Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial
languages should be eligible?
Am 08.12.2017 7:34 nachm. schrieb "Steven White" <Koala19890(a)hotmail.com>:
This has been out a week with no objections, so I am marking this as
"approving" (pending language check).
I guess the logical person to contact on this is the creator of the
language, C. George Boeree <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._George_Boeree>,
Professor Emeritus at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippensburg_University_of_Pennsylvania>.
(I am told he contributed a small amount to the project, but was not a
major contributor.) He has a web page at http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/,
and his email address is cgboer(a)ship.edu. Please let me know who is going
to handle this.
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Michael, I am sure IETF would find a subtag for Klingon with the extended
vocabulary. Or it would require another ISO 639-3 code? I mean, if it's not
possible to treat them as so close varieties, so it's not necessary to do
any additional standardization.
And how should we treat such hypothetical situatuion? Like American and
British English, like Serbian and Croatian or like something else?
On Dec 9, 2017 23:44, "Michael Everson" <everson(a)evertype.com> wrote:
Miloš. Klingon vocabulary is created by ONE PERSON and ONE PERSON ONLY, and
unless he makes a word for “table”. there isn’t one.
> On 9 Dec 2017, at 21:59, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or tafel or tisch or tryezë or ميز and that is exactly why all these
words
>> are not to be used in Klingon. The same is true for table actually.
>
> Your incompetence is astonishing! Please, tell that to the speakers
> of, for example, Irish or Welsh.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This has been out a week with no objections, so I am marking this as "approving" (pending language check).
I guess the logical person to contact on this is the creator of the language, C. George Boeree<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._George_Boeree>, Professor Emeritus at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippensburg_University_of_Pennsylvania>. (I am told he contributed a small amount to the project, but was not a major contributor.) He has a web page at http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/, and his email address is cgboer(a)ship.edu<MailTo:cgboer@ship.edu>. Please let me know who is going to handle this.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Fine. Albanian Wikiversity was changed to "eligible", and I am marking Khowar Wikipedia and Khowar Wikinews as eligible as well.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
I would like to get this decided definitively. Based on the discussion thread on the subject that started January 31 and went into February, it seems to me that LangCom was leaning favorably toward this project. However, that discussion thread was not closed definitively, so I'd ask for that to happen now. Thank you.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Here are three more open RFL requests for non-Wikipedia projects dating to 2010:
* Romanian Wikiversity (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Roma…): Marked as "eligible"
* Albanian Wikiversity (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Alba…): Marked as "on hold", only because there is no Albanian content at all in Beta Wikiversity. If someone starts creating content, I will switch it to "eligible".
* Khowar Wikinews (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Khowar): In principle, this should be "eligible". But after the fiasco with Wikipedia Khowar last March, MF-W reset the status on that to "open" instead of "eligible". I wasn't sure if that was intentional or an oversight. But notwithstanding that fiasco, there is no reason that either project shouldn't be "eligible". So I intend to mark both projects as "eligible". However, I'll hold off on these two for a few days to give MF-W (and anyone else) a chance to respond.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
I rejected https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Rajast…, mainly on technical grounds. First, it was stale—open since 2007, and only two comments (other than inappropriate ones that were reverted) since 2011. (The age of a request is not a reason to reject by itself, but it made this situation just that much worse.) Second, it pointed to two ISO 639–3 codes: both were macrolanguage codes, and the request was pretty unclear as to whether it intended to cover one, the other, or both. So I closed the request, and invited anyone interested to resubmit a more focused request.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
I'm glad you mentioned this one. There are any number of requests, and/or test projects in Incubator, hoping to create new projects in languages where projects already exist, but in a different script. As just a couple of examples:
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Southe…
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Romani…
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Sindhi (which is for Sindhi in Devanagari, rather than Perso-Arabic)
My best understanding here is that there are a bunch of tradeoffs going on in all of these cases:
* By default, I know we'd prefer for such things to be incorporated into existing projects when possible. But "when possible" is full of challenges:
* Best approach is to use script converters, of course.
* Sometimes script converters are not possible or practical. In such cases, you can have multiple pages in different scripts within a single project. That's what we do in Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia; see, for example, our articles on Astronomy<https://lad.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomiya>.
* Sometimes, though, it seems communities are unwilling to allow this. The late, unlamented "Moldovan" projects are one example; in theory, the Romanian community could have allowed Cyrillic pages, but refused. But even assuming that's not a good example, there are other cases where communities don't want to allow such a thing, and I don't know when those objections are practically motivated and when they are culturally/politically motivated. (I'm not sure about the Sindhi project, for example.)
* I also don't know at what point things become worthwhile trying. Wikipedia in Pinyin-romanized Mandarin<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Chines…> potentially makes sense to me (provided that it's not better to incorporate it into zhwiki). Wikipedia in Chinese-ideograph English (or Cyrillic English) makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Any guidance/discussion would be very useful.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Just to say that I've made it [1] eligible now. The only issue with
the request was previous inability to have proper representation of
to-down writing systems (it's been "on hold" since 2010). It's been
fixed a few years ago.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Mongol…