There are still different opinions on this: Gerard and Michael would reject the proposal, MF-W would accept it as eligible. Let me outline points of agreement first, then points of disagreement. Then I'd like to propose a next step, and see what people think.
Agreement:
1. Even MF-W agrees that, at least in the short-to-mid-term, nobody is talking about pulling apart the current zhwikisource, and spinning the lzh content into a new project.
2. (I think) All agree that lzh served a role in East Asia similar to the role of Latin in Europe. Accordingly, policy allows a separate lzh project and doesn't demand that lzh content be moved into a zh project.
Disagreement:
1. If we mark this as "eligible", does that mean that when the test on Multilingual Wikisource becomes approvable (if ever), we categorically MUST move all the lzh content from zhwikisource into the new project? Or can lzh content exist in both places?
2. (I think) Just because policy allows a separate lzh project doesn't mean it requires one; we can still require all lzh content to be put into the zh project.
* If #2 is true, though, there is still a concern that the zh project will not meet the needs of non-Mandarin speakers with respect to lzh content.
The only reason we really even have a problem is the bullet point under "Disagreement #2". If not for that, we could reject the language request without a problem. And I'm convinced that at present, that's more of a theoretical issue being put out by the proponents of an lzh Wikisource than it is a practical problem people are having right now. Still, we can't entirely discount it.
In the short run, I think we could keep everyone happy by not touching current lzh content on zhwikisource, while allowing other lzh content to be created on oldwikisource. (There is precedent for allowing content on oldwikisource in parallel to content in a separate Wikisource, though in the main case I think of, Polish, that's done for copyright reasons. And we'd want to encourage some ground rules about duplication of documents, since that's not a concern in the Polish case.) Even if we agree to that, though, the question remains: How do we resolve the status of the language request? So here's how I see all the possible options playing out:
* Eligible. This does mean that at some point, if the lzh test becomes approvable, we agree it can be approved. I'm OK with this option if the answer to "disagreement #1" is that we are not necessarily committing that all lzh content would have to be moved to an lzh Wikisource. We can kick the can down the road, and also don't have to commit that lzh content will not be moved, either. If we do this, I would make it clear on eligibility that we are not committing to what that means for the future for the current lzh content of zhwikisource.
* Place on hold. (option 1) We can see if enough contributors actually come to work on lzh content on oldwikisource to make that viable, or whether by a year from now it becomes a non-issue. (option 2) It goes on hold because we decide that we're just not going to decide now, and we'll revisit it if and when that's appropriate.
* Reject. This doesn't actually mean we don't allow lzh content to stay on oldwikisource. After all, there are a number of projects in ancient languages that have been rejected by LangCom but where tests still exist on Incubator because the rules for Incubator are less strict than the rules for subdomain project eligibility/approval. Since the rules for oldwikisource are even less strict than the rules for Incubator, the lzh "test" could stay on oldwikisource. But this option basically says that this content will always stay on oldwikisource.
My recommendation
* I think we need to leave the content of zhwikisource alone now, but allow additional lzh content on oldwikisource, with rules against duplication.
* By process of elimination, I'd recommend "placing on hold" for now. I really don't see consensus coalescing here. Also, I think there's a good enough chance that this test never goes anywhere that we may as well wait to see what happens before committing to a decision. (And, to tell the truth, in most cases like this, where there is little actual activity in the test, that's what we actually usually do until there is proof of activity.)
* If you're not willing to do that, I would go for "eligible" IF AND ONLY IF that doesn't mean we're committing to the future of any existing content either way. In principle, this lzh ought to be eligible, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But if we think that "eligible" automatically means that content MUST be moved in the future if an lzhwikisource is created, then I would "reject", because I don't think that moving content out of zhwikisource will ever be a viable option.
Please respond promptly to this if you will. I'd love to close this off (finally).
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
1. The proposal to modify LPP has now been on-wiki at Meta<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy/4-2019_proposed_re…> for seven days. There has been a modest amount of support, little discussion, and almost no opposition. (The exception to that is from one user who really wants us to overhaul the use of ISO 639-3 as the language standard. Since I explicitly excluded that subject from the discussion, I discount that opposition for this purpose.)
2. I closed a request to close Tajik Wikibooks as unsuccessful/withdrawn. The main concern here was that there hadn't been much content creation recently—but, of course, inactivity is not a reason to close an otherwise valid project. There is some concern that some content might be either (a) more appropriate for Wikisource, or (b) original short stories or poems that don't really fit Wikibooks's remit. But the community will address that itself, and the OP withdrew the request when some new content was added.
3. A follow-up on Literary Chinese Wikisource will follow this message directly.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Hi,
I have a vague recollection that we require Unicode support to create a new
language, but I cannot find it in the policy. Do we indeed require this
explicitly, or am I just making things up?
Or is it just a de facto practicality—that it's technically difficult to
host a language in a script that isn't supposed in Unicode?
To get back to the original question, I'd echo what MF-Warburg said: I've never seen an actual written requirement for this.
That said, I was (finally) about to post the proposed modifications to LPP this week. I could add either a requirement or an advisory statement on this subject. (Advisory statement would say something to the effect of "If no Unicode font exists for the script your language is written in, it may be technically difficult for the Wikimedia servers to serve the project reliably.") Thoughts?
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Hi,
After a long wait, the Western Armenian domain is finally, finally online.
Thanks to Michael Everson for the help with the code, and to everyone else
for the support along the way.
Wikidata still doesn't work there, but this is being taken care of (
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T219871 ).
The important question is: When will the import be done? This is a bit of a
special case, because it was not a usual Incubator.
If this was already discussed somewhere, please point me to that discussion.
Thanks!
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore