We did. And I marked it that way. And then I remembered that once LangCom [tentatively] approves, the rules require a one week comment period at the page "Talk:Language committee" on Meta before the approval is final. So that's what this is.
(Sometimes we start that one-week period a day or two before the LangCom's own week is up, if it is looking like there won't be objections here. I'm probably going to do that for Pashto Wikivoyage, in fact. But that didn't happen in the case of LFN.)
Steve
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
About "working relationship": true enough. But there were NO OBJECTIONS during the week this proposal was open. So, again, by the current rules, that proposal is done and in the past; let's try to find an appropriate modus vivendi going forward.
Steven
Sent from my iPad
The request is otherwise within the rules, there were no objections, and it has been over one week. Request is approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Jon Harald, I think I was told at one point that this was discussed in Berlin, and would be acceptable for the purpose of helping to support this project in an Australian aboriginal language. But as I was not in Berlin, I'd like some LangCom member who was there to confirm this.
Gnangarra, other than with respect to that question, it looks like things are ready by the numbers: decent number of pages, not mostly stubs, "most used" translation complete, sufficient activity. Here was my main concern: In my random check of pages, I found some BLP pages that I was not entirely comfortable with. Now, I can appreciate that there may be personalities you want to highlight in this project that are mostly notable within the context of the community, rather than at large. But there are still good reasons that BLP requires reliable sourcing, and I thought some of the BLP pages I saw were kind of shaky in that regard. I don't think I'd withhold project approval for that, but between now and project creation, and then in the first year of the new wiki, I'd really want to see some of that tightened up.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Actually, Oliver, I asked the test-admin (who is also sysop on pswiki) to try to tackle that, and will re-emphasize that. I actually asked him to tackle the extensions "Content translation messages – all" and "Universal Language Selector messages – all" before going back to MediaWiki Core. Maybe that's just a matter of personal taste. But given that his project approval has the rest of this week to run here, then a week on Meta, the wiki is not likely to be created before the New Year. I'll emphasize to him that he should spend some time on this over the few weeks while waiting.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Well, I suppose I'm technically an interested party to this. But this was proposed, seconded, and there were no objections. So I guess, Santhosh, that you can give me access.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Going all the way back to my original posting in this thread:
* Kichwa Wikipedia has been marked eligible.
* Proposal for Hazaragi Wikipedia was rejected on the grounds of mutual intelligibility with Farsi.
* Mohawk Wikipedia was already marked eligible.
* Southern Min Wikipedia written in Hanji has not been changed.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>