Phake Nick: There are a couple of similar questions that I’ve been waiting for a time to formulate and then propose, and I think it’s getting to be time to do so. That having been said:
* Do remember that we have a multilingual Wikisource that can serve as the repository for source documents in languages that would not be eligible for projects otherwise. The same is not true for Wikiquote. * The purpose of Wikiquote (or at least a purpose) is to provide a repository for people looking for quotes to be able to find them. That means that it makes little sense to have WQ projects in languages that people don’t really use. * LangCom seems a little more amenable to Wikipedia projects in languages that are not used as L1 any more, provided there are still communities available to support them, and provided there is a body of written material to serve as a basis for content. I don’t think LangCom is willing to stretch that point on Wikinews or Wikivoyage at all. Question will be more whether Wikiquote could be like Wikipedia in that regard, not whether it would go as far as being like Wikisource. * Finally, remember that quotes can be translated and used in any number of WQ projects.
It seems to me that if a seriously historical language has a few quotes that someone wants to preserve natively, then the documents containing those quotes could well be put in Wikisource, and that would be a reasonable approach.
Steven
Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 18:14:19 +0000 From: Phake Nick c933103@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Langcom] Back to 2012: Wikiquote and Wikivoyage requests Message-ID: CAGHjPPKXGzgE9SXbGdAi-2MnLt7tRwZg_tjp4QeGc8-Nk44ULw@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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 Syriac https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRequests_for_new_languages%2FWikiquote_Syriac&data=02%7C01%7C%7C122a3e7653d147faef4108d5b9190a05%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636618439545490276&sdata=aLcKnd4JdppNqqEzROpYSbbFPoZSMt5gf92m9b6%2B2zk%3D&reserved=0 (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