Talk:Language committee

Active discussions
Language committee (contact page about requests)

Please add any questions or feedback to the language committee here on this page.

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

Archives of this page

2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013
2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020

See also: Requests for new languages/Archives

Kotava WikipediaEdit

@Jon Harald Søby, @James Heilman

The WP:Kotava project was launched in the Incubator more than two years ago. There has been regular and significant activity for over last twelve months, with about 10-12 active contributors each month. To date, it has 5469 articles (see Catanalysis) , making it the most dynamic and consistent project of all projects in the Incubator. And to quote his main administrator: This project is actually one of the best, highest-quality, most serious projects I have seen in my three years [...] as a sysop on Incubator.

The project meets all the requirements of the policy, and we have patiently fulfilled all the conditions and respected the procedures defined by the Langcom.

A discussion on the public mailing-list sept- nov- was launched on September 26th for its final approval. Three members of Langcom spoke explicitly for, and none of the titular members expressed opposition. I personally responded, through the members who answered me, to the legitimate questions raised in the discussion.

At a time, I was even asked to validate the namespaces of the project, which I did willingly and without delay.

But since then, nothing! It has been more than two months since nothing came of it, even though six other projects, much less advanced, were validated at the same time, and some after short and formal discussions.

I perceive in this bogging a kind of disdain that does not say its name, even a contempt for the kotavusik community which, even if it is small and does not meet the codes of pseudo-specialists in constructed languages, reveals its involvement, its linguistic mastery and its ability to produce quality encyclopedic work.

I'm asking for things to be unlocked. And if there is a surreptitious problem in the functioning of Langcom, at least the Wikimedia board is informed.

Personally, I am ready to make further and further clarifications (although I have the feeling that everything has already been said and produced on several occasions) that the full members of Langcom may wish.

Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC) (test administrator of WP Kotava project)

"disdain that does not say its name"? Is that a reference to "w:The love that dare not speak its name"? It seems like a poorly chosen phrase.
Yes, obscure conlangs are hard sells, for reason that can be well-explained, and don't deserve such sarcasm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Axel xadolik: Are you really from langcom? If not, please do not use clauses like "Notification about proposed approval of", but "Request for approval of Kotava..." instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The topic is still under discussion in Langcom. --MF-W 19:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Jon Harald Søby, @James Heilman, @MF-Warburg:
Where is this discussion? Nothing seems to have changed... the silence that is reserved for the reprobate people, the unworthy... but unworthy of what?
Today, the project has 6003 articles (ie more than many official WP, it would even be in 170th place, out of 309), and once again more than 10 active contributors this month. Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I am sure that MF-W will let use know. Ping me in a couple of weeks if you still do not hear anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Hello James, nothing is changed since your last message. So I'm asking you to intervene. Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Les choses sont désespérantes. Le WP Kotava projet est le plus beau projet en développement dans l'Incubator (6700 articles, 10-12 contributeurs actifs tous les mois depuis plus d'un an, des articles originaux de qualité, systématiquement sourcés, etc.). Dans la discussion lancée en septembre 2019, 3 membres du Langcom ont voté pour, et aucun contre. Mais depuis, il ne se passe plus rien, le résultat de ce vote est absolument ignoré, mais cela semble ne gêner personne ! Est-ce cela l'esprit collaboratif de Wikipedia ? Qui bloque le processus et pour quelles raisons avouables ?
@Doc James:, @Jon Harald Søby:, @MF-Warburg: forgive me for being publicly direct, but I appeal to you who are the only members of Langcom who are somewhat actively overseeing the projects being developed in the Incubator. You have the power to validate the project, so please do so.
Regards. Axel xadolik (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Supposedly was discussed at in the private Wiki. Would someone be so kind as to give me access? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
--- @Doc James:, @Jon Harald Søby:, @MF-Warburg: I am renewing my request because things are still not moving forward. Where are the discussions going? The project is actively continuing and it would finally be time to validate it. Thank you for your answers and replies. Axel xadolik (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
--- @Doc James:, @Jon Harald Søby:, @MF-Warburg: and all. The Kotava project continues, however. If you compare with the other constructed languages present and already accepted on Wikipedia, its activity places it in second place, behind Esperanto but far ahead of Volapük, Ido, Interlingua and others. For many months.See here the statistics that show this. And below, just the table for the month of February 2020. Where and what are the objective arguments for not admitting this project? Axel xadolik (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Tokdume bewik ke bata neda va konedina dusiva is tazukoyena erura me dulzad ? (Why the members of this committee do not answer to the arguments presented and the requests that are made?) Biscuit 26507 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Biscuit 26507: Because they are still discussing privately on this topic, no results are available from now on unless and until their intranet discussions done. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Bewik ke bata neda, adim dulzec !! (Members of this committee, answer, at last!). Biscuit 26507 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jon Harald Søby: Still no news? Biscuit 26507 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Jon Harald Søby, @James Heilman, @MF-Warburg:
Project Kotava has just reached 10,000 articles. All the criteria required for its approval have been fulfilled for a long time. What do you think? Nevatovol (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for approval of Kotava WikipediaEdit

Amir E. Aharoni, Antony D. Green, Maor Malul, Gerard Meijssen, Jon Harald Søby, Karen Broome, Kimberli Mäkäräinen, MF-Warburg, Michael Everson, Milos Rancic, Robin Pepermans, Satdeep Gill, Steven White, James Heilman : I don't understand why this project is still not validated or approved. It counts almost 8000 articles, in a wide variety of fields (literature, painting, mammals, ornithology, Africa, etc.), and many very active contributors over the last two years, and a great deal of attention has been done to the presentation of the articles, links and sources.

This project is already much more active than other already accepted languages such as Friulan, Maltese, Ladino, Ligurian, Corsican, Sardinian or Lingua Franca Nova.

The project largely meets all the criteria required in the recommendations.

When will this approval take place? Thank you for your answers. ClaudiaVisentini (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@ClaudiaVisentini: Doubtful, as that language request doesn't judged as eligible, for an on hold proposal, it's likely to wait for up to 5 years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Liuxinyu970226, several remarks:
  • 1) Why would the Kotava be less eligible than the Lingua Franca Nova or the Novial?
  • 2) Where are the reasons for this 5-year purgatory?
  • 3) Why does no member of this committee, which has the right of life and death over a language and the work of dozens of contributors, answer? ClaudiaVisentini (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@ClaudiaVisentini: Well, the first question is confusing because as of now, nobody says that your language is "less eligible" than others, langcom members are privately (i.e. they discuss the entire Kotava-related issues on their own private mailing list) discussing the eligibility. The second question maybe also. For the third, asking Commons might be better. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: If I well understand what you're saying, I conclude that:
  • This committee actually operates as a secret committee, and that its "real" discussions are private and therefore no one can really know how decisions are made. A good example of transparency!
  • The famous criteria put forward on the face of the world are just here to give the impression of objective processes. As in political matters, finally.
  • The members of this committee have too much to do to answer to ordinary contributors and explain their decisions or non-decisions.
Sad conclusions. ClaudiaVisentini (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ClaudiaVisentini: Because they only privately discuss stuffs when they have benefits to do so, to which your issues are meeting their criterias, this is the reason why I don't have interests in joining them, since I rather like to have no sensitive things. In many times, questions other than yours are publicly answered, though. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Acum tire bata neda aun levgorar, me konedison va geltrafa flidera pu kotrafa doda ? Vol lité da batcoba tir rapalackafa gu dalaf nelkoteem ke Wikimedia. Tokdume ? (So this committee actually makes its decisions privately, in secret, without exposing the actual discussions to the whole community? I don't think that's very much in accordance with the main principles of Wikimedia. Why is that?) Biscuit 26507 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Biscuit 26507: Well, I'm not saying that "the langcom discuss the eligibility privately", I'm just saying that your matter should be discussed privately, okay? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Me, me gildá dume prilara me tid sanegafa, dume bat zolonarsaf bewik kivad da va tirka co muxad. Voxen rin, larde maneke lanepeson pulvil, pune kas va bata yasegafa vexala ronovansal ? Kre lidecké da ewarurapa tir.
(No, I do not understand why the discussions are not public, why these overly important members are afraid to express a position publicly. And you, do you have access to this private list to speak with such certainty? I have more feeling of a great offhandedness.) Biscuit 26507 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@AEA, ADG, MM, GM, JHS, KB, KM, MFW, ME, MR, RP, SG, SW, JH : Tokdume meka dulzera ke kon bewik ke bata neda tir ? Tokdume abdumimaks gan winafa ebeltafa neda zo levlanzar ? Toklize sanegafa atatcera is remawira ke dusiveem tigid ?
(Why is there no response from any member of this committee? Why is this project blacklisted by your dark committee? Where are the public debate and the transparency of the arguments?). Biscuit 26507 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Biscuit 26507: Patience, please. It is not blacklisted, but it has taken a bit of time to discuss it. You'll hear from us soon. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jon Harald Søby: Va keuca, va keuca... Batcoba tir axafa dusiva. Mali konak aksat ikz- bat abdumimaks gan lo 10 webesik tegison zo linter. Kas naleteson kec da 10000 teliz di tid ? Edeme, toka mijepesa flidera elokasa va abduaxa tid ? Malgildeteson oblakafenkupú isen kotar webesik milinde askid.
(Patience, patience... That's a bit of a narrow argument. This project has been actively pursued for months and months by more than 10 contributors. Are you waiting for 10,000 articles to validate it? If not, what are the so disputed discussions that are blocking the process? My ears and those of all the other contributors are widely open to hear you.) Biscuit 26507 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jon Harald Søby: Golde rin banvielu grupé va "tålmodighet" ravlem. Tokon "keuca tiskipisa dum miel arte Lentefa Evilma" co kalil?
(Thanks to you I now know this word "tålmodighet". How would you say, "patience as long as a night at the North Cape"?) Biscuit 26507 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for approval of Walloon WikisourceEdit

Do you consider this request premature? Since 2018 I have gathered information to see if the project is viable, and it is in my opinion. I think the project ready to continue on its own subdomain, even if there are few active users. I notify walloon users who are interested by this request and so that they give their opinion : @Lucyin, Srtxg, Èl-Gueuye-Noere, and Athelsatn: Greetings, Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "you gathered information to see if the project is viable"? I would be interested in the details of this information. --MF-W 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
To my mind, a such project is viable if there are enough texts to transcribe. If you only have ten authors who wrote a hundred texts into a regional language, I don't think it's necessary to deploy a new branch of Wikisource to transcribe these texts, the old Wikisource seems to be a good place to host them, or, in the case of Walloon language the French subdomain, considering that (almost) all Walloon speakers has French as native language nowadays. But here, we have a regional language with many hundred texts to transcribe, with some schools that teach Walloon (as the Walloon school of Namur), and some authors who still write in Walloon in magazines (Singuliers, El mouchon d’Aunias, Li Rantoele) or publish new books (Lucyin Mahin, Li batreye des cwate vints) in 2020. This means that we'll have work for more decades and this is what I mean by viable. I hope answered the question. Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this Wikisource is ready. I've been monitoring this and it has been active since May 2018. Some months more active than the others, but it never fell inactive. Catanalysis is an underrepresentation due to incomplete categorization. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks OWTB! Are there maybe some other categories which I could look at in catanalysis as well to get a better impression of the activity? --MF-W 20:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I am writing to tell you that, such as @Reptilien.19831209BE1 precised earlier, I am in favour of an Independent Walloon Wikisource (whose name would be : Wikisourd). They are actually many works that need to be transcribed, this amount of work will permit us to be (certainly) a big independent Wikisource. Furthermore, in two months, the Walloon Wikisource has passed from 600 to 820 articles. That is to say that by the end of the year the Walloon Wikisource would surely have, at least 1,000 articles. However, some independent Wikisources in other languages have less articles than Walloon one. Moreover, the other Walloon Wikimedia projects are all the rage (i.e.: there are quite a lot of contributions for small projects).
All these are the major reasons that explain why the Wikimedia Foundation should create an independent Walloon Wikisource. If you want further explainations, please, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
--Èl-Gueuye-Noere (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I am very interested in this project,and will add a lot of own texts as a Walloon language writer, but also many others I and different friends published in different magazines, like wa:Coutcouloudjoû, wa:Li Rantoele and wa:Singuliers, as well as on my Web-magazine.
--Lucyin (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MF-W: It is mainly uncategorized subpages and talk pages (such as [1]). Checking again, it looks like categorization improved substantially recently, which is a good sign. (Any left-overs can easily be traced back via user contribs after the first export is deleted.) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

According to what is currently visible through Catanalysis, it does not quite yet look ready to me, but could very well be so in one or two months [other langcom members don't disagree, at least, given that my mail with this content did not receive objections [2]). --MF-W 18:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

اللغة العربية البحرانيةEdit

يوجد الكثير من الناس التي تتكلم اللهجة البحرانية في العراق و البحرين و السعودية و حتى الكويت

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]])

So... ? --MF-W 13:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: Per Google translate tool, it seems that this user want to restart Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Bahrani Arabic? As it tells me "There are many people who speak Bahrani dialect in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even Kuwait". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Approval of Central Bikol WiktionaryEdit

Hello! What are the requirements we still need to comply to get an approval for the Central Bikol Wiktionary. Thank you! Dang Brazal (Talk) 16:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there should be several months of continuous activity (from 3+ users) on Incubator, as well as an active interface translation process on --MF-W 18:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to elaborate on requisite for eligibility #4 (classical languages, revisited)Edit

Some time ago, I made a suggestion to change the fourth requirement for language proposals, which can be seen here: Talk:Language_committee/2017#Proposal_to_alter_requisite_for_eligibility_#4 I'm glad to see that some fine-tuning has been done, and I think the current version of Language_proposal_policy#Requisites is better; particularly the change in wording which permits fluent L2 speakers in addition to L1 (I also think allowing BCP 47 codes is a good idea).

However, there's still a point of ambiguity: what is the policy on classical languages for Wikipedia? the Latin wiki is quite successful, as is the Classical Chinese wiki. However, I've seen proposals for other classical/historical languages end up languishing in incubator, or even being rejected, and that in spite of viability, communal support, distinct orthography, and well-developed literature. Currently, there is a special condition for conlangs, namely a 'reasonable degree of recognition' comprised of various factors. I propose that another special condition be added for classical/historical languages; this condition might include a pool of speakers, communal support, literature, established orthography, distinctiveness, and current usage. I think this would be very productive, finally allowing long-delayed projects to come to fruition, and would help sort out requests. Of course, I wouldn't want just any historical language approved, just as not every conlang is eligible. But creating a classical standard, in addition to the conlang standard, would be a significant improvement.

Thanks for your consideration. Xcalibur (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

tl;dr: the above is a proposal to add a condition allowing for Wikipedias in classical/historical languages in addition to conlangs. Xcalibur (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your standards of "quite successful" are very different from mine; I'd classify the Classical Chinese Wikipedia as one of the Wikipedias that for literally no one is the best Wikipedia to turn to on literally any subject. Without the justification of supporting native languages, it seems the vast majority of classical language Wikis are of no value to Wikimedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
the Classical Chinese Wikipedia has an active community, a decent amount of content, and lots of depth for its size. it fills a niche, and it's successful. the same can be said of the Sanskrit Wikipedia, another ancient language with a living community which has proven itself viable. the Latin Wikipedia, although it wouldn't be approved now, is comparable to Norwegian and Tamil in stats. Granted, Gothic and Old English are unnecessary; not every historical language should be approved. but the examples I've given are proof of concept -- classical languages are viable for Wikipedia, and this should be properly accommodated. Xcalibur (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It fills what niche? My standard is, does it provide a encyclopedia that anyone would actually look up something in. This is different from native languages, where there's value in providing an encyclopedia in the language, even if in practice users will use a different Wikipedia. I don't see any evidence that Classical Chinese ever provides a better source than the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia. (I doubt there's many who could use the Classical Chinese Wikipedia who can't read Mandarin, but the Korean and Japanese Wikipedias aren't slouches either.) And Sanskrit, Latin, Ancient Greek and Classical Chinese are pretty much the complete list of classical languages that might have value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I could see where someone might prefer a classical language, especially when there are communities keeping them alive, and they're highly relevant to scholarly pursuits. I'm glad you agree with me on Ancient Greek, it's stuck in the incubator and has been delayed for years, in spite of a high degree of support. to that list, I would also add Classical Japanese. there may be a few more viable options out there as well. Xcalibur (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
They're not highly relevant to scholarly pursuits; nobody publishes in ancient languages any more. I don't agree necessarily that Ancient Greek Wikipedia should become a thing, but I do think it should get a clear yes or no.
Classical Japanese violates one of my major rules about classical languages, in that they must be multicultural. Classical Japanese doesn't bring anyone to the table who can't already contribute to the Japanese wikis. There is no one language that speakers of any of the languages I mentioned above all know, though I'm not sure about how many non-Mandarin readers know Classical Chinese. The biggest argument for the Latin Wikipedia IMO is that it still brings together a broad spectrum of speakers with no common languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
nobody publishes in ancient languages any more hehe. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A wiki is not publication; publication involves some sense of permanence. And by the context of "scholarly pursuits", I was clearly talking about academic publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say Wikipedia is a publisher, albeit one that functions differently from typical brick-and-mortar publishers.
they are in fact relevant, with lots of people studying them, a significant literature, and active use to this day; this is especially true of Ancient Greek. international appeal is an issue, but a relatively minor one in my view. Classical Chinese was once a scholarly lingua franca throughout the Far East (similar to Latin in the West) until the early 20th century, and is still influential for that reason. Likewise, Classical Japanese had official sanction until the early 20th century, and is still used in some contexts. all languages mentioned have a very significant literature. while bungo may seem a bit narrow, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of people worldwide to study and contribute in a notable classical language. for the Japanese in particular, bungo may help fill a niche and attract new contributors who prefer it to the modern standard. overall I see plenty of potential here. Xcalibur (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The ability to "attract new contributors who prefer it to the modern standard" is much stronger for Simple Spanish or Conservative English than Classical Japanese. This type of splitting of contributors to projects that don't actually represent distinct native languages of speakers, or even conlangs or ancient languages that can form a interlanguage between two speakers otherwise ignorant of any common language, is something Wikimedia has discouraged.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Simple Spanish sounds like a viable idea, especially since it's so common worldwide (in many ways second to English). I don't know what you mean by Conservative English, if you mean Appalachian English, that's too close of a dialect to work (as opposed to Scots, which is a viable WP despite being a close relative). the Old English WP was grandfathered in, and even that has an active community. If other classical languages had been approved years ago, they would be well along by now, and it's not too late. it wouldn't necessarily be a split, since it may pull in contributors who otherwise would not be involved. Also, you shouldn't underestimate the enthusiasm of people worldwide for learning and writing in classical languages. I still see Bungo as viable, and Ancient Greek even more so. Thus, my suggestion stands. Xcalibur (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It has been made quite clear that no new Simple Wikipedias are going to be opened. By Conservative English, I mean Conservapedia. Why does "too close of a dialect" matter? Unless you're talking about language community, and I don't regard Classical Japanese as having a different language community from Japanese. --Prosfilaes (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
that's fine, I'm not arguing for more Simple Wikipedias, although Simple English WP is undeniably successful. the problem with Conservapedia is that it's structured around a partisan perspective, which is beyond the scope of a general-purpose encyclopedia. Without getting into the larger debate over language vs dialect (an army & navy being relevant here), there should be enough of a difference so that mutual intelligibility is limited or partial at best (as is the case between ancient languages and their modern descendants). Language communities are one factor for consideration among others. For classical languages in particular, there is often a broader appeal, and the potential to pull in new contributors who would otherwise not be involved. Xcalibur (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, can Montenegrin be eligible?Edit

Although I don't speak this language, the recent discussions of Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5, which is on hold for 3 years, given me some brief informations that Montenegrin is enough independent from Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, maybe also from Slovenian and Macedonian. Many of the participators on that page told us that how Montenegrin can't coexist on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (shwiki) (eligibility rule #3), and by checking [3], I really can't believe that this kind of activities even can't fullfill #4 rule. Eventually, the first and second rules are already checked for years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: How exactly have many of the participators on that page told us that how Montenegrin can't coexist on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (shwiki)? I looked at that page a little while ago, and it was mostly arguments about "is Montenegrin really a different language." I didn't really see any evidence suggesting that Montenegrin really couldn't coexist on shwiki, and, in fact, when I asked if there was any evidence that the existing communities have prevented Montenegrins from having "free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge" on the current projects the response I got was simply "this expert should tell you whether Montenegrin is different or not," which simply took the discussion back to "is Montenegrin really that different" and not "is the existing Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia actively preventing users from using Montenegrin." On the latter point, I have not seen any specific evidence. DraconicDark (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prz rulez, Space2006, Цареник Костович, Kolega2357, and Ego and his own:@НиколаБ, BokicaK, Lujki, Biblbroks, and MirkoS18:@GregorB, RMN120501, ApcehCraft, Freemanmne, and Rovoobob:@Vogone and Kubura: any comments of the above? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Montenegrin has its own grammar, specific letters, stylish differences. If there is separate English and Simple English, Nynorsk and Bokmal Norwegian, Belarussian and Belarussian (Taraškevica), why not separate Montenegrin? If the Montenegrins want to keep and develop uniqueness of their language, it is in their best interest to write the articles themselves and to avoid any massive botocopying and like sh.project did. Kubura (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that the Simple English wikipedia and one of the two Belarussian wikipedias would not be opened now and exist only because they were opened before the current rules, it's not wise to cite them for opening your Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, nothing has changed in favor of establishment of a Montenegrin Wikipedia. I have nothing new to add on this topic, so.... --ΝικόλαςΜπ (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikisource LigurianEdit

Seems ready to go to me. Is there a reason why this hasn't graduated from s:mul: yet? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

+1, there was 3 users for the last 3 months, including one very active user (see stats), I also think this Wikisource is ready. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 12:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Below I will post the note of proposed approval. --MF-W 12:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. MF-W 12:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Turkish WikinewsEdit

This wiki is closed by community consensus. This raises a problem what whether it can simply be reopened by a new community consensus, or LPP must be followed.--GZWDer (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, that seems very theoretical. Second, the question should be asked, IF NEED BE, to developers on Phabricator (though I suppose the answer is affirmative ad primum, negative ad secundum), as the wiki was closed by them without langcom being involved. No idea what's up with the "We’ve had a message saying it’s okay from LangCom" comment there. --MF-W 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: But then, how to close Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Turkish Wikinews? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I closed it. --MF-W 18:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for approval of Igbo WiktionaryEdit

Hello Language Committee members. Please review Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Igbo for approval. Having reviewed proposals and reports from the Igbo Wikimedians User Group as well as other individuals on a number of Rapid Grants related to the project, a great deal of work has been put into building the project over the last year. See these reports for more information:

Ongoing work on Igbo Wiktionary continues to be supported through Rapid Grants as well:

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the Incubator project is not really active, with only one contributor so far in June, who made 2 edits. Apart from that, also the MediaWiki localisation requirements are not fulfilled, the most-used messages are not yet complete and there is no current activity on translatewiki:Portal:ig. --MF-W 11:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: Thanks for this feedback, this is helpful to understand what the next steps are and where we might be able recommend support. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to reassess the eligibility of Malay WikinewsEdit

Hello there. I as one of the active contributors now for Malay Wikinews, requested to reassess our eligibility to have own wiki for it. Please consider our request again for this project Requests for new languages/Wikinews Malay. Thank you! SNN95 (talk) - Vice President of WMCUGM 13:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@SNN95: Pardon, but is this an approval request, or you think the eligible status is premature? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Pardon me. This is an approval request. Because this project already in "verified as eligible" status for so long but there is no final decision yet from the community before me. So here I am, requesting the approval for this project to get its own wiki page. SNN95 (talk) - Vice President of WMCUGM 23:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that in this month of June, there has been good activity on the test-project. Please keep it up for several months, then it can be considered for approval. --MF-W 14:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: Thank you! We will try our best to keep it up. SNN95 (talk) - Vice President of WMCUGM 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Ligurian WikisourceEdit

Hi! Langcom intends to approve Ligurian Wikisource. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please tell us here on this page in the next seven days. --MF-W 12:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Insufficient activity, only two last months. Compare objectively with some projects far more advanced and more regular like wp.kotava which counts 10,000 articles and is waiting for two years. Biscuit 26507 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC) -- edit : now a simple weak oppose... Biscuit 26507 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's at least three. --MF-W 15:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Biscuit 26507: you can't compare a Wikisource project and a Wikipedia project, that's two totally different dynamics. On a Wikipedia, you write and rewrite (and therefore, you need to know the language) on a Wikisource you just copy one time published texts (and don't really need to know the language). On a Wikipedia, 10 people is a very small community and it can be hard to manage 10 000 articles ; meanwhile, on a Wikisource, 10 people is a very big community and you can still easily manage millions of books.
Plus, this Ligurian Wikisource incubation has one active user for 3 years and 3 active user for the last 3 months. I think it's ready.
Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 17:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the Kotava Wikipedia test doesn't eligible for now on, afaik its status is still stucked on on hold, and idk why their community also ask many projects to "not approve for now" just because they want to have their project approved. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Moroccan Arabic WikipediaEdit

Hi! Langcom intends to approve Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please tell us here on this page in the next seven days. --MF-W 15:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Language committee" page.