Hoi,

same here

Thanks,

      GerardM

On 28 July 2017 at 18:36, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:

Yep, that's what I vote for: +1

On 28-Jul-17 18:36, MF-Warburg wrote:

To summarize: yes to eligibility and interface translation?

2017-07-21 19:22 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org>:

I follow Gerard's line of argumentation and agree that there must be enough documents in Coptic out there which aren't yet on the web and would be a great playing field for Coptic Wikisource editors. Hence I'm also in favour of localization.

+1

Oliver

On 21-Jul-17 14:19, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,

I am all in favour of having a Wikisource to start off with. When they have reasonable activity and a substantial part of the user interface localised, I would even consider a Wikipedia.

Having a Wikisource is something I want to be liberal with; it is a great way of producing tangible results for a language and it is very much a project aimed at editors.. not much traffic to be expected. The work though may be picked up elsewhere.

So yes to a Wikisource and yes to localisation.. Wikipedia maybe when there is sustained activity.

Thanks,

      GerardM

On 21 July 2017 at 09:46, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

Hi,

Apparently there is some activity in the Coptic Incubator Wikipedia:
portal: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/cop
activity: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0&title=Wp/cop&wiki=incubatorwiki#distribution_2017-02
request: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Coptic_3

And there's a request to translate MediaWiki into this language:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incubator:Community_Portal&oldid=4099303#Translatewiki

However, translatewiki and UniversalLanguageSelector are not yet enabled in this language. As far as I know, the language is not exactly alive as a modern language. It's definitely eligible for Wikisource, so it can be in the UniversalLanguageSelector (although I need to make sure what is the autonym - "ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ"?).

But what about a Wikipedia, and what about translating the MediaWiki user interface strings into it? These would probably be revivalist projects because there are no L1 speakers.

If it's not eligible, I'd rather not enable it on translatewiki. Personally, I would support marking it as eligible, but are there other opinions?

It was already rejected in 2008:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Coptic_2

... But that was long ago, and maybe it's worth reconsidering?

Thank you!

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Virus-free. www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom