Hoi,
The language committee is about languages. When a language is proposed for
the first time, we have certain requirements. I do not care at all what
project is proposed as the first project for a language. From my pov that a
Wikipedia is asked for most often is incidental.
You expect that there is a precise definition of what is required. It is not
clear to me why this is a good thing. What we are looking for in a project
is that it is a good start for a new language and that it is inviting for
new people to join. The localisation of the UI is part of that. Some really
well written articles are part of that. They are needed so that an expert of
such a language can assess if it is indeed that language. When the language
is a dead or artificial language, the requirements will be even higher.
There is no precise determination and that is imho a good thing; there is
this commission that has been asked to decide on these issues. When need be
we will ask specialists to assess the language used. We will take our time
and this is also dependent on the cooperation we get in doing our job.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the line in the new policy adopted by the langcom that
says "Anyone with a proposal for a new Wikipedia should read
wikipedia-l", nor do I see the line that enumerates the policy you
have just stated to me about having complete interface translations.
If you are going to have a policy or expectation, you cannot expect
people to guess it, it needs to be enumerated in the policy document.
I originally subscribed to this list because I was told that zh-tw was
being discussed here; but this was only after I asked where the
decisions were being made. This mailing list may be public, but it is
not as if it is advertised on the main Wikipedia portal. And even
people who are subscribed to this ML are unlikely to read every post.
Mark
On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No,
But I can expect them to read the mailing list.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I take it, then, that you have informed these people of the reason
> their requests are not approved yet?
>
> We can't expect them to be telepathic, after all.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I will be happy to see that you are right once the message files
exist.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not protesting it, I am simply saying that obviously nobody is
> > > aware of this requirement.
> > >
> > > The people who are working on these projects are very dedicated,
if
> > > they knew that this requirement
existed, you can be sure that it
would
> > > be fixed right away.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not
> interested in
> > > > talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it
> > > functions.
> > > > When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things
carefully.
> The
> > > lack
> > > > of having message files for all languages is one of the major
> > > shortcomings
> > > > in the current localisation procedures.
> > > >
> > > > You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is
that
> the
> > > > developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past
(for
> > > instance
> > > > for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have
to
> > > > have message
> > > > files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that
are
> > > > incomplete; it is not fair to
require the localisation to be
done
> again
> > > when
> > > > a new project is requested in the same language.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult
> situation
> > > > > and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that
they
> are
> > > > > required to have a message file.
> > > > >
> > > > > These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually
told
> > > > > these people "We do
not see ____, when you get that we will
> proceed
> > > > > further with considerations for your Wiki."
> > > > >
> > > > > These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had
actually
> told
> > > > > them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward,
they
> > > > > would do it right away.
I am sure the messages file would be
> > > > > translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if
> anyone
> > > > > had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the
number of
> speakers is
> > > > > entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since
it
> has
> > > > > 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for
its
> > > > > creation (there was only
one person who did).
> > > > > - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much
> Twents
> > > > > people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There
are
> > > > > already over two hundred
articles in it, but the majority are
at
> > > > > nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia
indicated preliminary support of such
a
> > > > > request some time ago,
so it needs to be re-investigated to
see if
> > > > > this is a viable project
or not, and whether the needs of
> > > > > Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing
project
> > > > > (nds-nl)
> > > > > - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support
of
> native
> > > > > speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So
you
> > > > > want a message file. Why
didn't you tell the people working on
> this
> > > > > project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> > > > > - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages
of
> > > > > incubator development.
At this point in time, I don't expect
it to
> be
> > > > > approved by anyone.
> > > > > - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development
soon.
> > > > > Someone needs to
investigate how well existing users are
served by
> > > > > rm.wp and fur.wp.
> > > > > - Kok - although this is a major language of India with
millions
> of
> > > > > speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no
articles.
> I'm
> > > > > sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the
meantime,
> I
> > > > > agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the
> project.
> > > > > - Kab - same as stq.
> > > > >
> > > > > Others you failed to mention:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> > > > > - Crh - same situation as stq.
> > > > > - Dsb - same situation as stq.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able
to
> be
> > > > > created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> > > > > opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that
> _nobody
> > > > > knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as
much
> impact
> > > > > as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the
> persons
> > > > > and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion
awaited.
> > > > > This is a Wiki, I am
sure that even people who support the
policy
> will
> > > > > have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have
> shown
> > > > > up because you have not advertised it much.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > Mark Williamson
schreef:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the
Langcom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the
language
> > > proposal
> > > > > process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the
Language
> > > Committee
> > > > > > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the
point
> where
> > > they
> > > > > > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to
as
an
> > > authority
> > > > > > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were
> > > uncontroversial
> > > > > > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support,
and
> have
> > > > > > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild
who
said
> that
> > > they
> > > > > > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far,
no
> proposals
> > > for
> > > > > > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under
the
new
> > > > > > > proposal
process, despite its having been around for
several
> > > months
> > > > > > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there
some
> more.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it's about time something happened. I
think it's
about
> > > time we
> > > > > > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians,
the
> Lower
> > > > > > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into
our
> Wikipedia
> > > > > > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't
somebody
do
> > > something?
> > > > > > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get
underway?
For
> all
> > > we
> > > > > > > know, that could take years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > The language committee has proposed things. It does not
have
the
> > > power
> > > > > > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have
published
> our
> > > > > > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these
> guidelines
> > > as a
> > > > > > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This
has
> not
> > > > > > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them
apply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in
> progress
> > > in
> > > > > > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is
> mandatory.
> > > > > > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour
for
> > > granting a
> > > > > > new language a project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have some questions outstanding with the board;
particularly
> > > about
> > > > > > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official
Belarus
> > > > > > Wikipedia has the
right to the be.wikipedia label. We have
asked
> at
> > > > > > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the
board.
> We
> > > do
> > > > > > not want to take up new things that much if open things do
not
> get
> > > > > > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial
languages
> that
> > > has
> > > > > > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at
the
> moment,
> > > > > > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a
reasonable
> > > > > proposal ?
> > > > > > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at
the
> moment,
> > > > > > there is not even an estimation how many people are
speaking
it
> ..
> > > Is
> > > > > > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > > > > > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we
cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages
> > > > > > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we
cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient
articles of
> a
> > > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we
cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient
articles of
> a
> > > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we
cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > > > > > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we
cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the
message
files
> are
> > > > not there. They are required.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l