Hi,
Remind me please: Is there a policy about marking a request as eligible or not if the ISO code is valid and the language is living, natural, and distinct, but there's no content in the Incubator and no other activity on the request page other than the template?
Example: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Angolar...
Mark it as eligible? Leave it as open?
Mark it as some other status? The template supports these statuses: open waiting old stale rejected eligible approved
The values open, rejected, eligible, and approved are all clear to me. But what are waiting, old, and stale?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
There is nothing that speaks against marking these requests as eligible.
"waiting" can also be used, it will say "This proposal is on hold" above the comment from a langcom member. It's mostly used (I think by StevenJ81 and me) for requests that are like "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language". Example < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_%C7%83X... I am unsure about how useful this really is, as of course a project is either eligible or not, independent of Incubator activities.
"stale" says "While this request has technically been rejected, in reality this is a request that has been sitting open or on hold for a long time with little evidence of a community coming together to build a project. If a community comes together in the future and makes a new request, LangCom would consider that new request without prejudice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/without_prejudice." I don't think using this makes much sense.
"old" are requests that were closed years ago when the current LPP and Langcom were introduced.
Am Do., 3. Okt. 2024 um 19:17 Uhr schrieb Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>:
Hi,
Remind me please: Is there a policy about marking a request as eligible or not if the ISO code is valid and the language is living, natural, and distinct, but there's no content in the Incubator and no other activity on the request page other than the template?
Example: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Angolar...
Mark it as eligible? Leave it as open?
Mark it as some other status? The template supports these statuses: open waiting old stale rejected eligible approved
The values open, rejected, eligible, and approved are all clear to me. But what are waiting, old, and stale?
-- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
בתאריך יום ה׳, 3 באוק׳ 2024 ב-14:12 מאת MF-Warburg < mfwarburg@googlemail.com>:
There is nothing that speaks against marking these requests as eligible.
"waiting" can also be used, it will say "This proposal is on hold" above the comment from a langcom member. It's mostly used (I think by StevenJ81 and me) for requests that are like "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language". Example < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_%C7%83X... I am unsure about how useful this really is, as of course a project is either eligible or not, independent of Incubator activities.
Thanks.
As I wrote in another recent email, I think that request pages of the "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language" type should be *deleted*, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself.
"stale" says "While this request has technically been rejected, in reality this is a request that has been sitting open or on hold for a long time with little evidence of a community coming together to build a project. If a community comes together in the future and makes a new request, LangCom would consider that new request without prejudice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/without_prejudice." I don't think using this makes much sense.
As above. A lot of these pages should be outright deleted, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself. Creating a request page is easy, perhaps too easy. It's only worth any effort if there's at least one person who actually knows the language, or, at the very least, has *serious and realistic* intentions of working with people who do.
If a request page of this kind is deleted, as I propose, a person who knows the language can easily create a new one, and it will be much better if the page associated with that person from the first revision.
... But if the language in the request is *very clearly* eligible, then "waiting" or "stale" should just be changed to "eligible". "Very clearly eligible" means, for example, that it's a language in which there is already another wiki that would be created under the current rules. So ha, yo, and ml are clearly eligible, but ang, nds-nl, or cu require at least a discussion. Any other opinions?
בתאריך יום ב׳, 7 באוק׳ 2024 ב-16:29 מאת Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>:
בתאריך יום ה׳, 3 באוק׳ 2024 ב-14:12 מאת MF-Warburg < mfwarburg@googlemail.com>:
There is nothing that speaks against marking these requests as eligible.
"waiting" can also be used, it will say "This proposal is on hold" above the comment from a langcom member. It's mostly used (I think by StevenJ81 and me) for requests that are like "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language". Example < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_%C7%83X... I am unsure about how useful this really is, as of course a project is either eligible or not, independent of Incubator activities.
Thanks.
As I wrote in another recent email, I think that request pages of the "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language" type should be *deleted*, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself.
"stale" says "While this request has technically been rejected, in reality this is a request that has been sitting open or on hold for a long time with little evidence of a community coming together to build a project. If a community comes together in the future and makes a new request, LangCom would consider that new request without prejudice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/without_prejudice." I don't think using this makes much sense.
As above. A lot of these pages should be outright deleted, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself. Creating a request page is easy, perhaps too easy. It's only worth any effort if there's at least one person who actually knows the language, or, at the very least, has *serious and realistic* intentions of working with people who do.
If a request page of this kind is deleted, as I propose, a person who knows the language can easily create a new one, and it will be much better if the page associated with that person from the first revision.
I agree with your thoughts on the preferability of deletion & "very clearly eligible" requests which already have one or more WMF projects.
Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2024 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>:
... But if the language in the request is *very clearly* eligible, then "waiting" or "stale" should just be changed to "eligible". "Very clearly eligible" means, for example, that it's a language in which there is already another wiki that would be created under the current rules. So ha, yo, and ml are clearly eligible, but ang, nds-nl, or cu require at least a discussion. Any other opinions?
בתאריך יום ב׳, 7 באוק׳ 2024 ב-16:29 מאת Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>:
בתאריך יום ה׳, 3 באוק׳ 2024 ב-14:12 מאת MF-Warburg < mfwarburg@googlemail.com>:
There is nothing that speaks against marking these requests as eligible.
"waiting" can also be used, it will say "This proposal is on hold" above the comment from a langcom member. It's mostly used (I think by StevenJ81 and me) for requests that are like "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language". Example < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_%C7%83X... I am unsure about how useful this really is, as of course a project is either eligible or not, independent of Incubator activities.
Thanks.
As I wrote in another recent email, I think that request pages of the "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language" type should be *deleted*, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself.
"stale" says "While this request has technically been rejected, in reality this is a request that has been sitting open or on hold for a long time with little evidence of a community coming together to build a project. If a community comes together in the future and makes a new request, LangCom would consider that new request without prejudice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/without_prejudice." I don't think using this makes much sense.
As above. A lot of these pages should be outright deleted, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself. Creating a request page is easy, perhaps too easy. It's only worth any effort if there's at least one person who actually knows the language, or, at the very least, has *serious and realistic* intentions of working with people who do.
If a request page of this kind is deleted, as I propose, a person who knows the language can easily create a new one, and it will be much better if the page associated with that person from the first revision.
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
One stat that we should probably look at is how many projects we have in the incubator that have never had a request page and as such have never been marked as eligible. Some groups have used that as a workaround when they know their project would not be marked eligible.
mvh. K ________________________________ From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:29 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Langcom] Re: eligibility when there's no content in the Incubator
בתאריך יום ה׳, 3 באוק׳ 2024 ב-14:12 מאת MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.commailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com>: There is nothing that speaks against marking these requests as eligible.
"waiting" can also be used, it will say "This proposal is on hold" above the comment from a langcom member. It's mostly used (I think by StevenJ81 and me) for requests that are like "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language". Example https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_%C7%83X%C3%B3%C3%B5 I am unsure about how useful this really is, as of course a project is either eligible or not, independent of Incubator activities.
Thanks.
As I wrote in another recent email, I think that request pages of the "this project should exist but I am not even a speaker of the language" type should be *deleted*, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself.
"stale" says "While this request has technically been rejected, in reality this is a request that has been sitting open or on hold for a long time with little evidence of a community coming together to build a project. If a community comes together in the future and makes a new request, LangCom would consider that new request without prejudicehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/without_prejudice." I don't think using this makes much sense.
As above. A lot of these pages should be outright deleted, unless there's substantial content in the Incubator or substantial discussion on the request page itself. Creating a request page is easy, perhaps too easy. It's only worth any effort if there's at least one person who actually knows the language, or, at the very least, has *serious and realistic* intentions of working with people who do.
If a request page of this kind is deleted, as I propose, a person who knows the language can easily create a new one, and it will be much better if the page associated with that person from the first revision.