> it. And the writing system of Literary Chinese was definitely used/adapted
> for other languages like Japanese and Korean. On the other hand, neither of
> those languages is actually linguistically descended from Literary Chinese.
> Korean is a linguistic isolate, while Japanese is only related to some
> languages used in and around Japan and neighboring islands. So Chinese is
> the clear principal descendant of Literary Chinese; it's not like Latin,
> where there are several strong descendants.
>
> As I see it, the real nub of the discussion goes something like this:
>
> PRO LZH WIKISOURCE: One user really wants this. Perhaps one other user
> supports the idea in principal, on the mostly theoretical grounds that
> housing lzh content in Chinese/Mandarin Wikisource may inhibit non-Mandarin
> speakers from participating.
>
> ANTI LZH WIKISOURCE: Most of the community feels that things are working
> fine as they are now. There is substantial lzh content in zhwikisource, and
> the community tells me that it is confident that the content is being
> curated openly and appropriately. I will add that I requested the community
> to create a mechanism to facilitate non-Mandarin discussion there, and an
> English Scriptorium was created. Whether it's being used, and whether that
> is sufficient, is a separate question. But that's a start.
>
> In my mind, there are some choices we can make. Any of these can be
> tweaked, but I think the general approaches go like this:
>
>1. Mark eligible, and based on the substantial lzh content that
>already exists, more or less immediately create an lzh Wikisource. I will
>tell you that I think the current Chinese Wikisource community would object
>strenuously to this approach, and that community is responsible for most of
>the content that currently exists.
>2. Mark eligible and allow lzh content on Multilingual Wikisource in
>parallel to Chinese Wikisource. We can set up some rules to minimize
>outright duplication. But the idea here is to see if a community that would
>otherwise not contribute on Chinese Wikisource appears.
>3. Mark "on hold" and allow lzh content on Multilingual Wikisource in
>parallel to Chinese Wikisource. This is similar to the previous, but with a
>stronger implication that if this parallel community never materializes, we
>will close this test project down at some point and merge appropriate
>content into Chinese Wikisource.
>4. Reject, and merge appropriate content now. The party requesting
>eligibility here has not created a ton of content so far, so this wouldn't
>be hard to do.
>
> I know what approach I favor. But I would ask what others think first.
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Approval for Hindi Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am really interested what the argments could be of not having a
Wikisource in language versions. Where is this discussed?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 18:01, MF-Warburg  wrote:

> I think this is a bit early, as the activity is only in its third month.
>
> (Besides, of course, I am still opposed to splitting Wikisource into even
> more language versions, but we're not discussing that here).
>
> Am Mo., 21. Jan. 2019 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Satdeep Gill <
> satdeepg...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hindi community has been doing a lot of activity on Multilingual
>> Wikisource for the past few months.
>>
>> The project fulfills the criteria as of now [1][2] and I would propose
>> its creation as a standalone project.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=1=हिन्दी=sourceswiki
>>
>> 2.https://tools.wmflabs.org/robin/?tool=codelookup=hi
>>
>> Best
>> Satdeep
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Approval for Hindi Wikisource

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am happy with a Hindi Wikisource.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:05, Satdeep Gill  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Hindi community has been doing a lot of activity on Multilingual
> Wikisource for the past few months.
>
> The project fulfills the criteria as of now [1][2] and I would propose
> its creation as a standalone project.
>
> 1.
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=1=हिन्दी=sourceswiki
>
> 2.https://tools.wmflabs.org/robin/?tool=codelookup=hi
>
> Best
> Satdeep
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Proposed approval of Guianan Creole Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given that a number of pages are verified, I am all for it.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 16:23, Steven White  wrote:

> I am proposing approval of the Guianan Creole Wikipedia
> . It has ticked off all the
> boxes it needs to tick off: active community, interface translation,
> reasonable number of pages.
>
> The one potential problem with this test is that the ratio of articles to
> stubs is low. (That is, it has a lot of stubs, compared to quality
> articles.) The reason for this is that the small, but enthusiastic, team
> working on the test project kept wanting some guidance from LangCom as to
> how much content was needed in order to get an approval. By design, we
> don't really have a specific standard for that. In the absence of that
> guidance, the team kept creating short pages; it took me a long time to
> convince them to stop, and to focus on filling out complete pages instead.
>
> They have now started to do that, and have a core of pages in areas of
> specific interest to the community of Guiane that are filled out and up to
> quality standards. They are continuing to work on that. But enough stubs
> were created early in the game that from a ratio perspective, it would take
> the team a long time to get to what we'd ordinarily prefer to see. Now, I
> have been working with this team regularly for a long while—probably at
> least two years. They feel they have worked hard, but they are getting
> anxious. I firmly believe that if this test is approved, the team will
> continue to work on the project, and will be able to recruit additional
> contributors. I am concerned that if we say no—particularly if I am not
> able to give specific guidance on how many "complete" pages are enough—they
> are going to give up and walk away.
>
> Let me add: the stubs are not junk. They're just stubs. The team has
> worked hard to do the right thing all along, and their focus is in a good
> place now. Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook 
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] LangCom: Stepping down

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
While not a surprise it is sad and, we will miss you. Do your thing, be
happy and know that we remember you fondly. That there is always a place
for you.
Thank you
  Gerard

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 13:06, Oliver Stegen  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I'm sorry to announce that I have to step down from the Language
> Committee. The main reason being that I have to cut down my computer time.
> It's been a good seven-and-a-half years and I thank you all for the good
> team work.
>
> Wishing you all the best for the future,
> Oliver
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Oliver's absence

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I hope you are well. Take care and I hope to see you back when you can.
Thank you for all your valuable input.
Thanks,
 gerard

On 8 August 2018 at 09:11, Oliver Stegen  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> just wanted to let you know that I'll be incommunicado from next week into
> October. So don't expect any responses from me. Sorry!
>
> Cheers,
> Oliver
>
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Please read: Fixing Incubator

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The language committee is not tasked with indicating the projects that are
dormant.

If anything it is our task to help those projects to gain new activities.
When Wikidata is used to bring information in templates and in information
in a similar way to the Cebuano Wikipedia (but more integrated in the
overall process you get the perspective as painted in the Celtic Knot
conference and the perspective that has my support.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 July 2018 at 11:29, Yongmin H.  wrote:

> Please inform Stewards' Noticeboard (and possibly CVN people), at least.
> This sounds like a lot more work for us.
>
> Just a side note: I sometimes think langcom is just creating more work for
> stewards and SWMT members without taking a look at the inactive projects
> that can be closed, but I don't have an example to show you. (So treat it
> as such)
>
> --
> Yongmin
> Sent from my iPhone
> https://reviwiki.info/
> Text licensed under CC BY ND 2.0 KR
> Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing
> list mails will be treated as spam.
> Please use https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a
>
> 2018. 7. 28. 00:29, Steven White  작성:
>
> I don't know if the community discussion should be on Incubator (and
> advertised at Meta [and Beta]), on Meta (and advertised on Incubator [and
> Beta]), or if there should be two. And when do we start it? Thoughts?
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia requests from 2012 (first set)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Prusian is imho not eligible, there are no native speakers. There is little
reason to believe that it is in a category similar to Ancient Greek.

For the rest it is fine.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 16 July 2018 at 19:12, Steven White  wrote:

> I think this first set of five Wikipedia requests from 2012 is pretty
> straightforward, even if I am going to leave three of them open for a week
> to make sure nobody has a problem with my proposed disposition of the
> requests. However, do please start keeping an eye on these, because the
> next couple of sets are going to raise some policy questions that I am
> really going to need LangCom as a whole to address. Thank you.
>
> 
>
> Wikipedia Mi'kmaq
> 
> (mic): Aboriginal language of New England and the Atlantic Provinces of
> Canada. 7200 native speakers. Test has over 200 pages, albeit mostly
> one-liners with pictures. Eligible.
>
>
> Valencian Wikipedia
> :
> This is described as the main language of the autonomous community of
> Valencia in Spain, and has 2.4 million speakers. It has no langcode, and a
> request for one was rejected in 2006, on the grounds that Valencian is
> simply a variety of Catalan. (SIL/Ethnologue still describes this as a
> dialect of Catalan.) Catalan Wikipedia apparently allows content in
> Valencian. Holding for one week for LangCom comments, but I propose to
> reject, while encouraging potential contributors to contribute to Catalan
> Wikipedia.
>
>
> Wikipedia Prussian 2
> 
> (prg): Prussian went extinct in the 18th century, but there are serious
> revival efforts underway, and apparently a first, new native speaker. Test
> has had some modest activity in recent months. I'm thinking we should mark
> as eligible, while noting that if and when it actually comes to a point of
> approval—it has fewer than 20 pages right now—we'd hope to see that the
> language revival is continuing outside WMF.
>
>
> Wikipedia Khinalug
> 
> (kjj): Endangered language of Northeast Caucasus with about 1,000 speakers.
> Test has about 100 pages. Eligible.
>
>
> Wikipedia Romanized Khowar
> :
> (1) There is no evidence that there is really a community needing this,
> particularly as a separate project. (Further, there's no evidence it
> couldn't be done by script converter.) (2) This is another project by RA
> Chitrali, whom we had trouble with on the original Khowar Wikipedia project
> not too long ago. Propose to reject. (On-wiki, I'm just going to use
> explanation 1 above. Explanation 2 is simply an additional reason to be
> skeptical.)
>
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia requests from the second half of 2017 (third set)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Agreed :)
 Gerard

On 21 June 2018 at 17:54, Steven White  wrote:

> Wikipedia Chakma
> 
> (ccp): Spoken by about 330,000 people in Bangladesh and India. Incubator
> project has had some activity recently. Marking as eligible. A Wiktionary
> request
> 
> was opened at the same time and has a single page of Incubator content
> only. I will place that request on hold.
>
>
> Wikipedia Vorarlbergerisch
> :
> This is a dialect of High Alemannic having no separate language code. There
> are pages in this dialect
> 
> within Alemannic Wikipedia. I will wait a few days for comments, but I
> intend to reject (encouraging contributions to be made on Alemannic
> Wikipedia instead).
>
>
> Wikipedia Choctaw
> 
> (cho): Technically a request for a reopening, as a project in this North
> American indigenous language was closed and moved to Incubator about ten
> years ago. Eligible.
>
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Project requests marked "eligible" that never had a test created

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As always, eligible means that when people put in the effort and it is
proven to be that language it will be approved. Stale imho only means that
a past attempt was not succesful so that we do not have to continually
monitor it. Eligibility is not affected by staleness.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 19 June 2018 at 23:14, Steven White  wrote:

> Hi. Please see this comment
> 
> on Meta.
>
>
> Contributors pointed out three cases in which a request was marked
> "eligible" (usually long ago), but where a test project was never started.
> Question I have for you is: Should I leave them alone, or change them to
> "rejected as stale"?
>
>
> I can go either way on this. If we were evaluating them now, we'd close
> them as stale. But my big concern in trying to process all of these
> requests is to try to clear the backlog of "discussion" and "on hold"
> requests, because those make us appear as if we're not doing anything.
> There are many old requests with the status of "eligible" because people
> work on them only sporadically. In a sense, these are no different.
>
>
> I'd appreciate some opinions on this.
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Chinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 13 June 2018 at 09:15, Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> What is this in reference to? https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193983 ?
>
> 2018-06-12 18:41 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>> Hoi,
>> Chinese is special because the difference between the various flavours of
>> Chinese are handled in software, not in translatewiki. It works for both
>> the localisation and the text.
>>
>> A question was raised if the Language committee needs to provide
>> permission for specific versions of Chinese eg Hong Kong or Singapore
>> Chinese. It means that in code characters are replaced by others..
>>
>> In my opinion this is no different from having American, British,
>> Australian articles in the English Wikipedia and consequently I think that
>> we do not have to give our agreement.
>>
>> Do you all concur?
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> ___
>> Langcom mailing list
>> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> mvh
> Jon Harald Søby
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

[Langcom] Chinese

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Chinese is special because the difference between the various flavours of
Chinese are handled in software, not in translatewiki. It works for both
the localisation and the text.

A question was raised if the Language committee needs to provide permission
for specific versions of Chinese eg Hong Kong or Singapore Chinese. It
means that in code characters are replaced by others..

In my opinion this is no different from having American, British,
Australian articles in the English Wikipedia and consequently I think that
we do not have to give our agreement.

Do you all concur?
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia requests from the second half of 2017 (first group)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It only makes sense to do so when there is a public. It is not a hobby.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 June 2018 at 19:37, Michael Everson  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  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Increasing coordination of Efforts

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I will not be there either. I am in for a conference call when there is an
agenda.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 8 June 2018 at 20:42, Steven White  wrote:

> I won't be at Wikimedia. But I'd be up for periodic conference calls.
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
>
> --
> *From:* Langcom  on behalf of
> langcom-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:00 AM
> *To:* langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> *Subject:* Langcom Digest, Vol 57, Issue 1
>
>  Hey All
>
> Am wondering if the occasionally teleconference would help with
> coordination of efforts? Realize that with us being in all parts of the
> world people will not be able to make all discussions. But wondering
> peoples thoughts on if it would help develop processes to deal with the
> backlog? Additionally not sure how many people will be at Wikimania however
> that could also be a good time to meet.
>
> Best
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fpipermail%2Flangcom%
> 2Fattachments%2F20180606%2F59712082%2Fattachment-0001.
> html=02%7C01%7C%7C9a156819638b4a1ff9bb08d5cc6e4d83%
> 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636639696468084188=
> 6EJWh4ugvwkVyczxxd6z5DraYpref7e4mqD8BeGnf8o%3D=0>
>
>
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

[Langcom] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to the Wikimedia Foundation May 2018 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, May 31, 18:00 UTC

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Once the presentations are done there is a recording available.. Given that
languages in the projects is one of the subjects, you may consider sending
queries or whatever so that they may be addressed,
Thanks,
  GerardM


-- Forwarded message --
From: Lena Traer 
Date: 25 May 2018 at 01:15
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to the Wikimedia Foundation May 2018
Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, May 31, 18:00 UTC
To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org, wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello everyone,

The next Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting will take
place on Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel
is #wikimedia-office on https://webchat.freenode.net, and the meeting will
be broadcast as a live YouTube stream.[1] We’ll post the video recording
publicly after the meeting.

During the May 2018 meeting, we will hear about languages across the
Wikimedia projects.

Meeting agenda:

* Welcome and introduction
* Movement update
* The Compact Language Links project
* Executive update
* Questions and discussion
* Wikilove

Please review the meeting's Meta-Wiki page for further information about
the meeting and how to participate:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_
meetings

You can also sign up to participate in future meetings on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_
meetings/Future_meetings

June 2018 Metrics & Activities meeting will take place on Thursday, 28
June, starting at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM Pacific Daylight Time).

Thank you,
Lena

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOaiU-v7PbE

Lena Traer
Project Coordinator // Communications // Advancement
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Fon Wikipedia - eligible?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When a language has an ISO-639-3 code (I think I remember that it does) it
is eligible. The current practice of determining something as "stale" does
not mean that it is not eligible, it only means that we do not think much
of the effort so far.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 May 2018 at 11:11, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> At the Wikimedia Hackathon last week, I spoke to a speaker of Fon, a
> language of Benin. He added a request for a new Fon Wikipedia and started
> translating the interface.
>
> The language has a code and is living and spoken by several millions of
> people (statistics differ, between 2–4 million). Any objections to marking
> as eligible?
>
> --
> 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
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Re: [Langcom] Back to 2012: Wikiversity requests

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me when a language code is abused, it follows that no follow up
projects are in order so I would reject when there is no clarification of
what it should be.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 15 May 2018 at 00:22, Steven White  wrote:

> Wikiversity Sinhala
> :
> No content was ever created. Rejecting as stale.
>
> Wikiversity Tamil
> :
> The requester hasn't been active on meta since 2013, but is occasionally
> active at Tamil Wikipedia. I will ask if he plans to do anything with this.
> There was one page (effectively, a main page) created two years earlier
> than this request, but nothing has been done since. Unless creator tells me
> otherwise, I intend to reject as stale.
>
> Wikiversity Zazaki
> 
>  (diq):
> I suppose it's a fair question to ask why diq is able to co-opt the name
> Zazaki, which more correctly applies to the macrolanguage as a whole (at
> least according to ISO 639-3). The Wikipedia in this language calls itself
> Zazaki (or Zaza), too. ISO, on the other hand, uses "Dimli" for langcode
> diq. Still, there are 94 pages in this test, so it is eligible. You can
> tell me at a future date if you want to try to change the working name the
> projects use.
>
>
> Sent from Outlook 
>
> ___
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
___
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom