Hoi,

So far we have proven bad at changing our rules. There are several projects waiting for "the nod" and, it is not happening. We could change our ways by allowing for good arguments, persuasive arguments. I would be swayed when other arguments get considerations.

One argument is when a chapter a relevant organisation supports a new project and will invest time and resources to lift a project of the ground particularly when this is a Wikisource.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 16 January 2016 at 21:02, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:

+1
I think we may have to revise our policy to allow those cases where automatic transliteration is impossible, even if script is the only difference. Of course, community decision rules supreme on that (i.e. if a wiki community wants to allow both within one wiki, we wouldn't force a split on them). Could we agree on that?

Oliver

On 16-Jan-16 10:48 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

On 16 Jan 2016, at 17:28, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

Why have a Wikipedia where the only difference is a different script? So far we did not accept that.

I have ALWAYS suggested that it is a good idea. Automatic transliteration from caseless scripts to caseless ones is impossible. Automatic transliteration from scripts that leave out vowels is also.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.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