Hi all.
I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *Wp/btm*. It has been
active since Nov 2017, and it has been 9 months that 3 or more editors have
been active[1]. There are about 2530 pages including templates.
Most important core messages have already been translated(100%)[2]. The
request has already been submitted[3]. *This already has btmwikt*; unless
there are special circumstances, expert verification is not likely to be
necessary.
I would like to ask for your opinion on the approval of this, thank you for
your consideration.
[1]
https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0&title=wp/btm&wiki=in…
[2] https://codelookup.toolforge.org/btm
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Mandai…
Best regards,
Sotiale
Dear LangCom members,
The short information provided below is just FYI, so no action is asked
from you as a committee.
As you know, to deal with the requests for opening/closing Wikimedia
projects (not the language projects the LangCom deals with), the WMF Board
has created a Wikimedia Foundation Sibling Projects Task Force*
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Comm…>
.
Natalia and I are informing you that we are planning to have a public
feedback period on the Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle in May/June
(we are trying to squeeze it in between the draft Movement Charter feedback
and its ratification).
Here is a draft document itself, in case you are interested -- the idea is
to try to have a conversation about policy and approach to opening and
closing projects and reasons to (not) do so:
Copy of Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u2Cun7ZJItMjloNhF3wtZHvNEzFEIJJLf7R6v1x…>
--
Kind regards, Victoria
Victoria Doronina
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/>
Trustee
Sister Projects Taskforce Lead
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Imagine a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge. Please help us make it a reality.
Dear Language committee members,
Hi all.
I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *Wp/dtp*. It has been
active since Mar 2023, and it has been 6 months that 3 or more editors have
been active[1]. There are about 2037 pages including templates.
Most important core messages have already been translated(99.65%)[2]. The
request has already been submitted[3].
Its current proposal is *Dusun*, but I think it should be changed to *Central
Dusun*. This is also the language name they use on incubatorwiki.
I would like to ask for your opinion on the approval of this, thank you for
your consideration.
[1]
https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0&title=wp/dtp&wiki=in…
[2] https://codelookup.toolforge.org/dtp
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Dusun
Kind regards,
Sotiale
Hi!
Can we perhaps approve Georgian Wikisource already? :)
It has LOTS of pages in the Multilingual Wikisource, and recently, they
were recategorized.
https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/?title=Georgian&cat=1&wiki=sourceswi…
I can't think of a reason to keep it there.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Dear Maryana,
During our last meeting, we promised to get back to you and explain further
developments regarding the Montenegrin issue. We did not manage to get any
new answers, explanations, or closure regarding this topic hence my update
about the status of the Montenegrin community (which is a part of our CEE
region) will be just another try to chronologically explain this issue and
hopefully raise the attention to the importance of the way we are
communicating and dealing with Wikimedia communities in general.
Hereby I want to share with you a *document
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CO_qoe29WVJCOIsdaIgL0QxDP62SVW2VNqWnJcB…>*which
was prepared by one Montenegrin volunteer, where she explains in detail the
past and current situation of the project, all actions that took place and
reactions (and the lack of reactions) which were received.
CEE Hub became aware of this issue in April 2023 and since then, on behalf
of the CEE hub I have tried to get some clarifications. I contacted Langcom
(in writing, via emails) and I reached out to Langcom liaisons too. I tried
to explain the importance of dealing with this topic because all our
communities are important, and transparency is one of our core values.
Also, on the LangCom’s Meta page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee> there is a very useful
information and explanation about transparency where communities are
invited to reach out and interact with Langcom:
‘Transparency *edit
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_committee&veaction=ed…>*
* | **edit source
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_committee§ion=4&v…>*
· The whole set of activities of the language committee is *public*,
and any advice from the community is welcome.
· The committee values the fact that projects are a property of the
single editors who make it and considers users' necessities as the primary
source for policy.
· The committee is especially interested in hearing those who
proposed a new wiki in the past and got either refused or approved.’
Today in this email, I am not writing anything new. I am just repeating
what I already explained when reaching out to Langcom before.
I truly believe that within the Wikimedia movement we have sufficient
resources to adequately deal with topics such as this one and that every WM
community deserves to receive our clear and transparent feedback. I hope
that we can do something together to move this topic forward.
I am offering CEE Hub's assistance and support with whatever we can do.
Best wishes,
Barbara Klen
*CEE HUB Coordinator*
Tel. +385 91 1504 413
Web. www.wmceehub.org