Meta talk:Language proposal policy/Archives/2009

Latest comment: 11 years ago by in topic Unfair policy

Prekmurian WIkipedia

Hi. We try to make a new proposal, but our en:Prekmurian dialect has no ISO code yet. What is the procedure? We also think it could pass other conditions. --Janezdrilc 19:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What if someone wants to create a wiki encyclopedia in a language that "someone created in school one day"?

Where should one go for that? 04:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe,, etc. a en:Wiki farm. Some sites do not explicitly allow this, but The Rules Of Wikipedia aren't there.

Protest of rule banning simple-language Wikipedias

Why is English given special treatment with a "simple" wiki? Why not allow "simple" language wikis in languages other than English? Rickyrab 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(The following items have been copied from the archive for 2008.)

Thanks for your reply. The difference here is that Esperanto has a valid ISO 639 language code, while the expression "simple", besides being invalid, is at least ambiguous (it also works in French and Spanish). Further comments? Lwyx 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Simple-language wikis are not eligible under the current policy, but that policy only applies to requests for new wikis. Existing wikis are not affected. —Pathoschild 18:20:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(End copied items from 2008 archive)

Is there any real reason for banning simple language wikis, other than "We already do it"? That sounds suspiciously like "WP:ILIKEIT" (look it up in the English Wikipedia). Where does one go to suggest changes to current policy? Is the page for a new policy still active, or has it been archived? Rickyrab 05:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes; see Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia and Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English (2) Wikipedia. IMO, without a clear target audience and without a clear definition of what makes a language Simple, they're pointless forks.--Prosfilaes 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to the discussion that took place before the simple wiki proposals were banned

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could give me a link to where this discussion took place. So that I can see the arguements put forward for its acceptance and implementation. Thanks, --Île flottant 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfair policy

It is not fair to say "existing wikis are not affected by new policies" so there is a ancient gothic language with no native speakers a anglo-saxon-wiki with no native speakers and a latin wiki with barely native speakers and most of the editors are other language natives and only interested into classics. so the most important language for european culture, ancient greece, is ignored for years now. the incubator project is a beginning, but same right should affect all wikis, not only the new ones. every person who has only a slightest bit of knowledge about ancient history, knows that ancient greece is as important as latin, the influence on european culture and languages is incredible. I assume there are some people from the Modern Greek wiki who do not want to split it up, but it is necessary. it does not fit into the modern greek wiki as anglo-saxon texts do not fit into the english wiki. I am very sad about the lack in knowledge about the importance of ancient greece in all western cultures. --Clayman0 12:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you rather have it that projects like the Latin, the Esperanto Wikipedia are ended because of your sense of fairness ? Thanks, GerardM 11:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem goes much farther: For instance, I have been banned from the Bavarian Wikipedia because of my Bavarian Book Language, a historizing project based on the Bavarian of approximatety 1500-1800, to be pronounced according to present dialects, i. e. regionally differently. What now? Moreover, the major problem is that the main antagonists are by no means responsive; they are anonymous, gone with the wind ... Hellsepp 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There is clearly a double-standard and lack of consistency here, not to mention pettiness. The case for a Gothic wikipedia is evidently less defensible than that for an Ancient Greek wikipedia, given each's relative importance in the very culture that has given rise to wikipedia in the first place. And it is to be observed that this is true even if a Gothic wikipedia is a valuable one which must stay. The decision against the Ancient Greek wiki rests on an arbitrary rule applying to all new wiki projects, which is hardly fair, as has been noted above - however this fairness should be construed in a pointless hypothetical scenario. It is very petty to enforce a cut-off date beyond which no language, despite its justifiable importance relative to the others already existing, should be allowed to be created. I don't think Clayman was advocating the dissolution of those above-mentioned languages; but that if those languages should be allowed to stay, and indeed do add value to wikipedia generally, it is absurd to rule out one such important language as Ancient Greek on the grounds of administrative pedantry - an arbtirary time-rule - then cry out that these other languages should stay - god forbid they should suffer from the same beaucratic hubris - leaving a certain language - no less important and offering scope for many great things - to be tossed aside as of less importance and as being beneath the regard of wikipedia generally. And what a loss it is to a project which is clearly in debt to the achievements of this language. For Ancient Greek is without doubt a language of scholarship, and the people in power in this project, which clearly makes pretences at scholarship, apparently rub their nose at the language. I'm baffled at such pedantry and self-importance. Perhaps I should take up Anglo Saxon in order to satisfy my illogical desire for moribund appendages to wikipedia. And perhaps also I should found a new city with a handful of citizens speaking passable Ancient Greek so that the administrative pedants here can tick the box for 'living, and not historical, language'. Of course, I will be sure not to create the city after 2 o'clock so as not to upset any chronological fastidiousness. 07:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is it necessary that a new language have sufficient speakers? Sufficient for what exactly? The worst that can happen is that the new Wikinews language will rarely have any new articles, which is already the case for half of the existing Wikinews languages, and I don't see anyone complaining. Why should it bother someone that an Ancient Greek Wikinews isn't active enough? Why not just let those who are interested in starting such a project go ahead and do it? If they want to invest their time in community-based collaboration, why stand in their way?
Return to the project page "Language proposal policy/Archives/2009".