Talk:Language committee
Please add any questions or feedback to the language committee here on this page.
 |
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 31 days.
|
Notifications from Langcom about proposed approvals
editCzech Wikivoyage
editThe language committee intends to approve Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Czech. If you have any objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please tell us here on this page in the next 7 days. Meanwhile, the community is asked to check (and if necessary, complete) the wiki settings as indicated on the request page. Thank you. --MF-W 10:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussions
editQuestion about the Chinook Jargon Wikipedia
editHey guys! I see that the CJ Wikipedia, which I edit, has appeared on the "These are active and may get their own site soon" section. Based on the toolforge statistics, we've had 4 major contributors in the past 4 months (althought it looks like one of them forgot his password and moved to another account.)
By this point I've become good pals with Jon Gua, who's really good with wikitext. ISO 369's a nice guy who makes good edits but I rarely hear from him. And the guy who forgot his password- "The Skook", I don't know that much at all about him (no offense to The Skook if he sees this.) I really hope that he sticks around.
But my actual question is, how does the approval process go? What kind of things does it take for a language to actually get approved? And would it be possible to see the discussion behind the approval of say, Central Dusun Wikipedia? That would be great :)
POSSUM chowg File:POSSUMCHOWG.png (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I oppose such an approval request due to these discussions elsewhere, which identified POSSUM chowg as a bad user with crosswiki inappropriate behaviors:
- Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, POSSUM has been global locked. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just want to say that the previous problems were a massive misunderstanding, and that I have been unlocked on the majority of wikimedia projects. The thing about the malicious templates was a complete lie. See here for more information. POSSUM chowg (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @POSSUM chowg You're already defined by more than one wiki as Nothere for contributions, having helps from Uncyclopedia friends can help you on painting yourself as "here to contribute"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I deserve to be listed as "not here for contributions." I do in fact contribute here. On Incubator (my main project) I wrote a whole lot on Wp/chn, on en.wiktionary I created several entries, and on en.wikipedia I created the pages "Arroyo Verde Park" (which definitely still needs improvement) and "Help:IPA/Tlingit", and I also expanded "Driftwood fort."
- Also I must ask, is there a way to upload an image without it being on Commons? Because some images on en.wikipedia.org are shown to be just Wikipedia images, not commons images. POSSUM chowg File:POSSUMCHOWG.png (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I deserve to be listed as "not here for contributions." I do in fact contribute here. On Incubator (my main project) I wrote a whole lot on Wp/chn, on en.wiktionary I created several entries, and on en.wikipedia I created the pages "Arroyo Verde Park" (which definitely still needs improvement) and "Help:IPA/Tlingit", and I also expanded "Driftwood fort."
- @POSSUM chowg You're already defined by more than one wiki as Nothere for contributions, having helps from Uncyclopedia friends can help you on painting yourself as "here to contribute"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just want to say that the previous problems were a massive misunderstanding, and that I have been unlocked on the majority of wikimedia projects. The thing about the malicious templates was a complete lie. See here for more information. POSSUM chowg (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Incubator reform proposal and LangCom decision making
editIn 2018 a second proposal to merge Beta Wikiversity into Incubator was rejected by LangCom. The final comment referred to the then-ongoing discussion of reforming the Incubator as grounds for effectively prohibiting any further similar attempts until a definite resolution of the proposal was achieved. However the discussion seems to have pretty much ended in late 2020 with no actual changes being made. Meanwhile, wikis closed by LangCom have been moved to Incubator regardless of the reform proposal. So my question is: what exactly is LangCom's position on moving defunct wikis to Incubator, and is making attempt #3 allowed? (To prevent presumptions: I do happen to be the dumb kid who made the extremely clumsy attempt #1, but I was not involved in #2, and despite BetaWV's having since degraded even more I have no plans to launch #3. But this could possibly be interesting for someone who does.) AtUkr(talk to me) 22:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Request for Approval of Mos Wikipedia
editWe have learnt with deep regret that the expert we have recommended to you has since not responded to you regarding the validation of Moore language. We would want to suggest to you another expert who will also be of good help regarding the validation of Moore language and what we write in incubator. I hope you would establish a contact to him as soon as you would so that mos will go live. Best regards Hasslaebetch (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Request for Approval of Shan Wikinews
editWe would like you to review our activites for final approval of Shan Wikinews. Please let us know If we're still missing the point. Thanks.Saimawnkham (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to scrap Requests for new languages
editCurrently there are about 700 open requests for new languages. However, more than 90% of requests actually have nothing meaningful to discuss. So I propose:
- Replace Language proposal policy with User:GZWDer/Language proposal policy
- Close all requests for new languages as invalid in favor of new RFC procedure
GZWDer (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @GZWDer This should better be accounted by a RFC, however as far as I know, any proposals which like to ask langcom to re-allow (sic?) ancient, extinct, and/or historical languages are failed like this one. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have revised my proposal (moving ancient language part to future discussion), so the criteria for ancient languages left unchanged. (Personally I will only support the original proposal in Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages - each language should be discussed in their merits, not any alternative ones, especially not allowing any specific languages; In addition, I disagree with most oppose reasons in the original proposal, such as "With little to no contributors left to create or edit the wikis, creating them will be a waste of resources" - if a test wiki have little active contributors, they will not be approved even if it is a living language.)--GZWDer (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)