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_...
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
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
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 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&wiki=incubatorwiki#distribution_2017-02 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
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&t itle=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/W ikipedia_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
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 <#m_4574436041654692490_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
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 mailto: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 <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&wiki=incubatorwiki#distribution_2017-02 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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> <#m_4574436041654692490_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
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&t itle=Wp/cop&wiki=incubatorwiki#distribution_2017-02 request: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/W ikipedia_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/W ikipedia_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
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 <#m_-692542693009159038_m_4574436041654692490_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Ok! I've marked the meta request as eligible.
2017-07-28 19:19 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
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&t itle=Wp/cop&wiki=incubatorwiki#distribution_2017-02 request: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/W ikipedia_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/W ikipedia_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
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 <#m_-1251561686323112759_m_-692542693009159038_m_4574436041654692490_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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