Talk:Requests for new languages/Archives/2006-04

Number of speakers

Can a natural language have too little speakers, both synchronically and diachronically, to open a Wikipedia in? I am considering to start a Wikipedia in East Frisian, a language with only 1,000 native speakers and another 1,000 fluent acquired speakers (at least in the area where the language is indigenous) and no bigger area than three bigger and one lesser village(s), but clearly separate from both Westlauwer Frisian and Low Saxon. I would like to know whether this and similar requests are granted or not.--Caesarion 12:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The number of native speakers hasn't ever been a reason not to set up a wiki, AFAIK. A more important issue is if its sufficiently different from Western Frisian, which already has one. TUF-KAT 12:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There can be no questions about that. It has a different vocabulary (more German/Plattdüütsch oriented AAMOF), it has three rather than two genders and it lacks Westlauwer Frisian broken vowels. And finally, Westlauwer Frisian has in no way an official or prescriptive status in Saterland. I will do a little more learning and practicing and then I'll try! --Caesarion 17:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• OK! Could you do it like with Ossetic? (Load the Russian language files as first)
• I requseted for the en:Altay language, but I can't find it... It also has problems with ISO code
• Could you create the fiu wikipedia as for Karelian, but antoyher Russian languages related to Karelian (en:Veps ect) also could be hosted by fiu. Fiu also as Mari needs Russian language files

User:Untifler 11 Mar 2005

Kinaray-a wikipedia

Hi,

I think the Kinaray-a wikipedia was deleted from requests too soon. We in the Philippines are trying to gather support for the creation of that wp. I am moving it back in the hope that it will not be moved as fast as I can type this message. --Bentong Isles 13:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Languages written with more than one script

What is the policy for languages that can be written with more than one script (such as Latin and Cyrillic). There should be two wikipedia or only one ? 83.103.181.182 12:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should only be one. -- Derek Ross 03:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They should have something that maps it to the other script, like they map between Simplified and Traditional on zh:. For example, no: (Norwegian) should map between Nynorsk and Bokmal, and ro: (Romanian) should map between Daco-Romanian (the dialect used on ro:) and Aromanian. Also, you could have tlh: (Klingon) map between Latin and Klingon scripts, the proposed Ainu Wikipedia map between Chinese and Japanese Ainu, and the proposed Mayan wiki map between Classic and Yucatec Maya, or even have a unified Goidelic wikipedia, which maps between Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. This might mean the closure of a few wikis, new translation and mapping software, and having to inform people who speak the smaller languages about these changes, but at least the languages of some of the closed wikis will have more articles. Scott Gall 09:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: You could also map between the four Cornish orthographies on kw: or the two Breton orthographies on br: (This is a good time to remind those sluggish admins to PLEASE get br: on the 100-1000 section on the www.wikipedia.org template)

Completely wrong. It's a joke ? (18 Apr 2005)

No. They've got it on zh: and we should have this distinction in other wikis where script or dialect is likely to cause collateral damage if not dealt with in this way. Scott Gall 08:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: Sign your posts in future.

what about a new language section for TULU which is spoken by 5 Million Speakers in South West of INDIA. TULU is one of the five Dravidian Languages ( other are TAMIL, Malayalam, Kannada and Telegu )

Tulu have its own SCRIPT similar to Malayalam but unfortunately use Kannada script due to non-proper recognisation by local Karnataka govt.

Will WIKIMEDIA add TULU in its ORIGINAL TULU SCRIPT ?

regards Tululover

I have a Kurdish friend who speaks and reads the Sorani dialect, which is written in a modified Arabic script. Other Kurdish dialects are written with the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets. While he says he can understand the other dialects when they are spoken, he has difficultly reading the Latin script and cannot read Cyrillic at all. It's not feasible to transliterate between the scripts because there is not a one-to-one mapping of letters. Therefore, I think that this case is a good argument for why at least some languages should have separate Wikipedias for each script. —Psychonaut 00:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of this page by some of us

This page is increasingly being used for personal comments rather than for discussing the requests. Not in the least by me, btw, though I wished to react on some else's (personally aimed) stupidities. Now let's quit discussing anything that does not refer to the languages displayed and remove all irrelevant comments on the page, preferably along with some requests most people agree on they are moribund and that provoked a lot of personal talk. Caesarion 13:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now removed some of the most controversial requests and some of the most personally aimed cries from this page. You can always revert them if you have a good reason - it's a wiki. But I think the page was flooded all over by them and I'd rather remove some more things (e.g. the lengthy comments on Belgian Man's behaviour. Caesarion 09:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Klingon

The existence of Klingon should not be used as an excuse to request wikis in other artificial languages. The Klingon Wikipedia has existed for over a year now, and has only 55 articles. Only five people have made more than 50 edits to this wiki since it was created: AHoerstemeier / Ahoerstemeier (no edits since March), JarlaxleArtemis (3 edits in April, none since), N-true (2 edits this year), Pne (3 edits this year), and Timwi (1 edit in May, none since). The only edits in the past week to the article namespace were reverts, blankings, redirects, and the addition of an interlanguage link to bIQ. The only edits where content was added to articles in the last month were the creation of qIb and 'ISjaH; a total of 124 words. This project is not helping to meet the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it has neither any significant content, nor any community. If anything, it should serve as an example of why requests like Quenya and Sindarin should be rejected. Angela 00:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does it? You mean to say that because the Klingon Wikipedia runs badly at the moment, all Wikipedias in fictional languages must be disgraced? Come on now, you are confusing practical and principal reasons. You simply can't use the fact that a Wikipedia in a fictional language is unsuccessful as principal objection against having Wikipedias in other fictional languages. Suppose by comparision, someone said that because the Igbo, the Swahili, the Kinyarwanda, the Xhosa, the Wolof, the Zulu, the Afar, the Ewe &c. Wikipedias all have little or no articles Wikipedias in African languages should be barred. Would that be a valid reasoning? I already know the answer. Maybe you realise the wrongness of the reasoning you gave above. Caesarion 08:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds too rude. I really respect the hard work you do for Wikipedia and the foundation. But still I think you should come up with other arguments than the Klingon Wikipedia (non-)activity to bar Quenya and Sindarin Wikipedias in advance. Caesarion 08:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point wasn't so much that the inactivity of Klingon should be used as a reason to have no more fictional languages, but that the fact that Klingon was created should not be seen as a reason to create more fictional language Wikipedias. A lot of people on Requests for new languages seem to be saying "Klingon exists, so Xyz should exist too", which should not be the case. Angela 20:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think any additional non-natural languages should have a very good justification for being included, which is to say they should not be anytime in the near future. WRT to Klingon, the fact that it has not yet produced anything very useful, nor does it seem to be heading in that direction, makes me think that people don't want to write encyclopedias in fictional languages... More people speak Klingon then Quenya, right? If Klingon doesn't work now, what makes you think Quenya will? I note that nobody has yet claimed to be able and willing to write in either Quenya or Sindarin (at least on this page, no one has mentioned it). If there were Sindarin web forums with people writing in Sindarin, or many people claiming to be able and willing to write a Wikipedia in Sindarin, then maybe that would be something, but why create projects in languages for which it appears that no willing writers exist? Especially since Klingon isn't active, and I do know we have people who are capable of writing in Klingon -- they apparently choose not to, which doesn't bother me, but doesn't make me think anyone's going to choose to write in Sindarin either. TUF-KAT 23:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with TUF-KAT and Angela. I am a conlanger myself - my website is linked from several websites including Wikipedias, I am proud of it honestly - but at the same time I don't think it is a good idea that a non-profit organisation run a fansub like project using donation gathered in the name of "providing people free knowledge". Klingon encyclopedia is okay if they run it outsides Wikimedia project from my personal view. Or now we are better to have a grobal vote if Klingon goes outside of our project? --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 01:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A global vote seems a good idea. Perhaps Sep11 should be dealt with at the same time. However, with the upcoming elections, now might not be the best time for voting. Perhaps a discussion should take place this month, with voting planned for sometime between Board elections and the Wikicouncil elections. Angela 01:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only partially agreed. An election will put the supporters and opponents of Wikipedias in artificial (or at least fictional) languages diametrically against each other. We had better meet somewhere inbetween. What about this: keep the Klingon Wikipedia open, as long as it does not attract excessive vandalism by several independent vandals, and suspend the creation of any Wikipedia in a conlang as long as tlh: has not truly come to life. Imo, when a Wikipedia is once created it should not be closed because of a sudden change of attitude. After all, the funds we obtain are also used for the most stupid articles on en:, like Fart lighting and Exploding whale|Exploding whale. But when we temporally stop the creation of new conlang Wikipedias we can point ourselves on invigorising other dormant projects. Caesarion 09:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"An election will put the supporters and opponents ... diametr[ic]ally against each other." – Well, that's why they're called supporters and opponents!
"when a Wikipedia is once created it should not be closed because of a sudden change of attitude." – if it's the attitude of a majority, why not?
"the funds we obtain are also used for the most stupid articles" – the articles you point out aren't stupid. Maybe you consider the things they describe silly, but that's an opinion. Anyway, there aren't any funds going into creating "stupid" articles. (newsflash: WP is written by volunteers!). --Stw 22:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, and neither are there funds going into any seperate Wikipedia. And a Wikipedia should not be closed by a change of attitude just because you harm the user personally: they were given a Wikipedia in "their" language and now it is closed just because some people from outside want so! Caesarion 14:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was already a vote on this. Artificial languages equal rights. The option to treat artificial languages equally won by a huge margin. I voted to not treat them equally. --Node ue 00:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have created Proposed policy for wiki closure. I suggest that we close Klingon. If a wiki is only contributed by very few without the hope of increasing its user base, we'd better close it.

A good Wikipedia article shall be constantly under watchful eyes. A wiki visited by only a few and written by just a handful of people shall not be hosted forever. These wikis are lousy jokes. We've already have more than a hundred dead and semi-dead wikis. We have to close them. If a healthy population of user (increasing numbers, more discussions) is not there, we shall close it.

A closed wiki is not dead forever. If its user really likes it, they can always buy a server of their own. We cannot afford to host so many failures and possibly unchecked information here. -- Toytoy 00:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete this Wiki, as it's something special. Even Google is available in this language: http://www.google.com/intl/xx-klingon/ --80.185.83.91 21:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Node Ue's silliest action for months How to keep this requests page usable

Look at this: The silly requests for Pig Latin, for instance, have now been re-placed by Node, and because they happened to be removed by me he thinks he can afford to call me a thought police. Does he really think we should keep those requests which FAILED, yes absolutely FAILED, until the end of time? And perhaps someone with more authority than I have (Arbeo, Aphaia, Angela?) can remove them again? Caesarion 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who are you to make the decision? It's very arrogant to just remove requests. I don't care how long they've been there. They were made by real people. If you can think of a way to split this page up but not delete entries, I'm fine with that (it's over 100kb). But it is not OK to delete entries. These entries did not "fail". They were requested, and so they are supported by the person who requested them. Unless we get some sort of formal voting system in place (which would have a hard time being fair -- you declared Baseldytch denied, while I am inclined to wait and see if anything happens), the only valid way for removal is withdrawal by the original proposer, and this is only if nobody else has expressed support yet. (thus, the original proposer may not remove the request for a Cebuano Wikipedia).

I called you the thought police because, in addition to simply deleting entries, you were being so arrogant as to make character judgements and delete comments, including valid ones such as the one which was (attempting) to express that may-cs would conflict with an established ISO country code. Scott's insults are of course not appreciated, but it's not OK to just remove them -- maybe you should ask personally for him to withdraw them, but to just remove them... To give you an example of why this is not acceptable. Imagine that there wasn't any Limburgish Wikipedia at the moment. You filed a request for it, but it goes unnoticed for months. Then, somebody just deletes it. Had they not deleted it, however, other Limburgish speakers such as Kasper, Cicero, etc. would be able to weigh in, even if it took them a while to notice it. --Node ue 05:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And also, the East German request just got a new comment. It isn't a support for its creation, but it shows that it is not "dead". And citation of reference works for a language, no matter how ludicrous you might think they are, as was done with DDR sprache, is a very good reason to leave it around. Anonymous bulk requests with no contact information or even nothing more than the language name... probably OK to move to the talkpage, or in some cases delete. Requests by actual people, excluding perhaps Scott Gall (it is my opinion that he should be banned from this page, but he does have a little bit of valuable input), should be left, especially if they give actual information on the language and definitely if they give their username. --Node ue 06:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And who are you to offend me that way? The requests ARE dead, and no-one except you seemed to worry bout them being removed. The only time I was really mistaken in removing a request was with that babyish: I thought it was just something like Pig Latin, and that's why Angela put it back. If sensible people had really objected against removing these requests, they'd placed them back LONG before. Caesarion 10:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Sensible people" - underhanded strike! Ooh! --Node ue 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the requests A. that could not get a Wikipedia just because of the reigning conventions AND with no real willing contributors (Sindarin); B. Real nonsense (Parseltongue, Pig Latin): C. Natural languages that were posted anonymously and lacked both supporters and discussion. I kept Mayan, Haida, Nasdat, Rarotongan, however moribund all of these may be.

A) Reigning conventions? Which reigning convention is it that says Sindarin can't get a Wikipedia? Sindarin also had supporters, and multiple willing contributors. B) "Real nonsense" by whose decision? You decided that Babyish was nonsense, you (or Arbeo, don't recall) decided Silbo Gomero was nonsense, Pig Latin was a request with all the information filled in, you moved Indian English to the nonsense section... all based on personal judgements about the veracity of the requests, usually without even asking for consensus. C) But how much time did you give them?? Some languages in the past (ie, before you came to this page and appointed yourself as the ultimate authority on what belongs and what doesn't) have taken a while to gain supporters or discussion, maybe three or four months. Obviously requests that are something like 6 months old do not need to be kept if there is nothing added. Also, if a request has very little information included, it's taking up very little space compared to a request that has a lot of information. --Node ue 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But come on, we need another solution. The requests really can't stay here forever, I hope you agree. Neither can we overload this talk page with it. I suggest that we create an archive for them. Caesarion 10:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If a request really has failed, then I see no problem with removing it. However, if there's any dispute over whether it's failed, then archiving would seem a simpler option. In the past, old requests have simply been removed, and without objection, so it's clearly unfair to criticise Caesarion for trying to keep this page in some sort of usable state. How about having subpages like

• Requests for new languages/No supporters (Requests made one month ago with no support other than the proposer. Can be moved back to the main page if any supporters do turn up later.)
• Requests for new languages/Objections (Requests that have significant objections to them, meaning they can not yet be created. No proposed code should be counted as an objection.)
• Requests for new languages (New discussions and unopposed languages that ought to be created.)

Angela 00:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Approved by me! How about Node? Caesarion 08:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but what is the difference between "no supporters" and unopposed? DDR-sprach may be "no supporters" and not on a track to succeed, but others (for example Udmurt, Bugis, Kabyle) are both "no supporters" and "unopposed". How about, "no supporters" vs "supporters"? Also, a time-limit for which requests will remain "new" needs to be considered. Do they get 6 months, 6 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours...? Obviously the limit may need to be changed in the future as traffic to this page increases. Older requests with no explicit support but which are still being discussed actively (as far as I can tell, this would include, for the moment, DDR-sprache and possibly Silbo Gomero) should also be kept on the main page for a while. --Node ue 14:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I strongly disagree that the lack of a proposed ISO code should be counted as an objection. This could mean the moving of almost-new requests that are perfectly viable in every other way. Also, you never responded about your deletion of comments (as opposed to entire languages). Will you please, in the future, leave people's comments be or ask them to withdraw them personally? --Node ue 15:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Come on Node calm down a bit please! Waerth 16:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Waerth, where do you get the idea that I'm less calm than is HaafLimbo, who makes it seem like my "insulting" him by calling him the thought police is a worse action than his removing of individual comments. --Node ue 21:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel pretty sure must of us agreed with me, Node. And this view is supported by the fact that noone put those requests back before you came in. Caesarion 18:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what I feel and what I believe doesn't count? How many people regularly visit this page? 5 at most, 2 at least. So it's easy for you to call it a "consensus". The fact of the matter is that I try to keep up on this page myself, but because of a family emergency I tuned out from the Wiki world a little bit for a couple of months. --Node ue 21:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And don't you get WHY, in the meantime, NOBODY bothered about me having removed that nonsense! And tell my, why then if you were so upset because of something in your family, was your presence on the mailing list so undiminishedly dominant? Caesarion 08:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume this means there will be no more debate on whether there will be a Quenya wiki or not (that is, there won't be). It's a shame, I was kinda (pervertedly) looking forward to a Quenya wiki. C'mon, geeks!! Pull your fingers out and MAKE THAT WIKI! GO GO GO! Etc. No really, I think it has more validity and worth as a wiki than, say, Klingon. It certainly, as a conlang, has more staying power. BryanAJParry

I left the request for Quenya in, since it was supported, even by me, under certain conditions. Why don't you create a test wiki at Test-wp/Quenya? If you reach something, and then not only about Middle-Earth, they are much more likely to grant your request! Caesarion 15:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

?

LOL: Requests for new languages/Scott Gall Caesarion 15:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue split those off in the hopes that they wouldn't receive any consideration. Almafeta 07:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I split them off because a good portion of the requests were from Scott Gall, and none of them had any fluent speakers supporting it. --Node ue

Suggestions

1. Put language requests in seperate messages.
   This makes it easier to follow specific language requests, and makes it possible to create seperate pages for different language types, i.e. Request for new artifical languages, Requests for new African languages, Requests for new languages with more than one million speakers...
2. • Choose simple English as the standard interface.
   • Discuss the possibility of using another language.
     For the Bambara Wikipedia it was quite useful to have a French interface. For many languages it makes sense to start with Portuguese, Spanish, Arab or Russian.

Guaka 10:55, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Good suggestions... Maybe if the categories are mostly geographical, such as Requests for new languages/Africa, Requests for new languages/Former USSR it will be easier to find them than "One supporter" or "More than a million speakers". It would also keep the main page clean(er) and reduce the chance of repeat proposals. I'd be willing to set them up. Chamdarae 15:27, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Desperate plea for disambiguation of Portuguese and Brazillian "Portuguese"

Prologue: Surely if there's available freed for a fictional language such as Klingon, there must be for a language millenia old with dozens of millions of speakers all over ther world?

Dear Board of trustees of Wikipedia,

What has been, and continues to happen, in the 'Portuguese' section of this conglomerate of educational sites is both unique and deplorable. For a reason that's still beyond all of us, Wikipedia unites in one simple section, and under erroneous nomenclature, Brazillian culture (which is not Portuguese at all) and Portuguese (which dates back to 15.000 years and is incomprehensibly unique and different from the 'Brazillian' one.)

Now, this is particularly uncanny, since other countries, that as Portugal have spawned other cultures around the world, even within their own territories such as Spain with Gallicia, Cataluña and the Basque Country, all have at their disposal several, unique, separated outlets for their own, themselves too, unique cultures. Now, why has this still not happened yet to Portugal? This disambiguation is of prime cultural and educational importance, even bigger, even they all are important, than the one between, Spanish, for instance, and Catalan, which are part of the same country - something that does not, at all, happen between Portugal and Brazil.

All of this takes another twist of seriousness when we observe the pratical impact of this disambiguation that desperatly yearns to be enforced. Brazillians have a totally different language from the Portuguese practiced elsewhere in the whole wide world. To an extent, to Portuguese linguistics experts, "Brazillian" is actually offensive by the large amounts of grammatically incorrect incidents littering throughout it's language; to give you a pratical example, translations and dubbings of "Brazillian" here in Portugal are widely frowned upon, run from, and ultimately actively considered as marring of Portuguese.

Now, all this is serious enough, but the plot thickens when we verify that Brazillians, even though they are a one unit minority in their modified version of "Portuguese", are indeed over 100, closing on 200 millions and have by sheer force of brute numbers totally ravaged through all content written in Portuguese, with their own particular version. The Portuguese section is littered with examples of changes that have even been done by no other reason that cultural terrorism witht he objective of erasing the original Portuguese.

Portugal has close to 3.000 years of recorded civilized life, and many more of neolithic life. It's culture it's extremly rich and absolutely - desperatly - needs it's own outlet. Let's be very clear about this, children are coming here and checking out wrong versions of their language, culture, and historical view points. This is unadmissable.

Even the whole editing system has been hijacked by Brazillians, which i presume have been put on management of the Portuguese section, even though - The irony! - they are not Portuguese, do not speak oficial and original Portugal's Portuguese, neither have for the most part ever sat foot on Portugal or informed of it's history. Uncanny, to say the least. Are there Spanish speakers in charge of the Gallician zone? Are Provençal speakers in charge of the French zone? Well, as wild as it may seem, people who do not speak Portuguese, are not Portuguese, and never for the most part have been to Portugal are in charge of the Portuguese area. By what burocratic reasons? Who elected the Brazillian as the flame keepers of Portugal's, unique, different, elder culture and education?

I submit to you that this amounts nothing else than some macabre cultural aberration that has no similitude in the Wikiverse. My personal opinion, and of many others, is that for some unexplained reason, the now Brazillian management of the Portuguese section (the irony of which, is hard to escape) has endeavoured, the reasons why to me are unexplainable, in the consistent and organized supression of the oficial version of Portuguese, which apparently found himself in a wrong place for not being their own. Sad, and totally against the Wiki spirit - Totally: I refuse to believe that the higher echelons of Wikipedia are either aware of what's been happening, or in any way supporting this cultural, linguistic supression executed by Brazillians on pretty much all other speakers of Portuguese all around the world, spanning various continents.

The Portuguese section is rife with linguistic vandalism, cultural war waging, and in the grasp of everyone, but the Portuguese people itself. For how long will this inane situation endure?

As far as i'm concerned, already way too long, for i can not even begin to fathom how many carefully made articles in Portuguese have be now been whiskered away in nonsensical, grammatically incorrent Brazillian. Dear friends, there's one reason, and one sole reason, why the Brazillian and only them, claim that their version is perfectly acceptible according to grammar laws: It is a baldfaced lie. Period. The sad truth of the matter, is that in similar ways that the Brazillian government is incapable of controlling and civilizing it's own country, and thus even language has escaped it's control, and since for an incompetent government it is simpler to simply accept wrongly spoken and written versions of Portuguese in Brazil, than to wage on real education in Brazil, this tragedy, like many other in Brazil, continues without check.

I have written this in English in hopes, that as request littering the Portuguese section done by many others, this desperate cultural plea will not fall on deaf ears. I have written this in English in hopes that someone who is French or German, understands personally how ludicrous would it be for Algeria to control France's section, and for Zambia to control the German section, because, *that* is exactly what is happening to Portugal and the Portuguese section, and it is revolting, frustrating and just plain wrong.

Wikimedia desperatly needs a .PT and a .BR. Please.

[To other Portuguese readers: please spread as far an wide as possible, and contact as wide and far as possible to get this fixed as soon as possible. Para os Portugueses: por favor chamem a atenção deste problema as mais altas autoridades da Wikipedia, para que este problema seja resolvido o mais rápido possivel - o que se passa aqui é inacreditável e inaceitavel. Não podemos ficar parados enquanto nos violam uma herança cultural de milhares de anos.]

Discussion isn't always a good thing

Encouraging discussion of new language proposals might seem a nice idea, but I'm afraid the sometimes-excessive amount of it is leading to requests that should be granted being ignored. Any developer wondering whether to create Dutch-Low Saxon would have to trawl though at least 169 mailing list posts about it (there are probably more - this was just the number that contain the phrase "Dutch-Low Saxon"). Is there a way of separating the discussion from a "wikis that can be created" page where requests would be moved only when they had 5 supporters and some degree of consensus? Angela 13:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Use (separate) Wiki-pages instead of a mailing list. Reduces the need to reiterate and allows for structuring the arguments. Seperate pages will reduce the need to search.
2. Differentiate between Suggested Languages and Proposed Languages. Suggestions open the discussion; only with significant support, and consensus on stuff like orthografy/-ies and dialect range should a language be proposed.
3. Replace requirements of living languages and numbers of speakers by a requirement of living Wikipediae. The discussion on whether languages are worth being included takes away from the free-ness of the project. A check on whether there actually are participants in the Wikipediae, once created, would be a much clearer rationale.
4. Feed-back both for accepted and for rejected proposals. That way the mechanism will be much clearer to those who would like to suggest a language.

The request for a nds-nl: is a misnomer, btw. It's just a symptom of the suggestion to limit nds: to nds-de, on the claim that the de contributors can't read the nds-nl dialects. Discussion on nds: on this issue, written in nds-nl dialects, tends to draw reactions in nds-de dialects, so it appears there is a certain amount of interreadability. However, I'm not going to argue about it: Let them have multiple Wikis, if they can make them grow. Aliter 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, who is "they"? In this case there appears to only be one person who can actually speak the language, and who is willing to make it grow. The other people either don't speak it at all, or speak a German variant.

What worries me most about the proposal, though, is the separation of Wikipedias by national borders rather than linguistic borders. To see what I mean, go to http://fixedsys.org/~node_ue/o'ohadag/index.PNG -- I have proposed to break it with one Wikipedia for the red-colored dialects, and one for the purple-colored dialects. According to numerous resources this is the proper classification. I was unable to find any resource that made two branches, "Netherlands Low Saxon" and "German Low Saxon". If this proposal is not widely accepted, I propose to divide along all the black lines instead -- one for Drents, one for Grunnegers, etc... it seems to be the norm to treat these varieties as separate languages -- websites will say they are written in "Drentse taol" ("Drents language"), "Twentse sproak" ("Twents language"), "Stellingwarver tael" ("Stellingwerfs language"), etc. rather than "Drentse streektaol" ("Drents dialect"), "Twentse dialekt" ("Twents dialect"), "Stellingwarver streektael" ("Stellingwerfs dialect").

But I do not think a separate Wikipedia for a separate country -- especially when that's part of the code, as in en-us / en-uk or pt-br / pt-pt or mn-mn / mn-cn (the last example is actually very different, but it is going to be given separate ISO codes soon) -- is a good thing, and I think it should be avoided at all costs. --Node ue

"Zlatiborian"

I've deleted the request for Zlatiborian Wikipedia. There's no such thing as the Zlatiborian language, it was a joke.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 12:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Supporters

If nobody objects in the next day or so, I'm going to go through the list of proposed languages and add the number of supporters to their headings... f'rex, "Low Ombudsian (4)", "Europanto (37)," "Dijeridu (7)," "Old Vulcan (0)." Like over in translations of the week, that would make it easy to see what is supported and what is not without having to read so very much. Almafeta 03:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Almafeta 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea. Arbeo 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for new Wikiversity languages

Moved to talk page since this project is not a Wikimedia Foundation project Anthere 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

English

I notice there is a de.wikiversity.org, but no en.wikiversity.org. This project is currently hosted at en.wikibooks.org, and I figured it might be wise to move it to its own wiki. I've modified the template somewhat, since I'm sure I don't need to explain what the English language is. :-)

If you are interested in creating, organising, maintaining, or administering this project, please add yourself to the list below with ~~~~ - Aya ^T C 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• People interested
  • Aya ^T C 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Suggested domain: en.wikiversity.org
  • JustinLillich
• Very interested!
  • --Fephisto 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Can't do too much though.

This project is not yet approved by the Foundation, as I know it. Anthere 17:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Odd. Whoever configures the Foundation's DNS server seems to disagree:

adrian@homer:~ > host de.wikibooks.org
de.wikibooks.org is a nickname for rr.wikimedia.org
rr.wikimedia.org is a nickname for rr.knams.wikimedia.org
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.133
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.134
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.135
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.136
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.137
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.138
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.139
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.131

adrian@homer:~ > host de.wikiversity.org
de.wikiversity.org is a nickname for rr.wikimedia.org
rr.wikimedia.org is a nickname for rr.knams.wikimedia.org
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.138
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.139
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.131
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.133
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.134
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.135
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.136
rr.knams.wikimedia.org has address 145.97.39.137

If it is not approved, perhaps someone should point out the DNS server has been compromised? - Aya ^T C 21:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because it uses the same DNS server does not mean it's an official project.

Please sign your comments in future with ~~~~ (I've filled it in for you this time), and do not delete content without giving a good reason (this is generally considered vandalism, and is grounds for getting your account banned).

You evidently misinterpreted my post. They don't just use the same DNS server, but they also share the same HTTP servers and probably the same database servers.

Futhermore, I never implied that this project was official. I think the point is, we need an authoritative decision on this, so who is able to make such a decision? If it should transpire that it is not an official project, then surely the wiki at de.wikiversity.org should be deleted, and the similar material at en.wikibooks.org should be removed as well, otherwise all these poor contributors are wasting their time.

Aya ^T C 17:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody deleted anything. I simply commented it out. --Node ue 08:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but the effect to the end user is the same, i.e. they can't see the text on the actual page without checking the page source or history. If I have an interwiki link to that section (which I did) it now fails to work. The point is, you have unwittingly broken the system. - Aya ^T C 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not I sign my comments is my decision, not yours. --Node ue 08:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect technically you are correct for a content page, but I'm almost certain it's policy for talk pages. I simply felt it would be sensible to extend that policy for content pages which are effectively used as talk pages (e.g. Voting and requesting pages). - Aya ^T C 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not add my signature. --Node ue 08:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I have no choice, as in this case where I split a comment into several smaller ones. If I did not do so, I could be accused of obfuscating attribution of comments. - Aya ^T C 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So what if they use the same HTTP server? That doesn't mean it's an official project. --Node ue 08:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You must have missed my previous sentence 'Futhermore, I never implied that this project was official.' - Aya ^T C 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Anthere responded to this request saying it's not an official project, and she is a member of the board so it's a pretty authoritative response. Any such request should be directed to the owner of the domain. --Node ue 08:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I wish I had refrained from using the using the word 'DNS' at all, as it seems to have twisted the whole thread into something completely different than its original intention. - Aya ^T C 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I commented out the discussion, as it seems odd to have a title, with nothing under and moved the discussion to the talk page; Brion sees nothing special/wrong with what Aya is reporting about the DNS. Anthere 11:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I found something on the thread starting at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-March/002575.html

It would seem I not only have to watch a ton of wiki pages, but also a mailing list as well. If there is a discrepancy between the wiki and the mailing list (and possibly IRC), which should be considered canonical? - Aya ^T C 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I exactly understand your question (please, try to use simple sentences on meta); Current status of wikiversity is 1) it is not an official project and 2) some editors are interested in it, so working on the issue. Anthere

Apologies. If there are specific words or phrases you have having problems understanding, feel free to point them out. I'd reply in French if I could, but I assure you, my French is far worse than your English.

I was getting a bit irritated by the general confusion as to what is the 'law' of the Wikimedia Foundation, and what is merely speculation. It would be nice if there was an easy way to distinguish between the two, especially when they contradict each other. Should I perhaps consider the content on the site http://wikimediafoundation.org to be 'law', and the content on this site to be speculation? Or do you think I should ignore both sites, and use the mailing lists instead?

Back to the original point. Let me start again from the beginning. As you are already aware, I recently became a bureaucrat on the en.wikibooks.org project. One of the things we're trying to sort out at the moment is trying to tighten up the defintion of what sorts of content are appropriate there, and what stuff is being dumped there inappropriately, and thus needs to be cleaned up. We really don't want it to slowly turn into a fork of Wikipedia, and a dumping ground for inappropriate content.

In addition to our main project to create open-content textbooks (of a reasonably academic nature), there are two other projects currently hosted there: Wikijunior and Wikiversity.

I have no problems with Wikijunior remaining a sub-project of Wikibooks. These could be argued to be 'textbooks' aimed at children aged 8-11, and I think this is a good idea, although there are arguments as to whether educational fiction is acceptable or not.

The scope of Wikiversity on the other hand is starting to overlap with Wikibooks content, and I'm wondering what to do with it.

It would seem that de.wikiversity.org is generally considered a prototype for a project which is waiting to be authorized by the Foundation. From the posts on the mailing list, it seems as if the project needs a better formal definition in the page Wikiversity before it can be requested as a new official project. So, if I were to sort this out, and make a request in Requests for new projects, would that that be the right thing to do?

Merci beaucoup. - Aya ^T C 16:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

more subpages

This page is a bit unwieldy. Would anyone mind if I made one or more other subpages? I think a separate page for those requests that need native speaker support but otherwise have clear consensus would be useful. Tuf-Kat 20:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: I'm about to move Murcian and Samogitian to the approved requests page, since they both satisfy all the proposed requirements -- if no one complains, I'll see if I can find someone to create them. I would also move Kinaray-a, but as noted on the approved requests talk page, that only meets the requirements if an "official language of a real country" means official in the entire country, as opposed to a subdivision of it. I'll ask for clarification at Talk:Proposed policy for wikis in new language, so go there if you have an opinion on that. Tuf-Kat 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Tuf-Kat! Funnily, I had exactly the same idea the other day: to make a subpage for those language requests that are supported but lack native speakers willing to participate. If we keep requests like Ainu on the main page forever, it'll overflow pretty soon. Of course, each request must be allowed to stay on the main page for a reasonable period of time (maybe two months or so) before it is moved. I think with this new subpage, the ones for "no" and "one" supporters plus the page for approved requests we should be able to keep the number of requests here at somewhere around 20 (which is OK, I guess). Arbeo 09:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As promised, I made the subpage for languages that have only a need for additional native speaker support before creation. In addition, I have rewritten the procedure for languages without ISO codes. My wording looks kind of clumsy though, so feel free to tighten it. Tuf-Kat 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource

Could someone clarify what is procedure for getting a wikisource domain approved. bs.wikisource.org has been requested for 2 weeks now with 6 people supporting it and no opposition. What needs to happen or how long do we need to wait until this proposal is passed and approved. Thanks --Dado 02:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikisource domains are now treated the same as Wikipedias. There's not really a procedure yet, so perhaps you should e-mail the Wikisource mailing list? Tuf-Kat 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat thanks for responding. Where can I find a the Wikisource mailing list? Sorry for being a beginer at this. Thanks --Dado 05:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be one. Not sure why. It should be listed here, for the record. I've sent an e-mail requesting the creation of a few new wikipedias, and also the Bosnian wikisource. Tuf-Kat 06:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Throughout the long process of conversion to language domains, which recently ended, requests for Wikisource languages have been handled at a special page at wikisource.org:

Language domain requests

Perhaps the best procedure now would be that when a request is ready at that page, it could be noted here with a link to the ready-request and all the relevant information.Dovi 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is the request for Venet Wikipedia?

Why the request for Venet Wikipedia has been deleted??? I want to have some explanation. In discussion nobody decided for deleting the request. Thank you. Skafa 5 October 2005 >I'm sorry, I didn't see it was just moved. Skafa 5 October 2005

Questions and clarifications

Would anybody object if I removed Slovio as clearly no consensus? (the copyright restrictions are a major killer on that one, I think) What about the Norfuk request? With two native speakers and clear consensus, I would consider that approved, but it's such a recent request, it might be inappropriate to move so soon. Still, the Ilokano wiki was created virtually instantly, which is infuriating because I can't imagine why, and I can't foresee anyone objecting to Norfuk for any reasonable reason. My last concern is on Austro-Bavarian and South Tyrolian -- I'd say there is consensus for a wiki in that area, but lots of people support only Bavarian but not Austrian, or only for South Tyrolian, or various other combinations. Would it be best to remove the nomination and set up a series of requests so that people can vote either for a Bavarian wiki covering all the dialects, or separately for one or the other, but not a third? Tuf-Kat 04:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tuf-Kat! I guess moving Slovio would be OK at this stage, especially since there seems to be some kind of (informal) agreement that constructed languages need even clearer consensus then natural ones. You're right, Ilokano was created extremely fast. Generally, I think all new requests should stay on the requests page for somewhere between two and four weeks in the future. That way, everybody who might have any objections or suggestions has a fair chance to express them before the wiki is created (most people surely don't check the page on a daily basis). Besides, I believe if our developers can't create all approved new wikis at once, older requests should be given priority.

What to do with Bavarian? Hmm ... I don't want it so you can't call it consensus! - Just kiddin', there really seems to be a clear majority. I can't imagine there could be clearer consensus when you make seperate requests for dialects. Naming seems to be a key issue here. Linguistically, it's all Bavarian, yet nobody in Austria or South Tyrol would ever call it that way. Double or triple names are suboptimal, too. Maybe those who want to start the Wikipedia can seek out better a alternative for the name and then it might work.

Oh, by the way: thanks for tidying up! Arbeo 08:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tufkat, it really infuriates me that you just come here and start removing requests. Who died and made you queen? You're enraged about the quick creation of the Illokano WP. The reason for this is: 1) Astronomical levels of support, no opposition, and more than 3 native speakers; 2) People had literally been waiting for somebody to make this request; and others. OK>??? (posted by an anonynous user on 19 October 2005, moved to correct position by Arbeo)

Please don't sling about accusations. I have not removed any requests at all in months. And I'm certainly not enraged by the creation of Ilokano -- I'm just confused about why it was created so easily when others with just as clear a consensus are not created as quickly. Tuf-Kat 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone have an idea when the new "AUSTRO-BAVARIAN WIKIPEDIA" will be working? ciao! Häsk(de) Häsk(en) 13:05, 7 March 2006 (CEST)

about the pageRequests for new languages/Scott Gall

I think that these requests should be moved into Requests for new languages/One supporter.Is it ok ?--Ffaarr 13:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Arbeo 09:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.: requested deletion today (content has been moved) Arbeo 11:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nedersaksisch

Why is all the discussion of Nedersaksisch commented out, with just the request remaining on the page? Is this a certain limbo stage in the process? --66.101.59.18 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

New Proposals?

Where in the world is the "New Proposals" section we're supposed to post New Proposals in? The section linked to does not seem to exist! Jade Knight 00:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

For a more workable definition of "Approved"

Currently, there are a few requests in the pipeline that there overwhelmingly supported by the community but have one or two users against them. It looks like the number of those requests is constantly rising. 100% consensus is of course the ideal legitimation for a new Wikipedia but not always attainable under real-world circumstances.
According to our practice so far, new Wikipedias can never be created if even only a single user opposes them. In my opinion, this practice is unnecessarily rigorous and becoming increasingly unrealistic as more and more users participate in the discussions. If we continue to use it, a great number of languages and their speakers will invariably be deterred from participating.
Here's what I would suggest to prevent the type of logjam described above:

If a request for a new language achieves no unequivocal consensus after one month of discussion but meets all other requirements, the request will be considered "approved" if it is supported by 75% or more of all users who have voted.

Good idea? Arbeo 16:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Jade Knight 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral, for now. This would take away the power of any one person to veto a language from consideration, kind of like the Security of Council, okay. But, on the other hand, it appears that such a system is not currently being applied evenly above now, in respects toward the case with Lombaard. So, such a system as you are proposing, would obviously have to be applied extremely rigourously and according to the rules and the time limits, okay. Otherwise if we allow the rules to get bent, like they were for Lombaard, it will create a situation of unfairness. So I will hold off my voting on the consensus at this time for now, in order to make it very clear that this is a situation that could easily be resolved with much less ambiguity, shall we say. Blockinblox 16:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It would help.......... but I think having a clear policy would be better. Most of the disputes recently have been about whether something is a "language" or a "dialect". Although we can never completely settle this issue, since people will always argue about what counts as a language and what doesn't, I think we can find some basic criteria to use for wikimedia projects (for example, documented evidence that at least some linguists regard something as a separate language). Then we don't have to rely on popular opinion to solve issues most people know little or nothing about. I left a note on Talk:Proposed policy for wikis in new languages. --Chamdarae 19:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments so far. Of course, Chamdarae, we both agree that a policy would be even better. My concern is only to remain operable even when a policy has not yet been implemented. The way we're going about it now means that I could place an "oppose" under every request - even without being a registered user - and not a single a wiki could be created anymore (don't be afraid, I'm not planning to do that!). This appears somewhat disproportionate to me. Arbeo 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the majority's votes should be regarded as decisive if there are 10 people of which 5 support the request, 4 against and 1 neutral, the request should be approved, if it was 4 support, 5 against and 1 neutral, it should be left for a months or so and thereafter declined if the status does not change. One person should definately not have a veto right, if so no wiki will ever be created, than this page should be deleted right away! Servien 13:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the suggested ¾ majority would be better, as it would show stronger consensus. Otherwise, if a language were tipping back and forth over the majority line, someone could tag it at the right moment and spring it into being. Jade Knight 06:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that until the proposed policy is finalised, this is certainly the best way. Also, I think it's clear we need to get all the "approved" wikis created before we can finalise the policy. So let's get those proposals which meet the requirements of the current proposed policy approved and created quickly. (And there is nothing there about requiring consensus for natural languages anyway.) --Chamdarae 15:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on delegating the total decision on the voting. We cannot create a Wikipedia on a "theoretical language" without an standard writing only because it has more voters. When a proposal does not fulfill minimal requirements, such as having an standard writing, the proposal should not even been voted. --Javier Carro 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly it's not something we can have as a long-term policy. But in the short-term we don't have much choice, I think. We need to get proposals approved (or rejected) more quickly, and we really need a policy to do that more efficiently. The whole process has ground to a halt and we need to get it moving again. And the proposed policy does cover some of the issues you mention, so it's unlikely that proposals not meeting basic requirements will be approved. The problem is the opposite situation - proposals that do meet the policy guidelines are being held up for months. --Chamdarae 19:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with the "standard writing" argument. If you take ancient egyptian, over a long time, and a vast empire, they had quite some changes or diversities in their writing. As more practical example, look at the als and the nds Wikipedia, each of which has not started, at least, with an established orthographic system, and they still offer some choice of writing varieties induced by dialectal variations, if I understand that right. Several Asian and European languages have more than one script, so you'll find two, or even three orthographies. Ripuarian is a so called continuum of dialects. Here the absence of a common orthography means allowing writers to acurately use individual local patterns, e.g. one writes 'bänkshen' (bench), another writes 'bänksken' (bench), etc., which is · mutually understood · clearly associated with the language used at some known place · a relief of wikistress from writers · highlighting individuallity (valued pretty high by the average ripuarian) - all in all accounting for some of the most charming aspects to users. -- Purodha Blissenbach 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is allowed to vote here?

I just wanted to know if here applies the same principle of other votings in Wikimedia. Such as the link from the user page of meta to other user pages of the voters so that we know if the voter is really participant of the community.

If not, anyone can come here and vote. Even, anyone can create as many accounts as he wants and voting as much as neccesary in order to win the voting. (Two examples of this are currently happening in the voting of Andaluz and Murcian variants of Spanish). --Javier Carro 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'll go point to my Wikipedia profile, eh? Jade Knight

Should anonymous users' votes be counted, you can't comment on their messages, they mostly visit only once and they are indicated behind the language names with [thereof 4 anon. etc.]? Bart v.d. Heij 09:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users shouldn't vote, if not, what a luck for those with dynamic IP addresses! :o). I was clearing up the voting of murcian, but I didn't finish yet. --Javier Carro 10:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, on the other wiki's anonymous users aren't allowed to vote either so why should they be able to vote here, so they can leave messages about projects which they're most likely not even interested in... Servien 14:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

On en.wiki, anonymous users are allowed to vote... If there are any suspicions of impropriety, somebody with the appropriate privelages will use the CheckUser function to make sure there's no cheating. --24.251.68.75 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think, these votations are serious for an international project which is the Wikipedia, isn't a circus or place for personal caprices, all the votes will be revised and only validate the users that have regular participation in Meta or other Wikiproject. Is unfair, that exist questionable usernames and annonymus IP's which only appeared in these votations, and convert in a propagandistic and nationalist exclave for personal caprices. --Taichi - (^_^) 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite interesting to me that you say this. I think the only reason is that you are against Murcian and Andalusian WPs. Well, it doesn't matter -- so long as there are half of the people opposed so much, it won't be created anyways. --24.251.68.75 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I generally think that every interested user should be allowed to vote here, because we are an open project. However, if somebody wants to participate in important decisions concerning the future of Wikipedia, we can expect from them to register (which takes less than a minute) and log in. Of course, that will not totally prevent cheating but it will at least provide some more transparency. Speaking of transparency: 24.251.68.75 is user:Node_ue -- Arbeo 10:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on procedures

I've put some vital questions on the request page which have not been discussed, or have not lead to an agreement. Some of these questions are very important before people start to request a new wikipedia, or during the wikipedia request phase. I think it's important an agreement is reached on these items. Servien 15:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We are really need an agreement. Discussions for Chinese "Dialects" has run for years. See Talk:Proposal for Sinitic linguistic policy. Recent voting has been started from 29 July 2005. See Proposal for Sinitic linguistic policy. Anothor voting on Cantonese has been run for over a year (from 22 Oct 2004). See Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Chinese languages#Cantonese.

(Dialect is a misnomer and these "dialect" are mutually NOT intelligible. Each of them has significant number of native speakers, for example, 66 million native speakers of Cantonese. Linguistists consider these dialects as different languages.)

I really have no idea when the voting ends and under what conditions a proposal is accepted or rejected. Exceedingly long discussion is not acceptable. HenryLi 15:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, it shouldn't last that long, I think you should put the request on this main page, I don't know why they have the other pages because no one looks at those! :S Servien 11:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Servien! I agree with you that a clarification of those questions is urgently needed in order to assure an efficient, fair and transparent procedure with regard to new language proposals. Here's my five cents.

• Is a meta-account really necessary? - Think so, yes. Creating an account takes less than a minute, facilites communication and increases transparency here.
• Should these be denied on the basis of meta-accounts or not? - You mean if a request should be rejected if it is made anonymously? Well, I believe it should be made perfectly clear that is it the proposer's responsibility to provide a complete request and that it is not the community's duty to find out what somebody wants. So I think we should consider requests that lack a contact person or any other relevant information as incomplete in the future and hence delete them. However, I think we should have mercy with anonymous req's made in the past and assume good faith in those cases.
• When should the creation of wikis be approved or denied? - Some users think that a simple majority (i. e. 50% plus 1 vote) is sufficient. Others think that consensus (i. e. 100% pros) is necessary. My suggestion is to require a 75% majority (cf. the above section "For a more workable definition of "Approved""). This lies right in the middle between those two positions and could be acceptable to a large number of users.
• Should anonymous users be allowed to vote? - Please cf. my comment in the above section "Who is allowed to vote here?".
• Are users allowed to vote once the request is approved? - In order to assure an efficient, fair and transparent procedure we need to recognize that the new languages process consists of two distinct stages: 1.) a discussion/decision stage which is followed by 2.) an implementation stage. This implies that it is not possible to vote on a wiki that has been approved by the community and which is awaiting it's creation now. A distinction between those two phases is also necessary because our developers (who are the only ones that can bring a new wiki to life) need to be given unambigous and final information with regard to which wikis are approved by the community.
• How long should the application "stand in queue" before having a final answer? - I'd suggest to allot a default period of four weeks for discussion and decision on new language wikis. If necessary (the "difficult cases") this period could be extended once for another four weeks by consensus or majority decision. The current status where proposals can be kept in limbo for an unlimited (!) period of time is clearly unacceptable. It is very unprofessional, not very fair and makes us lose potential new contributors. We can do better than that!
• Is it necessary for approved wikis, without official ISO codes, to stand in queue for long periods? - This is largely because our editors generally require an ISO code (as some sort of legimitation). However, I think it is an obvious fact that the ISO can't know every single language in the world. Various solutions have been suggested (ISO language family code plus 3-letter identifier, ISO language family code plus ISO country code [where applicable], so-called ISO local code starting with a "q" or four-lettered codes defined locally). I guess we all agree that we should not let promising new projects fizzle because of such a technical detail. My suggestion: let's talk to our developers, find out which option is acceptable for them and then stick to that scheme.
  • One more question has just crossed my mind: Should we accept requests for new languages made by people who don't speak that language? (This happens quite frequently and usually leads to nothing but some discussion as wikis not supported by any native speakers are not created anyhow.) Arbeo 14:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arbeo, thanks for answering the questions :) I agree with most/if not all of you answers... these "moderators" of this project should try to implement some of these procedures most of the current procedures are not clear about these points. I think it's important to reach an agreement on this, however the people maintaining this page don't seem to think so, the page hasn't really been "maintained" for quite a while (except for Arbeo self cleaning it up etc.) I also think requests should be approved and then disapproved like below with Pensylvanian Dutch (actually Pensylvanian German :p) even if someone made a mistake it shouldn't be allowed to be disapproved once it's approved there's no going back ;), that's like saying you want sweets and then later you decide you don't like 'm... Servien 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

PDA version of Wikipedia

I think it might be a good idea to have a "PDA" version of Wikipedia. I was thinking simple HTML, limited graphics, designed for a small screen, mostly text only and not too many frames. Is anyone with me on this idea?

• Dear anonymous, wouldn't that be manageable with an appropriate style sheet, at least on the long run? Probably not completely, as using PDA displays lends itself well to strict adherence to an appropriate coding style, where one to few initial sentence(s) (1st screenful as opposed to 1st paragraph) conveys all basic information that one would need at first glance. -- Purodha Blissenbach 14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)