I propose eligible status for the proposal [1] for Wikipedia in Cora [2]. It is an Uto-Aztecan language spoken by ~10,000 people in Mexico [3]. Ethnologue says it's "developing".
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Cora [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cora_language [3] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/crn
If we set Buhid with 8000 speakers on hold, should we do that here as well? The proposer does not seem to be a native speaker either and there has been no activity whatsoever (Meta/Incubator) since the proposal was made in 2015.
2017-01-26 23:15 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I propose eligible status for the proposal [1] for Wikipedia in Cora [2]. It is an Uto-Aztecan language spoken by ~10,000 people in Mexico [3]. Ethnologue says it's "developing".
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_ languages/Wikipedia_Cora [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cora_language [3] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/crn
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, A native speaker has always been one of the considerations for making things eligible. Thanks, Gerard
On 26 January 2017 at 23:54, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
If we set Buhid with 8000 speakers on hold, should we do that here as well? The proposer does not seem to be a native speaker either and there has been no activity whatsoever (Meta/Incubator) since the proposal was made in 2015.
2017-01-26 23:15 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I propose eligible status for the proposal [1] for Wikipedia in Cora [2]. It is an Uto-Aztecan language spoken by ~10,000 people in Mexico [3]. Ethnologue says it's "developing".
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/ Wikipedia_Cora [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cora_language [3] https://www.ethnologue.com/language/crn
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
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
A native speaker has always been one of the considerations for making things eligible.
I think we should move this implicit requirement for the approval. If nobody works on Incubator and Translatewiki, we won't approve it anyway.
Hoi, It is important to keep this because there should not be hope without native speakers. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 January 2017 at 09:28, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
A native speaker has always been one of the considerations for making
things
eligible.
I think we should move this implicit requirement for the approval. If nobody works on Incubator and Translatewiki, we won't approve it anyway.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is important to keep this because there should not be hope without native speakers.
Gerard, as long as it belongs to the category "I know few words of this language and I think it should have Wikipedia" and not bulk addition of languages with valid ISO 639-3 code, I think we should pass it as eligible.
If a native speakers appear, they would have something done in their name and they could feel a little bit more welcome. If not, we won't approve that project.
If one or more non-native persons edit Incubator in good faith, that should be welcomed. At the other side, it won't become a valid project without native speakers.
A lot of valid requests are there for years. I am sure some of the native speakers have been rejected from editing Incubator because of that.
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
2017年1月29日 16:36 於 "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com 寫道：
Hoi, It is important to keep this because there should not be hope without native speakers. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 January 2017 at 09:28, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
A native speaker has always been one of the considerations for making
things
eligible.
I think we should move this implicit requirement for the approval. If nobody works on Incubator and Translatewiki, we won't approve it anyway.
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
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
but as mentioned before, a language under revitalization effort mught have hundred of thousands L2 speakers with hundreds of them willing to work on the Wikipedia but it is still possible for none of them to be native.
2017年1月30日 17:13 於 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 寫道：
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, I am quite happy when someone argue their case. I will certainly listen. In the past there were Americans who said to support languages from Papua New Guinea. Their arguments is why we ask for native speakers. The good thing of this policy is that we can do differently when the situation fits a need. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 January 2017 at 17:46, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
but as mentioned before, a language under revitalization effort mught have hundred of thousands L2 speakers with hundreds of them willing to work on the Wikipedia but it is still possible for none of them to be native.
2017年1月30日 17:13 於 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 寫道：
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
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
Gerard, do you object eligible status for this Wikipedia?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am quite happy when someone argue their case. I will certainly listen. In the past there were Americans who said to support languages from Papua New Guinea. Their arguments is why we ask for native speakers. The good thing of this policy is that we can do differently when the situation fits a need. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 January 2017 at 17:46, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
but as mentioned before, a language under revitalization effort mught have hundred of thousands L2 speakers with hundreds of them willing to work on the Wikipedia but it is still possible for none of them to be native.
2017年1月30日 17:13 於 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 寫道：
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, I have heard that there might be a given number of L2 speakers. As stated is not a convincing argument. I am willing to entertain the thought but it needs to be more convincing. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 12:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, do you object eligible status for this Wikipedia?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am quite happy when someone argue their case. I will certainly listen.
In
the past there were Americans who said to support languages from Papua
New
Guinea. Their arguments is why we ask for native speakers. The good
thing of
this policy is that we can do differently when the situation fits a need. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 January 2017 at 17:46, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
but as mentioned before, a language under revitalization effort mught
have
hundred of thousands L2 speakers with hundreds of them willing to work
on
the Wikipedia but it is still possible for none of them to be native.
2017年1月30日 17:13 於 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 寫道：
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language
under
revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
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
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
OK. Changing suggestion into "on hold" and extending discussion till February 13-14th.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have heard that there might be a given number of L2 speakers. As stated is not a convincing argument. I am willing to entertain the thought but it needs to be more convincing. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 12:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, do you object eligible status for this Wikipedia?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am quite happy when someone argue their case. I will certainly listen. In the past there were Americans who said to support languages from Papua New Guinea. Their arguments is why we ask for native speakers. The good thing of this policy is that we can do differently when the situation fits a need. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 January 2017 at 17:46, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
but as mentioned before, a language under revitalization effort mught have hundred of thousands L2 speakers with hundreds of them willing to work on the Wikipedia but it is still possible for none of them to be native.
2017年1月30日 17:13 於 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 寫道：
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
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
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I put it on hold on February 20th; forgot to write it here.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
OK. Changing suggestion into "on hold" and extending discussion till February 13-14th.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have heard that there might be a given number of L2 speakers. As stated is not a convincing argument. I am willing to entertain the thought but it needs to be more convincing. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 February 2017 at 12:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, do you object eligible status for this Wikipedia?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am quite happy when someone argue their case. I will certainly listen. In the past there were Americans who said to support languages from Papua New Guinea. Their arguments is why we ask for native speakers. The good thing of this policy is that we can do differently when the situation fits a need. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 January 2017 at 17:46, gfb hjjhjh c933103@gmail.com wrote:
but as mentioned before, a language under revitalization effort mught have hundred of thousands L2 speakers with hundreds of them willing to work on the Wikipedia but it is still possible for none of them to be native.
2017年1月30日 17:13 於 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 寫道：
On Jan 30, 2017 4:20 AM, "gfb hjjhjh" c933103@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed before, it would take a few decades before a language under revitalizing effort to gain a native speaker.
The context of "having native speakers" is not existential, but having them working on particular project.
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
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom