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(a)mail.huji.ac.il <mailto: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
<https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/cop>
activity:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/catanalysis/index.php?cat=0&title=Wp/cop…
<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…
<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_Porta…
<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…
<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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom