Jon Harald, I think I was told at one point that this was discussed in Berlin, and would be acceptable for the purpose of helping to support this project in an Australian aboriginal language. But as I was not in Berlin, I'd like some LangCom member who was there to confirm this.
Gnangarra, other than with respect to that question, it looks like things are ready by the numbers: decent number of pages, not mostly stubs, "most used" translation complete, sufficient activity. Here was my main concern: In my random check of pages, I found some BLP pages that I was not entirely comfortable with. Now, I can appreciate that there may be personalities you want to highlight in this project that are mostly notable within the context of the community, rather than at large. But there are still good reasons that BLP requires reliable sourcing, and I thought some of the BLP pages I saw were kind of shaky in that regard. I don't think I'd withhold project approval for that, but between now and project creation, and then in the first year of the new wiki, I'd really want to see some of that tightened up.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
Hoi, A lot may have been discussed in Berlin but this was not communicated afterwards .. So no. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 December 2017 at 14:52, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Jon Harald, I think I was told at one point that this was discussed in Berlin, and would be acceptable for the purpose of helping to support this project in an Australian aboriginal language. But as I was not in Berlin, I'd like some LangCom member who was there to confirm this.
Gnangarra, other than with respect to that question, it looks like things are ready by the numbers: decent number of pages, not mostly stubs, "most used" translation complete, sufficient activity. Here was my main concern: In my random check of pages, I found some BLP pages that I was not entirely comfortable with. Now, I can appreciate that there may be personalities you want to highlight in this project that are mostly notable within the context of the community, rather than at large. But there are still good reasons that BLP requires reliable sourcing, and I thought some of the BLP pages I saw were kind of shaky in that regard. I don't think I'd withhold project approval for that, but between now and project creation, and then in the first year of the new wiki, I'd really want to see some of that tightened up.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I don't remember such a discussion either.
2017-12-18 17:30 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, A lot may have been discussed in Berlin but this was not communicated afterwards .. So no. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 December 2017 at 14:52, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Jon Harald, I think I was told at one point that this was discussed in Berlin, and would be acceptable for the purpose of helping to support this project in an Australian aboriginal language. But as I was not in Berlin, I'd like some LangCom member who was there to confirm this.
Gnangarra, other than with respect to that question, it looks like things are ready by the numbers: decent number of pages, not mostly stubs, "most used" translation complete, sufficient activity. Here was my main concern: In my random check of pages, I found some BLP pages that I was not entirely comfortable with. Now, I can appreciate that there may be personalities you want to highlight in this project that are mostly notable within the context of the community, rather than at large. But there are still good reasons that BLP requires reliable sourcing, and I thought some of the BLP pages I saw were kind of shaky in that regard. I don't think I'd withhold project approval for that, but between now and project creation, and then in the first year of the new wiki, I'd really want to see some of that tightened up.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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 remember talking to WM Australia reps in Berlin about Nyungar but to my knowledge, allowing nys:wp to be written in English was not part of that discussion. Actually, I remember trying to make clear that the involvement of native speakers is a sine-qua-non for any new anguage wikipedia. Maybe, it wasn't understood that this also implied writing in the particular language in question, i.e. here Nyungar.
Otherwise, I support Gerard's suggestion of making this a special wiki project instead of a wikipedia.
Fwiw, Oliver
On 18-Dec-17 17:32, MF-Warburg wrote:
I don't remember such a discussion either.
2017-12-18 17:30 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, A lot may have been discussed in Berlin but this was not communicated afterwards .. So no. Thanks, GerardM On 18 December 2017 at 14:52, Steven White <Koala19890@hotmail.com <mailto:Koala19890@hotmail.com>> wrote: Jon Harald, I think I was told at one point that this was discussed in Berlin, and would be acceptable for the purpose of helping to support this project in an Australian aboriginal language. But as I was not in Berlin, I'd like some LangCom member who was there to confirm this. Gnangarra, other than with respect to that question, it looks like things are ready by the numbers: decent number of pages, not mostly stubs, "most used" translation complete, sufficient activity. Here was my main concern: In my random check of pages, I found some BLP pages that I was not entirely comfortable with. Now, I can appreciate that there may be personalities you want to highlight in this project that are mostly notable within the context of the community, rather than at large. But there are still good reasons that BLP requires reliable sourcing, and I thought some of the BLP pages I saw were kind of shaky in that regard. I don't think I'd withhold project approval for that, but between now and project creation, and then in the first year of the new wiki, I'd really want to see some of that tightened up. Steven Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> _______________________________________________ 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>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