Talk:Language committee: Difference between revisions - Meta

Article Images

Line 6:

| shortcut =

| notes = Please add any questions or feedback to the language subcommittee here on this page.

* Archives:

*: [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|oldid=581166}} May 2007]

}}

~~==Predating reform==~~

~~===Action required===~~

There is a war going on at [[Proposals for closing projects/Close Siberian wikipedia]]. There are lots of unwanted way of discussions and voting hapening. Since it is a language issue, I think it is a good idea, that one of you guys start moderation there. --[[User:Dbl2010|Dbl2010]] 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

: A moderator needs to have an official status, which we do not have at this stage. Besides, I can hardly see what a moderator can achieve in a flame war. What we need is policies that will make flame-wars useless from the very start, by stating which is which. Until we miss that, we will have flame wars, and nothing will help apart from ignoring them altoghether. Experience shows that whatever the result of the ongoing discussion, nothing will happen, so it's pointless to care about it. Let them waste their time, since they have time to waste ;) --[[User:Bèrto 'd Sèra|Bèrto 'd Sèra]] 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

~~===Lack of diversity?===~~

It seems that all committee members are European (maybe one is from the Americas, but I don't believe so). Considering that Europe has less linguistic diversity than any other continent besides Antarctica (although if you weight it by number of speakers, it comes in ahead of the Americas and Australia), and the smallest population of any continent excepting Australia and Antarctica (or at least I think so -- I may be incorrect), I think there should be members from other contents, preferrably Asia and Africa (although the latter is relatively unlikely unless you can get Mark Dingemanse to join). --[[User:Node ue|Node ue]] 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you, Node ue-san. Yes, I would like to see more diversity in the sub-committee. It does not seem that there are representatives who are from non-Western culture or whose first language is written in non-Latin scripts. I think we should reach out more widely to attract diversified participants. We have embassies and translators and why don’t we ask for their help?--[[User:Californiacondor|Californiacondor]] 18:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I would like to point the subcommittee you two are discussing on their talk is one of more diversified one among Wikimedia committee; there is no overwrapping of their mother tongue (and none of them are native English speaker as far as I know), some not so major language speakers like Turkish or Norwegen involved, yadda yadda. As for translators, I have no idea what kind of help you expected. All Foundation official documents are in English and only, so people who need always translation have limitation to be involved into this layer in my opinion. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Diversity is always more than welcome. The only request is for candidates not to be "political", that is, we'd want people to join in based on competence on the issue, and not based on their being "just not europeans". Of course we'll need candidates to have a minimal fluency in english, since this is the official language at WMF. Apart from that candidates are welcome to step in at any time. Since we haven't reached an official status yet, you are welcome to introduce yourself to members of the Committee, while we wait to achieve a more organized work-style. BTW, funnily it's true, no native english speakers among us. But I'd certainly welcome the presence of Africa and Asia in our set. Most new languages are going to come from there and some insight would really help. Only pls do send in candidates who are not biased towards one side or another. We need the job to remain on strictly tech basis. --[[User:Bèrto 'd Sèra|Bèrto 'd Sèra]] 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

~~===The idea for the specification===~~

~~I just made a document [[Wikimedia projects are not for nation-building]]. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)~~

:The assertion that "languages and ethnical and political problems are two different things" may well be a subject for general discussion. Yet, no matter how partial and restrictive this interpretation may be, this is the only way in which we will address the subject in the Committee. Within WMF, a language is nothing but an information carrier, so its goal is to deliver information, not to influence anyone towards a political choice or another. One can say that the very existence of a wiki in a given language IS an influence, and that is undeniably true. Nonetheless, this influence can only be built in conformity to what general WMF policies are. Care is currently taken to avoid such conflicts from the very start. Hopefully we will come out with a decent solution. --[[User:Bèrto 'd Sèra|Bèrto 'd Sèra]] 15:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

~~===Wikipedia normative Belarusian===~~

~~Dear New Languages Committee members,~~

I am concerned, as a member of the working group of said wikipedia, and one of the supporters of the said request [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Belarusian_.28Orthography_Revision_of_1959.29_.2856_support_.2F_37_oppose.29], about its status. The bunch of wikipedias got approved and created recently, but not ours. We didn't receive any official information from your Committee, too.

~~Could we possibly be informed, please, what is the situation, what are the problems with our request, if any, what can we do to remedy them?~~

Of course, we are all aware, that there exists the be.wikipedia.org, which ''formally'' works in Belarusian language. However, it is exactly the ''actually'' enforced way of work, let's politely call it "certain bias towards promoting the use of alternative orthography", which is enforced by the actual "ruling group" and their friends, since the very creation of the be:wiki in 2004, which finally prompted making the request for the creation of the wikipedia in ''pre-determined normative'' Belarusian language.

~~The differences between the versions of the language are not "only in the orthography". The orthographical differences are just the most visible part of them.~~

The members of the working group moving the request believe thay have the right to work on Wikipedia in their (native) Belarusian language, without being hampered by the ''artificially created'' and ''politically motivated" "need to co-exist" with the alternative versions of the language.

However, the working group proposing the request has no wish to "oust" those people from be:wiki, or to "close the offending version", in a word, we do not need any "fight" with those people, as far as our right to use the normative Belarusian language, etc. etc. is not contended.

As far as we know, the "ruling group" of the be:wiki is planning to switch the be:wiki to the completely alternative version of the language after the hypothetical approval of this here request, still retaining the name "Belarusian" for it.

~~The incubator wikipedia proving the concept and feasibility of the request: [http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/be] -- started its work ca. August 6, 2006, and has ~2000 articles now.~~

~~Could the making of resolution of our request be possibly speeded up a bit, please?~~

~~Thank you. [[User:Yury Tarasievich|Yury Tarasievich]] 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)~~

~~==About the reform==~~

~~The ''eeform'' is the implementation of the first [[WM:LPP|Language proposal policy]] on 11 November 2006 and the retroactive closure of all requests that were not implemented by this date.~~

~~===Language proposal policy===~~

*Special project committee, Do you support the new [[Meta:Language proposal policy]]?--[[User:Hillgentleman|Hillgentleman]] 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:We are a bit more focused on real work capability. That is we will require a project to show real partecipation based on what can be achieved in the incubator. As you certainly understand, languages will NEVER be freed from politics. Any nation uses a language as an ''identity carrier'', which means that flame wars among nationalists are simply unavoidable unless we reach a formal definition of what is to be admitted and what is not, and what is to be called what. Not that this will be a Paradise, but at least we'll move the discussion from a flame war generating on a case-by-case basis. Once we have a policy it will be a more general (and hopefully neutral) discussion about rules. We have a number of problems, among the others:

~~:#identifying reliable external sources (ISO, ethnologue, etc) and solving incongruencies among them~~

~~:#identifying the minimal requirements in actual work done (how many users\pages, how complex, how well-done, etc)~~

~~:#stating how to translate the interface~~

~~:#identifying an automated creation procedure.~~

:All this is undergoing work and will be subject to discussion, as we do not feel we are Gods and we will certainly make mistakes. --[[User:Bèrto 'd Sèra|Bèrto 'd Sèra]] 14:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

~~===Transparency===~~

The [http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Language committee wiki] has a section on its home page called "Transparency" which claims "The whole set of activities of the Language Subcommittee is public". Considering the wiki is private and account creation is disabled there, you might want to revise the statement. Also, please don't blank useful pages on meta just because there's a private copy of them elsewhere. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

: (Note that I'm speaking for myself, not for the subcommittee.) Transparency doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can edit. The Wikimedia Foundation strives for transparency, but that doesn't mean anyone can edit the budget reports on the closed [[foundation:|Foundation wiki]]. Similarly, why would we [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_projects_subcommittees%2FLanguages%2FProposal_to_spc&diff=488565&oldid=488103 invite edits to archived emails]? I'm fine with mirroring pages that we welcome edits to (such as the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zen_and_the_art_of_making_a_wiki&curid=60776&diff=488568&oldid=488174&rcid=476841 draft documentation]), but there's no reason to put ''every'' page on Meta when they can be [http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public easily accessed on the subcommittee wiki]. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::I agree on that transparency doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can edit. However that not everyone can give a look is in my humble opinion not fully transparent. Committees are excepted to pursue transparency, but not all items we deal with may not be public? And if a committee keep something in a closed wiki, "all in public" sounds a bit boastfull.

::As for foundation wiki, nothing is hidden. On langcom wiki, as well other committee wikis, if you are not a member, then you get "You must log in to view other pages." Pathoschild, you may have forgetten all is hidden for us non-members? Perhaps that is why for me your argument sounds rather week and pointless. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Thanks for pointing that out; I did not try to view other pages while logged out, so I assumed it could be viewed publicly. I suppose the simplest solution would be to mirror page on Meta, then. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

~~::::Or make the wiki openly viewable. Is there any reason it is has to be made private in this way? [[User:Angela|Angela]] 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)~~

:::::I don't know if there is a reason or it is just opened so, but because this privacy was creating a conflict with subcoms approved 'scope action', it has been requested to be turned on to public, and now it is open. Currently it is editable too... --[[User:Dbl2010|Dbl2010]] 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Saying "requsted", hence Brion was requested by someone ... but you needn't either make it public so completely? --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~: I really dont know. --[[User:Dbl2010|Dbl2010]] 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~===Previously approved requests===~~

I am a proposer of the [[:en:Crimean Tatar|Crimean Tatar]] wikipedia and the main editor of the [[:incubator:Wp/crh|Crimean Tatar edition on the incubator]]. According to the previous policy our request was approved (14 support, 0 oppose). Have I to create a new request and wait several weeks/months more until our wiki will be created? Or Crimean Tatar wiki will be created without this procedure?

BTW in the [[Approved requests for new languages]] there are some other requests (becides Crimean Tatar), that were adopted without any controvercy (e.g. Kabyle, Karakalpak, Lower Sorbian, Latgalian). Most of this projects have flowrishing test-wikis on the incubator.

~~IMHO there is no need to re-open these requests and make the contributors of the named wikis to wait several weeks or even months more. And what the memebers of the commitee think about this?~~

~~[[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)~~

: I agree with you Don Alessandro, we have waited so long to get our request approved but in the end we still have to re-open our request again, when I see wikipedias that don't even have a main page, nor any single article (like this one [http://lbe.wikipedia.org/wiki/ lbe]) I say it is not fair! [[User:Toira|Toira]] 21:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Empty wikis such as the [http://lbe.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lak Wikipedia] are one reason older requests were closed, since most are difficult or impossible to judge fairly under the new criteria. New requests will be processed ''much'' more quickly with the new policy. If there is a community and a flourishing test project, projects could (ideally) be approved and created a month after proposal.

:: You can help us by finding previously approved new language projects that were not created and opening a new discussion for them. If you can retrieve the original discussion, that will help even more. Many of these wikis will be obviously acceptable and created even sooner. There is a ''lot'' of work for us to do in transitioning to the streamlined system, so your help would be much appreciated. :) —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::: I am aware of that, and I sort of agree with you, it's just that we feel a bit frustrated.. i guess it's because we thought we'd have our wiki setup directly after the approval. Also, i'd like to thank you for your assistance, Pathoschild, you've answered every queston, comment or requerst we have posted, [[User:Toira|Toira]] 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: You're welcome. Requests approved (or re-approved) under the new policy should ideally be created within days. For example, the [[Requests for new languages/Wikiquote French 2|French Wikiquote]] was opened the same day it was approved. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Dear admins! December ends in several hours... ;) [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]]~~

~~===Wikipedia Kabyle===~~

Just a comment, I think that the header for the kabyle wikipedia is not appropriate, I think it should be replaced by this one : "header|review2" instead of "header|open" since it already has a test wiki, and no objections (no arguments against), am I wrong? I'am asking you that because you're a member of the the language subcommittee therefore you can decide of the apporpriate choice. Creating pages and articles in the incubator is not that easy, even for those who already participate in other wikis, the prefix thing is a mess, I think it discourages many potentiel contributers, if the kabyle wiki is created, we'd have much more participation. [[User:Toira|Toira]] 02:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

: Hello Toira. The Kabyle Wikipedia is one of the requests we'll probably be looking at by the end of December. If the test project is already doing well enough, we'll just skip a few steps (which will already be done anyway) to final review. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

~~:: Ok great! thanks for the quick and detailed answer Pathoschild, you're one of the nicest admin i've encountered on wiki ;-) [[User:Toira|Toira]] 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)~~

:: IMHO you can definetly skip the first step (duscussion) for '''all''' projects, that were approved according to previous policy with 0 votes "against". It was quite enough time to say something against these projects, and nothing was said. That means, that there is no arguments against. And for some wikis, that have active incubator versions (Kabyle, Lower Sorbian, Crimean Tatar) the second step can be skiped too.

~~:: BTW, when we will know your decision? Christmas? New Year day? :)~~

~~:: [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 15:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~===Policy for closing projects===~~

At present, [[WM:PCP]] does not contain any information, how proposals to close existing projects are handled. Personally I would favour the closure of a number of Wikis at the lower end of [[List of Wikipedias]] - those which do not have any legitimate articles and show no sign of activity except for being spammed from time to time. The more time I have spent trying to help cleaning up some of those Wikis, the less I feel that it is worth the effort. Wikis like [[:kr:]], [[:ve:]] or [[:hz:]] that do not have a single article in the language that they were supposed to host, have, in my view, no chance of ever attracting committed editors. The situation is aggravated by the fact, that many of those wikis do not have admins. They are completely left to the spammers who regularly vandalise them. I find this situation irresponsible. (In fact, [[:ve:]], [[:hz:]], [[:ts:]] and [[:kr:]] have an admin for now, as I have requested temp adminship to do the cleanups, but this is not a sustainable solution).

Therefore I am convinced that the committee also needs to develop a policy for dealing with closure proposals, or, more generally to deal with those wikis that were created under the old regime, where no-one cared about involvement from the respective language community.

Personally I am convinced, that, in order to succeed, a wiki project needs to be demanded and supported by a group of committed individuals from the respective language community. If we seriously scrutinise the situation, we would come to the depressing result, that probably tens of wikis ''do not have a single contributor with reasonable command of the target language''. This is does in no way advance the cause of saving endangered languages, neither does it advance the cause of Wikipedia as a multilingual and universal resource of Free knowledge.

Even attempts by committed individuals to attract native speakers in order to revitalise dead wikis seem to have little effect, see e.g. [[:ik:]]. It is not that small languages should be excluded from wikipedia, but rather that the process should follow the pattern of successful projects such as Upper and Lower Sorbian. Both have rather small speaker communities, but still, their wikis seem to be extremely vibrant. (can btw. be seen on the talk pages, which are overwhelmingly in Sorbian, not in English or German)

~~Sorry, I wrote more than I intended to. To repeat my message:~~

~~#A transparent policy for handling project closure proposals is needed~~

~~#A policy to handle the legacy of inactive, unmaintained Wikis in general is ''urgently'' needed...~~

~~--[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)~~

:Yes, I fully agree with you. There are many wikis where not a single user even HAS sysop rights, not to speak of all those where the sysops aren't active any more... But we should help those people creating a working wikipedia instead of shutting down the project. I think, having a WP in a language is a big advantage and a chance to get the language more used in written form and to increase writing knowledge of those languages. Btw., on ik.wp there is [[w:ik:User:Zanimum]] who is an active sysop. --[[User:Thogo|Thogo]] ([[User talk:Thogo|talk]]) 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well, erm, ''where are the people'' that you want to help? On those wikis I mentioned, they are simply absent. So they don't help anyone. Concerning Zaninum - yes I know he is there. When he was granted adminship, he sounded quite hopeful that he would soon unleash a wave of activity (through contacting various Inupiaq organisations or individuals, can't remember the details). But, as you can convince yourself, it hasn't happened. Further, he went quite optimistic, when he saw that one anonymous contributor had written some sentences in Inupiaq into a formerly empty article. But again, this remained a single incident. I don't believe that you really help anyone by offering an empty hull, such as those current unmaintained wikis are. Empty Wikis in African languages do not solve the problem of missing or prohibitively expensive internet connectivity in South African or Namibian village. They do ''not'' bridge the [[:en:digital divide|digital divide]]. They may be a useful tool. But by themselves they are neither accessible nor usable. Personally I have been working a lot with indigenous peoples over the last 15 years or so. I also had a meeting in Geneva in the run-up to the World Summit on Information Technology. I tried to talk about Wikis, Free software and all the other stuff, but I had to accept that their primary issues were about land-lines. Telephones. For most communities, the Internet is still something happening in a different universe. How are we surprised, they don't spend their time writing and expanding a plethora of free encyclopaedias?--[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok, that might be true of the African languages or whatever, but certainly not for languages like Inupiaq where internet access should not be that problem. But there are lots of people speaking those "smaller" languages who live in US or Europe and have the possibilities. Maybe it could be our task to find and invite those people. But anyway, I don't want to fantasize too much... Realistically it is surely not avoidable to close several smaller projects. There is still the possibility to reopen them when native speakers come across and want to contribute (via the incubator, maybe). So the projects could be moved to incubator wiki and moved back when a significant amount of articles written in the respective language is there. That would be my favorite solution. --[[User:Thogo|Thogo]] ([[User talk:Thogo|talk]]) 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: The language subcommittee's [[langcom:Main Page#Subcommittee_charter|charter]] does not extend to closing projects, so it has no authority on the matter. Although that might be something to look into eventually, we're having enough trouble right now getting started with the current limited charter. :) —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

~~:::::So, then, who the heck takes the decisions about all the proposals at [[WM:PCP]]? Who is in charge? What are the criteria? --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 10:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)~~

:::::: The relevant policy is [[New project policy#Closing_of_a_project]]. Proposals to close projects are processed in much the same way as proposals for new languages were before the reform. The community discusses the proposal and holds a vote. Administrators eventually close the discussion and, if there is consensus to do so, forward the proposal to the [[board of trustees]]. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

~~===Interest===~~

I'm very much interested in language policy on meta and related matters; is there anything I can do to help, or are the current member sof the subcommittee already numerous enough to handle everything there is to do? —[[User:Nightstallion|Nightstallion]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

: Hello Nightstallion. Suggestions are always welcome; the policy draft we're currently discussing can be found at [[langcom:Language proposal policy/GerardM-Pathoschild]]. There are few other tasks until the subcommittee approves a policy. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

~~===Language subcommittee===~~

~~Most members of the Language subcommittee seem to be active, can you please decide the case of the different requests (for new languages)?[[User:Toira|Toira]] 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)~~

: Hello Toira. We're working to reach consensus on the expanded policy to adopt, and will begin judging requests the moment we do. I apologize for the unusual delay; hopefully the subcommittee should be ready soon. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Hi Pathoschild, when will the approved wikis be created? I hope it's not going to take too much time, we have submitted our request more than one year ago (it's been submitted first by Agurzil, and a second time by me) and still nothing on horizon, anyway the new policy seems to be fine, what are your disagreements? [[User:Toira|Toira]] 06:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::: The requests will be judged as soon as we finalize the policy. That ''should'' be very soon, but this is taking far longer than I'd anticipated. We're drafting the new policy to take into account the different approach that will be taken by the subcommittee. All drafts are [http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy archived publicly on the subcommittee wiki]; the latest proposal is the [http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy/GerardM-Pathoschild GerardM-Pathoschild synthesis proposal], which I think should be acceptable to everyone with only minor changes. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

~~===Comments on the new policy===~~

~~====Terms====~~

As far as I can see, these new rules say nothing about the terms. The Crimean Tatar wikipedia request was re-opened more than 3 months ago. Anyone can see that there is no serious arguments against, but it is still on the "duscussion" stage. And rules say nothing of how long it should last. IMHO three months is quite enough for those, who want to say something against. Tell me please, who will decide was there enough time for the discussion or not? HOW LONG WILL WE WAIT? [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

: Hello. There is no defined term; ideally, requests should be processed as soon as a decision can be made. I'm pushing to start processing requests, which we're finally beginning to do. I apologize (yet again) for the lengthy delay. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 03:03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Aha, I see... So, YOU (subcommitee members) can let our project be in the "discussion" stage for month, for year, for 10 years, and WE have no right to say anything against this, because YOUR rules give you a legal right to wait as long, as YOU want (i.e. de facto give you a legal right not to approve our project at all). Policy MUST determine concrete terms, in which a project sholud be either approved, or rejected. [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

~~:: PS~~

~~:: Colud you, please, explain why Crimen Tatar project is still on the "discussion" stage?~~

::: You do indeed have a say in the matter. There is an open discussion on the Foundation-l mailing list, and I am reading and responding to your concerns on this page. I'm sorry that your experience has been frustrating so far, but I assure you that we have no intention of deliberately slowing the growth of the Wikimedia Foundation.

::: I'm afraid that matters are not as simple as you suggest. Some requests can be approved with very little discussion, such as requests for a new project in a language that already has another project. On the other hand, difficult or controversial requests require extensive discussion and consultation with communities, standards organizations, and the [[board of trustees]].

::: Further, we are unfortunately at the slowest point in the new process: getting started. Before we can begin efficiently processing requests, we must first process a single project under the policy. This helps us find any mistakes or bad ideas in the policy, make improvements based on feedback from the users who went through it and our own experiences, and streamline it for future requests.

::: We're currently preparing to begin this test phase with the [[Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Kabyle|Kabyle Wikipedia request]]. The [[Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Crimean Tatar 2|Crimean Tatar Wikipedia request]] is one of those requests that will be processed more quickly following this test phase. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 16:03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

~~====Changing rules during the game====~~

The first request for the Crimean Tatar was opened in September and it '''''was approved'''''. Then the rules were changed during the game. Pathoschild gave me an advice to re-open a request, he told previously approved requests would be probably speeded up, and we would see a decision by the end of December. Now there is the end of March and things are right where they started. Now we are told that we are to do a complete translation of the interface. So, the rules are changed during the game for the second time! It is not fair. EACH REQUEST SHOULD BE TREATED ACCORDING TO THE POLICY, WHICH WAS IN FORCE BY THE TIME OF ITS OPENING. [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

~~: Hello. Your complaint, though valid, addresses very different situations throughout the tortuous development of the new process.~~

: The first request was created before the existence of the [[language subcommittee]] and the implementation of the [[WM:LPP|language proposal policy]]. At the time, all requests were processed by the same community who made the requests, which led to understandable conflict, bias, and mistakes. The language subcommittee was created to address this, but not before a massive backlog had developed; as of my last count, there were [[:Category:Old requests for new languages|''198'' requests]] either open or approved by this community but never created. Further, the vast majority did not provide significant arguments in favour, relying on the voting process that dominated at the time. Furthermore, a majority of the users had long since left, rendering the lists of interested users useless. The most efficient solution was to retroactively close all requests which were not created and start over. The [[Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Crimean Tatar|original Crimean Tatar wikipedia request]] was one of those closed.

: When I created the [[WM:LPP|language proposal policy]] in November 2006, I honestly believed that the subcommittee would be ready no later than the new year. That was unfortunately naïve; despite the productivity of the individual members elsewhere, the subcommittee itself was sluggish and ineffectual. Over three months later, the subcommittee is finally getting to its feet and ready to begin processing requests. Despite any well-earned skepticism on your part, the best I can do is say that it shouldn't take much longer, and ''this time'' (I hope) I'm right.

: Immediate localization is not a requirement, there having been no consensus as to its introduction. If the request is adequate, I will do my best to get it approved with or without localization of the interface. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 03:03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Regarding these issues and the above one, I also posted a message to the foundation-l mailing list today (cf. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028499.html) - hoping it will help get things under way pretty soon. --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

::: Localization files are now a requirement for new languages per the otherwise consensus of the subcommittee. However, we'll be working with the communities to develop a relatively simple and efficient process to localize the interface, coordinate efforts, and get help and guidance from the subcommittee. The first project should begin localization within a week or so. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 03:03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::: I can only repeat once again that it is not fair to change the rules during the game. You can apply this new rules to the requests, which will be opend after this desicion, but not to those, which were opened several months ago.

~~:::: If we knew about this awfull bureuacracy, we'd probably try to start our own wiki-project, instead of waisting our time here... [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)~~

::::: I'm sorry that your experience has been frustrating. However, the creation of a new wiki under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation is not a game; being "fair" is not one of our goals, although of course we try not to be ''un''fair. Our objective is to encourage the growth of the multilingual Wikimedia Foundation and to avoid previous difficulties and problems. If doing so means adjusting the policy while requests are open, this unfortunately means that the request will need to conform to the new requirements. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 17:03:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

~~===Rejecting Sater-Frisian wikipedia proposal===~~

~~Last year we proposed a new wiki-project for the Sater-Frisian language, initially this request was approved by the moderators. What is the reason for the sudden change?~~

~~This is the Sater-Frisian incubator: ~~

~~http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/stq ~~

~~This ''was'' our request: ~~

~~http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Sater-Frisian ~~

~~Kind regards, ~~

~~[[fy:meidogger:Kening Aldgilles|Kening Aldgilles]]~~

:Might be my fault. I moved the request to the "approved" section, because it was ''approved'' according to the old criteria. The disapproval by the language committee will most likely be due to a lack of native contributors and of contributors in general. At the moment, efforts are underway to gather more of them; when we have succeeded we will do another proposal. [[User:Steinbach|Steinbach (formerly Caesarion)]] 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:: As far as I had understood, the Saterfrisian Wikipedia was recognized already in the period that such things were decided by voting. It is very disappointing, that now in the period of waiting for electronic effectuation, we must experience that this recognition is undone. --[[User:Pyt|Pyt]] 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Hello. Unfortunately, the Sater-Frisian Wikipedia was never approved by the Foundation [[board of trustees]] or the [[developer]]s. The "approval" was entirely on the part of users acting with no official authority; although this was the practice at the time, the actual creation rate for 'approved' wikis was very low. These unofficially approved (but never fulfilled) requests were rejected once the [[language subcommittee]] was created to officially process them. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 09:04:18, 01 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: Hello again. How is it possible that other dialects, spoken by a small number of people, have their own wiki? Many of those wikipedys have less then 100 articles! The Seelterfrisian language is an official '''[[en:European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages|recognized]]''' language in the European Union. The language itself is gaining more popularity and according to the German law, the language is teached in schools (because of the recognition). Please tell us what to do to get this request approved. Kind regards, [[fy:meidogger:Kening Aldgilles|Kening Aldgilles]] 23:22, 3 april 2007 (CET)

::::: There are a number of problems with many small wikis that led to the creation of the [[language subcommittee]] to monitor and policy ''new'' requests. Some requests were formerly approved by the community, as explained above, and some of those approved requests were eventually created by the developers. That does not necessarily mean that creating them was a good idea, that these wikis are successful, or that they would be approved by the subcommittee if they were proposed ''now''.

::::: Note that the request was closed because it was incompatible with the [[WM:LPP|language proposal policy]]; as the closing comment mentions, you are free to open a new request under the new policy, which may well be approved. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:04:40, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

~~==Transitional period==~~

The ''transitional period'' is the time during which a large number of requests were re-opened before the subcommittee was ready to process them, and extending to the point where the subcommittee begins processing requests at full efficiency.

~~===Question===~~

I was just wondering why the Kabyle Wikipedia has not yet been given the final OK. AFAICT, it seems to fulfill all requirements, doesn't it? Regards, --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

: Unfortunately, [[user:GerardM|GerardM]] introduced full localization of the MediaWiki interface as a new requirement (see [http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/2007-03-05 archived discussion]). We haven't worked out how users can easily do this without actually creating the wiki, so we're on hold ''again'' while we figure it out. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 03:03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your commitment but unfortunately I'm getting more and more the impression now that the committee has managed to make the whole procedure so bureaucratic and user-unfriendly that it daunts most newcomers and more or less prevents any further development of multilingualism. --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 13:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree having a wholly localized system messages sa would benefit the project, but from my experience, I am afraid it would be a burden for a small project too heavy to bear. As Pathoschild pointed out, for localization they need a wiki at least. I wonder if it is based on Langcom consensus; for me it sounds a bit strange the policy in question was said to be introduced by an individual, not by the committee (even if he is its member). --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::The Kabyle test project has so far generated an impressive amount of content. I would be confident that, as soon has they have their own wiki, they will successfully translate the interface in no time. Even though I have some understanding for the cautious approach taken by langcom, given the large number of inactive and unmaintained language edition, I would say that the ability of the Kabyle speaking community to build up and maintain a viable encyclopaedia has been clearly proven in the incubator. Any further indefinite delay would only serve to discourage people who have already invested a substantial amount of energy. Therefore, I would appeal to langcom members to take a more proactive approach in this matter. That is, either to approve the proposal and to trust into the community's ability to get the interface translated, or to give clear-cut advise to the authors, what else they have have to to do before final approval (which is probably to translate the language.php file to Kabyle)--[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::: I agree with all the comments above. I've started a discussion with the subcommittee regarding the Kabyle Wikipedia, which you can follow from [http://langcom.wikimedia.org/wiki/Archives/2007-03-23 the subcommittee archives]. I apologize for the absurdly lengthy process. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 03:03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

::::: Thanks for your efforts. I'm sure the Kabyle editors will appreciate it. --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 16:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

~~===Appeal deletion of be.wikipedia.org===~~

~~Dear Wikimedia,~~

We would like to express protest against the voluntarist deletion of the Belarusian Wikipedia that was located at http://be.wikipedia.org . The Belarusian wikipedia was a product of hard work of dozens of contributors spending hours of their time for the project, and that action of yours is a bad strike to the idea of Wikipedia as such. This was done suddenly without any single preliminary notification or discussion with the Belarusian Wikipedian community, neither with the adherents of the classical orthography the Wiki was mostly written in, nor with the few apologists of the current official orthography.

Although the currently official orthography is taught in schools and is recognised by the Belarusian government (but hardly used because of Russian being the priority language), the classical orthography is also widely used among peoples who speak Belarusian in their every-day life. The classical Belarusian orthography is the orthography widely used by lots of active Belarusian speakers, in the Belarusian blogosphere and by some influential independent media such as the oldest Belarusian newspaper Nasa Niva (http://www.nn.by) and the Belarusian edition of Radio Liberty (http://www.svaboda.org). It is codified and has its strict rules. We want to draw your attention to the fact that the Belarusian Wikipedia was originally created in classical orthography and was almost entirely written in it (while, by the way, the official orthography being accepted as well). A group of people demanding a switch to the official orthography appeared just recently. They asked to register a new domain for their project, not to delete the existing community efforts.

~~In respect of the facts above we kindly ask you to one of the following:~~

# Restore the old Belarusian Wikipedia on the domain where it used to be (http://be.wikipedia.org) and register a new domain (http://bel.wikipedia.org) for the official orthography as it was originally requested by its supporters

~~# Restore the classical Belarusian Wikipedia on a new domain (e.g. http://be-classic.wikipedia.org) leaving the official Be-wiki where it is now.~~

~~Besides that, would you please restore the media files that where uploaded on the Belarusian Wikipedia, but that can not be found at be-x-old.wikipedia.org now.~~

~~We are looking forward to seeing your reaction, in word, or, better, in deed.~~

~~====Media coverage and public reaction====~~

* [http://www.tolblogs.org/belarus/en/?p=379 TOLBlogs Belarus: Belarusian Wikipedia Deleted]

* [http://www.pozirk.org/?p=481 Pozirk.org: Scandal around the Belarusian Wikipedia]

* [http://www.news.by/335/2007-03-27/29383/ News.by: Belarusian Wikipedia Scandal]

* [http://community.livejournal.com/vikipedyja/ Vikipedyja] - the Belarusian Wikipedians' community on Livejournal.com

* [http://www.nn.by/index.php?c=ar&i=7574 Naša Niva: No More Wikipedia in Taraškievica]

* [http://community.livejournal.com/by_mova/195062.html Narkamaŭka versus Taraškievica on Wikipedia]

* [http://news.tut.by/85173.html Belarusian Wikipedia in the center of scandal] and [http://forums.tut.by/showflat.php?Board=articles&Number=3711444#Post3711444 article discussion]

* [http://www.habrahabr.ru/blog/bynet/7955.html Habrahabr.ru: Scandal in Belarusian Wikipedia]

* [http://www.studenty.by/news1437.html Studenty.by: Scandal in Belarusian Wikipedia]

* [http://www.charter97.org/rus/news/2007/03/28/skandal Charter'97 on the issue]

* [http://www.belaruspartisan.org/bp-forte/?page=100&news=11198 Reprint of Charter'97 article on Belaruspartisan.org]

* [http://telegraf.by/blog/2007/03/29/yazyk Commentary at telegraf.by]

~~Kind regards,~~

~~--[[User:Czalex|Czalex]] 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)~~

~~====Comments====~~

~~If only you didn't abuse official orthography supporters in this request I would support it. Mienski, admin of recent Bel-Wiki.~~

:I try to be tolerant enough not to speak [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Wikipedia_normative_Belarusian about much harder abuse of the classical-using majority] here. I wish to expect the same from you, so let us stick to the point--[[User:Czalex|Czalex]] 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

~~:: Do you think that we can't improve this request to make it more tolerant on both sides? I think the solidarity is what we need now. Mienski~~

I do not know if votes are allowed in this page, and are there any need to vote in this case, but if it would be a vote here, I would vote for restoring of the old be-wiki under different name from the new be-wiki.--[[User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov|Yaroslav Zolotaryov]] 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

~~:: I, Mienski, also support such possible decision.~~

~~::: I have corrected the appeal according to your proposal. Let's give it some promotion!--[[User:Czalex|Czalex]] 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)~~

:::: Hello. The closure of the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia was not recommended by the [[language subcommittee]]. I'm not sure whether it was closed by decision of the [[board of trustees]] or by mistake. If you draft a brief, reasonable recommendation, I'll be sure members of the board see it. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 20:03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

~~====My proposal====~~

~~Dear Wikimedia,~~

Although the currently official orthography is taught in schools and is recognised by the Belarusian government (but hardly used because of Russian being the priority language), the classical orthography is also widely used among peoples who speak Belarusian in their every-day life. The classical Belarusian orthography is the orthography widely used by lots of active Belarusian speakers, in the Belarusian blogosphere and by some influential independent media such as the oldest Belarusian newspaper Nasa Niva (http://www.nn.by) and the Belarusian edition of Radio Liberty (http://www.svaboda.org). It is codified and has its strict rules. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Belarusian Wikipedia was originally created in classical orthography and was almost entirely written in it (while, by the way, the official orthography being accepted as well). A group of people demanding a switch to the official orthography appeared just recently. They asked to register new domain for their project, not to delete the existing community efforts.

~~І далей па тэксце.~~

~~====Lack of transparency====~~

Personally, I don't have an opinion on whether the decision to freeze and replace the old bewiki is right or wrong. However, what I do strongly feel is, that the langcom or the board of trustees or whoever takes such a radical decision as to move a wiki with several thousand articles out of the way, should be required to provide a comprehensive justification. It should be made absolutely clear, according to which criteria and principles the current decision has been taken. --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 07:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

~~:: You are right: no one knew of planed moves. From both sides. It's terrible that LangCom didn't provide any info. I think they should provide us with the official position on this subject. Mienski~~

:: And for me personally this is very hard - they worked so much and actually we have taken their account, and their work and time are invested in this domain, which we now posses.--[[User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov|Yaroslav Zolotaryov]] 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

it is rather false to suppose that classic Belarusan is a remnant of the past or something strange for enthusiasts. in fact classic Belarusan expands and is used in many spheres not only in media. for instance even the United Nations use now (since 2 years) only CLASSIC Belarusan (of Tarashkevic). see here http://un.by/by/

the question is ideological one. not that one orthography is older and another newer. and the last point. the majority of the people who actually, really use BELARUSAN in their life, use CLASSIC, Tharashkevic variant of orthography and grammar, not Soviet-reformed one. yes, the Soviet variant is taught at the schools, but usually just to be forgotten afterwards. it is used in official documents (very few) written in CORRUPT russified Belarusan.

~~:: I think we are not here to discuss the (mistical?) problems of russification in spelling. We are here to support the right of classic-writers to have their own Wikipedia. Mienski~~

~~:: "наркотыкох" гэта па-нашаму, па-пралетарскаму -- [[User:194.158.205.102|194.158.205.102]] 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Siarhei Bohdan~~

The main point is that outright MAJORITY really writes only in so-called "classic" variant, used in be.wiki before it's move to be-x-old.wiki. That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors in all grammar versions. --[[User:Monk|Monk]] 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

~~====Possible mistake====~~

Hello. The subcommittee recommendation was to rename the [http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org alternative or 'classical' Belarusian wiki], and use the standard code for the [[be:|standard or 'normative' Belarusian wiki]]. This recommendation did not include the locking of the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia. After I mentioned this on the mailing lists, a member of the [[board of trustees]] noted that the board implemented the recommendation but made no decision to close the wiki. This is being looked into; it's quite possible that the wiki was mistakenly locked by the developer who renamed it. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

~~:It has been unlocked now; I don't know by whom, but it is editable. [[User:Jon Harald Søby|'''Jon Harald Søby]] 22:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)~~

:Would it be possible to rename the be-x-wiki into something more presentable, like "be-classic.wikipedia.org" so that it could function properly? I personnaly would be satisfied even with that decision--[[User:Czalex|Czalex]] 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:: That may be feasible, if you can present a consensus in favour of a particular (neutral) subdomain. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:04:37, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

~~====Very bad idea====~~

Moving the be wiki to an other address was a bad idea. I understand the reason and I don't mean that have two different wikis is not possible. However, the time and energy that was invested in the first version should justify that be: be restored. Think of all the interwiki links that can no longer be used. The prefix be-x-old: does not work, and changing all interwikis, event with a bot, is a lost of well spent energy. Why not have the new one renamed, since it go still very few articles. — [[User:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

~~: I hope 3200 articles are not very few--[[User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov|Yaroslav Zolotaryov]] 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)~~

~~:: It's not very few, but these articles are so short and vapid. — [[User:Slaver|Slaver]] 09:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)~~

~~::: Yes, maybe, we should work with them. Actually I am not against returning of T-Wikipeida to their previous domain. --[[User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov|Yaroslav Zolotaryov]] 09:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)~~

~~==="Conditional approval"?===~~

Hello! The [[Meta:Language proposal policy|Language proposal policy]] you developed has a stage called "conditional approval", which follows the "discussion" stage and - at best - precedes "final approval". The policy says that the "''the language subcommittee will conditionally approve the language if discussion and past experience indicates that the project is a good idea and would prosper''". So far, so good. Now, there's something I don't understand: currently, there is '''not a single conditionally approved wiki''' despite dozens of requests, some of which have been in discussion mode for many, many months - despite the fact that a number of them are pretty obvious cases. (I'm not talking about this likes of Montenegrin here)

Is there any specific, comprehensible reason why the language subcommittee does not even say "yes, if" to e. g. the Crimean Tatar, Hakka, Ingush, Karelian, Kinaray-a, Latgalian, Lower Sorbian, Sakha and so forth speakers after all these months - and thus show them that Wikimedia '''care'''s about them? Please explain, thank you. --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. I will go through the proposals later tonight and propose a bunch of them for conditional approval. [[User:Jon Harald Søby|'''Jon Harald Søby]] 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:: Hello. the [[Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Kabyle|Kabyle Wikipedia]] is conditionally approved (awaiting board approval). The [[Requests for new languages/Wikibooks Sindhi|Sindhi Wikibooks]] was conditionally approved last month, but rejected recently because the interested community apparently vanished.

:: The main reason we're waiting before conditionally approving more requests is that we're waiting to see how the Kabyle Wikipedia request goes. The Kabyle Wikipedia request will determine how we process all the other requests. Since we're waiting for board approval any day now, we should begin approving requests any day now. (We've been rejecting requests on a near-daily basis since early April.) —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 18:56:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::OK. Is there anything that could happen to Kabyle at this stage that speaks against giving other reqs a conditional "Go" now? If I'm not mistaken, conditional approval basically means only that the language itself is eligible. Giving the proposers a "yellow light" does not anticipate your final decision and will possibly have a positive psychological effect and make them step up their efforts to meet the other requirements. I, for one, can see no downsides here. Best, --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: Conditional approval does suggest eventual approval once the requirements are met. That said, we're currently discussing several projects for conditional approval. Thanks. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 17:36:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

~~===Kabyle Wikipedia===~~

~~BTW, why Kabyle wikipedia has not been created yet? [[User:Don Alessandro|Don Alessandro]] 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)~~

: We're waiting for the [[Board of Trustees]] to approve it; the [[language subcommittee]] is currently chartered as an advisory body. I expect a favorable decision any day now, but how soon depends on the [[Board of Trustees#Current_board|Executive Secretary]]'s workload. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 19:42:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

~~===Transparency===~~

Excuse me, I'm afraid I've got another question. In your discussion archive there is a discussion concerning ''"Lack of progress and how to begin processing requests"'' which is currently being concealed from the Community and marked "private", despite the subcommittee's pledge for transparency. Like the headline indicates, that thread seems to be about an issue that concerns and affects significant parts of the Community - so how can a language subcommittee discussion about this issue be considered private? Please make it readable to us ordinary folks. Regards, --[[User:Arbeo|'''A'''RBE'''0''']] 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Btw: Is there an important reason why all messages by Karen Broome and GerardM are kept covert??

: Hello. Currently, all discussions are archived manually so that privacy considerations can be taken into account. Particularly for users in areas where language is political, publicly speaking against a particular language or project from a position of advisory authority in a top-ten website (or recommending to a subcommittee in such a position) can be personally dangerous. Further, the possible hostility of those around them may cause some users (both subcommittee members and guest speakers) to avoid speaking their mind or to state their opinions in a manner that is more politically acceptable and less meaningful.

: For these and more trivial reasons (as with [[IRC channels#Logging_prohibition|archival of IRC discussions]]), archival is optional and any person can request that a particular text, comment, or even entire discussion not be archived. The user who started the discussion you mentioned requested that it be private; GerardM and Karen have declined to allow archival, so their every comment is hidden. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 18:15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, let's clear up some stuff. I agreed that my stuff may be published - and I may only talk about my stuff. If something does not have to be published I will mark it, just like agreed. Normally anyway I blog about these things. But: you cannot assume that my answer is valid for all. When it comes to the chat: the chat room is public and people come there - we hardly ever use it. If we want a private chat ... well: there's no problem to do that when needed. Sometimes we talk about ISO standards and stuff that may not be publicly known by now since it is related stuff, but not Wikimedia information. So please respect single people's requests. You cannot take what I say for all. --[[User:SabineCretella|Sabine]] 08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:::When we discuss how things can be done, it helps when we talk freely. When I always have to weigh my words on a gold platter, I either do not say anything any more or I get continually harassed by people who take offence or think differently. When we talk in order to get to an understanding among ourselves in the committee it can and should be private and this is a good case why it should. When we are to be open all the time, we can justify inadequate documentation by saying read the deliberations it is all there. [[User:GerardM|GerardM]] 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

~~== Mass filing of requests for new languages ==~~

Hi there, today I noted that [[User:Blake C]] has filed some 11 requests for new languages, see [[Special:Contributions/Blake C]], always signed with '''NP'''. I have some difficulties with the idea that someone has eleven first languages and I think that mass filing of proposals should be deprecated. --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 13:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

: I've [[user talk:Blake C|contacted the user]]; perhaps they simply did not understand the significance of the initials 'NP', or they weren't aware that the proposer is expected to participate in every step of the process. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 17:15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

~~== [[Requests for new languages/Wikiqoute Macedonian]] vs. [[Requests for new languages/Wikiquote Macedonian]] ==~~

Both requests for the same are marked open. The one with the wrong title ("wikiqoute") is the newer one. Should they be merged or the old one formally rejected? --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

: Thanks; since there was no useful content in the misnamed page, I simply deleted it and corrected incoming links. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 01:08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:: However, now the main requests page includes the old rejected proposal (Obviously it had already been rejected, which was later reversed by an IP), this is probably not intentional? --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Yep; I want to see if there are any comments on the rejected request within a few days. If there are none, I'll delist it again. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 22:38:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

~~== [[Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Karen]] ==~~

~~It looks like this request, dated Dec 6, was never completed, as it lacks essential information. --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)~~

: I've deleted it, since there is no useful information or discussion for later requests. Thanks. —{[[Meta:Admins|admin]]} [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 19:50:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

~~== [[Requests for new languages/Project Northern Sotho]] ==~~

~~is apparently a duplicate of [[Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Northern Sotho]] and should be deleted. --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 06:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)~~

== Smaller language projects at all ==

Hi all. I want to discuss, whether it might be better for new languages that they should first create a wiktionary and only if that works, a wikipedia. A dictionary entry is much easier written than an encyclopedia article. And, as many smaller wikis show, the existing articles in most smaller WPs are mainly dictionary entries. I cleaned up the Zulu Wikipedia a little bit during the last days and most of the 79 articles there are of this kind: [[w:zu:Inymazane]], [[w:zu:IsiJalimani]], [[w:zu:Senzangakona]], [[w:zu:IKhanada]]. Would it be wise to transfer these articles to the Zulu Wiktionary (which is still completely empty...)? On both projects there are no active users, so there is no community we could ask. On zu.wikipedia there is one guy who wrote most of the articles containing some Zulu text and translated some of the MediaWiki stuff, but his last edit was in December 2006. :o( What can we do? --[[User:Thogo|Thogo]] ([[User talk:Thogo|talk]]) 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)