I think a larger question is that should wikiquote be given same exempt to the condition of whether the language is living when it come to eligibility like wikisource?

在 2018年5月9日週三 13:25，Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> 寫道：
Hoi,
A comparison with Ancient Greek does not serve as a reason for consistency. It was only accepted because of it being actually used in schools.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 8 May 2018 at 18:37, Steven White <Koala19890@hotmail.com> wrote:

These three are the only pending requests for Wikiquote and Wikivoyage projects dating back to 2012.


Wikiquote Pashto (ps):  Eligible.

Wikivoyage Malayam (ml): Eligible.


Wikiquote Syriac (syc):  Syriac, of course, is a historic language. Frankly, there are arguments to be made on either side of this one. 


Leaning towards "eligible":
  • There is a Wikipedia in this language already. Frequently, languages with Wikipedias are allowed to expand into other projects. 
  • In 2010 Milos marked a Wikiquote test in Ancient Greek as "eligible". Possibly this case isn't much different, except that more people know Ancient Greek than know Classical Syriac. (But see below.)
Leaning towards "reject" (outright):
  • The written policy on historical languages reads, "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." I have the impression that at this point, LangCom is starting to loosen up a little about whether the speakers are "native" speakers, as long as there are enough (reasonably) fluent speakers to form a viable community. But that "loosening" seems to apply mostly to Wikipedias (e.g., Coptic), and certainly not to Wikinews or Wikivoyage. I'm not sure about Wikiquote, as Ancient Greek is the only example to look to. And in any case, I'm not sure that Classical Syriac really has enough speakers to create a community; in that, the case potentially differs from Ancient Greek.
What about "reject" (stale)?
  • There are about 14 pages in the test; all (except maybe one) were created in the first three months of its existence. Since then, the test has been pretty dormant. So far, tests that I have closed as stale have had no more than five pages created, and those generally within the same month of starting the test project. So while this test has been fairly dormant, it's been more active than that.

I'd appreciate some opinions on what to do here. I will say straight out that even if the decision is to reject, I see no reason that the test can't stay on Incubator, as it meets the less stringent requirements for a test to be hosted on Incubator. So you're deciding between

  • Rejecting outright, but test remains on Incubator, probably permanently
  • Marking eligible (consistent with what was done with Ancient Greek)

Steven

Sent from Outlook


_______________________________________________
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