Hi.
I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *Wb/min*. It has been
active since Sep 2024, and it has been 7 months that 3 or more editors have
been active[1]. There are about 1455 pages including templates.
Most important core messages have already been translated(85.71%)[2]. This
is odd since their Wikipedia has already been approved(wikt: was approved;
2019), but I don't think it will hinder this approval as this is an issue
we can ask them to resolve. The request has already been submitted[3].
This language already has wp:, wikt:, so there is no need for an additional
verification process.
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=Wb/min&wiki=in…
[2] https://codelookup.toolforge.org/min
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Minang…
Best regards,
Sotiale
Hallo,
There are these two open requests:
1. hoj:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Hadauti
2. raj:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Rajast…
raj is a macro language code, and hoj is one of the languages that belong
to it.
I don't know these languages, and I'm not sure what to do about them.
I sent talk page messages to people who contributed to them, asking whether
they actually plan to contribute to them more, and whether the current
incubator articles in them look related.
Until we get any substantial replies, I recommend marking the two requests
as "Waiting".
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Hi.
I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *Wp/lua*. It has been
active since Jan 2024, and it has been 6 months that 3 or more editors have
been active[1]. There are about 1758 pages including templates.
Most important core messages have already been translated(100%)[2]. The
request has already been submitted[3].
This is a bit different from the name SIL(Luba-Lulua) and their
proposal(Luba-Kasai) and the name they use on Wikimedia
incubator(Luba-Lulua). This email follows the name their proposal
uses(their main contributor is the same user who made the proposal). This
project needs to go through a verification process because there are no
other open projects.
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/lua&wiki=in…
[2] https://codelookup.toolforge.org/lua
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Luba-K…
Best regards,
Sotiale
Hi.
I would like to ask for comments on the approval of *madwikisource*. It has
been active since July 2024, and it has been 7 months that 3 or more
editors have been active[1]. There are about *834 *pages including
templates.
Most important core messages have already been translated(100%)[2]. The
request has already been submitted[3]. This language already has Wikipedia
and Wiktionary, so no additional verification process is needed unless
there are special circumstances.
The most recent project for this language is Wiktionary, which was created
in September 2024, so there is no problem of multiple projects being
created in such a short period of time to approve this project.
You might think that the content itself is less than other projects, but I
don't have any particular opinion on this matter.
I would like to ask for your opinion on the approval of this, thank you for
your consideration.
[1]
https://meta.toolforge.org/catanalysis/?title=Bh%C3%A2sa_Madhur%C3%A2&cat=1…
[2] https://codelookup.toolforge.org/mad
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Madur…
Best regards,
Sotiale
Hi,
For as long as I remember being involved with the Language committee, there
hasn't been a clear definition of what does "active in the Incubator"
exactly mean. Is there a specific number of articles, number of users, or
number of weeks or months of continuous activity?
My impression is that the committee does it by intuition. It's not
necessarily bad, because every language community has its own story. Quite
often, however, various people ask me about it, and I would really love to
have a better answer than "intuition".
Unless I'm missing something, a precise definition cannot be found on any
of these pages:
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(requesters)
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)
Something a bit closer to a definition appears on language request pages on
Meta through the template: "The community needs to develop an active test
project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent
changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least
three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the
previous few months."
The words "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors" are quite
precise, but "the previous few months"—not really.
Some things to consider:
* If "at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections
for the previous few months" is the policy, can it be copied to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy ?
* Is "three active, not-grayed-out editors" good as it is? Too strict? Too
lax? Too easy to game?
* Should we perhaps write something like "at least three active,
not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months,
^but every case will be checked manually by Language committee members
separately^"? This is the actual practice anyway, as far as I can tell.
Other suggestions are welcome.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore