Talk:Language committee/2019

2013 non-Wikipedia requests

I think verifying them can be easier than any ongoing verifications, and here are what I suggest:

• Wikinews Irish Rejected as stale
• Wikinews Pipil Eligible (not a Marrovi issue, and too much content to reject as stale)
• Wikinews Kazakh Rejected (no valid content)
• Wikiquote Latvian Rejected as stale (nine pages, but all created the first two calendar months after request)
• Wikiquote Sinhala Eligible
• Wikiquote Ido 2 Eligible (There are projects in Ido already)
• Wikisource Old Saxon Rejected (content will stay at Multilingual WS, or will move to nds Wikisource if that is ever created)
• Wikiversity Burmese Rejected
• Wikivoyage Catalan Eligible
• Wikivoyage Kazakh Rejected as stale (no valid content)
• Wikivoyage Tarifit Rejected as stale
• Wikivoyage Welsh Eligible
• Wikivoyage Cantonese Eligible
• Wikivoyage Latvian Eligible
• Wiktionary Chinese Hong Kong Rejected
• Wiktionary Mbya Guarani Rejected as stale
• Wiktionary Tyvan Eligible
• Wiktionary Motu Eligible
• Wiktionary Bakhtiari Eligible
• Wiktionary Laki Eligible
• Wiktionary Northern Luri Rejected as stale
• Wiktionary North Levantine Arabic Rejected as stale

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was planning to try to address 2017 requests next, but will get at these soon. StevenJ81 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, IMHO the Pipil Wikinews is a problem, because it's the only one Wikinews that is under Nahuatl languages umbrella. The solution is still waiting for that, which as a Collection of languages (see iso639-3:nah), Nahuatl does illegally have a Wikipedia that mixed a huge number of member languages. --120.5.40.25 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point, some months ago, this problem bumped a question: should we rename nahwiki to nciwiki or nhnwiki? and why? After that, the entire discussion dead, nothing happened on this panorama, really, nothing. Now the Wikidata issue bumped this problem again, because an IP user on that sent me an email that he wanna use nci, nch, ... instead of confusing nah, so we need a final target now, that nahwiki really need to be splitted finally, otherwise there're really no answer for all questions about Nahuatl. Note that I said three "really", so this is really a long-term problem now! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It really is. There is a LangCom member who said he would address this; let me bug him again. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

See latest updates above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

More updates above. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet other updates above. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Last updates of non-Wiktionary projects before New Year's Day. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Finished with all of these. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Mongolian language written in Mongolian script

Actually is it supposed to be represented by the ISO-639 language code cmg: Classical Mongolian? C933103 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference between modern Mongolian written with the script and the extinct en:Classical Mongolian language. --MF-W 15:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The thing is Encyclopedia Britannica list Classical Mongolian as an alternative name for Literary Mongolian, and then Harvard University also wrote on introduction to their Mongolian program in a way of "Classical (literary) Mongolian". There's also book that describe "Classical Mongolian" as the literary language of Mongolian. Is the "Classical Mongolian" being described by the code "cmg" being the same thing as what the Encyclopedia Britannica is describing, or is it some other thing that is not being well documented? What exactly is the "Classical Mongolian" being described? C933103 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We follow ISO 639-3. According to that, Classical Mongolian is an extinct language. So I guess this follows the definition of "some scholars [who] restrict that term [=Classical Mongolian] [...] to the latest period of its history (17th-20th centuries)" (quote from the Britannica snippet that is visible at your link). --MF-W 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

However, an language is consider "extinct" when there are no speakers anymore. Since Literary Mongolian is a language specifically for writing, there should not be any speakers of the language and thus the language should be extincted as it is supposed to even if there are still active use of the language in writing. I think it is similar to Literary Chinese or use of Latin after middle age era. Anyway, I think it would be the best if someone can ask ISO 639-3's RA what that Classical Mongolian actually isC933103 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand the issue. There is no request to create a Classical Mongolian Wikipedia at the moment, so we don't need to know what it is. --MF-W 10:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: There are request to create a Wikipedia for Mongolian written in Mongolian script, and then also a request to create a monolingual value for Mongolian text in Mongolian script, however both of them are not proceeding at least partially because of the language code problem. If Classical Mongolian with its language code being cmg was actually the intended code for Mongolian language written in Mongolian script, then those requests can be proceed accordingly. C933103 (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@C933103 and MF-Warburg:

1. Indeed, the status on SIL can sometimes be confusing, too. This is just the problem that Ancient Greek meets.
2. For "and then also a request to create a monolingual value for Mongolian text in Mongolian script", it looks like that you're asking phab:T137810, that said, @GerardM: will not allow introducing any new codes with dash, if they're begin with macrolanguage code, and I was also actually asked SIL that if changing Mongolian from macrolanguage back to an individual language is possible or not, the Melinda from SIL respond me two emails that No, there are really variets of Mongolian that make benefit to define "Mongolian" as macrolanguage", so I cried to ask you, C933103, can you please accept the Azerbaijani mode? To allow using mvf on Wikidata, and just by local definding that "mn-mong=mvf" on modules? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani comparison isn't really appropriate, see my user talk page reply for further detail. C933103 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Another example to what I mentioned: xwo, "Written Oirat", is listed as "extinct" despite information indicate that Oirat people are still writing in such script. That indicate language would still be marked as extinct despite they are written language and in active written use. Therefore the ISO labelling for languages extinct status is meaningless for language that are only written but not spoken. C933103 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So I asked SIL via email about information of what is the Classical Mongolian language in ISO 639-3. They pointed me to Multitree.org but the site seems to be having problem now. However as I understand the Multitree site would show users a list of resources on Lingulist. And thus there are about a dozen or so different form of materials about Classical Mongolian that are available on Lingulist. It also linked a few Linguists who are listed as related to Classical Mongolian. Some of those linked document specify Classical Mongolian = Written Mongolian, some of those doesn't mention it, some of those imply they're talking about written language with classical mongolian listed as subject language for their mail, but some of them seems to be using the code to talk about ancient speaking language and some even seems to be using the code to talk about vowels of the language being spoken in modern time in Chinese part of Mongolia. Not sure what it imply. Maybe someone can contact one of those listed linguist for detail? C933103 (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM: Will you have time to contact them? Because for random one of those 6 linguists, their email address are not publicly shown, and by clicking that blue button I got a captcha-like popup, but between texts and login button, I can only see "404 Not Found" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: You can google the name and institution of those linguists listed on the site and you can usually find their email or social network accounts in the first few results. C933103 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@C933103: I've tried, but non of all those linguists published their email addresses in anywhere. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: How about emails listed at http://sinica.academia.edu/BenjaminBrosig/CurriculumVitae or http://departamento.us.es/lelite/index.php/en/personal-docente/profesores/54-peyro-garcia-jose-miguel.html or http://mongoliasociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/survey_23.pdf (page 2 left hand side) or http://linguistlist.org/confservices/customhome.cfm?Emeetingid=6802JA4458BE685E40A050441 or https://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/the_best_american_poetry/2009/03/modern-mongolian-literature-in-seven-days-a-finale-of-sorts-by-simon-wickham-smith.html C933103 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Then @C933103: I can confirm that the wickhamsmith is failed, because I've got an automated refusion message that "host mx00.emig.gmx.net[212.227.15.9] said: 552 For explanation visit http://postmaster.gmx.com/en/error-messages?ip=183.3.255.84&c=quot (in reply to RCPT TO command)", I'm trying other four. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@C933103:I've transfered a copy of response email (from Benjamin) to you, please read it in your inbox. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, so it seems like it is inappropriate to use cmg: Classical Mongolian to represent Mongolian written in Traditional Mongolian Script. And then mvf is also an ill choice to represent anything. So, what now? C933103 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Oh and by the way, from the mail it seems like you haven't briefed the professor with enough context when you send him the mail. I hope you have written an appropriate follow up reply to the professor afterward. C933103 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

---

In this situation, what would be the most suitable code? C933103 (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think no alternates are good to you, then you have to withdraw directly requesting Monolingual text codes, but just add mn values, with qualifier writing system (P282) Mongolian (Q1055705). If you even can't agree this, then you have to drop your efforts. Just a reminder that langcom wasn't, isn't, and won't agree any ideas for mn-mong, because if there's a separated individual code available for i18n, then its "father" macrolanguage code will be PROHIBITED for any usages in anywhere of WMF. --117.14.250.175 07:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It would probably help if you signed in, especially if you want to continue to speak as an authority on the subject. I don't know where you're getting "PROHIBITED" from; both nds.wikipedia.org and nds-nl.wikipedia.org exist, so there is a precedent that mn-mong could be used for language tag for a Wikimedia project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, 117.14.250.175, C933103, and StevenJ81: FWIW, in that Phabricator task GerardM said these sentences which to the best of my knowledge, they vetoed mn-mong:

“ Hoi, mn is the code ISO-639 for the language, Mong is the CLDR code for the script and CN is a code for the country where it is practices. The correct LANGUAGE code is either khk or mvf because as a macro language that does not have an existing project it is not eligible. Thanks, ”

“ Hoi, The practise of dropping upper case in the ISO-15934 is a MediaWiki practice that is incorrect. In the grand scheme of things it is only a minor matter. Mong is the correct code for the Mongolian script. The reason why mn-mong is not there is that it does not make sense to associate a scriot with a macro language, mn is in itself NOT a language it includes multiple languages and it is why it will not get support for a new language for a new project. So in conclusion, mn-mong can be understood to mean any Mongolian text written in the Mongolian script. In the current understanding of languages it is not precise and it is why it will not be approved for a new WMF project. Thanks, ”

“ Hoi, Sorry but your only option is wrong on principles. The code mn is for a language code that will never get recognition from the language committee. The way to distinguish between scripts is by using the ISO-15934 code and consequently it should be mn-Mong if your way would be followed. The difference between the codes is that they are both languages in their own right and are recognised as such. Wikipedia is not a source for this; try Ethnologue it is linked to the ISO-639-3 and that is the standard we follow. Thanks, ”

“ Hoi, That makes no difference. A language needs to fulfill some minimum requirements and mn is not the code for a language. Thanks, ”

“ Hoi, I am a member of the Language Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is stated policy that we do not accept macro languages. Lydia does read the comments and she knows of its existence, its policies and for me it is not personal. Is it for you? Thanks, ”

... I don't know how old this quote is. Current policy is that macrolanguages require a 2/3 vote, not that they cannot be approved at all. Mind you, Gerard, nearly always will vote against a macrolanguage. But if two people vote against him, it can be allowed. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

“ Hoi, The defenitions are in the standard. The standard is the ISO639-3. Thanks, ”

And as per **two emails** I've got in the last year, SIL will never agree any "cancel" requests of macrolanguages, and Mongolian (mn) is also a macrolanguage even you don't think so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It was unclear what the problem was, though if it's accepted that Mongolian in the Cyrillic script and Mongolian in the Mongolian script need to reside on different wikis, given the current existence of mn, I find it unreasonable to reject mn-Mong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pause to restate the problem (25 November)

Could everyone please stop for a moment?

I need someone to define clearly what the problem even is here. Are we talking about a potential project eligibility? Are we just talking about identifying text strings in Wikidata? Those aren't the same thing, and might be handled differently?

• Note: people don't need to keep quoting @GerardM. And note that not everyone on the Committee always agrees with his interpretation of the rules. In particular,
  • when the "constituent languages" of the "macrolanguage" are highly mutually intelligible, and/or
  • when the "constituent languages", even if not mutually intelligible in speech, are basically the same in writing

then LangCom should and will permit the macrolanguage.

It seems to me, then, that if we're talking data strings in Wikidata, then one or more of the following will, absolutely be permissible:

• If the reference is only from Classical/Literary Mongolian, then code it that way
• If the reference is modern, then either one of the language codes of constituent languages within mn, or else mn-Mong itself, has to be eligible. The real question here would then be, "are the data strings we're talking about correct in multiple types of Mongolian? If so, either code it multiple times in the corresponding Wikidata entries, or show me that from a written point of view, it's really a single language. And do that here, not phabricator.

If we're talking about a project approval, the appropriate place to discuss is on the RFL page. In that case, LangCom's first preference would be either (a) a project in the individual variety of Mongolian, and/or (b) a script converter on the current mnwiki. But if neither of those is possible, and the community clearly demonstrates on Incubator that all varieties in Mongolian script are welcome, we can work with that—provided it is consistent with modern usage of this script. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We do not accept macro languages except as an artifact of days gone bye. (Thank your deity). Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM: You are the only member of the Committee who feels that strongly about it. And current policy says "2/3" (see voting page), not "we do not accept". StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We also have a history of seeking consensus. Your notion is not argued but a power ploy. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If you say so. Yeah, I'm really gunning for power here. What nonsense. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Total consensus based systems only work when people are willing to concede. Otherwise it's just tyranny by the people who are only interested in getting their way. The cases where a two-thirds majority can't win a consensus should be rare and be very stressful to the system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:

1. It is about both of them, the wikidata text value identifier and also the creation of Mongolian in Classical Mongolian script Wikipedia.

   @C933103: Please, as I'm crying with tears to ask you to, do not suggest site creation using a code with dash, that can result speedy veto from server operations e.g. @Reedy (WMF):. --218.68.229.88 08:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

   I am not making such recommendation in this message, although it doesn't really make sense to speedy veto site creation with dash when it have already be done in the past.C933103 (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2. After contacting Mongolian linguistic professors, it have been shown that "Classical Mongolian" as in the iso language code cmg is not supposed to represent the written language that use Classical Mongolian script, so it would be incorrect to use the language code "cmg" here for this purpose.
3. You can check the description on the Written Mongolian here: [1]

@GerardM:

1. Then what do you think would be an appropriate language code for Mongolian text written in Mongolian script? Given that mvf is inappropriate as already clarified by Doctor Benjamin Brosig in his email to User:Liuxinyu970226.

C933103 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@C933103: To the best of my knowledge, the decision of langcom is kindly like the Permanent five of UNSC, where I'm 99.999% sure that your proposals can be vetoed just by one oppose vote. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That is no longer technically true, though most of the time it is still true in practice. However, that applies to a formal LangCom discussion forum; just because a LangCom member has expressed concerns here does not mean this discussion should be stopped. It does mean, though, that proponents need to know their chances are slim. StevenJ81 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 and GerardM: That rule (I mean, the "2/3 agreetion") requires "within langcom-l mailing list" mail vote, and do you both send such emails to start a refreshed new vote? If not, then it's still true that mn-mong is one-oppose-vetoed by GerardM. --218.68.229.88 08:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about that in this particular section. C933103 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid no one can accept any creation of new WMF sites (if by site creation you mean domains) now, just if the language code has dash. The likely case is Korean in Hanja, which C933103 was proposed ko-hani but, not only langcom members but also Korean Wikipedia communities e.g. @-revi: oppose it. --117.14.243.161 03:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, you speak as if on high, but as an anonymous editor, I don't see why anyone should accept your assertion that "no one can accept". If there are language communities divided by script that can not be held on one Wikipedia, we would have no option but to include a script tag or some other (standard or non standard) disambiguator. Korean in Hanja doesn't strike me as a likely case at all, given that both Koreas write Korean in Hangul, and I don't think there's any other major groups of Korean speakers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And @Prosfilaes: How did your comments be effectively here? Nearly all of your this comment are addressing no problem at all, which looks just like a "three sentences" bushwa to me, if a vote can also be happened for Korean Hanja, then it should be bumped within langcom-l, if not, just non-admin close it, thx. --218.68.229.88 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your sentences. Korean in Hanja fails the test of being a real problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: "Not a real problem", hehe. --60.26.9.13 02:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@GerardM: So can you suggest a language code for use for purposes listed above? C933103 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

AFAICS that is at least not mn-mong, just because that's vetoed by GerardM, you must select a proper alternative code, C933103. --218.68.229.88 08:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

At issue is the use of standards. My oposition is based on my understanding of standards. I reject the notion that we are free to just select something because it is convenient. When there is a need for something where the standards are problematic, there is ampple room to go different and indicate this in the code used. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we please close this section by this way?!

1. @StevenJ81: Do you, or @Amire80, Maor X, GerardM, Jon Harald Søby, and MF-Warburg:@Millosh and Satdeep Gill: do you all have anytime to start an official within-member [VOTE] in langcom-l mailing list regarding this? As that IP user pointed, the "2/3 agreetion requires a vote held within langcom member, and within mailing list", if not, then it's very likely that the normal "one-oppose veto" has applied. I will continue filling other steps after your responds. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What you propose is against the voting policy. Topics should be discussed first, and only afterwards there will maybe be a vote. So far, this topic has not been discussed by langcom at all. --MF-W 13:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to, the C933103 is also having their wrong behaviors e.g. forking CC BY-SA 3.0 contents to Wikinews which is CC BY 2.5. --117.136.54.5 05:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me why a script converter on the current Mongolian Wikipedia is not a viable solution? StevenJ81 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chinneeb, Danzanjamts, MongolWiki, Munkhzaya.E, and Zorigt:@Доромжлол шүүгч:. --117.15.55.107 08:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think the 117.* comment should be striked, because, as per s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#文言文维基文库很可能将会设立 and Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2017-11#question_on_wikinews_license_compatibility., C933103's comments are also sometimes "untrustful". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got other things to put before LangCom at higher priority than this. I will get this to them, probably some time in February. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When to approve Western Armenian Wikipedia?

It's already approval ongoing for over 3 months! --60.26.9.78 02:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's awaiting language verification. Can a registered user who has been contributing either at hywiki or on the Incubator please provide contact information on language experts (substantially) independent of the work here? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the translations and everything is ok.--Azniv Stepanian (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind confirming from your WMAM account? In the meanwhile, over the weekend, I'll try to get a final OK from LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I confirm what I said above.--Azniv Stepanian (WMAM) (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Western Armenian Wikipedia

Dear Language committee, please solve the issue of the separation of Western Armenian Wikipedia. I send an email to committee mailing list. Thanks! --WikiTatik (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@WikiTatik: The (probably) good news: [2]. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--WikiTatik (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

։;Dear Liuxinyu970226, I checked there is no hyw.wikipedia.org.--WikiTatik (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@WikiTatik: Not yet. Probably will be approved in the next few days. Then it will take some time to get content moved from hy.wikipedia and from Incubator into the newly approved project. But progress is being made. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This project was approved on 24 December 2018 and is in the process of being created. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for Saraiki

As Wikipedia is thinking about creating projects in also in those language which have no ISO_3 code. In this sense if saraiki is given code sar. It would be easy to understand that it is saraiki language. So it is suggested that sar.Wikipedia.com be created.Sraiki 15:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Saraiki already has code skr, and that is the code that will be used for Saraiki-language projects. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Thanks, Wikipedia be approved so that work be made faster.Sraiki 16:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

：：：Why don't you use the word will in any place? --120.5.40.25 09:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Now we have improved Saraiki Wikipedia. Now stubs are less than 20%. so this wiki be approved.Sraiki 11:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sraiki: I will look at the test late next week. (That's the soonest I can do it.) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sraiki: I'm still checking on a couple of things, but I'm hoping to present Saraiki Wikipedia to LangCom by next week. Keep up the good work. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 @StevenJ81, Saraiki language speaking people are in wait for Wikipedia in Saraiki.Sraiki 15:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sraiki: This is now waiting on LangCom to find an expert who can verify that the test's language is Saraiki. (Don't take this personally. This is a requirement every time the first project in a new language is to be approved, and happened because of problems in the past.) Do you have the name of an academic or professional linguist—preferably one not strongly involved in your test project—whom LangCom could contact? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Dear, These are some professors in Saraiki.

See: 1. http://www.bzu.edu.pk/v2_faculty.php?id=33 2.http://www.iub.edu.pk/teachers.php?id=26 Sraiki

@Sraiki: Thank you. I will forward to LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, The Saraiki ethnic community of Saraikistan area and all over the world is thankful to you and whole Wikipedia team for helping us to promote our language and culture through knowledge. Saraikis are expecting the approval of Saraiki wikipedia and its own website of wikipedia. Your kindness in this regard will be remebered forever. So we are waiting for good news from you. Thanks. Engr.ismailbhutta (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, @Liuxinyu970226 @StevenJ81, @Engr.ismailbhutta:, If Wikipedia is approved, the work will became fast, Approval is very close. Sraiki 04:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, @Liuxinyu970226 @StevenJ81, @Engr.ismailbhutta:, It is requested that language committee should take the notice of so delay in this matter. It is hoped that lang comm will try their best for this creation as soon as possible. Sraiki 15:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

We want to work for wikivoyage, wikibooks, wikinews and wikiquote projects of saraiki language. Please consider these for approval. Engr.ismailbhutta (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Braille

Just wondering, if Finnish Sign Language can be considered as at least eligible (inter alia through a SignWriting MediaWiki Plugin), then shouldn't Braille be considered for use in some way too? Are there not technologies for converting electronic Braille symbols into tactile bumps? And is Braille not a writing system with numerous users??
Maybe this should be implemented as alternative scripts in relevant existing Wikipedias, like the two scripts available in the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia:

• lad:Astronomiya (page about "Astronomy", using a Latin-alphabet version of Judeo-Spanish)
• lad:אסטרונומייה (same subject using a Hebrew-alphabet version of Judeo-Spanish)

—DIV (120.17.94.115 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

Agreed, see also Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Braille. --MF-W 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, MF-W. I have to admit that I don't know Braille myself, so I can't comment on how useful it'd be. It seems more of a question to me of whether those who could potentially benefit are even aware that there might be (?) technology that can allow this to happen.

I can see the formal process for requesting a new Wikipedia be created for a "language", but I cannot see what the process is for creating additional pages within an existing Wikipedia in a new script. Presumably if I wanted to create an Arabic-script page for "Astronomy" on the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia, then something would prevent me. Other examples, such as a romanised/pinyin version of a (Mandarin) Chinese article might be more justified. (Actually, the Chinese article on "Astronomy" at 天文學 includes a menu for 'conversions' into 5 or 6 other {languages/dialects/orthographies/scripts/???}, such as for "zh-tw" [天文學] and for "zh-sg" [天文学]. Hard to tell (for me) if this is an automatic conversion or not.) But what would be the procedure to propose it, and what would be the procedure to get it approved?

—DIV (120.17.75.130 01:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

Maybe I am wrong? Maybe this is the kind of thing that Braille users would obtain through client-side 'reading' technology, i.e. some kind of 'text-to-Braille' converter connected to the user's device? Or could it be good fodder for a Braille e-book?

—DIV (120.17.195.201 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

I can't imagine that blind people would get a better deal from an automatic conversion, like at the Chinese Wikimedia projects, then they would from their local systems; at the very least, with their local systems, they'd get the same spellings here they'd get elsewhere on the web. Given the rarity of Unicode braille and the ease of conversion, I can't imagine anyone who can afford a braille board who doesn't have a decent conversion system along with it.

It's like languages; demand from people who aren't going to use it isn't of much help. People who actually need this are the ones to be driving the project forward.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Hindi Wikisource

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

The LangCom intends to approve Hindi Wikisource. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, Any update of this proposal?? Jayantanth (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It's still under discussion in LangCom. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: , @Amire80, Maor X, GerardM, Jon Harald Søby, and MF-Warburg:,@Millosh and Satdeep Gill: , Dear all, I know that you are so busy with so many request. If you have a little time to approved this 10 years old request, then Hindi Community will be very happy. Please consider to took at this request. Thanks you. Jayantanth (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jayantanth: I am trying to bring this to a close now. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jayantanth: Please see below: Nothing will happen until March anyway. Please be patient. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikisources: Latin vs. other old languages (re: Chinese)

As per some recent conversion on langcom, I might point out that taking Latin as the model for all old Wikisources might have negative repercussions. Should Middle Dutch works be removed from the Dutch Wikisource if the Afrikaans Wikisource becomes a thing? Should Old and Middle English works be removed from the English Wikisource if some English creole language gets a Wikisource? Or likewise for French and its many creoles? I can see an argument for Old and Middle English works being moved if Scots speakers decided to leave the English Wikisource, but I'd like to think that could be handled by discussion between the two groups and not by some hard and fast rule.

Latin, as I frequently have to say here, is sui generis; trying to compare another language to it is almost always going to be unhelpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, we would not be having separate language editions for Wikisource, exactly because of these frequent overlaps of languages. With regards to Chinese, it is already reality that many Chinese languages already have their own language edition. It just happens to be that Classical Chinese works have been submitted to the project (originally) designated to Mandarin Chinese, which does not follow linguistical logic. I am not arguing for forcefully moving Classical Chinese content away from there, but if there is someone who does not want to submit his works under that false domain, but on mulwikisource (under the lzh code) instead, that should be allowed. Political arguments like "the main language of modern China is Mandarin, and thus Classical Chinese belongs to there" or "non-Mandarin speakers rarely edit Classical Chinese content" should not count. --Vogone (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about mulwikisource; we talking about the creation of the Classical Chinese Wikisource. Political arguments, as you put it, are the reason for structuring projects; it's about bringing together a bunch of people who can work together. It's helpful to have a Wikisource to be largely intelligible by its admins; I can imagine working a Wikisource of Latin-script languages, but Arabic, Indian and Chinese script languages would be impossible for me to even compare to the scans. The Mandarin Chinese Wikisource has a group of people willing to work together to on Classical Chinese, and they've agreed to include those (rare) people who don't speak Mandarin Chinese but want to work on Classical Chinese.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about the possibility to create an independent Classical Chinese Wikisource, provided there being at least 5 community members regularly editing its test content on mulwikisource, nothing more. I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that we structure projects for political reasons, the reasons are - and as well are supposed to be - linguistic. As the policy itself puts it: "The project will be assessed on its linguistic merits" and "the number of users that support or oppose the project is irrelevant". Also, multilingual administration is far from uncommon (think of meta, wikidata, commons, …). --Vogone (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The two of you seem to be talking at cross-purposes: (national) politics on the one hand, and wiki administration on the other hand. —DIV (120.17.173.229 03:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

LPP says "The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki." and "Wikisource wikis are allowed in languages with no native speakers, although these should be on a wiki for the modern form of the language if possible". Mandarin Chinese is a descendant of Classical Chinese; that is a linguistic reason to keep Classical Chinese there. The goals of these rules are to avoid opening a new project that covers the same area as an old and zh.WS does cover that area quite well.

You name three projects out of hundreds (303 Wikipedia projects alone); I think that qualifies as uncommon. Both here and on Commons I do not think I would feel nearly as welcome if I did not speak English, and on Commons I regularly see admins asking for help and using Google Translate for messages in various non-English languages. As I said, the ability to patrol changes and recognize vandalism on the English Wikisource would be much harder if I couldn't even process the script.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify a couple of issues with respect to this situation, which LangCom is in the middle of discussing.

• To some extent, these are judgment calls.

  Still, most of the time, there is a pretty obvious principal descendant language that would be the home of documents in historical versions of the language. ([Modern] English is still the principal descendant of Old English and Middle English, and [Modern] Dutch—not Afrikaans—is still the principal descendant of Old Dutch.)

• You are quite right to describe Latin as sui generis in this regard. Many languages are descended from it, and if anything it is a little hard for anyone to say that Latin is a closer ancestor of one than of another. (Italian, I suppose, maybe, but I don't think anyone could make a strong case that Latin Wikisource documents would be more appropriately housed in Italian Wikisource than in French or Portuguese Wikisource.)
• Concerning Classical Chinese (lzh):

1. For now, we are talking about possibilities. Mostly, no one is talking about (currently) splitting off current lzh content into a separate project. The question is more whether we are willing to risk some potential of overlapping projects and duplicated content. [That's one reason that some people (like @Vogone and @MF-Warburg) would prefer there to be only a single, multilingual Wikisource project.] The question is also whether we might eventually consider splitting off current lzh content. But that's for later, not for now.
2. You can argue both sides of this debate from a policy perspective.
   • Pro: It's pretty equivalent to Latin: (1) Most people would say that lzh is fairly different from modern versions of Chinese. (2) It has been argued than lzh is as much the early ancestor of Japanese, Korean, etc. as Latin is the early ancestor of French, Portuguese, etc. So it should be treated that way.
   • Con: lzh is unarguably an early version of Chinese, and probably Chinese is still the "principal descendant" of lzh. (But is Mandarin any more entitled to that description than, say, Cantonese?)

   I suspect that if we were just starting out with lzh content now, we'd say yes to this. But given that an enormous amount of lzh content already exists on Chinese Wikisource—and that most contributors do not favor separating the projects—that answer is not so simple.

3. Over the course of this debate, the Chinese Wikisource community has come to appreciate that non-Mandarin speakers may have a real stake in lzh content, so they have opened an English-language (meaning non-Mandarin) Scriptorium there. Whether that solution is sufficient or just a first step is a good question, but the community is trying to be mindful of this issue.

StevenJ81 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

lzh is not the early ancestor of Japanese, Korean, etc. Both of them are language isolates unrelated to lzh. The Cantonese-Mandarin relationship seems pretty similar to the Scots-English relationship; both are equal descendants of the older language, but one is a regional language and the other is a national/supernational language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So I guess we all agree that Mandarin and Classical Chinese are sufficiently unique: They are neither "regional dialects" nor "different written forms of the same language", but plainly two different languages.

Further, the policy you cited only recommends to include the projects of wikisource of old languages within the versions of the corresponding modern languages, but it does not prohibit they have it independently (and there are some valid arguments in favour):

Literary Chinese is not comparable with Old English or Middle Dutch or almost any other dated version of a current language: While these only have a cultural influence limited to their national cultural environments, Literary Chinese has, without doubt, a world-wide importance. The truly international character of Literary Chinese, which is in that extent only comparable with Latin and Ancient Greek (which both have been marked as eligible a decade ago) is obvious (it is even more comparable with Latin than with Greek, since it has different equally important descendants, which would be possible hosts of the language). Decoupling can attract the participation of a wider international audience. I think that can also encourage the use of Literary Chinese as language to use in discussions, as in Latina Wikipedia.

That does not prohibit using Mandarin or Kantonese for administrative purposes, nor does it prohibit using English to communicate with administrators who are not capable of the language, so I don't think there would be significantly more communicative difficulties than on zhwikisource. This is also the obvious solution to the problem you devised: The community simply has the duty to also elect administrators, who speak e. g. Mandarin to allow a trouble-free communication, but that's nothing specific about this very wiki and it works quite well on most wikis. Regards, KPFC 💬 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Guianan Creole Wikipedia

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

The LangCom intends to approve Guianan Creole Wikipedia. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days.

For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Don't forget us, please ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeGuyanaisPure: First of all, see this below. Nothing is moving so fast right now, anyway.

Second, though, please see my email response to you: I could not locate your language expert on the Internet. I looked at three websites in detail (the Collectivité, the Département and the Université). I also did a general Google search, and found only one possibility: a teacher in a private school in New York. Can you make sure you gave me the correct information? Tell me where you found him, and why he's the best expert—or please provide a different possibility. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I sent you an email...! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Status of Czech Wikivoyage request

The request for Czech Wikivoyage is labeled as "Verified as eligible" on the Requests for new languages page, but on the page of the request itself, the request is only marked as submitted. Which is the correct status? DraconicDark (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Eligible. Will fix. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Technical delays in creating new wikis

For Neapolitan Wikisource: @Candalua, Chelin, Ruthven, Lismia, and Parma1983.
For Western Armenian Wikipedia: @Armeniki, Davit Saroyan (WMAM), and Werldwayd.

I wanted you to know that there are some technical problems at phabricator with new wiki creation. See T212881. That's why these projects have been stalled for a while. Please continue to work on the test projects at Multilingual Wikisource and Incubator in the meantime. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is code config still in progress? --47.156.0.180 23:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? StevenJ81 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

When are the new Wikis going to be created. --47.156.0.180 03:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear StevenJ81, thanks for the notice. I have subscribed to the phabricator ticket and I know that there is an issue in creating new wikis. However, it has been already the third month that the issue is not solved and I see almost no progress on the ticket page. While I really understand that the solution takes time, I have no explanation and any dates to provide to the community on this. The community is really excited and waits for the creation of the new Wikipedia. It gets harder and harder to explain why there's no progress (or simply we don't see it) and why they shouldn't get demotivated. Do you have any news, dates, or anything regarding the issue? When will it get fixed? What's being implemented to fix the issue? --Davit Saroyan (WMAM) (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davit Saroyan (WMAM): I am afraid that I am not the right person to ask. I'm just not that up on the technical side of these matters. I suggest you ask the question right on the phabricator ticket. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the Language proposal policy

Please see the proposal at Language proposal policy/4-2019 proposed revision and discuss on its talk page. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Konkani Wiktionary

On behalf of the Konkani Wiki community, I request you to evaluate the Konkani Wiktionary test on Incubator. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@The Discoverer: Apologies. Real-life, you know ...

1. Activity. You're OK here, though about to miss on April. You need three named contributors making ten edits each over three consecutive months, and continuing until approval.
2. Interface translation. See translatewiki:Special:LanguageStats/gom-latn. 24% for the MediaWiki core group is a little light; you might want to push that up a little.
   • translatewiki:Special:LanguageStats/gom-deva is even worse (18%), and you really need to complete the MediaWiki (most important messages) group for that one.
3. Content. Your count of main space pages is at the bottom end of active Wiktionaries; you'd be well-served to continue adding content.
   • More seriously, I'm concerned about how LangCom will view the quality of the content. Many of the pages look like this one, where all you have really done is provided a translation into other languages. At minimum, you want pages to look more like this one.
   • Even at that, though, neither your content nor the organization of your project really looks like the best Wiktionary projects. For starters, the first purpose is not to be a Konkani-English or Konkani-Portuguese dictionary, but to be a Konkani dictionary. The first definition should therefore be a definition of the Konkani word in Konkani. Afterwords, you can add translations. On the other hand, you can and should add lemmas that are foreign language words, and then give a Konkani translation, as you have done at devout. But here, your purpose should not be to translate the English word into Portuguese. Instead, that page should point to a page like "Wt/gom/bhagevont" (which doesn't exist now), and translations out to other languages happen there. (I'll admit: I'm not a big expert on Wiktionary. And I think we should be providing more support on how to proceed. I may go to someone I've met on English Wiktionary and ask that person to write a brief, simple guide.)
   • Also, since Konkani Wikipedia has both scripts, and your Wiktionary indicates it accepts both scripts, you probably need more Devanagari words in your project.
   • Finally, the more you can get other contributors involved in the project the better. Right now, this is mostly your show, and LangCom is reluctant to approve projects that seem like one-person creations.

Now, if you keep meeting your activity targets, and then get to 500 or so main space pages, and finish the translations of MediaWiki (most important) in gom-deva, I'd be willing to take your project to LangCom for consideration. But I'm not going to guarantee that they'd find your content sufficient.

Good luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, thanks a lot for taking the time out to write this detailed review. This will surely go a long way in helping us do the needed course correction. Following are a few comments regarding the points that you have raised:

2. Interface translation: We are working on this offline, and we are aiming to significantly increase the percentage for mw-core in both latn and deva. We will surely complete mw-most impt. messages in gom-deva.

3. Content: We will take your comments into account. We are planning one or more workshops for the Konkani Wiktionary in May, which should help increase the number of contributors as well as the number of pages, in both, the devanagari and latin scripts.

Thanks once again for your remarks. I propose to post here again when we have made improvements in the various parameters that you have mentioned. The Discoverer (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Status of Mon Wikipedia

Mon Wikipedia had been in process for approval since December 2018 and we still do not hear anything from Langcom. What should we do from Mon Wikipedia Group?

The best regards, Htawmonzel

Is there any update on this? Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ninjastrikers: Not really. I was not really pushing LangCom on any of this as long as there was a technical issue blocking creation of new wikis. There was no point in going out of our way to lengthen the queue. Now that the technical issue is resolved, I will push them again.

What you and the Mon group could do is to try to find me two experts who can verify the language. (Verification is a requirement for first project approved in a language. I ask for two experts so that we have a better chance of getting a response.) They should have strong academic and/or linguist credentials. Ideally, they would not be closely associated with the test project, but if their credentials are strong, that's less of a problem. Someone from LangCom can then contact the experts for language verification. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @StevenJ81:. We'll working on finding the experts. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 05:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mon linguistic experts

Dear Language Committee and StevenJ81 (talk)

Ven. Kelāsa (M.A. in Buddhism, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka) is a Mon linguistic expert. He is an instructor in a Mon Pariyatti Academy in Mudon Town, Mon State, Burma (Myanmar). He received award the title Sāsana Dhaja Dhammācariya from the Burmese National Government. He is a member of central committee of Rāmañña Dhammācariya. Rāmañña Dhammācariya is one of the largest Mon Pariyatti Educational Institute and the second largest Pariyatti Educational Institute in Burma after the Government Pariyatti Educational Department.

This is Ven. Kelāsa's email, saraimon@gmail.com

Nai Sunthorn Sripanngern is a Mon writer and Mon linguistic academic, living in Bangkok, Thailand. He wrote many books in Mon and Thai including Mon - Thai Dictionary. He was a key member on making curriculum of Mon language teaching for Mon children in Thai primary school in Thailand.

Nai Sunthorn’s email is sunthornmul@gmail.com

If there are any problem to get contact with them or other thing that we have to do, don't be hesitate to let we know.

Regards, Htawmonzel 09:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Laki language

We have worked on the incubator version of Laki since 2012. It's discouraged the language speaker and contributors and if Wikimedia foundation submit the language and allocate a formal subdomain (lki.wikipedia.org) we start develping the Wikipedia for this language and encourage all of us.

Bests, Miladrahimi93 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for a re-evaluation of Test Igbo Wiktionary

Hi StevenJ81, I write to request a re-evaluation for the above-named test wiki. This test wiki has been consistent for some months now, so I would say that it is no longer a person making contributions in this Wiktionary project. The project now has a community working on it. Also, the test Wiktionary now has an administrator.

Having said the above, I think it should be re-evaluated and possibly approved, thank you.

Regards,

--Uzoma 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Back in business (I hope)

Hi, all. I have been extremely busy IRL the last 4–6 weeks. Always remember that we're all volunteers here; sometimes volunteers can do more work, and sometimes less. Still, I apologize for all the things that have been left in limbo recently.

I'm trying to get some of these items back in process now. Please let me work through them in a rational way. I will try to address the questions and requests that have come in here and on Incubator in the next week or two. StevenJ81 (talk) (LangCom clerk) 14:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Item #1: Getting already-approved projects created

Although Western Armenian Wikipedia was created recently, there is still apparently a problem with creating new wikis. (See phab:T212881.) So the Hindi and Neapolitan Wikisource projects are still in Multilingual Wikisource and can't be moved out yet.

Accordingly, I can't say there is a rush to look at projects that are not-yet-approved. They're just going to be waiting anyway. I am going to prioritize getting language verification on the four projects that are tentatively approved, pending language verification: Wikipedias in Guiane Creole, Mon and Saraiki, and Wiktionary in Tacawit. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Steven, Welcome back. Your great contribution in Wiki projects is really appreciateable and we always look towards your attention for our language wikis. I also request you for your kindness on Saraiki Wikipedia regarding its approval and own site. With best regards, Engr.ismailbhutta (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for a vote-judge within langcom mailing list for Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Hanja 2 eligibility

Because, as far as I can see, there are a number of users who support creating a separated "Korean Wikipedia" uses Hanja scripts, which can simply fall into the 2019 revision I judgement case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Right at this moment I am trying to catch up on some other things. I will try to get to this by sometime this (northern) summer. But there is a long queue ahead of this right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Two site renaming request on Meta RFC

I have no idea that why there are no man to make decisions to both:

• Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia: I can see some oppose comments, concerning that the de facto nowiki contains not only Bokmål but also Riksmål contents, but has mentioned entirely no example of this, other than this one, I see no reason to actually oppose that (the so-called "technically not possible" was just hit-faced by Foundation Wiki rename, that renamed from wikimediafoundation.org to foundation.wikimedia.org, and a lot of other so-called "reasons" that nsaa said are seems contested by the proposer and Liu...?!)
• Requests for comment/Rename nah.wikipedia to nci.wikipedia: Although Meta-Wiki doesn't allow Snowball closure and hence at least one opposite comment should happen as what Ricardo gs said, I don't know if there are really having fair reasons not to do so? By Marrovi's additional materials, it looks like the de facto nahwiki has served too many member languages, despite have native speakers or not, this is, as Liu..., an easier-to-judge "violation of MediaWiki Code of Conduct", as CoC require projects to be normally either "one language per one subdomain", or "a multilingual wiki with English as default language, and Translate extension installed", except for Chapters', private and/or fishball wikis.

I would really love to see how members of language committee consider both DIV--117.13.95.200 08:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As long as this is not solved, I do not think it is correct to say that wiki renames are now "technically possible". Therefore any discussions are pointless. --MF-W 10:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This IP user mentioned Foundation Wiki, which afaik that's a successful domain renaming that is happened after this Phabricator task you mentioned. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Then please ask the developers why it hasn't left any traces in the bug. I guess that this is because foundationwiki is a standalone wiki, i.e. not included in CentralAuth, and therefore has a lot less problems for renaming. --MF-W 08:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Saraiki Wiktionary

In Saraiki Wiktionary Wt/skr most work has been done. More than 4000 pages have been made. It should be approved because editor are not feeling good to write categories repeatedly in each page and link. Hoping to be approved --Sraiki 17:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I need you to have at least three registered editors making ten contributions each every month. You're not quite there.

Additionally—and I think I've mentioned this somewhere else—your pages are not very robust. They may contain minimal definitions, but most Wiktionaries include pronunciations, grammatical forms, examples, translations, etc. I'm not seeing any of that.

If you get your contributions up to 3 registered x 10 contributions each consistently, I'm willing to put the project in front of LangCom. But I cannot guarantee that LangCom will think the pages are sufficiently developed. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to make the North Korean version

I am japanese. I know basic korean lang. I can know The korean news peper. I want to make North Korea Version. It is difficult for Koreans to understand North Korean.(30% of the words are different.) But Don't I have ISO code of North Korean.

What should I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inc rup (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

North Korean has no ISO code, and it is pretty unlikely that LangCom is going to support creation of a separate Wikipedia in North Korean. I can suggest a couple of ideas:

1. Try to add North Korean words to Korean Wiktionary (and other Wiktionaries). The point here is that in other Wiktionaries, the definitions have to be written in whatever language is the language of the Wiktionary, but the lemmas (words to be defined) can be in any language. So it's a way within current projects to start disseminating differences between North Korean and standard [South] Korean.
2. Create a test project at Incubator Plus, where you can freely create a project without an ISO code. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Don't. Projects should be started by native speakers. Also, North Korean doesn't have an ISO code because it's not considered a separate language from Korean, by SIL or by us. Requests for new languages/Wikipedia South Korean has already taken on this issue, from the other angle. If you insist on preceding, see The ISO 639 code change page, where you can request an ISO code for North Korean. (Written before StevenJ81; you should also consider his answer.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not familiar with English.

"cooking" of Korean is

north Korea =ryori

south korean =yori

South Version have"North korean Word" .

I make a North korea lang wiki.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/요리 (yori page)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/료리 (ryori page)

This is totally appropriate, and a good way to do things. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with English, then write in Japanese. Google Translate is pretty bad on English-Japanese translation, but I'm sure there's someone here who can help with translation. Differences like that are not usually reason to create a separate Wikipedia, and you would first need to try to get a code from SIL (from the page I linked above) before you could try to create a Wikipedia.

（Google Translate）英語に慣れていない場合は、日本語で書いてください。 グーグル翻訳は日英翻訳にはかなり悪いですが、私はここに翻訳を手伝ってくれる人がいると確信しています。 そのような違いは通常別のウィキペディアを作成する理由ではありません、そしてあなたがウィキペディアを作成しようとすることができる前に最初にSILからコードを入手しようとする必要があるでしょう。--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

About your example on 요리, it's called dialects. You don't have English (US) / English (UK) / English (Canada) Wikipedia. Same stuff. — regards, Revi 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Development delays

Just to answer everyone at once here, phab:T212881 has still not been resolved. I'm not quite sure how Western Armenian got through all this, but I cannot get anything else through right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Steven, thanks for the update. Because of this long delay we found a quite siginificant decrease in contributions at Minangkabau Wiktionary, since there is basically no point of contributing when project creation is impossible anyway; a discouraging condition, particularly looking back at the level of activity at the beginning of the year. While I recognize that all of us work in voluntary capacity, I might offer that a longer delay may contribute to worse consequences to the future of potential Wiki projects here at the Incubator. Are there any steps that the committee can take for projects affected by this, absent any feasible technical solutions? Muhraz (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll work on it. Certainly, one thing is that I'm going to suspend the activity requirement for this stretch of time, provided there was sufficient activity right before the problems started. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

So is verification also stalled now? --117.14.250.47 02:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the Committee to issue some form of temporary verification for stalled projects. If the technical problem is not going to be resolved in any near future, at least verification should proceed. Muhraz (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary Minangkabau

Hello. The Minangkabau Wiktionary recently saw a significant increase in its activities. We now have a regular pool of active contributors and recently-acquired dictionaries and other needed resources for a new project. Therefore, we would like the Committee to consider it for the next step into final approval. Thank you. Muhraz (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Activity only really started in December. It would be good to wait at least a little bit more. There should usually be at least 3 months of consecutive activity. Please also work to complete the interface translation (at least the most-used messages). --MF-W 16:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As our Wiktionary has been steadily (and increasingly) active since the last message and the core messages are being translated, I would like to request for the Committee to reconsider it for release. Thanks. Muhraz (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You and the community are doing a great job, @Muhraz. Still, I'm going to hold this request until you have sufficient activity in April, for two reasons:

• 3 months is the minimum activity requirement, but 4—5 months is better.
• There is still a technical problem in creating new wikis. See phabricator:T212881. Right now, there are three approved projects (Western Armenian Wikipedia, Neapolitan Wikisource, Hindi Wikisource) and two other wikis ahead of you in line. So nothing will happen on this for a while, anyway. It's better to continue to show your community's commitment by continuing to create content in Incubator for right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well then, we would be content to wait until next month. We expect to maintain the same level of activity, and I hope that the Committee would immediately consider our project for approval when the technical problems are fixed. Muhraz (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: It seemed to be fixed on 26 March. phab:T212881#5056630 ✒ Bennylin 03:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bennylin: I just found out myself, and in any case have been very busy IRL. (I'm a volunteer, not paid staff.) I will get to this shortly. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I know, none of us are. It's just that you're the only person that I can ping. ✒ Bennylin 00:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, any update on this? Muhraz (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @StevenJ81: do you have any information about the Minangkabau Wiktionary and what should we do to make it happen soon? Harditaher (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Harditaher: I'm afraid I don't. I've been extremely busy IRL the last several weeks, and haven't been able to focus on this. I will try to give this some attention this week. (But please don't forget: most of us here are volunteers, and we sometimes can't spend the time we'd like on this.) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @StevenJ81:, We're looking forward to hearing it from you. Best. Harditaher (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, hello, any update on the approval status of this? Sorry for pinging all members of langcom: @Amire80:, @Antony D. Green:, @Evertype:, @GerardM:, @Jon Harald Søby:, @Klbroome:, @Maor X:, @MF-Warburg:, @Millosh:, @N-true:, @Santhosh.thottingal:, @Satdeep Gill:, @SPQRobin:, but it's been months since the project should be approved already.

Comparing with the latest Wiktionary that got approved:

	Tacawit	Minang
Speakers	2.1 million to 4.5 million	5.5 million to 8.5 million
Number of entries in incubator	1 819 (> 3 years)	5 350 (1 year)
Number of admins	1	6
Number of people in discussion page	2	32 at least
Localization status	NA 503 Service Unavailable	NA 503 Service Unavailable
# of translators in translatewiki	3	6

✒ Bennylin 21:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bennylin,

According to the Language proposal policy, one of the requisites for final approval is that there is a continuing effort to translate the MediaWiki interface into that language.

As far as I can see, there has been almost no Minangkabau localization activity in translatewiki: translatewiki:Portal:Min. If anyone can come back to translating there regularly, it will be easier to approve this.

If anyone needs help with localization, please ask me, and I'll be ready to provide any necessary assistance!

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

WP Incubator test wikis awaiting content verification

Hello. There are several projects placed in this category. What is the overhauling time required for them to be definitely approved and open as independent WP? Because :

• Wp/skr : ongoing since 10/22/2018
• Wp/gcr : ongoing since 12/13/2018
• Wp/mnw : ongoing since 12/17/2018

It's been more than 6 months! Where are the discussions on the working of these overhaulings? Is this a normal delay? Thanks. Axel xadolik (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Axel xadolik: Your point is well taken.

• I have been busy IRL. I'm now trying to get some things back on track (see below). Thank you for your understanding about that.
• On one hand, we should absolutely get those projects (including also Wt/shy) verified and in the queue.
• On the other hand, there is still a technical issue in getting projects created. Even if these projects are approved, they're still going to sit for a while until the technical problem is fixed, and then until the two fully approved projects pending creation (Hindi and Neapolitan Wikisources) get created. In April, I didn't feel like there was a hurry because of that. But at this point I want to get these shaken loose.
• There's not actually a mechanism in place formally as to what to do if we cannot get content verified. I'm consulting someone on that question now.

Again, thank you for your continuing support and your patience. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Are the technical issues fixed? (Times are changing, said Dylan; but Issues are staying, I'd may rhyme... ;) ) Regards Axel xadolik (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Alas, no. (How Western Armenian got created I'm not sure, but apparently the answer is no.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This must drive motivated contributors to despair. After several hundred projects that have been successfully transferred for years, we could assume that the procedures are well-run routines. These delays are very annoying. Axel xadolik (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

=> @StevenJ81, What are the news about activating these projects? And for those which wait behind in the queue? We do not have much news from other members of Langcom who seem to be very discreet for a few months ... Thank you for your answers. Axel xadolik (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81, I think that problem has been resolved. I expect that wikis be apprved.Sraiki 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I started a check about Mon (mnw). I currently don't see a reason for it to be controversial. (Or did I miss something, and an expert checked it already?)

I'll also try to start a check about skr and gcr, although it may be a bit more complicated.

Thanks for the poke, and sorry about not replying earlier. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent them and they didn't reply

I have sent them an email wanting to be part of the langcom and they didn't reply. What does this mean? I got rejected?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing anything on the mailing list. Can you please send a new email, with CC to me, amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il ? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Give final approval to Awadhi (language code:awa) language.

Mediawiki has been almost localized in Awadhi language, and work is going on at a rapid pace. Give it final approval, so that it can get its own URL. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) Thank you. Ajeetsinghawadhi (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Approving four projects

I am pushing ahead to finalize approval of Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary, and hope to do so by next week. After that, I will start clearing the backlog of projects that are otherwise ready for approval. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank StevenJ81, We from Mon Wiki Group are looking forward to hearing from you and LangCom about the final approval of Mon Wp. Htawmonzel

It may take a little longer than a week. But someone is really trying to address this now, and I'm going to sit hard on them. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Reopen "Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews"?

StevenJ81, who closed the initial discussion, is currently on a long wikibreak. After lengthy suspension, messy disputes, etc, I think the initial discussion of the deletion/closure proposal on Bulgarian Wikinews must be reopened. Not only me, a few other editors believe so as well. The Bulgarian community seems to be running out of alternatives unless I'm wrong. De-sysopping one admin was suggested, but I was convinced that even doing so would mask deeper issues about the project. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You can open a "second discussion". Leave what is already there alone. But LangCom is discussing this now, too. I will provide an update when I can. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Update on technical issues and other things interfering with getting the process moving again

I want to give everyone an update on

• The technical issues (phab:T212881)
• The two approved projects still pending creation.
• The four tentatively approved projects still pending language verification.
• Getting everything else going again.

Technical issues and projects pending creation

Getting this moving again was identified as a high-priority issue at Wikimania. Its priority at phabricator has been upgraded to high and it is being looked at by the Core Platform Team. I'm hoping this gets the logjam broken and that we can start moving these things along again.

• The creation of Western Armenian Wikipedia earlier this summer was always going to have a large manual component, because the content was (mostly) being taken from Armenian Wikipedia, not Incubator, Multilingual Wikisource or Beta Wikipedia. So it was always a bit of an anomaly.
• The recent creation of Neapolitan Wikisource was partly an exercise in seeing quite how broken the existing process was. (Answer: "Very.") Unfortunately, it did not portend the other two projects' imminent creation.
• If we can get the language verification done on the four tentatively approved projects (next section), then I will try to get at least Hindi Wikisource (approved back in March) created manually. But, quite frankly, if I have to choose between pushing through a project manually and getting the whole process fixed, I'd rather time be spent on getting the whole process fixed.

Projects awaiting language verification

There is a LangCom member working directly on those now. I believe he has set himself a deadline of 30 September. If it goes much later than that, I will push again.

Other projects feeling they are close to ready

I am soon going to go back to projects that have been "close to ready" for a while. I am going to give a mild, early preference to projects that are not the first project in a language, so that I can avoid the "language verification" issue. But that is a short list likely be addressed quickly, and then I will move on to projects that are the first project in a language.

I think the main potential issue here is going to be that many test projects went dormant because of all the delays, both technical delays and approval delays. So here is how we will handle these:

• Projects that have maintained approvable activity levels (3+ months with 3 registered editors making at least 10 edits each per month), or pretty nearly so (OK, they just missed once or twice during the summer), will be moved straight along.
• Projects that had approvable activity up until a point earlier this year can restore their approvable activity status with a single month of approval-level activity. (I will try to let you know who you are.) That activity level then still needs to continue. But what I mean is that I am not going to wait until you have three more months under your belt to judge the readiness of everything else.
• Remember that other things required for approval (content, interface translation, etc.) haven't gone away.

Thank you for your patience. I am happy to take process questions here. But please let me work through the list of "nearly ready" I already have, and don't start pushing your projects at me quite yet. I'm already going to have a lot to do, and I have a day job. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank for your update. For our Mon Wikipedia project, if there are any problem to get contact with linguistics, let me know it. Htawmonzel 12:48, 5 September 2019

Thanks for the update, Steven. Muhraz (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

LangCom formally recommends the closure and deletion of the Bulgarian Wikinews project

The Language Committee has formally recommended to the WMF Board of Directors that the Bulgarian Wikinews project be closed and effectively deleted. The formal recommendation can be seen at this link. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please close that site as soon as possible, those users who want this project keep open are only think that site as a playground of copyvio. They don't know what's wiki, they are not suitable for wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Board has seven days to respond. I asked the Board liaison at 17:15 UTC on 9 September to notify the Board. He responded to me at 23:56 UTC on 9 September that he had done so. So it seems to me that at 00:00 UTC on 17 September I can ask the Board liaison if there were any comments, and when I get a response on that I can proceed. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting is bad enough, but not knowing how long for is mental torture.

Mon WP had been active since 12/17/2018 and waiting for to be approved and open as independent WP month after months. How long we can maintain our patience without knowing nothing! Htawmonzel 12:58, 18 September 2019.

@Htawmonzel and Amire80: As far as I know, Htawmonzel, Amir is trying to get language verification on Mon. His target deadline is end of September. Understand, too, that even if he succeeds and we approve the project, there are still technical issues around creating new wikis. So your patience is appreciated. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very sorry about this. I already started something, and I'll try to make it faster. I appreciate your patience. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 and Amire80: what's statue of Mon WP from the LangCom? Htawmonzel 08:10, 02 October 2019.

I Hope you all don't forget Guianan Creole Wikipedia too...! PouLagwiyann (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Language: Badini Kurdish

hello, I want to add a missing language and it is a very important language because many users know and understand this language well, and I want to add this language —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmadkurdi44 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2019‎ (UTC)

The Kurdish Wikipedia exists. According to Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Kurmanji, the Kurdish Wikipedia is actually in Kurmanji, which w:Kurmanji lists as the parent tongue of Southeastern Kurmanji or Badînî. I don't know about Kurdish languages personally, but depending on the actual state of the Kurdish Wikipedia, you might get the Wikipedia Kurmanji decision reversed and that Wikipedia created, but I find it highly unlikely a Badînî specific Wikipedia will be opened, and certainly not without a ISO 639-3 code. Right now, take a look at the Kurdish Wikipedia and tell us if that will work, and if not, why.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

One of draft recommendations

I'm inviting the LangCom for its input on one of draft recommendations: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Sprint/Roles & Responsibilities/2&3 (decentralization and self-management). George Ho (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

But why? Please elaborate. --MF-W 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I discussed how decentralization would (or would not?) affect the LangCom and its roles, especially in opening or closing language projects. The recommendation proposes giving roles and responsibilities to smaller, less centralized groups. George Ho (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mon WP

Dear Langcom, @StevenJ81 and Amire80:

How long we have to wait for language verification of Mon WP? Why we don’t have the right to know what makes the process terminated when we are a part of the project and had spent a lot of our time for it more then one year. I asked the two persons who I gave to LangCom for verification. They said that they were not contacted by LangCom. Is it because they are the native specking of Mon and the LangCom does not accept them? Let we know what we can do? I hope not our time and work for this project do not bring to nothing. Htawmonzel 18:05, 08 October 2019.

@Htawmonzel: Hi! Could you please email me their contact details, and I will ask them. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: Dear Jon Haarald Søby, I'm really appreciated it. This is my email to LangCom from 27 Apr 2019, 09:32

Dear Language Committee

The Committee need two Mon linguistic experts who can verify the Mon language.

Thus, I send hereby the two Mon experts.

Ven. Kelāsa (M.A. in Buddhism, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka) is a Mon linguistic expert. He is an instructor in a Mon Pariyatti Academy in Mudon Town, Mon State, Burma (Myanmar). He received award the title Sāsana Dhaja Dhammācariya from the Burmese National Government. He is a member of central committee of Rāmañña Dhammācariya. Rāmañña Dhammācariya is one of the largest Mon Pariyatti Educational Institute and the second largest Pariyatti Educational Institute in Burma after the Government Pariyatti Educational Department. [Pariyatti means in Pāli Study] This is Ven. Kelāsa's email, saraimon@gmail.com

Nai Sunthorn Sripanngern is a Mon writer and Mon linguistic academic, living in Bangkok, Thailand. He wrote many books in Mon and Thai including Mon - Thai Dictionary. He was a key member on making curriculum of Mon language teaching for Mon children in Thai primary school in Thailand. Nai Sunthorn’s email is sunthornmul@gmail.com

If there are any problem to get contact with them or other thing that we have to do, don't be hesitate to let we know.

The best Regards,

På forhånd tak, Htawmonzel (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Balinese Wikipedia

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

The LangCom intends to approve Balinese Wikipedia. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days.

For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Note for everyone else: We're really starting to work on the backlog, but the technical issues aren't totally resolved, either. Please continue to be patient. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

And how about Sakizaya Wikipedia and Minangkabau Wiktionary? Shouldn't you also notify both approvals? --117.136.54.18 23:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Sakizaya Wikipedia

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

The language committee intends to approve Sakizaya Wikipedia. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Notification about proposed approval of Minangkabau Wiktionary

Cf. Notification about proposed approvals

The language committee intends to approve Minangkabau Wiktionary. If you have objections to that based on the language proposal policy, please say so on this page in the next seven days. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Simple English News

This is filed as a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project proposal, but it should be a new language of a existing project. How should this be handled?--GZWDer (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@GZWDer: We could just move it to Requests for new languages/Wikinews Simple English 3, but it's not gonna go any differently than 1 or 2. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@GZWDer and Jon Harald Søby: OP has a block on enwikivoyage (sockpuppet), too. I think we should move it to RFL and then close it. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Language: Diné

Hello, I would like to add a missing language. The missing language is "Diné" and/or otherwise known as Navajo to this site. The Diné language has a vast amount of resources, dictionaries, text material, and speakers. The body of work in Diné linguistics and literature is important. Please consider adding Diné to the language listings. Thank you — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asdzáá Doo Yit'inii (talk) .

Hello, Asdzáá Doo Yit'inii. There has been a Wikipedia in Diné for about 15 years already: Wikiibíídiiya. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Konkani Wiktionary

On behalf of the Konkani Wiki community, I request you to evaluate the Konkani Wiktionary test on Incubator. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: Look here! Should this test wiki be approved or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Discoverer and Liuxinyu970226: Thanks for the ping! I think the activity looks very propmising. There is, however, the issue of MediaWiki localization – there are still very many messages in MediaWiki core that have not been translated into Konkani yet, and good coverage of translations there is a requirement for opening a second project. So I would suggest you look into translating more there. Meanwhile, I put the Wiktionary into the incubator:Incubator:Featured wikis page, since the activity looks very good like I said. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jon Harald Søby. We will continue to work and improve the Wiktionary. As you can see here and here, we have been working on localising not just MediaWiki core, but also other important groups like VisualEditor and Wiki Editor, and in both, Latin and Devanagari scripts. As per your suggestion, we will work on localising more of MediaWiki core. Thanks and regards, The Discoverer (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dominican English Wikipedia

The reason is the Dominican and Latin American People. Jaden0912 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The reason is LPP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian, and Norwegian Nynorsk: Please revert Wikipedia name change of "Norwegian Bokmål" to "Norwegian"

"Norwegian" refers to two written languages: Bokmål and Nynorsk. The two languages are by law considered equal, as outlined in the 1980 Lov om målbruk i offentleg teneste (Source: Store Norske Leksikon [3]). Neither Nynorsk nor Bokmål are thus, on the national level, considered a more "correct" form of Norwegian (there are historical and practical arguments in favour of both). Municipalities, on the other hand, can select an official form (or remain neutral), as outlined in this map.[4]

The Bokmål form is favoured by speakers in Eastern Norway including the capital, Oslo, whereas Nynorsk has its stronghold in the more affluent Western Norway. Please refer to the Norwegian language conflict,[5] which in turn has a historical parallel in the Faroese language conflict[6].

The Wikipedia "no.wikipedia.org" used to be called "Norwegian Bokmål", but has recently been renamed simply "Norwegian", even if it does not allow Nynorsk articles: it is a Bokmål Wikipedia. The Nynorsk Wikipedia, nn.wikipedia.org, is still called "Norwegian Nynorsk". This appears to me to be an attempt to claim Bokmål as a "natural" form of Norwegian, a view often held in Eastern Norway perhaps because this is the form East Norwegians are more often exposed to, and Nynorsk as a more "specific" form of Norwegian. As pointed out, this does not reflect the official definition of "Norwegian", nor the official standing of Bokmål and Nynorsk as equal. And, before someone mentions the term Standard Østnorsk, I can point out that this (1)is not an nationally approved standard, but merely mentioned by academics (and then as a regional, not a national phenomenon), (2)only refers to speech, and (3)is only spoken in Eastern Norway, as illustrated by the fact that the prime minister Erna Solberg[7] speaks Bokmål with the very different set of phonetics and intonation found in Bergen, (4)the alleged "standard" refers only to East Norwegian Bokmål speech, not to East Norwegian Nynorsk speech, which is also widespread in some places, for instance in large areas of Telemark.

The name change should on the basis of the above be reverted. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please specify where exactly you observed this name change? As someone who does not speak Norwegian, I have a hard time guessing where exactly you made the observation which you describe here. FWIW, nowiki claims for itself to be the Wikipedia of Bokmål and Riksmål ("Velkommen til Wikipedia, den frie encyklopedi som du kan forbedre. 518 233 artikler på bokmål og riksmål". Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

More precisely, my complaint refers to the language which is specified in the leftmost tab on the desktop version of Wikipedia, where you can choose "Norsk" (lit., Norwegian) and "Norsk nynorsk" (lit., Norwegian Nynorsk). The former of the two used to read "Norsk bokmål" (Norwegian Bokmål) - which I demonstrated above to be correct - and it was changed about a year or two ago. As the function of changing languages to read different versions is popular among Norwegians, they use this menu extensively, and the error is thus quite visible. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether this was done through a local Phabricator task (@MF-Warburg and Liuxinyu970226?) or whether this is something we inherited from the Unicode Common Locale Data Repository? If it was done as a Phabricator, there should have been a local discussion first. But if it's CLDR, then that has to be addressed to CLDR, not locally. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not CLDR's problem; it's Wikimedia's problem that they have a Bokmål Norwegian Wikipedia under the tag "no", which should be for Norwegian in general.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but note that it's two different languages, and fitting both under one umbrella would not be popular. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea. So a change happened, but nobody knows when exactly and by whom? And it happened "a year or two ago" and Norwegians see it every day, but nobody cared enough so far to investigate? --MF-W 12:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it took me years to find this page. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: The language code for nowiki is wrong, and has been wrong for many years. CLDR gives a correct mapping as “no” is “norsk” (“Norwegian”). The project should use “nb”. A complete fix is rather complex, and there are also some resistance against it at nowiki. — Jeblad 10:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This isn't a good way to do, as Bokmål ≠ the entire Norwegian, your revert idea will only make Babel boxes parameters wrong, @Narssarssuaq: the much more better way is to rename domain and wikidata site id. Anyway, their community always claim that "we do also have articles in Riksmål", but they eventually didn't provided anyone example of "articles in Riksmål". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I was unable to follow your argument. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq: cf. Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, saying this site as "nowiki" will only make confusions between a commonly used magic word <nowiki></nowiki> and this. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to follow this argument as well. There's nowiki, there's mywiki, there's yowiki, the only thing we can't have is wwwwiki... --MF-W 12:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand. What I am suggesting is merely a change in the desktop menu on the left: that no.wikipedia.org is called "Norsk Bokmål" like before, not "Norsk" as it is now. And when you're at it, you may want to change the two into "Norsk (bokmål)" and "Norsk (nynorsk)", which would arguably be the most precise nomenclature. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq: That should be fixed in CLDR, not in WMF. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: mywiki would not make any confusions as anyone who knows this language always trust that my is ISO 639-1 Myanmar, likely yowiki would never have other meanings than Yoruba. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol. --MF-W 23:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Simply, both mywiki and yowiki will never make confusions for computing funs, but nowiki can. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, there are nowikibooks, nowikinews and incubator:Wy/no/Hovedside, if you reverted no to be "Norwegian Bokmål", then these projects will be confusion to new users as it may lead to "Bokmål only". Such a revert will also fit a data bomb on Wikidata as there are two "Bokmål" entries. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't suppose the MediaWiki (or Wikimedia) infrastructure would allow us to change that only on Wikipedia pages, but not on other project pages ... StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "no" doesn't exist as a locale in CLDR at this point, so it must be handled locally somehow. Was there a change in our "names" table? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The code “no” (“Norwegian”) is a macrocode covering both “nb” (“Bokmål”) and “nn” (“Nynorsk”). There are two other language variants, “Høgnorsk” and “Riksmål”, where the former has a language code while the later has not. — Jeblad 10:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Excerpts from IANA subtag registry
%% Type: language Subtag: nb Description: Norwegian Bokmål Added: 2005-10-16 Suppress-Script: Latn Macrolanguage: no%% Type: language Subtag: nn Description: Norwegian Nynorsk Added: 2005-10-16 Suppress-Script: Latn Macrolanguage: no %% Type: language Subtag: no Description: Norwegian Added: 2005-10-16 Suppress-Script: Latn Scope: macrolanguage

Agree, what you point out needs to be avoided. In some projects, "Norwegian" has come to refer to Bokmål+Nynorsk combined, and changing this would probably be unfortunate. For instance, I can see that the Wikibooks site has reached some form of compromise, with the front page written in both Norwegian languages, i.e. Bokmål and Nynorsk, and with articles in both languages being welcome. Due to the limited number of Wikibooks available, this seems like a good way to increase the available content and make search and discover easier for Norwegians. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has from the very start been strictly divided into two parts with no general "Norwegian" umbrella above it, which also has worked out fine. I see no reason to change the overarching structure of either. My point was merely one of incorrect nomenclature in the language tab on Wikipedia. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq: No, it's not "a good way to increase" either, because you're still proposing to show duplicated "Norwegian Bokmål" entries in Wikidata (unless, if you can technicall tell me that how your "revert" suggestion on Wikipedia won't technically affect Wikidata). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything technical, because I don't know how Wikimedia works. I am only pointing out a recommended change to the user interface. You guys need to work this out. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq: I would just tell you this word before this section be archived: Nope. I won't work this, at least I-W-O-N-'-T. Because you didn't share anything about why I should do so, all of you concerns are, as far as we including you, to be fixed by other ways. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that I'm planning to start a business travel in North Korea next week, which means that I may not possible to access this page, so don't ping me anymore in this section, please. Please instead ask @Jeblad: for more about this section. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(I don't know how Wikimedia works, but I'll give a few observations from a user's perspective:) Of course, one more drastic possibility is to move the Bokmål Wikipedia to, say, bm.wikipedia.org or something (although that's already taken), and retain no.wikipedia.org as a sort of meta-Wikipedia above "nn" and "bm". It has from the start been a slight practical problem that users have to check both Wikipedia sites to see whether there's an article in "Norwegian" on a particular topic. I'd like to stress, however, that one should not make userfriendliness any worse than it is, and one should also be mindful of the fact that nuisance may arise whenever the two languages have to be mixed together in one site. From an aesthetic point of view it would look a bit like mixing Scots and English in one site, which would look a bit annoying because it will be visible that the overall form is a bit forced/artificial, whereas a search engine that covers both might be understood as more useful. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It isn't two languages, it is two written variants of the same language. The language code in question is “no”, “nb”, and “nn”, and they are quite well-defined. The old RFC for renaming nowiki as nbwiki can be found at Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia. I also made a temporary solution for making an override of the language entry in the sidebar, but it was not possible to achieve consensus. — Jeblad 10:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I should probably reiterate the fact that nnwiki (that is Nynorsk) has two subvariants where Høgnorsk is unofficial, and that nowiki (the present Bokmål version) has several subvariants. Bokmål have two main variants, radical and standard, and also an unofficial variant Riksmål. In between we have Moderate Bokmål, which is a form commonly used in the newspapers. It is not easy to identify any of the articles as clearly written in one specific subvariant. You can even write Nynorsk and nearly call it Radikalt Bokmål. — Jeblad 11:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Høgnorsk (Nynorsk) and Riksmål (Bokmål) are accepted for use on Wikipedia, and conform to more archaic written conventions of the two variations. As for radikalt bokmål, it is within the confines of current Bokmål ortography and vocabulary. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. We understand the problem here. We're not going to directly revert for the moment: (1) We're still trying to find out how and when this was accomplished in the first place, so we're not even quite sure how to revert it if we wanted to. (2) It may or may not be appropriate to revert it in Wikipedia. It probably is not appropriate in other projects, and as far as what the impact would be anywhere on a page but the navigation pane, we're not even sure. So let's stop arguing the merits for the moment. If anyone knows when this happened and how, that would be useful information. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The original change is [8] and it corrected the macrocode so it follows CLDR, BCP-47, ISO 639-1, etc. As the definition is common for several sites and projects it will have an rippeling effect to revert the change. Most projects use correct language code, and the only one (?) that abuse the no-code to mean “Norwegian Bokmål” is nowiki. There are several possible fixes for the link in the sidebar, without changing the language code, and I have implemented one as an extension (mw:Extension:LangCodeOverride). It was not much interested in the solution, so I put the solution in cold store. — Jeblad 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Saraiki Wikipedia

@StevenJ81:, @Amire80:, Lang Com: is requested to contact linguists for the verification of Saraiki language.

1. Saraiki has ISO 639-3 valid code skr.
2 Saraiki is language in the census of Pakistan.
3. Saraiki is a school, college, and University subject.
4. Saraiki is taught from primary to Ph.D level.
5. Saraiki has TV channels.
6. Govt: of Pakistan has made website in Saraiki also.
7. Saraiki is recognized language by Govt: of Pakistan.
8. Awards are awarded by Govt: of Pakistan in Saraiki languages books in addition to Punjabi language.
9. Saraiki news and programs are presented on Public and Private Radio in Saraiki also.
10. Saraiki language Dictionaries are also available since 1881 A.D. An online is this https://www.ijunoon.com/saraiki/dictionary.aspx?word=when
11. Saraiki has its own Grammar, Idioms, Proverbs, alphabets, and Tenses.
12. Saraiki translations of Bible and Quran are also available.
13. All above things are available for Pakistani Western Punjabi as well as Saraiki also.
14. Saraiki is also language of WordPress. see https://skr.wordpress.org/
Sraiki 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The main problem is that we need an Iranian PhD to verify this test project as really writting in Saraiki, Before that, this request can't be simply approved. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's done. We're currently hung up on the question of whether it is different enough from Western Punjabi. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:، kindly solve this issue at earliest as this project is too late. kindly present this to lang com: please. Sraiki 09:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:, @Amire80:, @Liuxinyu970226:, @Jon Harald Søby:, @Satdeep Gill:, @GerardM:, :@Liuxinyu970226:

Saraiki Vs. Western Punjabi

• In 1881 , Glossary of the Multani Language Compared with Punjábi and Sindhi, was pulished. In this book more than 5000 words are given, which shows that Saraiki and Punjabi are different. see, https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Glossary_of_the_Multani_Language_Compare.html?id=u10IAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y
• In Wt/skr, there are more than 15000 pages. Most words are different from pnb.
• Alphabet of Saraiki are different from western Punjabi pbn.
• See also https://www.britannica.com/topic/Siraiki-language ۔ Hence Saraiki Wikipedia be approved. Sraiki 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary Bikol Sentral

Hi! Good day! I would like to ask what are the requirements still needed to be done to for the approval of the project Bikol Wiktionary (Wt/bcl). Thank you! - Dang Brazal (Talk) 03:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

2 requests for wv submitted on Nov

• Requests for new languages/Wikiversity Punjabi
• Requests for new languages/Wikiversity Indonesian 2

Wikiversity Punjabi began in March 2016 on betawv, and now has 800 pages(including categories, templates, other namespaces). Therefore, it is believed that this request can be changed to eligible. Wikiversity Indonesian has one page(Main page), so I think we'll have to wait for their activities. --Sotiale (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews Indonesian

This Wikinews has been active again after a few months ago is not active and there are several contributors who actively on this Wikinews. So, I request that this Wikinews be approved. Regards! Sonic Speedy (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This and last month you are the only contributor. This month is the first one since 2013 in which the number of edits exceeded 10. So the project is not yet ready for approval. --MF-W 19:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Essay about new Arabic (non-ar) project openings?

Let me repeat the request for an essay arguing against the opening of new Arabic projects not in Standard Arabic, hopefully in lieu of a wave of one sentence objections on every such request.

(I'll note I'm not a fan of the idea. Most of the accusations could go against any new language; if a language doesn't currently have a Wikipedia, then it's not a language of science or academia, and Internet users who speak that language are also fluent in a language that currently has a Wikipedia. I mean, if someone speaks no language that has a Wikipedia, there's basically no content on the web. That people in a major language don't want a Wikipedia in a minor language often considered a dialect of that language doesn't particularly seem relevant.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kotava Wikipedia

@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)

ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTED LANGUAGES ON WP
February 2020 (02/2020) Language Wp since Monthly edits New pages Active contributors Bytes added Encycl. page amount 02/29/2020 Esperanto (eo) 05/2001 39159 2426 114 5892809 275507 Volapuk (vo) 09/2003 783 136 11 99248 124153 Ido (io) 05/2004 616 43 9 101415 29252 Interlingua (ia) 10/2003 1211 86 8 211540 22093 Interlingue (ie) 10/2003 151 27 5 32401 4723 Lingua Franca Nova (lfn) 04/2018 397 50 5 251161 3722 Novial (nov) 09/2006 6 1 0 1313 1671 Lojban (jbo) 10/2004 39 1 4 9099 1251 Kotava (avk) 10/2017 2047 820 11 1920630 7674

• 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)

This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 13:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)