Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Language committee/Archives/2007-11

< Language committee | Archives
For a summary of discussions, see the archives index.

Spanned discussions

edit

The following discussions span multiple months and are archived in the first applicable archive:

Organization and new pages

edit

Pathoschild reorganized and expanded langcom pages on Meta.

  1. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    01 November 2007 15:07

    Hello,

    I've reorganized the subcommittee pages on Meta and created some new documentation. Feel free to take a look and improve them; you can find them through the new navigation template on the right side of <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Langcom>.

  2. Shanel Kalicharan
    01 November 2007 16:33

    Yaaaaaaay.

    *gives Jesse a punch of appreciation*

  3. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    01 November 2007 16:45

    I added that Jesse rejoined

Wikipedia British English & Hanja & Jeju & pre-reform Russian & Hantec, Wikispecies simple English

edit
  1. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    02 November 2007 00:40

    Hello,

    I propose the rejection of the following requests. If there is no objection within 72 hours, I'll implement the decisions.

  2. Karen
    02 November 2007 02:14

    You can archive this. Comments below.

    Karen Broome

    --- "Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)" <email address censored> wrote:

    >
    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_British_English>
    > *: No ISO code; this is English with slight spelling
    > and vocabulary
    > differences which are accepted on the existing
    > English Wikipedia.

    COMMENT: There are several ISO codes for this. The shortest ISO code for this language is "en."

    The specific IETF RFC 4646 code -- the one required by the XML and HTML standards -- is en-UK.

    Note: The style on the English Wikipedia is inconsistent. Readability and comprehension are always enhanced by consistency of style. Some British English is unintelligible to American English speakers and vice versa.

    VOTE: Yes, if you can establish a fallback mechanism to display generic English if UK English (specifically) does not exist. English is an important Wikipedia and if this enhances readability and there are people willing to do it, let them.

    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Hanja>
    > *: No ISO code; this is a perfect candidate for
    > Multilingual
    > MediaWiki, but not its own wiki. The project could
    > stay on the
    > Incubator until Multilingual MediaWiki is ready.

    COMMENT: The shortest ISO language code for this is "ko". This also has a specific ISO Script Type code. It is Hani. The RFC 4646 tag is ko-Hani.

    The Chinese Wikipedia is available in more than one ISO script type. Traditional and Simplified Chinese do not have ISO language codes either, but like Hani, they have ISO script codes. If you turn this down, the policy is inconsistent.

    VOTE: Yes

    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Jeju>
    > *: No ISO code; this seems to be another dialect and
    > candidate for
    > Multilingual MediaWiki.

    COMMENT: The shortest ISO code is ko. There are several more, but none specify this particular dialect of Korean. This is not in the IANA registry at the moment, but I'm sure this Korean variant would be approved by IANA.

    VOTE: No.

    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Pre-reform_Russian>
    > *: No ISO code, not recognized as a language (this
    > request just
    > focuses on the latest of several reforms of
    > Russian).

    COMMENT: The shortest ISO code is ru. If you could cite a document where this language was redefined (or reformed), you could apply for and likely get an IANA tag.

    VOTE: Don't care. If this was a huge server burden, I'd say it wasn't worth it.

    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Hantec>
    > *: No ISO code; this is the name of slang (not a
    > dialect), and
    > according to Wikipedia it is only used "among some
    > elderly people".

    COMMENT: Dialect of Czech. The shortest ISO code for this is cs. You could apply for this variant from IANA and I suspect it would be approved (cs-hantec). There are hantec dictionaries you could cite in your application.

    VOTE: Despite my passion for anything Czech, doesn't seem like a good use of server bandwidth. Je mi lito.

    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikispecies_Simple_English>
    > *: No ISO code, and Wikispecies is multilingual and
    > not divided into
    > language subdomains.

    VOTE: I do not see the point of this.

  3. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    02 November 2007 10:56

    Okay for all. I'm in a hurry, I'll have detailed explanations of my position later, but you can proceed in the meantime.

    In short, I feel ALL these requests are candidate for MultiLanguage Mediawiki, with the only exception of the "historical" pre-reform russian (given our proposed policy on historical languages and the semantic production for a dead branch that would be involved).

  4. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    06 November 2007 15:41

    Karen,

    Could you clarify your 'yes' and 'no' responses? If I understand correctly, 'yes' means 'do not reject' and 'no' means 'reject', but you also provide arguments in favour with your 'no' votes.

    All of these fail the policy requirement for an ISO 639 code (the RFC 4646 code is not part of the requirement). If we allow this, we must change the policy so that an ISO 639 code is not required.

    In the meantime, I've rejected the Wikipedia Hantec, Wikipedia pre-reform Russian, and Wikispecies simple English requests.

  5. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    06 November 2007 15:49

    Hello,

    Actually, I see RFC 4646 is considered; we should look into that to see if that's a bad idea. To date no request has been made with an RFC 4646 code specifically, and it allows for any language or variant real or otherwise. For example, Klingon (RFC 4646 code i-klingon) is a language that is used (usually nonsensically) in fiction, and does not actually exist in real life except as invented sound-alikes by fans.

    It's really rather pointless to require a language code at all if we use the most open-ended standard available; we could just invent a code for anything we approved anyway.

  6. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    06 November 2007 16:19

    RFC 4646 cannot be used to define domains as it would fail to provide a filter.

    It can be helpful in providing correct coding for internal language falavors if and when we get to use MultiLanguage Mediawiki, in order to provide a better language coding for search engines and to allow separate management of flavours, as it is often needed.

  7. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    06 November 2007 16:22

    Berto,

    I agree that we should only use ISO 639 for the domain. We'd still use RFC 4646 for HTML language identification, but that's a technical matter rather than a policy matter.

  8. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    07 November 2007 13:37

    Hello,

    If there's no objection I will proceed with the remaining requests in 36 hours.

  9. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    07 November 2007 14:43

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  10. Karen
    09 November 2007 23:12

    I don't believe we have reched consensus on this yet.

  11. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    10 November 2007 01:41

    Karen,

    To simplify discussion, the following are debated:

    • Wikipedia British English,
    • Wikipedia Hanja,
    • Wikipedia Jeju.

    None of these requests currently have ISO 639-3 codes, as currently required by the policy. Approving them would require either getting them an ISO 639-3 code, or changing the policy. Are either of those solutions what you suggest, or are you thinking of a third solution?

  12. Karen
    10 November 2007 09:21

    At what point was a moderator appointed and just who is it that is censoring these messages? I don't remember voting to appoint an official censor.

    Jesse... Your statements about ISO codes are in error. All of these request have ISO codes.

    British English has a code. It is "en."

    Hanja is "ko."

    Jeju is also "ko."

    I think you are reading meaning into the ISO codes that simply isn't there. ISO does not make any script or spelling preferences. You are making discrimatory criteria that are way outside of ISO 639-3, yet using the ISO 639-3 name to support your subjective opinions.

    These all have ISO 639-1, 639-2 and 639-3 codes so that is not a reason to exclude them. If you exclude them, you are using additional criteria not represented in the ISO standards you claim to support. Please tell me what this additional criteria is and document it on the site.

    Who is the list moderator? I don't remember voting for one, yet I'm now told my messages need to go through moderator approval.

  13. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    10 November 2007 09:37

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  14. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    10 November 2007 16:28

    Hi!

    No moderation, AFAIK. But the email from which you write makes a difference. If you are not subscribed explicitly, your message won’t be shown. I remain in favor of denying whatever misses an ISO 639-3 code

  15. Karen
    10 November 2007 17:25

    Sincere apologies to all. I must have sent that message from another e-mail address than the one I normally use -- I was just surprised to get a message that said my message was waiting for moderator approval.

    I also probably shouldn't have written that message when I did. It's been weird lately because sometimes I see my posts sent back to me though the list; sometimes I don't. I don't really know if they've gone out or not.

    It does seem that there is a new distinction here -- one not made by ISO. A *unique* code must exist in order for this to count as a language in Wikipedia. However, scripts are important as seen in the two flavors of Chinese now on the site. This however sets this committee up to choose a preferred script for languages and that's outside of ISO. This could block users of another script from having a Wikipedia they can read.

    Again, sorry for kinda flying off the handle.

  16. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    10 November 2007 18:17

    Hi Karen,

    No probs, I'm having similar problems with lots of lists, so I know the feeling :) In particular, there is one non-WMF list that is on the brink of a civil war because of such problems... Sometimes such things have the bad habit of happening in the middle of ah heated discussion and obviously the very last explanation most of us will think of is... a bad email address :)

    As for the difference: we have two classes of problems:
    1) domains, here we keep ISO 639-3 "living" codes, strict, with discussion about ISO 639-3 codes labeled otherwise
    2) flavors, where any "unique" code may do. This solution, though, is a "future", because it depends on the availability of "MultiLingual MediaWiki" software. When this soft becomes available, we will be able to have "subsets" of a single wiki, that will be all included into a single domain, but may remain as independent from each other as two full-fledged editions.

    In particular, this second approach is expected to be helpful in the load of situations in which different scripts, only partially mutually understandable dialects, etc come in the way of the usability of the edition and of the volunteers' work.

    We have a fairly high number of such situations. The most common result is that a "dominant" dialect/script takes over, and since the admins of this particular flavor cannot understand the material written in the others they end up censoring it quite abruptly. This makes for a very tense internal situation, and can only be expected to grow in size as we now mostly deal with non-normative languages.

    While I personally require that the ISO condition remains in force in order to ensure that LangCom doesn't become a place in which we decide "what is a language", I am also positive that we need some flexibility for humans to work in peace. The policy that "good fences make good neighbors" is quite likely to succeed in this case. But once again we must make sure that it's not us deciding who has the right to build fences and who hasn't, so some external "unique code" is required.

  17. Karen
    10 November 2007 17:27

    I did speak up. Was my message not received? I sent at least three messages on this subject.

    --- GerardM <email address censored> wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

  18. Jon Harald Søby
    10 November 2007 18:39

    I, as moderator, may have deleted them by accident. We get a lot of spam on the list (about 10 messages per day), and when cleaning up what to keep and what to delete, I must have deleted your messages by accident. My sencere apologies for that.

  19. Karen
    10 November 2007 19:33

    Did my reply to Jesse's request for an explanation of my votes go out?

  20. Karen
    07 November 2007 19:41

    Jesse et al,

    You asked me to explain my votes. In many cases, there are pros and cons to any choice. The fact that I have some positive things to say about a proposal does not mean that gun-to-my-head I can't make a choice. If I vote in favor of something, it's because I believe the pros outweigh the cons. And vice versa. I didn't intend for that to confuse anyone.

    In most cases, I was merely pointing out that while RFC 4646 is sufficient to describe the proposed linguistic entities, ISO 639-3 alone is not. And basing Wikipedia choices on such an unstable standard still does not seem appropriate to me. It's one criteria for making a judgment, but not the only criteria.

    I will continue to point out that RFC 4646 is what should be used for language identification on the web -- even the directory naming. This is not simply a technicality -- this is a question of precise identification of the language.

    RFC 4646 is able to describe any request that may come our way and you're right that we wouldn't be able to use it as-is to make language approval decisions. ISO 639-3 cannot describe some of the linguistic entities on Wikipedia today. Are these all Wikipedias that wouldn't be approved under today's rules? Or is it reasonable that we'd have two different orthographies for the world's most popular native language?

    The idea that we are making these decisions using some sort of "quantitative" metrics is false. The idea that we are following ISO 639-3 to the letter is also not true.

    I think we should accept that these decisions are in fact subjective and involve more than merely following ISO 639-3. We need to accept that we need to make distinctions of scripts -- something ISO 639-3 will never do. We should consider server overload issues as that's a reality for Wikipedia. We need to consider politics, user activity, and motivation of the request. This is subjective.

    When you indicated that certain languages do not have an ISO code, you were in error. Dialects of Korean are classified under the Korean tag; simple English is still English. These dialects have ISO codes, they just don't have specific dialect codes because ISO does not pretend to identify dialects, but this can be important in things like Spanish variants and Portuguese where the most basic verb forms and pronouns may differ.

    I think the simple English Wikipedia is quite useful, though I don't support the simple English Wikispecies. Would we deny the Simple English Wikipedia if it was proposed today?

    If you'd like more information on my individual votes, feel free to ask. I suppose I'm willing to back down on Hanja, but the distinction asked for there is a difference in a script that can make the language intelligible or unintelligible to any given person. Going to an ISO language standard to look for a script type is certainly not going to result in a valid code. This variant does have an ISO *script* code and a valid ISO language code.

Wikiquote Breton

edit

The request for a Breton Wikiquote was approved.

  1. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    04 November 2007 20:14

    The guys are asking for final approval. Anyone has data about the project?

  2. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    04 November 2007 21:20

    Hello,

    They've translated virtually the entire MediaWiki interface, including optional messages and the administrator interface, and the community is active. My statistics are at <http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Status/wq-br>.

    I'm in favour.

  3. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    04 November 2007 21:28

    Me too

  4. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    CC Erik Möller (Executive Secretary)
    06 November 2007 16:09

    Hello Erik,

    The language subcommittee recommends the creation of a Breton Wikiquote. The community is sufficiently diverse and active, the discussion on Meta is unanimous, the test project is successful, the interface is translated, and the language has a standard code. Further information can be found by following the links below.

    The request will be approved and created if the board does not object within four days, as previously agreed and described in our charter.

    More information:

  5. Erik Möller (Eloquence) Executive Secretary
    06 November 2007 16:09

    Thank you, Jesse.

  6. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    12 November 2007 05:45

    Hello,

    Approved and request filed.

Wikiversity Greek

edit

The request for a Greek Wikiversity was approved.

  1. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    12 November 2007 02:58

    Hello,

    I propose the final approval of the Greek Wikiversity. You can see statistics, requirements, details, et cetera on <http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Status/wv-el>. I'll contact the board in 24 hours for the required 4-day advance notice if nobody objects.

  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 November 2007 05:32

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  3. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    12 November 2007 06:01

    Should we ask them?

  4. Cormac Lawler (Cormaggio) guest
    12 November 2007 14:19

    Hi Gerard,

    what do you mean by asking the "Wikiversity people themselves"? Do you mean the international Wikiversity community (which, it must be said, does not correspond greatly), or do you mean the community which is proposing to have a new project created?

    It's true that there is a lacking of structure in Wikiversity as a whole - it's a new project, and the same could be said of other projects. It's also trying to see how it can link in with other Wikimedia projects, without too much overlap.

    However, I'm not sure if you are asking whether Wikiversity could be a part of Wikibooks - or whether individual language communities could set up Wikiversities in their language's Wikibooks. If you're suggesting the former, then this is a much larger question than this committee (langcom) was set up to address, and I would recommend we have that discussion in another forum, such as foundation-l.

  5. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 November 2007 17:26

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  6. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    12 November 2007 19:33

    Hello,

    In my opinion this is not relevant here. The Board of Trustees has said that Wikiversity is okay, and delegated management of language requests to us. We have looked at the language, community, and test project, and I think that it is ready for creation based on my experience and our criteria. Whether Wikiversity is a good idea is very much out of our jurisdiction; we certainly cannot block all new editions of a project because we disagree with the project.

    We have already asked the community for their blessing; there has been an open request for comment on this wiki since July 2007. The result is at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Greek>.

  7. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 November 2007 19:48

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  8. Cormac Lawler (Cormaggio) guest
    12 November 2007 20:38

    Thanks Gerard,

    All I would say in response is that I used my presentation to raise questions about the project (and the world of education), rather than to give some sort of objective view on 'the state of the wiki'. So, the pragmatic reality is possibly not as murky as I might have indicated. :-) And so, I would heartily recommend a new Greek Wikiversity to be set up - we will be discussing these larger questions over time, and I would not want to hold back a language project simply because the larger project is still in development.

  9. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 November 2007 21:02

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  10. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    19 November 2007 09:15

    All projects' scopes change and are refined throughout their lifetime; this is as true for Wikisource and Wikibooks as it is for Wikiversity. Usually, even individual wikis have their own interpretation of the projects' scope; the English Wikipedia does not always agree with the Dutch Wikipedia, for example.

    I do not agree with stalling new Wikiversities because you are not clear on their scope. You want "the existing Wikiversity community to give their considered opinion on whether it is a good idea to start another Wikiversity", but that is precisely what listing them on [[Requests for new languages]] is for.

    If you insist on more widespread community input or if you're personally uncertain about the viability of new Wikiversity projects, you should raise that problem on Foundation-l. We're tasked with processing new language subdomains, not overriding the community and board of trustees on what projects are acceptable, and secretly enforcing a moratorium on expanding Wikiversity. If we're unable to reach a consensus soon, I suggest we put it to a vote as we did with the Armenian Wikisource.

  11. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    19 November 2007 10:08

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  12. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    19 November 2007 18:37

    Gerard,

    While you're busily filibustering Wikiversity, would you consent to public archival of your messages in this thread only, so I can explain to the Wikiversity community what is needed to proceed?

  13. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    19 November 2007 20:32

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  14. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    19 November 2007 21:10

    Gerard,

    This list is indeed supposed to be public. This was explicit since the very beginning in the charter the subcommittee was approved under, which states that "The whole set of activities of the Language Subcommittee is public". The list is mostly public already; fifteen of the seventeen users that appear in the private archives agreed to public archival (only Karen and yourself refused).

    As a subcommittee, sometimes we need to delay processing until it can be done correctly, but the delays should be minimized. We should never delay just because we can, or after making a half-hearted attempt to do something. If you insist on widespread consensus, then I will organize that myself; who is this secret go-between you mention? I'll get in touch with them and organize this community blessing of yours. If you refuse to make your comments public, I will summarize as necessary.

    I'm not sure where you got your definition of "filibuster"; it means "the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority" (Dictionary.com unabridged).

  15. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    19 November 2007 21:38

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  16. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    19 November 2007 23:02

    Gerard,

    As I see it you have spontaneously invented a requirement, privately told two outside people about it, you're waiting at least 44 days until the new year for something to happen on its own, you refuse to share information on what is being done and who is doing it, and you're now obstructing attempts on my part to do something more proactive to meet your invented requirement. If I haven't missed anything, "filibuster" does seem an appropriate description.

    Would a widespread consensus on Foundation-l with multiple supporting comments by editors and administrators of current Wikiversity wikis satisfy you? If not, what specifically will?

  17. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    20 November 2007 00:04

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  18. Cormac Lawler (Cormaggio) guest
    05 December 2007 16:44

    Hi,

    What is the current status of the discussion or decision on the Greek Wikiversity? There seemed to be a pause in order to consult with the Wikiversity community, but to my knowledge this hasn't been done. (Gerard seemed to ask before where the most appropriate place for a discussion would be - and this would probably be the wikiversity-l mailing list.) I don't know what to make of the available documentation, particularly how the situation seems to be left at <http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Status/wv-el>.

    Also, my questions about the relationship between Gerard's concerns and the scope of this committee have as yet gone unanswered. Finally, I authorised my contributions in this thread to be made public <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages/Archives/2007-11>

    - I appreciate there may be other work to do, but I imagine the interested parties (ie the Greek Wikiversity community) are even more in the dark than I am, and this strikes me as unfair.

  19. Shanel Kalicharan
    05 December 2007 18:06

    To tell you the truth, I don't really know either. However, I do support the approval of the request. So, currently, Jesse and I support, Gerard oppose, and Berto I don't know. I think it'd be a good idea to resolve this before we all take off for Christmas and the new year.

  20. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    05 December 2007 18:29

    I haven't seen an explanation inclining me towards any of the proposed points, if I have to be honest.

    I wish we could have this discussion with the list. Otherwise I will not express a vote on this subject. I won't cast a casual opinion just to get rid of them.

    If the majority can reach consensus without me, that's fine for me. If not, I ask this discussion to be opened.

  21. Jon Harald Søby
    09 December 2007 21:07

    I support it as well; the fact that Gerard is not sure what Wikiversity's scope is is no ground for us to say yes or no to a project.

  22. Sabine Cretella
    10 December 2007 23:07

    Well I don't see why the Greek Wikiversity should not have its project - as much as I can see the normal requirements are met. So yes I agree to the opening of it.

    I hope this helps,

  23. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 December 2007 15:53

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  24. Cormac Lawler (Cormaggio) guest
    12 December 2007 16:50

    On 12/12/07, GerardM <<email address censored>> wrote:
    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    I'm disappointed you interpreted my presentation as giving an "unfavourable impression" - I tried to raise issues in terms of "challenges" that the Wikiversity community is engaged in addressing. These challenges were no less pertinent when the French, Spanish and Italian Wikiversities were set up - and indeed, much work has since been done on these issues.

    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    • Sigh* Yes, there may be, IMO, naive views about Moodle amongst some

    of the community, and there are differing views about what Wikiversity needs - BUT this is *nothing whatsoever to do with LangCom's mandate*.

    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    But, as I have pointed out many times, you are not looking at the question of the viability of the Greek Wikiversity - you are looking at the viability of the Wikiversity project (from, in my opinion, quite a warped view).

    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    Well, exactly - the projects are engaged in what I see as a very productive learning process of figuring out how to allow Wikibooks and Wikiversity to coexist and collaborate. But this is a pan-community issue - not a committee one (or at least not this committee's).

    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    What should anyone have to be patient about here? What are we waiting for - and how long would it take? Frankly, Gerard, I don't have the patience to let you stifle this matter any longer, and I will now raise the matter with the board. I apologise to other committee members, but since I have received no feedback from anyone else on this matter, I can only conclude that you accept Gerard's views here. (However this will not be my case to the board, but rather that the Greek Wikiversity should simply be authorised).

  25. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    13 December 2007 05:26

    Hi!

    I understand that since basically all WMF Committees work under total secrecy you may simply be unaware of such a weird behavior of ours, yet LangComs discussions are PUBLIC. :))

    See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages/Archives

    We don't give YOU direct feedback for the simple reason that you are posting to Gerard only. I myself would never had read this mail of yours if not for the fact that Gerard copies LangCom list in his answers.

    In short, the issue has been discussed aside of (and unrelated to) your private exchanges, and it's still being discussed. You are welcome to check the aforementioned archives at any time you please. :)

  26. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    13 December 2007 06:32

    Hello,

    I've copied Berto's response to Cormac below, since he forgot to include Cormac in the address field. The public archives typically lag behind a week or so (much more in late November and December, which is a busy month for me), so they're not ideal for following breaking news. :)

  27. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    13 December 2007 07:41

    LOL I really thought he was the other gmail address on the first mail :)

  28. Cormac Lawler (Cormaggio) guest
    13 December 2007 09:36

    I did raise this matter with the board, only to read Gerard's subsequent mail, as well as having a chat with Gerard on IRC. I hadn't understood from his original mail that Gerard had withdrawn his opposition. I have asked the board to ignore my mail - I now wish to apologise to the committee for any undue stress I may have caused. (Jesse has already made me aware of the fact that it has been busy month, and that there was disagreement within the committee on this issue.)

    Note to Berto: I know of the langcom discussion archives - I have asked a few times for my contributions to this discussion to be made public - and I also sent every mail on the issue to the langcom list (not just to Gerard), so they may have been held in moderation. Of course, I realise this is all "more work" for the committee - I'm just putting into context here why I felt so frustrated.

  29. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    13 December 2007 17:55

    No probs :) The only important thing is that we got rid of the misunderstanding :)

  30. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 December 2007 17:45

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  31. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    CC Florence Nibart-Devouard (Board chair), ZaDiak
    06 January 2008 10:33

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  32. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    CC ZaDiak
    10 January 2008 20:21

    Hello,

    I've marked the request as approved. We just need the translations for "Wikiversity" (site name), and "Wikiversity" and "Wikiversity talk" (namespaces) before I can file the bugzilla request; I left a note on the request page.

  33. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    10 January 2008 20:39

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  34. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    10 January 2008 21:04

    Hello GerardM,

    Your message to the board was sent on January 6th at 05:33; I approved it on January 10th at 03:21. This is only two hours short of four days. This was an accidental oversight, but I don't think it's an important one; in the extremely unlikely case that the board decides to veto it in the last hour, there's plenty of time (probably even weeks) to reverse the approval.

  35. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    10 January 2008 21:24

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  36. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    11 January 2008 00:03

    No, I just came across it while creating status pages; it was one of the requests with a red link to its status page, since I recently moved the status pages from the Incubator to Meta.

  37. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    11 January 2008 08:12

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

Wikipedia Moldovan

edit

No decision was reached on the request for a Moldovan Wikipedia.

  1. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    10 November 2007 22:49

    Hi all,

    There is an ongoing issue about the weird situation of mo.wikipedia.org and since I hate secret diplomacy I’d rather have the following discussion happening in public and being recorded on the public archive. I’m not reading Foundation-l, so I came to know about this only by casual talks. After a number of exchanges we realized that there was no point in keeping this in the ranks of a private discussion, because if a decision is to be made it must be made in a regular way, so here we are. I will copy the interested parties outside LangCom, so we can have a full-fledged discussion. What follows is but MY OWN POV, and everyone is welcome and required in adding their position, in order to reach consensus.

    The situation of mo.wikipedia is definitely not sustainable, for two reasons:
    1) the decision of freezing it was taking unilaterally, based on organized political pressure from one side of a civil war (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transdnistria ), namely, the moldavian right-wings
    2) a “freeze” state doesn’t give Transdnistrian speakers any chance of working on their language

    Now, a proposal was made on Foudation-l to close the wiki. The problem is hardly to remain in the bounds of a simple administrative decision, because of the political implications it brings about: yesterday some 400 people were hurt in disorders between Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, in Crimea. Once we set such a precedent, nothing will stop the Ukrainian and Russian nationalists to ask to drop a Crimean Tatar wiki based mostly on the same issues and with the same numeric results, because very little Crimean Tatars are connected to the net, so the result of mob-voting is quite obvious. Fights are going on in all the Caucasian area, mostly officially based on cultural/linguistic/religious differences (in practice on oil, money and power, but that's another story). Tomorrow any of the Georgian area languages may be requested for deletion by inflated mobs based on the same issues. So, it is absolutely vital that we keep politics well away from this issue while granting equal rights to all.

    On the other hand we also have a difficult administrative situation. The traffic on this wiki is low and it can hardly be expected to grow. I quote from this document ( <http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/6514/NGOs_CSOs_Moldova.pdf> http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/6514/NGOs_CSOs_Moldova.pdf ) “NGOs and civic organizations in rural areas are highly isolated and lack access to information. Many rural areas have very little access to television or newspapers.” Okay, this was 2001, but this also was about Moldova, the situation in Transdnistria could only be worse and it cannot have got much better. Meeting people from Transdnistria on the net is still quite rare (no matter their political/linguistic views). The reason is clear if you see these prices: http://isp.idknet.com/index.php?option=com_content <http://isp.idknet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=45> &task=view&id=19&Itemid=45 for a simple slooow dial-up. 2$ for 5 hours may seem little money, but NOT in a place where most people make 50$-100$/mo. It would be unrealistic to expect a quick growth in native traffic, no matter the political views of the locals.

    Jon has been suggesting a solution that *might* work, if we can organize it well and keep it under close control. He says that since the Cyrillic and the Latin version of Rumenian can be transliterated both ways, it makes sense to revive the mo.wiki domain as a transliterated version of ro.wiki. I put a number of condition concerning parity of rights and the answer to which we seem to get is that:
    1) Latin user shall NOT be able to tell on which edition an edit was made
    2) The work of the Latin admins must be monitored to make sure that there is NO political ban and content coming from the Transdnistrian side (if any) doesn’t get rolled back. Jon identifies a Rumenian stewart (Romihaitza) as a possible candidate to verify that no such violation is performed. I don’t know this person, so I will avoid saying an immediate yes/no on the subject, but I’d rather have someone being able to read rumenien while NOT being him/herself from any of the two involved sides of the conflict.

    The immediate advantages of this solution would be that we:
    1) let the legal ISO code MO live, as it is its due right, according to the policies
    2) deliver an immediate huge amount of content in mo.wiki, which may make it interesting and help attracting traffic
    3) start to push the two communities towards a peaceful coexistence
    4) say it clear that organizing nationalistic pogroms on meta doesn’t lead anyone to any success
    5) solve the problem of lacking human horse power for mo.wiki
    6) have a fully localized mo-cyr UI straight away.

    Now…this is but an idea, and this does request everybody’s thought to become a formal proposal.

    Bèrto ‘d Sèra

    _____

    From: GerardM
    Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 8:52 PM
    To: Berto 'd Sera
    Subject: Fwd: [Foundation-l] Moldovan Wikipedia

    <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Johannes Rohr <email address censored>
    Date: Nov 8, 2007 5:48 PM
    Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moldovan Wikipedia
    To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
    Cc: wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org

    Hi everyone,

    the Moldovan Wikipedia at http://mo.wikipedia.org has now been locked for almost a year (last modification of the main page is dated 16 November 2006). When you hit alt+shift+e, you are presented a message saying, this Wikipedia is locked "for now". The main page has no explanation whatsoever why this wiki is locked, it doesn't even say /that/ it is.

    In 2006, community members proposed the closure of this wiki for a number of reasons, the discussion is available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia

    To sum up the reasons presented by the proposers:

    - Moldovan is identical with Romanian, it is just a different name for the same language;
    - The Moldovan Wikipedia is in the Cyrillic script, which is not used in Moldova, except for the breakaway republic of Transnistria, where it is used in schools, but only because it is forcibly imposed by the Russian-speaking government. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm)
    - The Moldovan Wikipedia contains almost no original content, most articles are transliterations from the Romanian edition,
    - While it was active, it had virtually no native contributors, the main author wrote in dictionary-aided broken Romanian.

    Now, what we have since the database was locked a year ago is an uneditable project with several thousand pages. This is quite obviously not a good thing, not least because it makes interwiki conflicts unfixable.

    I feel that this situation is not sustainable and should be resolved in one way or another.

    Personally I am in favour of starting a formal proposal for the deletion of this wiki, similar to the one regarding the Siberian Wikipedia (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_of_Siberian_Wikipedia ).

    If there are any other opionions or suggestions, I am looking forward to reading them.

  2. Johannes Rohr guest
    10 December 2007 23:07

    2007/11/10, Berto 'd Sera <email address censored>:
    >
    > Hi all,
    >

    Hello and sorry for the delay in responding. I must confess that after a short and heated argument I started to loose interest in this topic and my time for Wiki[p,m]edia is very limited. Basically, most arguments have been exchanged, I am afraid I will not be able to make any new substantial points, but still, I like the opportunity to deliver a direct response to Berto's opinion.

    The situation of mo.wikipedia is definitely not sustainable, for two reasons:
    1) the decision of freezing it was taking unilaterally, based on organized political pressure from one side of a civil war (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transdnistria ), namely, the moldavian right-wings

    Reading the closure debate, I fail to see evidence for a strong dominance of "moldanivian right-wingers" among those who support closure. And even if it were so, I cannot see how this should play any role in the decision making process which should be independent of such external factors.

    2) a "freeze" state doesn't give Transdnistrian speakers any chance of working on their language

    Firstly, there is no such thing as a "Transnistrian language". Nobody seriously disputes that "Moldovan" is merely an alias for "Romanian". Nobody is attempting to ban a language from Wikimedia's servers. The whole row is about
    1. a writing system
    2. how the language is called

    No Transnistrian is barred from participating in the Romanian Wikipedia. So there cannot be any talk about "not having any chance of working on their language". What they might be deprived of is the chance to use the writing system which the authorities of the breakaway territory want them to use. I doubt that you will find any Transnistrian who seriously regrets this.

    I may have overlooked something, but through the entire discussion pages, I haven't seen a single statement saying "I am Transnistrian, my mother tongue is Moldovan and I prefer Cyrillic script". Frankly, I believe that there is zero demand for this and I presume, without knowing for sure, that, outside those institutions in Transnistria, where Moldovan/Romanian speakers are coerced to use Cyrillic, very few people use it. If I can trust Wikipedia, there are virtually no printed newspapers or other current publications in Cyrillic Moldovan.

    Now, a proposal was made on Foudation-l to close the wiki. The problem is
    > hardly to remain in the bounds of a simple administrative decision, because
    > of the political implications it brings about: yesterday some 400 people
    > were hurt in disorders between Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, in
    > Crimea. Once we set such a precedent, nothing will stop the Ukrainian and
    > Russian nationalists to ask to drop a Crimean Tatar wiki based mostly on the
    > same issues and with the same numeric results, because very little Crimean
    > Tatars are connected to the net, so the result of mob-voting is quite
    > obvious.
    >

    You are comparing apples and oranges.

    - There is no doubt about the eligibility of Crimean Tatar as a language (even though it is fairly close to Turkish, I have Crimean Tatar friends, who have absolutely no problems communicating with Turks from Turkey with each side using their respective mother tongues). At the same time, there is no serious doubt, that "Moldovan" is not a separate language from Romanian.
    - While Crimean Tatars are undoubtedly marginalized and fight hard to preserve their language and culture in a dominantly russophone environment on Crimea, the cultural integrity of Transnistrian Molodovan speakers is obviously not threatened by "right-wing Moldovans". The only records of linguistic conflict in Moldova I have are about the non-recognition of the Latin script by the Transnistrian authorities.
    - Following closure discussions, I have observed that when the linguistic status of a language is beyond doubt, the "mob" you cite did not show up. E.g. when the Chechen Wikipedia was nominated for closure. Many Russians unequivocally said that it must not be closed, even though we know that in Russia xenophobia and racism against Caucasians are rife.

    Fights are going on in all the Caucasian area, mostly officially based on
    > cultural/linguistic/religious differences (in practice on oil, money and
    > power, but that's another story). Tomorrow any of the Georgian area
    > languages may be requested for deletion by inflated mobs based on the same
    > issues. So, it is absolutely vital that we keep politics well away from this
    > issue while granting equal rights to all.
    >

    The difference being that there is absolutely now doubt about the existence of a Georgian language and script. The other difference being that, while Georgia is in conflict with some of its own minorities and with Russia, there is no such thing as a conflict between Moldova and ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria, but there is a conflict between Moldova and the breakaway government which is dominated by ethnic Russians. Which means that the conflict you refer to simply does not exist in this case.

    On the other hand we also have a difficult administrative situation. The
    > traffic on this wiki is low and it can hardly be expected to grow. I quote
    > from this document (
    > http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/6514/NGOs_CSOs_Moldova.pdf )
    > "NGOs and civic organizations in rural areas are highly isolated and lack
    > access to information. Many rural areas have very little access to
    > television or newspapers." Okay, this was 2001, but this also was about
    > Moldova, the situation in Transdnistria could only be worse and it cannot
    > have got much better. Meeting people from Transdnistria on the net is still
    > quite rare (no matter their political/linguistic views). The reason is
    > clear if you see these prices:
    > http://isp.idknet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=45for a simple slooow dial-up. 2$ for 5 hours may seem little money, but NOT
    > in a place where most people make 50$-100$/mo. It would be unrealistic to
    > expect a quick growth in native traffic, no matter the political views of
    > the locals.
    >

    I spent some time looking for any signs of life of a Transnistrian online community using Cyrillic Romanian/Moldovan. I did this by searching for the string "молдовеняскэ" which is both sufficiently unique and sufficiently likely to be used on Cyrillic Moldovan sites.

    I found a single site, which was the Moldovan section of the official website of the breakaway republic. Apart from that, all other hits were Russian language websites, which made bibliographic reference to publications from the Soviet era.

    The complete absense of Moldovan Cyrillic from the Web cannot be fully explained by the high cost of Internet access. I cannot but conclude that the main reason is that usage of Cyrillic for Romanian/Moldovan in Transnistria is a matter of coercion and not something which people would be doing as a matter of choice. Therefore I would not expect them to cue up to volunteer for a Cyrillic Moldovan Wikipedia.

    Caveat: Some of what I am writing is based on speculation. I am always ready to change my mind if presented with compelling facts, such as, say, two Transnistrians expressing their demand for a Cyrillic Moldovan Wikipedia edition. However, I severely doubt that this is going to happen.

  3. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    11 December 2007 09:51

    Duly noted.

    Anyway, as I previously stated for the OTA issue, I won't accept "speculations" as data. All of us have our own speculations, but that's no grounds to make any decision. There IS one place on earth where this language (no matter how far from/close to standard Rumanian it can be) is used with Cyrillic script in schools. This language has a valid ISO code and it is labeled as "living". This IS official data. The rest is our impressions and in the absence of official data to support them they simply don't count.

    Let's be VERY clear. We speak about a translit, not about an independent edition. It's a two way access to a single repository. It will be the Rumanians/Moldavians/Transdnistrians/Pridnestrovians (or whatever people want to call themselves) managing it, all of them together. No matter what script they like better, since they will have no way to know who is writing in which one.

    When a potential "living" public exists we are bound to give them all the content we can give and in this peculiar situation a translit is a wonderful way to achieve the result while cutting the war short at the very same time. A publisher who can distribute two editions with the same money it takes to make one would be a fairly stupid publisher if he lost the chance. I haven't seen THIS in the discussion on meta, although it should have been quite an obvious logical outcome given that "they are the same language with just a different script". I have to conclude that the discussion was either wasted by silly politics or stupid (in strict industrial terms).

  4. Mark Williamson (node ue) guest
    11 December 2007 02:33

    Alright Johannes, if it can't be explained by the high cost of internet access, where are all the pages in Latin letters by Transnistrian Moldovans? Oh wait, there aren't any of those either! This has been hashed and rehashed and the simple fact here is you are wrong in most of your arguments.

  5. Johannes Rohr guest
    11 December 2007 02:54

    2007/12/11, Mark Williamson <<email address censored>>:
    >
    > Alright Johannes, if it can't be explained by the high cost of
    > internet access, where are all the pages in Latin letters by
    > Transnistrian Moldovans? Oh wait, there aren't any of those either!

    [...]

    Who says so? How did you determine that?

  6. Johannes Rohr guest
    11 December 2007 12:27

    Berto 'd Sera schrieb:
    >
    > Duly noted.
    >
    > Anyway, as I previously stated for the OTA issue, I won’t accept
    > “speculations” as data. All of us have our own speculations, but
    > that’s no grounds to make any decision.
    >

    I disagree that what I wrote was entirely speculative. That there is no Cyrillic-Moldovan online community is can be, as I pointed out earlier, stated with very high confidence. Further it is factual that I have not seen any expressions of consumer demand for a Cyrillic Moldovan Wikipedia edition. And no participant in the debate has provided any such evidence.

    >
    > There IS one place on earth where this language (no matter how far
    > from/close to standard Rumanian it can be) is used with Cyrillic
    > script in schools. This language has a valid ISO code and it is
    > labeled as “living”. This IS official data. The rest is our
    > impressions and in the absence of official data to support them they
    > simply don’t count.
    >

    I don't think that ISO codes should be used as a substitute for elementary logic. Let's have look at the above and at the following paragraph...

    >
    > Let’s be VERY clear. We speak about a translit, not about an
    > independent edition.
    >

    ... So here we have two contradictory statements, which cannot be true at the same time:

    Either

    - Moldovan /is/ a distinct language. In this case it deserves its own, separate Wiki and translation, not transliteration is required; or
    - it is /not/ a distinct language and simply an alias for Romanian. Only in this case a transliteration will deliver meaningful results.

    If the latter is true, the fact that there is an ISO code has no significance. Btw: ethnologue.com has mapped mo to rum, i.e. they clearly state that Moldavian (the language, not the dialect) is identical to Romanian.

    http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_iso639.asp?code=mo

    So if you take the policy of obeying to official sources serious, mo.wikipedia.org should redirect to ro.

    >
    > It’s a two way access to a single repository. It will be the
    > Rumanians/Moldavians/Transdnistrians/Pridnestrovians (or whatever
    > people want to call themselves) managing it, all of them together. No
    > matter what script they like better, since they will have no way to
    > know who is writing in which one.
    >
    > When a potential “living” public exists we are bound to give them all
    > the content we can give and in this peculiar situation a translit is a
    > wonderful way to achieve the result while cutting the war short at the
    > very same time. A publisher who can distribute two editions with the
    > same money it takes to make one would be a fairly stupid publisher if
    > he lost the chance.
    >
    >

    Is my impression completely wrong that you have made this a matter of principle? I think we are all aware that a Cyrillic Moldovan "mirror" will have no practical value, as it will have neither an audience nor contributors. Therefore I feel that the man hours required to get such a solution up and running should be better invested elsewhere. When it even takes ages to have a simple new Wiki without and addional bells and whistles set up (still waiting for the Lower Sorbian Wiki to be created), I don't think that it is justified to waste this precious resource just to make a point. Also, I feel that the language subcommittee could use their precious time in a more useful way, including faster processing of requests for new language. E.g. Low Saxon Wikisource, which has already accumulated a plethora of source text and has full localisation, but is still waiting for conditional approval after many months.

  7. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    11 December 2007 22:32

    Hi!

    According to ISO it IS a distinct language, according to policy (which is automatic on ISO codes) it has the right to have a wiki. This is the letter of the law. You may not like the policy, but that's not in discussion. It's your POV and you are welcome to have it, yet it's no grounds for a decision.

    As always in the past, if and when people do not like industrial standards they are welcome to apply for a modification in proper places. I find it ridiculous that local networks should have a 192.168.x.x IP or that local domains should be called WWW.EXAMPLE instead of "WWW.INTERNAL-ONLY". Yet this doesn't give me the power to invent new codes on my own, if I want to remain consistent with the rest of the planet. Standards are not synonym for perfection, they simply are standards. If they are wrong, anyone should go where standards are ruled and ask for a modification (i.e. NOT HERE).

    In industrial terms, we have a way to deliver two wikies from the same set of human resources, which is what is being proposed. The WMF sells content in exchange for volunteer funding, we get funding because we are BIG, so the bigger we are, the better for the WMF wallet, as long as this growth is sustainable.

    Give me one valid reason why it would be wrong in industrial terms to publish one more wiki that would immediately managed with existing human resources and no increase in HR needs and also filled up with content since the very beginning.

    That's unless you think that content on ro.wiki is bad in principle and shouldn't be given more exposition than it has at the moment. Such a view would need an NPOV motivation, though.

  8. Johannes Rohr guest
    11 December 2007 23:21

    2007/12/11, Berto 'd Sera <<email address censored>>:
    >
    > Hi!
    >
    > According to ISO it IS a distinct language, according to policy (which is
    > automatic on ISO codes) it has the right to have a wiki. This is the letter
    > of the law. You may not like the policy, but that's not in discussion. It's
    > your POV and you are welcome to have it, yet it's no grounds for a decision.

    What you call "your POV" is simply the scholarly consensus on the topic. Even the Moldovan Academy of Sciences does not dispute that Moldovan is Romanian (despite the fact that Moldovan lawmakers have always upheld the different name). Anyway, this would be a ridiculous thing to dispute the identity of Romanian and Moldavian when you use the same vocabulary and grammar. And as I noted before, Ethnologue.com has acknowledged this and mapped the mo code to Romanian.

    Furthermore, as noted earlier, if is was a distinct language, you would need translation, not transliteration. What is your response to this?

    Please provide links to the ISO information. I cannot find it.

    After all, I do not care too much about this topic. I'm just struck by surprise by the fact that several members of langcom appear determined to invest considerable time into a project, which has no community and no audience, while failing to process an ever larger pile of requests from real communities which generate real and valuable original content.

  9. Sabine Cretella
    17 December 2007 20:34

    As you please might note http://sil.org is the official maintainer of the ISO 639-3 standard.

    Further information on Moldovan can be found here: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=mol

    If scolary consenus is as you state, of course you may go ahead and ask for changes with http://sil.org

    The 2007 series of change requests is now closed and by the middle of January we will know which changes will apply.

    Further information on the how-to and deadlines can be found here: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/default.asp

    I hope this helps.

    Best, Sabine

  10. Jon Harald Søby
    18 December 2007 05:15

    Be aware that it also is SIL that operates Ethnologue. And if you see here, Ethnologue edition 15 has nothing<http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mol>on Moldovan, while edition 14 unambiguously states that is is the same <http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=RUM> as Romanian.

Wikinews Finnish

edit

The request for a Finnish Wikinews was approved.

  1. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    12 November 2007 20:17

    Hello,

    I propose the approval of the Finnish Wikinews. The community is very active, the interface is thoroughly translated, and all other criteria have been met. You can see statistics and details at <http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Status/wn-fi>, and the request at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Finnish>.

  2. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    12 November 2007 20:22

    Ok 4 me

  3. Arria Belli (Maria Fanucchi)
    12 November 2007 20:46

    Support as well. It looks like they got a kick-start for the project right after the Jokela shooting. Hopefully they will stay that motivated.

  4. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    12 November 2007 20:54

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  5. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    12 November 2007 21:05

    It would definitely make sense for them to get all the stats they can and to make a deal with their wiki to avoid duplications. This where you’ll see whether they are good “news people” or not :-)

  6. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    CC Erik Möller (Executive Secretary)
    16 November 2007 02:21

    Hello Erik,

    The language subcommittee recommends the creation of a Finnish Wikinews. Further information can be found by following the links below. The wiki will be approved and created if the board does not object within four days, as previously agreed and described in our charter.

    More information:

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages/Archives/2007-11#Wikinews_Finnish

  7. Erik Möller (Eloquence) Executive Secretary
    16 January 2008 00:02

    Thank you Jesse!

  8. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    21 November 2007 02:10

    Approved.

Wikipedia Lower Sorbian

edit

The second request for a Lower Sorbian Wikipedia was approved.

  1. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    21 November 2007 19:01

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  2. Shanel Kalicharan
    22 November 2007 00:11

    It's ready for final approval, I think.

  3. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    22 November 2007 15:41

    ok

  4. Jon Harald Søby
    23 November 2007 13:15

    I agree. All-in.

  5. Shanel Kalicharan
    02 December 2007 08:01

    Hello,

    Since nobody has objected in 9 days, I went ahead and gave the project final approval. I also filed a bug (my first, yay).

Wikipedia Classical Japanese

edit

The second request for a Classical Japanese Wikipedia was rejected.

  1. Arria Belli (Maria Fanucchi)
    22 November 2007 18:30

    What should we do with Classical Japanese ( http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/jpn-classical and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Classical_Japanese_2)? They've been waiting for a while. As far as I can tell, there's really only one user active on the incubator, and there seem to be ISO problems... so... if we can, it would be nice to make a decision and end the wait.

  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    22 November 2007 18:41

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  3. Sabine Cretella
    27 November 2007 18:42

    Well, the ISO 639-3 code stands for Old Japanese

    http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=ojp

    and according to the connected link on linguistlist.org

    http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/LLDescription.cfm?code=ojp

    it refers to exactly the same period mentioned in the request.

    This means that if this guy gets the UI localized and a small community working: they can have their wikipedia like Latin has it.

    So I would go for a conditional approval.

  4. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    28 November 2007 07:05

    Hi!

    We just refused Ottoman Turkish based on the same premises. If we say yes to Japanese then we have to say yes to OTA, too. It's the both or none.

  5. Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
    16 January 2008 02:37

    Hello,

    If there's no objection within 48 hours I'll mark the request for a Classical Japanese Wikipedia as rejected using the same text as we used for Ottoman Turkish.

  6. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    15 January 2008 21:59

    Ok 4 me

Wikipedia Central Morocco Tamazight

edit

No decision was taken on the request for a Central Morocco Tamazight Wikipedia.

  1. Arria Belli (Maria Fanucchi)
    22 November 2007 18:45

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Central_Morocco_Tamazight

    I'm not sure what to think of this one. There is no Tamazight Wikipedia, and they want a WP in a regional dialect of it, with a shaky grasp of what to do with the spelling/alphabet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Morocco_Tamazight says that there is no ISO 639-1 code, and the -2 code is the same as for Berber in general, ber.

  2. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    22 November 2007 18:50

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

Wikipedia Orang Seletar

edit

No decision was reached on the request for a Orang Seletar Wikipedia.

  1. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    24 November 2007 12:43

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  2. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    24 November 2007 19:25

    Hoi!

    Yep, quite a problem here. This page http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ora actually describes another language, so probably you (they?) meant ORS http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ors

    I’m quite dubious that such a project may lead anywhere, because the number of connected native speakers should be quite low. Anyway, the code is legal and if they can prove to be efficient in the incubator… even if not, it may be worth leaving the incubator pages open for a very long time. After all, if this language goes extinct it may well be the only written documentation left for it.

  3. Jon Harald Søby
    24 November 2007 21:15

    Only one or two dedicated people are necessary to make a great resource for a language so small. I'm just guessing here, but 100 articles in a Wikipedia in this language will probably multiply the amount of content in the language available anywhere. So provided they are able to meet our usual requirements for new projects, I'm inclined to approve it.

    2007/11/24, GerardM <<email address censored>>: <this text is quoted from a user who has not agreed to public archival.>

Wikisource Volapük

edit

No decision was taken on the request for a Volapük Wikisource.

  1. Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
    24 November 2007 12:55

    <this user has not agreed to public archival.>

  2. Bèrto 'd Sèra
    25 November 2007 10:18

    The wiki is alive. One may object that it’s not a “real wiki” but it’s still more active than most so called “real wikies”. So why not, if they (he) can do good with the prerequisites?

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_committee/Archives/2007-11&oldid=25035657"