Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Archive: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
JimKillock (talk | contribs) Move to archive |
m v2.05b - Fix CW error #16 - WCW (Unicode control characters - Title linked in text) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{discussion top}}
==Rational==
===Original wording===
Line 87 ⟶ 88:
*{{Support}} : There is not a logical or simple division between knowledge deployed through one or other medium, nor between one or other class of language, or language community. As soon as such a division is placed, prejudicial judgements will arise. Think about Sanskrit, which has speakers and writers, but is ancient and (more or less) a second anguage for all. Refusing Sanskrit a platform would be obviously prejudicial, as would excluding Cornish or Manx, both of which are “revived” and formerly classed as extinct. Criteria for inclusion therefore have to be ''objective'' and verifiable, such as, whether enough competent writers are curating the content. The issues that the ME wiki are accused of and the Ancient Greek wiki is believed may suffer from having fall into this class, and can be dealt with in an objective way. That is, Wikimedia should ensure that a high standard of linguistic competence is evidenced and applied, and the project advances to official and more public visibility on the basis of quality content and quality control, just as all other wikis do. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 16:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
* {{Support}} : All arguments have already been worded, I simply join them. --[[User:Mmh|Mmh]] ([[User talk:Mmh|talk]]) 18:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
* {{Support}}, '''but only Wikipedias and Wiktionaries''' in ancient or recently extinct languages. It would allow us to create unique texts, even short ones, which may be helpful for people who deeply involved in linguistics studies, or for language revitalization activists - last ones are not always kind of marginal interest groups, we know example of successful attempts of revitalization of [[:en:Massachusett language|recently extinct]] or [[:en:Hebrew language|even ancient]] languages. Of course, we will need to put more effort to determine the accuracy of spelling/vocabulaire of a proposed language, how good a dead language studied and if it could be ever studied more by linguists, so of course, the hypothetic ''[[:en:Galindian language|Galindian]] Wikipedia'' would be an obvious nonsense comparing to Ancient Greek or Middle English Wikipedias. In the end, I would support the maintaining of stricter policy (!) for acceptance of Wikiprojects in dead languages, rather
==Oppose==
Line 482 ⟶ 483:
:::::FWIW these problems crop up on Latin Wikipedia too, exacerbated by the "existence" of Google Latin "Translate", but there is an established group of competent editors that can label and combat the nonsense. Which speaks to the criteria about having a community of trained people to draw on. Still, we should I think avoid further discussion of the particular merits of particular Wikis at this point, and concentrate on the proposal as it stands.
:::::As I mentioned before I think this is ready to either ask for final comment from people who were initially opposed to this, to see if we can find more consensus. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 10:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}
:''Please move discussion that does not relate ''directly'' to the shape of the proposal to the [[talk:Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages|talk page]]''
{{ping|Prosfilaes|Pppery|GerardM|Steinbach|VIGNERON|Cuzkatzimhut|minorax|Janwo|Rschen7754|Jusjih|SHB2000|Iohanen|Sanmosa|DreamerBlue|Leaderboard}} Could you take a look at the compromise proposal, which has been written with the express purpose of removing any prospect of allowing unsustainable projects in effectively defunct languages, and aligning the criteria to be tougher than for ConLangs in terms of liguistic training, but similar in nature regarding usage, ie, they must have modern publication and fora, readers and writers etc? --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 10:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:This conforms broadly to the conditions I previously demanded for wikis in ancient langauges. It must have great cultural significance and a lot of people study it for reasons other than mere academic interest. [[User:Steinbach|Steinbach <small>(formerly Caesarion)</small>]] 10:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], have you pinged members of the language committee or just users who expressed their opposition to this request for comment? If the latter one, then I believe you missed some. BTW, I realize that this suggestion is still ''better'' than the existing one but I don’t really like the idea of including standards that ''can’t'' be achieved like a standard spelling - especially for a language that has had regional variants (plus there’s the fact that Modern English Wikipedia also sometimes mixes British and American spelling in the same article). Anyways, some ancient languages (only a minority of them I believe) will still be eligible and as I have said, it’s still better and I’m glad Ancient Greek Wikipedia will be created. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::As I said, a standard can allow variations, but it needs to explain what they are. for instance it could say: ''these words can be spelt with an 's' or a 'z' but choose and be consistent''; or ''this dialect used this form for the genitive, and also grammatical gender; both must be used in this dialect form''. That's fine; standardisation is just documentation and rules for acceptability. These can be complicated and include variants but the point is for them to be set down and accepted. I explain above why I think ME is unlikely to get such standardisation, but it is usage and purpose not variation that are your problem here. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 13:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} Some users from [https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:首页 Chinese Wikipedia], and [https://zh.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:首页 Chinese a Wikisource] were concerned that this might cause Classical Chinese Wikisource to be created which in their words would “split the Chinese community” and some users even wanted people who support the idea of a Classical Chinese Wikisource to apologize to them for “causing irreversible psychological trauma for the Chinese Wikipedia Community” weather or not Classical Chinese Wikisource should be created is not up to me to judge but I believe this is a matter that needs to be addressed. Maybe ping some users who support this idea and some who oppose to see both sides. According to this suggested policy, it looks for me like Classical Chinese Wikisource would be approved. @[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]], what is your opinions? I know you oppose Classical Chinese Wikisource. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 13:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**The real {{ping|Hat600}} pointed at [[s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#文言文維基文庫可能會被分割出來創立了，中文維基文庫中的文言文文章將何去何從？]], that the "[[#This_is_not_about_Wikisource_(for_concerned_Chinese_Wikisource_users)]]" section above would really be fake, as this RFC really will hurt them:
{{cquote|实际上我不担心真的文言文文章，大不了把zh移到lzh然后新建一个zh，我们搞公文和法律的圈地自萌嘛。我担心的是他们一定会要面对“红军不怕远征难，万水千山只等闲”是文言文还是现代汉语，“滚滚长江东逝水”是不是要和《三国演义》正文分属两个wiki，甲骨文金文到底是不是文言文，这种问题。一开始觉得是，过了几年换了一拨人又觉得不是了，又要把文章扔回zh来。古代英语过了那个年代就没人写了，用正字法分还是用年代分都分得开；而文言文不是。}}
--[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 13:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::This sounds like something that needs reassurance. I don't think the Committee is going to allow something that a majority of Chinese users rejects. A policy needs flexibility and trust in the committee, but we can always add something to make this clear. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 13:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::I have therefore added a line: ''Where lines between language eras and types, through character sets or other issues, is difficult to determine, the needs of the modern language community must be paramount;''
**And JimKillock, don't you think that inputs from {{ping|Amire80|Antony D. Green|Maor X|Jon Harald Søby|Evertype|Sotiale|Vito Genovese|Doc James}} will also be needed, as a potential approval of this require 2/3 pro from langcom internally? Also, I wonder why someone would rather love to let me join an "{{Edit conflict}}" game. --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::Of course, this is a decision for the Language Committee, so their feedback would be most welcome. (I was merely trying to get this into shape first, but I think now is a good time for them to take a look) --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 13:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::I have copied the message [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] sent to google translate which we all know is crappy so if someone would like to give a professional translation, you are welcome. Here is the comment:
::::<blockquote>In fact, I don’t worry about real classical Chinese articles, so if you move zh to lzh and then create a new zh, we are making an enclosure of official documents and laws. What I worry about is that they will have to face "The Red Army is not afraid of the difficulties of the expedition, thousands of waters and thousands of mountains just wait for leisure" is it classical Chinese or modern Chinese, and whether "Rolling Yangtze River East Passes Water" should belong to two wikis with the text of "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms", Oracle Gold Whether the text is in classical Chinese or not, this kind of question. At first I thought it was, but after a few years, I changed a group of people and thought it was not. I had to throw the article back to zh again. No one wrote in ancient English after that era. It can be distinguished by orthography or age. Classical Chinese is not.</blockquote>
::::BTW, users who don’t speak Chinese would either copy it to google translate or not know what is written there at all so if the translation is bad keep in to account that they would have gotten the same bad translation. Again, I won’t make the decision but this is an important topic that must be discussed.
:::::At the risk of repeating myself, I have added a line: ''Where lines between language eras and types, through character sets or other issues, is difficult to determine, the needs of the modern language community must be paramount;'' I would hope that resolves this problem. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 14:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Also should texts in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English Old English] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English Middle English] be kept in English Wikisource or each in a separate one? And I suggested to ping users and cause what you called an “edit war” because I believe it’s best to make a decision after seeing both sides of the argument. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 13:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::For those on enwikisource ([[s:en:Category:Old_English_works|ang]], [[s:en:Category:Middle English works|enm]] and [[s:en:Category:Early modern works|eme]]), you have to ask their admins for their opinions: {{ping|BD2412|Beeswaxcandle|Beleg Tâl|BethNaught|Charles Matthews|Clockery|EncycloPetey|Hesperian|Hrishikes|Inductiveload}}{{ping|Ineuw|Jan.Kamenicek|Kathleen.wright5|Mahagaja|Mpaa|Samwilson|Spangineer|Tarmstro99|Xover|Zyephyrus}} (but as two their admins said against, and one said to avoid participating here, I don't see any possible how they would even "agree to withdraw those works on enwikisource, and allow them to have their own wikisource, plus re-open [[s:ang:]].") [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 13:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::As far as I can see, the policy '''makes no change''' to the way that Wikisource is treated. I have simply copied the existing policy. How that is implemented is for the Language Committee. This policy would change the way '''other wikis''' are treated. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 14:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], yeah I know but it’s still an important topic that needs to be debated. Some users might think that texts in Old English shouldn’t be stored together with texts in Modern English and though I don’t have a strong opinion in any side of this debate, I believe this is an opportunity to decide on this matter once and for all (at least until the next such RfC is posted😅). -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 14:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::This was not raised in your original proposal and has not been discussed until now. The language makes no attempt to make any change. It is therefore out of scope, and very dangerous to suddenly veer into those topics, when we have something that can be agreed and we can make progress with. Better to note that there is still an unresolved question, and come back to it later. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 14:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], ok I understand. Thanks, -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 14:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], wait do you think this Request for Comment will be closed with this question unresolved or do you expect it to be discussed after the policy is agreed upon? Thanks in advance, -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 14:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think this process should stick to the question '''you asked''': which was to '''Start allowing ancient languages'''. As to exactly where content should go within Wikisources, that is not about whether ancient languages are allowed or not. That is something that is probably best left to the Language Committee and the WS volunteers themselves, rather than trying to determine it through policy change. And if there is something that could be changed there, then that ought to be discussed in a separate process. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 15:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], OK, I see. Thank you very much! -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 15:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]]: Thanks for the ping. That's always very much appreciated. But…{{pb}}…after spending about an hour and a half skimming through this monster page I still have no real idea what enWS is being asked to address. But to the degree it helps the discussion I can generally clarify that which content in what languages and language variants is acceptable on English Wikisource is an issue for the English Wikisource community to decide, and any proposal to modify the scope of English Wikisource should be raised at its [[s:WS:S|Scriptorium]]. To the extent the meta community or langcom, or anybody else that is ''not'' the English Wikisource community, is actually proposing to decide the scope for English Wikisource in a RfC here on meta they are kindly invited to go jump off a cliff.{{pb}}If someone wants to go start a dedicated Wikisource for one of the obscure ancient or regional language variants that are currently within scope for English Wikisource I wish them all kinds of success, but it will not affect the scope of English Wikisource except insofar that if they succeed in creating a sustainable project we might eventually decide to migrate all our relevant content there to avoid splitting effort. Or we might not. If someone has a specific proposal for a major language or variant that is currently within scope for English Wikisource then I will be happy to comment, but then mostly as a member of the Wikimedia movement and may either support or oppose based on whether it seems a good idea, whether the need is better accommodated in the existing project, and so forth.{{pb}}If the need is something else then you will need to make the question more explicit, and most likely we will need to solicit input from the various relevant Wikisource communities. There is quite a bit of experience with the hosting of content in multiple languages on the Wikisourcen—including multiple types of ancient, regional, or variant languages—but it will have limited general applicability to e.g. a Wikipedia. [[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 16:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Xover}} I've moved all the of prediscussion to an archive, so the proposal is at the top of the page. There are no proposed changes to Wikisource, and I am sorry this got brought up at the last moment. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 18:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
*I believe that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English Middle English]] is a very notable [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language language]] because it is the ancestor of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language modern English]] which is the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers most widely spoken language in the world]] if you include both [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language Native speakers]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language Second language speakers]]. I reject this attempt to appease the haters of [[https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/enm Middle English Wikipedia]], especially since [[https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heafodtramet Old English Wikipedia]] already exists and even has it's own subdomain (it's not in the incubator). Some people may say "but who cares that Middle English is the ancestor of a language widely spoken all around the world?" Now, I'm asking you this: who cares that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin Latin]] was traditionally the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca lingua franca]]? Now English is. And who cares what role [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek Ancient Greek]] played in history? Who cares what languages were spoken by [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar Julius Caesar]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle Aristotle]], and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato]]. Don't understand me wrong, I support both Latin and Ancient Greek WIkipeida, but I believe that we must judge only the quality and activity of the wikis and nothing else as those are the only things that can be messured objectively. Why is Gifnk the only one debating? Where are the other Middle English editors? {{ping|1234qwer1234qwer4|CanadianToast|JustinCB|Qmwne235|Gray Porpoise|Laʒamon Æft-iboren|Cbrown1023|Katxis|Varlaam|LittleWhole|S. Roelants|PolarWafflez|Vikipad|Sgman1991|The Hypnotizer|DTL1234|Warofdreams|Crochet.david.bot|MF-Warburg|Xbspiro|Kimberley-nia Bot|Artoria2e5|Whaales|AurelianusAmbrose|NASAPeepo|Nevergonnagiveyou|Alfred our king|Liuxinyu970226|Zarzagoa|DiuPater|GoodClover|Malhonen|Ursulageorges|ChimNung}}. Why are you letting this happen!? Why are not you defending Middle English Wikipedia!? Do you want all the hard work done by you & by others to be deleted like it was nothing!? Now is the time to act! [[User:EvilPita|EvilPita]] ([[User talk:EvilPita|talk]]) 14:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
** I am very much in '''support''' of the proposal (with reassurance w.r.t. lzh/zh), but I do find this ping... a bit noisy. I do wonder what made me miss the first round of pings. --[[User:Artoria2e5|Artoria2e5]] ([[User talk:Artoria2e5|talk]]) 14:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
***@[[User:Artoria2e5|Artoria2e5]], the proposal by JimKillock or the one by EvilPita? -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 15:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**** As Artoria2e5 mentions ''reassurance w.r.t. lzh/zh'' and there is no mention of that issue by "EvilPita" I think it is fairly clear the actual proposal as drafted is what is being referred to. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
*****@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], yeah I agree with you but it was as a reply to [[User:EvilPita|EvilPita]]’s comment so who knows. That’s why I asked. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
*Just to make my position clear, I still '''oppose''' any weakening of the general ban of ancient languages in principle, though I would '''support''' criteria along these lines as the lesser evil, should the language committee cave in to the popular pressure. What these criteria can do is to distinguish projects that are at least minimally viable, though still practically useless (e.g. Latin, Ancient Greek), from those that are completely out of the question (e.g. Middle English). [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**I appreciate the candour :) It has to be said though, when it comes to what knowledge people wish to impart and receive and why, “practically useless” is a very telling phrase, as there will be people who think it applies to most minority content on Wikipedia of any kind you would like to mention. In short, I would appeal that people don’t be judgemental about the kind of knowledge production and consumption others wish to engage in and find value in. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 15:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**:: My position on usefulness was explained in the first round of comments above (which you just archived). There's nothing "judgmental" about it, just the simple fact that wikis in ancient languages (in all those cases I'm familiar with) lack a natural readership. As I said there, there's not a single person on earth for whom Ancient Greek would be their natural and preferred means of acquiring information, and who couldn't acquire that information more easily via another wiki in a different language. These projects may have potential readerships of language enthusiasts, who read them in order to practice the language itself, but providing linguistic training material is not what Wikipedia is for. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about the real world, not to serve as linguistic playgrounds. No need to further debate this point – I have no ambition to pursuade you about it; it just happens to be my well-considered and firm opinion. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 19:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**::::I don't think using an ancient language need necessarily mean that it is purely using for language practice; it can be used for specialised or more in depth information. But from a policy perspective those criticisms can be levelled at ConLangs, so I just don't see how it can be justified to knock one and not the other, if we are recommending a policy position for Wikimedia as a whole. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**:::@[[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Future Perfect at Sunrise]]: I agree with your position as articulated in this comment. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment: the movement includes many types of projects that are markedly different in nature from the Wikipedias. Wikibooks and Wikiversity being two apposite examples. What if the proposal was actually a new type of project whose goal was to provide language learning resources, and some relevant ancient language had a viable interested community? All modern (currently spoken) languages that have a Wikipedia could plausibly be argued to able to support a parallel project for language learning. If that infrastructure was already in place I don't really see why an ancient language subdomain for that project would have to be a hard "no". This is obviously entirely hypothetical, and I am disinclined to support the proposal in the RfC as written, but I am open to the possibility that I might find myself supporting a given concrete proposal for an ancient language subdomain at some point. It sure makes more sense to me than hare-brained schemes like Abstract Wikipedia (or, powers preserve us, the Wikijournals). [[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**::::As it goes, we are doing a little work of this nature on Latin Wikibooks. Not huge amounts but there are a couple of additions like this being made at present. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
***@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], may I add that it can be argued that writing articles in Ancient Greek isn’t more useful than writing articles in Kotava for example though Kotava Wikipedia exists. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 15:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
****We should not be trying to decide for other people what is useful to them is all I mean. I am not looking for a long discussion of this tho – I am very much hoping we could be at the end of this process and ready for LangComm's response! --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
*****@[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], that’s exactly what I have been trying to say for quite some time. In addition, I find it a bit hypocritical that they don’t allow ancient languages because they are supposedly “not useful” but still allow constructed language. I’m amazed that langcom that rejected [[Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Middle English 4]] not even two weeks after it was initially proposed despite the majority of people in the discussion supporting it has so enthusiastically accepted Kotava of all constructed languages. Anyways, yeah, I agree with you. We shouldn’t decide for other people what is or is not useful for them. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
**I would also like to address some of the points re @[[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Future Perfect at Sunrise]]. While usefulness can be an important criterion, I believe that over-stressing this point can lead to some unfortunate conclusions, such as the fact that there exist plenty of languages still being spoken by a handful of people, all of whom are used to getting their information primarily in another language (for instance, although the Manchu Wikipedia has not been created, it has been verified as eligible, and I doubt there is a single Manchu speaker in the world who wouldn't find it much easier to look up any information they care for in a different language, e.g. in Chinese or English). Consequently, only Wikipedias in a handful of globally important languages, such as English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic etc., are really "useful" from a strict point of view. I believe that most of us would reject this conclusion, however, because cultural context can be important, and though we learn English for the purpose of communicating with as many people as possible, and despite the best efforts of Wikipedia to maintain a neutral point of view in all languages, it is completely unavoidable that different language-speaking communities will be immersed in different cultural assumptions in the very language they use; thus there can be a lot of value in creating a project in a language that is supposedly "useless", like Manchu, assuming that enough people are passionate enough to volunteer to maintain it. The same applies to classical languages like Latin and classical Greek, which are like auxiliary conlangs but which many people learn for reasons other than sheer linguistic interest, which to my mind makes them actually far more useful than the latter. For example, I and many other people I know cannot really speak or read or write modern Greek, but we can communicate reasonably well with people with whom we may not share another common language in writing in classical Greek. These are people whose viewpoints I may not otherwise be able to engage unless I were to learn, for instance, modern Greek, and this fact alone makes having a project in classical Greek immensely useful to me and to people I know. The same, of course, applies to Latin and classical Chinese (which is actually learned by Japanese and Korean scholars who may not know any of the modern Chinese dialects). I would tend to agree, however, that a language like Middle English doesn't really qualify on these lines, given that there are probably vanishingly few people who understand ME but not modern English. [[User:AristippusSer|AristippusSer]] ([[User talk:AristippusSer|talk]]) 22:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
*** I and I think most of those on the committee support disadvantaged languages to help support such languages. I would also deny that only a handful of globally important languages are useful; the Encyclopedia Britannica had 500,000 topics averaging 80 words a topic, and there's 25 Wikipedias that have more than 500,000 articles, and few articles are that terse. ([[en:w:Wikipedia:Size_comparisons]] cites the EB store as the same number of words grouped into 40,000 articles. [[List_of_Wikipedias]] gives us over 100 encyclopedias with that many articles, though many don't average 1000 word articles. And that's a full-size major printed encyclopedia; children's encyclopedias and one-volume desk encyclopedia are much terser and still valuable. There are many more languages with millions of speakers just waiting for Internet to saturate their part of the world to grow comparable encyclopedias.
*** But by that standard, it's not going to be a child's encyclopedia or a one-volume desk encyclopedia; you have better sources. It's not a communication platform; Facebook, Twitter, email all support Ancient Greek just fine, as should virtually all systems in modern use. Some of the justifications for an Ancient Greek Wikipedia don't seem to me like the constraints of an encyclopedia are going to be useful to you. Make a ''[https://www.amazon.com/Beletra-Almanako-BA37-Literaturo-Esperanto/dp/1595694005 Beletra Almanako]'' in Ancient Greek; that will let you communicate and produce unique texts in the language much more freely.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 23:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
****It's not a question of "how many Wikipedias can be considered useful" that I raised; it is that certain objections having been raised against certain ancient languages, such as usefulness, are just as valid against languages like Manchu, which has however been verified as eligible simply because of the existence of a dozen or so native speakers (all of whom I strongly doubt have actively participated in the project); and that's to say nothing of the vast majority of conlangs. And saying that the language committee wishes to support the latter is a bit circular, don't you think so? It would not be a very compelling argument if we simply say that it is the taste of those who happen to be on the language committee that has the final say.
::::Again, I don't think it is very persuasive to say "but you have X options aside from Wikipedia to use for your language!", because the same argument can be raised against any language whatsoever; it simply pre-supposes that Wikipedia ought not to support a certain language. I am not saying that we'd like to use Wikipedia as a communicative platform; I am saying that the fact that some classical languages are used as a communicative medium between people not sharing a language means that there is potential for creating a collaborative encyclopedic work where I can read about things from a point of view I may not be familiar with. This is by no means mutually incompatible with communicating via email, Twitter or whatever, and the existence of the latter does not preclude the former; they are simply two entirely different use cases. And, like I said, we are not really "opening the flood-gates", so to speak, to anything like an avalanche of languages assuming we adopt some sensible restrictions like the ones currently being proposed, since I can hardly think of any language that qualifies along these lines that doesn't have a Wikipedia project already, besides classical Greek. [[User:AristippusSer|AristippusSer]] ([[User talk:AristippusSer|talk]]) 02:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
***** All native languages get a pass on that requirement. Yes, if your language and culture get crushed to near extinction, we'll let you have a Wikipedia so that it can cling to life.
***** You're not listening to the argument. You should start a Wikipedia in a language because you feel there should be an encyclopedia in that language. You should not start a Wikipedia in a language because you want to create text in a language, or because you want to communicate with people with a different viewpoint. (For which Ancient Greek is a lousy choice, not remotely comparable to English or Esperanto in diversity of speakers, nor to Farsi or many other languages in distinctness of viewpoint.) Estonian reaches people who speak best in Estonian and lets them write articles about Estonian things. The English and any major Western Wikipedia have articles about all the Ancient Greek things, and there's nobody who speaks Ancient Greek better than a well-supported language.
***** It's hardly opening the flood-gates, but let's complain about the nine conlangs that have Wiki projects, far fewer than the number of ancient languages that have projects; I'm sure that will endear you to everyone else.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 05:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Prosfilaes}} The point raised is not ''to create text in a language, or … to communicate with people with a different viewpoint''. Rather {{ping|AristippusSer}} says: ''I am not saying that we'd like to use Wikipedia as a communicative platform; I am saying that the fact that some classical languages are used as a communicative medium between people not sharing a language means that there is potential for creating a collaborative encyclopedic work where I can read about things from a point of view I may not be familiar with'' and that ''different language-speaking communities will be immersed in different cultural assumptions in the very language they use'' leading in both cases to different kind of knowledge production.<ref>Note: This is true even for the different cultures of Wikipedia projects; it is much more pleasant engaging with Latin Wikipedia than the English version, so it is easier and more productive to write for it first, and think whether any of it should move elsewhere afterwards.</ref> It is true that the audience is more ''limited'' and they may ''generally prefer'' to find the knowldge elsewhere, but it is not true that Latin Wikipedia is automatically a knowledge subset of English Wikipedia.
::::::I do think the "universalism" of Wikipedia rather shades this out, as do the policies aiming at consistency, such as notability, and NPV, NOR etc; all this tends to create the illusion that there we are aiming at a single, ideal version of condensed knowledge. However, this changes quickly, depending on the sources of information available to you. If you have read a lot of Latin (horror, the original sources) then your perspective shifts and your ability and interest to write Wikipedia content changes.
::::::Where it might matter most therefore is those areas where the language has made the most impact. There is for Latin for instance an incentive to document the vast array of literature and people who wrote it through the middle ages and renaissance; to produce more Church history and theology; to write of course about the Classical period and Empires that were contemporary to the Romans. These areas, Latin writers have more knowledge and interest, would be more likely to document certain things. It may be that some of this filters back into other Wikipedias, but in some cases it may just produce different content, for instance where EN pages are well developed. This kind of 'core interest' and 'audience and producer knowledge' probably applies to all Wikipedias, and is one of the reasons in general to encourage diversity where it is sustainable. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 07:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC
:::::*Thanks to @[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] for explaining my position; I believe the above is a very accurate representation of what I am trying to say. Essentially I find it a bit ironic to say "but you can find everything there is about ancient Greek on the English Wikipedia", while at the same time claiming to be in favor of linguistic diversity. In fact French Hellenists, to use an example I am familiar with, tend to come from a very different philosophical background compared to Anglo-Americans, and this will always come through in the way they write about things in an encyclopedic manner. Some of them are not good English speakers and would probably not feel comfortable writing an encyclopedia in English. I am saying that there can be a lot of value in a collaborative encyclopedic work created by ancient Greek writers from all countries and backgrounds regardless of whether they are comfortable writing in English, French or German or what have you, for the reasons Jim has summed up well.
::::::Also, just to set the record straight, I have never once, as claimed above, "complained" about any of the conlang Wikipedia projects. I am merely saying that the rationale used to support them are the same as those for ancient Greek, and the arguments raised against ancient Greek often can be adapted for them as well, and thus it is unfair to reject ancient Greek out of hand when current policy does not do so for conlangs. To claim that this amounts to complaining about conlangs is a clear distortion of my position. [[User:AristippusSer|AristippusSer]] ([[User talk:AristippusSer|talk]]) 12:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I will admit that this is entering 'bikeshedding' territory, but I( have summarised the ConLang versus Ancient Language requirements in a table here: [[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix: ConLangs vs Ancient Languages comparision|''Appendix: ConLangs vs Ancient Languages comparision'']] --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: Requiring an ISO 639-3 code is no hurdle for an ancient language, but actually requires some of the things you listed as not required for a conlang, as well missing the concern that bad ancient language use will bring shame and scandal to WMF (cf. the Scots affair) whereas few care about bad conlang use.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: This is absolutely right, but the right mitigation is to require a large set of potential authors, editors and readers, which is what we have done (''5. There must be evidence of a significant potential readership and evidence of a significant body of competent potential contributors; for instance at least thousands of people trained in writing the language, and availability of courses or training which aim at fluent compositional or oral usage'').
::::::::: I would have thought that risk of fake pages might well apply to conlangs (why not add a lot of Spanish or Latin to Lingua Franca Nova or Esperanto?) just as much as any other. It's surely at heart an issue of neglect and spam-like abuse, and not particular to ancient languages.
::::::::: Scots of course is a modern language. The reason that was a problem is that a lot of people do not regard Scots as a separate language to English, and like to think it must be some kind of formal codification of a Scottish accent. Equally, plenty of people like to have a go at Esperanto (why do they bother, who on earth learns it (characters on ''Red Dwarf'') what are they thinking, are they Freemasons, Socialists, let's put them in Gulags and worse) so I don't think you can count this kind of risk out for ConLangs entirely. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::The point is that nobody really cares about whether the Kotava Wikipedia is in good Kotava except for the speakers of Kotava. Short of a complete mockery like the Siberian Wikipedia, it won't matter outside the Wikipedia. An Ancient Greek Wikipedia written poorly will get noticed by Hellenists outside Wikimedia and possibly show up in news sources. And so far, what I hear is that the Ancient Greek Incubator is not in good Ancient Greek.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 00:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::The simple answer has to be that it is Wikimedia's job to seek to manage and mitigate risk. Only when a risk is likely to be unmanageable should a project be declined. It is a language or project specific problem, and not something inherently insoluble in the class (we have plenty of examples of succesful management to the contrary).
::::::::::: The proposed mitigations are that ''5. There must be evidence of a significant potential readership and evidence of a significant body of competent potential contributors; for instance at least thousands of people trained in writing the language, and availability of courses or training which aim at fluent compositional or oral usage;'' and that ''7 The language must have a reasonable degree of contemporary usage as determined by discussion, which must extend beyond academic study of the language'' and also under ''3.'' that it ''exists in a widely accepted standardised form; additionally there must be well-established methods of extension of the language to modern topic areas.'' These are all designed to reduce the risk of poor quality content that you speak of, to a much greater degree than for a ConLang, as the latter are generally easier to learn.
::::::::::: You will see in the archived discussion there is some mention of the sad case of the Ancient Greek wiki. It seems that many people blame its state on languishing in the incubator. I cannot say, but again this is something which would ought to be looked at for the language; the point of a policy surely is to look at the criteria in the round. Please do let me know if you think these mitigations need tightening; they were in part suggested by FutPerf with these problems in mind and seemed very helpful to me. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::: I've placed this issue of language attack into issues table below, to document any outstanding or further issues identified, and how they are dealt with, or if the policy needs modification. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 07:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: What conlang requirement have I missed btw? I've tried to summarise WM policy not ISO requirements so perhaps that is where I have erred? --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::: I found a requirement for a 'literature', which I have amended, and for the language to have been passed on for at least one generation, but that doesn't seem to be a requirement for mother tongue transmission, but in both cases I am just reading the website and there may be fuller conditions. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 22:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::: This is not about Latin or French, though I am curious where the Latin Wikipedia covers something that is not covered by the English Wikipedia. Latin is ''sui generis'', still on the radio and in regular use in obscure cases, and has a Wikipedia.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I think by "French Hellenists", AristippusSer means French people who he speaks with through the medium of Ancient Greek.
::::::::I've certainly made additions to la.wp that I have not added to en.wp. These range from nomenclature through to details about Latin authors. Using la.wp to centralise and create a repository of correct terminology on the vast range of topics Latin has been used for seems to be a significant motivation for some authors; that is important for a Latin using audience and I would say a core part of what any encyclopedia does. We are in the process of redubbing some German videos into Latin, and will probably alter the scripts somewhat as we do. Nobody intends doing these for English. We might extend these to do original video content if this works. I've also added Latin audio clips of Catullus poetry readings and one less formal video about a garden. But I'm just one person. Nevertheless I am digging into this question further elsewhere, because I think it is interesting. And even if it turns out the examples are not as big as I imagine, we can ask the question, what shoudl latin do better, and then develop that content.
::::::::Ancient Greek is not in such a hugely different situation to Latin. There is a smaller but very dedicated community around it, and a large group of competent readers. Both Latin and Greek are experiencing something of a growth of interest, in large part due to the easy availability of the original materials post Google Books, and the general ease of contact that the Internet has brought.
::::::::Also, don't forget that all of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are banned from getting new Wiki projects. As others have commented, Wikibooks and Wikiversity might actually be more flexible for ancient languages, but the policy is currently a hard 'no'. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: Greek is in a hugely different situation to Latin. I can't check Classical Chinese and Sanskrit, but it's not that hard for me to compare Latin and Ancient Greek. https://klinai.hypotheses.org/1772 mentions seven journals that accept articles in Latin, with zero mentioned in Greek. A century ago, introductions to books in Ancient Greek (or Latin) were often written in Latin, and I've ran across 20th century mathematical dissertations written in Latin. More recently, [[w:en:Contemporary Latin]] offers a number of examples of current Latin use. Compare [[w:en:Ancient_Greek#Modern_real-world_usage]]. They're not remotely in the same league.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 00:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::: Of course Ancient Greek is less developed than Latin, and has been less utilised. But there are also parallels, in that there is sustained interest, many Latinists would graduate to Greek study; many Universities long required both for University entrance; Gymnasia or Grammar schools would expect to teach you both; informal production is frequent for both; poets would often write in both; Christian liturgical study at a high level requires both, across many denominations, as a matter of practicality; all this contributes to a continued level of interest in these two languages that is well beyond most others, at least in Europe. How we class the similarities or difference a bit of a sideshow tho, the point is merely that it in my view the similarities are enough to suggest that Ancient Greek could have a ''comparable'' if lower level of activity and knowledge production to Latin. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: There's a continued level of interest in many languages. But the recent production of text in Ancient Greek seems more akin to the recent production of "E-sír kusv-za-gìn-g-á", that is Blue Suede Shoes in Sumerian, then the actual news reporting and original writing that is going on in Latin. I'm listening right now to a podcast in Latin, QUOMODO DICITUR; where is that for Ancient Greek? I think the distinction between the two is very relevant, that Latin is successful because it is used to produce new texts, and Ancient Greek won't be because it isn't. I might go so far as to say that any Western (ancient?) language that didn't grab a Wikipedia before this policy was enacted doesn't have what it takes to have a Wikipedia; it's not like the speakers didn't have the same Internet access that Latin and Gothic speakers did.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 05:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Moving the question of productivity of Greek to the [[Talk:Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages|Talk page]].
:::::::::::: I think the pragmatic reasons for adjusting the policy are not precisely because Greek naturally passes and will automatically proceed to a Wiki. They are that
:::::::::::: (1) Greek and potentially other ancient languages have never been given a ''chance for a fair assessment'' as to whether they can qualify, and currently ''never will'';
:::::::::::: (2) Other Ancient languages cannot expand their wikis even if they could gain from them, Wikibooks and Wikiversity ''could'' work well as they are flexible platforms, so continue to be disadvantaged;
:::::::::::: (3) The current policy lacks consistency between different language types, feels unfair, and contains the implication that Wikimedia is supporting a number of successful projects by mistake, which it would rather go away.
:::::::::::: Even if no other ancient language is ever added to the cohort, a policy which accepts the place of the current ones for objective reasons would be a good step forward.
:::::::::::: (That said we will never get this precisely right; the criteria designed here would not permit Gothic or Anglo Saxon to expand their presence; only Latin and Sanskrit would have a clear path for consideration. I am not sure where Church Slavonic stands but I doubt it has significant productivity and I know nothing of its language modernisation techniques, but of course I could be wrong.) --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 07:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} If this proposal passed, it's worth considering to place a new project in another project: as lzh.wiktionary is actually at [[:lzh:維基大典:維基爾雅]]. lzh.wikipedia uses "pending changes", not because of vandalism, but because people usually write poor Classical Chinese —— this definitely needs some volunteers, which small projects can't afford. [[User:Crowley666|Crowley666]] ([[User talk:Crowley666|talk]]) 09:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} RFC is not vote, so vote-counting appears meaningless to me. [[User:C933103|C933103]] ([[User talk:C933103|talk]]) 03:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} since there’s all the mess with the archived discussions, does anyone know if all the discussions will be merged into a single page after the discussions are over? Thanks in advance.-[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::Plus with all the appendixes it’s truly a mess. No offense though. -[[User:Gifnk dlm 2020|Gifnk dlm 2020]] ([[User talk:Gifnk dlm 2020|talk]]) 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} It is becoming clear to me in the discussion above and on the LangCom email list that the way that this gets resolved is to get back to brass tacks over whether and how Ancient Language wikis deliver Wikimedia and Wikipedia's mission. I have adjusted the 'rationale' to reflect this, but there is also a lack of information about whether the existing projects do this. I am [[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix III: Current Ancient language assessment|developing a proposal to assess this as a next step]] - this would not be quick, but I think it is the right thing to do, if we are going to bring this to a logical and coherent outcome.
:On another note, I still cannot find the rationale behind the original decision to exclude ancient languages. I have documented what I know below and on the [[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix II: Prior policy documents and decisions|relevant appendix]]. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 06:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|JimKillock}} I looked for that information fairly soon after the event, when I was writing ''The World and Wikipedia''. My conclusion (I'd be happy to be told I was wrong!) is that there was no rationale and originally no principle involved: the Language Subcommittee, as it was then, was swamped with requests and lacked guidelines; a set of guidelines was drafted and this provision was in them; there was no sign that this provision was discussed. [[User:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[User talk:Andrew Dalby|talk]]) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
===Archived Discussion and details of support and opposition===
The original proposal was to "Start allowing ancient languages", and to consider each application on its merits. Discussion on the qualifications for a successful project proceeded later.
''Archived discussion''
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Support and opposition
|-
! Support !! Oppose !! Other
|-
| [[User:PastelKos|PastelKos]], [[User:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]], [[User:Giorno2|Giorno2]], [[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]], [[User:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]], [[User:Cuzkatzimhut|Cuzkatzimhut]], [[User:Heracletus|Heracletus]] , [[User:Sigur|Sigur]], [[User:Zoozaz1|Zoozaz1]], [[User:扎姆|扎姆]], [[User:Anaxicrates|Anaxicrates]], [[User:Haoreima|Haoreima]], [[User:Awangba Mangang|A. Mangang]], [[User:Robbinorion|Robbinorion]], [[User:Jackattack1597|Jackattack1597]], [[User:Sailor Ceres|Sailor Ceres]], [[User:Whycantusernamesbe21|Whycantusernamesbe21]], [[User:Sabon Harshe|Sabon Harshe]], [[User:Iohanen|Iohanen]], [[User:Sahaib3005|Sahaib3005]], [[User:C933103|C933103]], [[User:Oofas|Oofas]] , [[User:Vikipad|Vikipad]], [[User:EvilPita|EvilPita]], [[User:AnotherEditor144|AnotherEditor''144'']], [[User:Kitabc12345|Kitabc12345]], [[User:Pavlov2|Pavlov2]], [[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]], [[User:Mmh|Mmh]], [[User:Wolverène|Wolverène]] || [[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]], [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]], [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]], [[Special:Contributions/223.104.228.36|223.104.228.36]], [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]], [[User:GerardM|GerardM]], [[User:Minorax|<span style="font-family: MV Boli; color:#69C">Minorax</span>]], [[User:Janwo|Janwo]], [[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|Chen]][[special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]], [[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]], [[User:SHB2000|SHB2000]], [[User:Sanmosa|Σανμοσα]], [[User:DreamerBlue|DreamerBlue]], [[User:乌拉跨氪|乌拉跨氪]] || '''Neutral towards initial proposal:''' [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]]
|-
| '''Partial support:''' [[User:Steinbach|Steinbach <small>(formerly Caesarion)</small>]] || - || '''Abstained:''' [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]]<ref>(focusing on some de facto opening RFL proposals fall under the topic, not generally)</ref>
|-
| '''Weak support:''' [[User:VIGNERON|V<span style="font-size:75%">IGNERON</span>]] || - || -
|-
| '''Total in support: 32''' || '''Total opposed: 14''' || '''Total other: 2'''
|}
''Note that some sock-votting was alleged or possible, for both supporting and opposing parties, in that proposal. No SRCU actions were taken.''
====Summary of discussion of second proposal====
A second version of this proposal was drafted, edited and tightened, (see discussion on the Archive Page) to either apply a test to ensure the problem could not arise, or to mitigate against each of the criticisms listed above. The process added criteria about external standardisation and established means of extending the language into areas of modern life, applying the principle that users should not have to engage in ''original research'' or be largely responsible for language development. The second version of the proposal as edited in the archived discussion is presented above.
====Support for second proposal====
''This summarises the views now on the archive page and below''
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Support and opposition
|-
! Support !! Oppose !! Other
|-
| [[User:JimKillock]], [[User:C933103]], [[User:Gifnk dlm 2020]], [[User:Pere prlpz]], [[User:Amahoney]], [[User:Andrew Dalby]], [[User:Haoreima]], [[User:Steinbach]], [[User:Artoria2e5]] (''wanted reassurance about Classical Chinese''), [[User:AristippusSer]] || [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise]] (''Sympathetic to draft, but opposed in principle, but willing to accept the compromise as least bad alternative''), [[User:Xover]] (''disinclined to support proposal as drafted''); [[User:Prosfilaes]] (''assumed''); [[User:EvilPita]] (''proposal would not allow Middle English''); [[User:Pppery]] || '''Abstained:''' [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]]
|-
|| '''Total in favour: 10''' || '''Total against: 5''' || '''Total other: 1'''
|}
====Committee views expressed on list====
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Initial expressions of support and opposition
|-
! Support !! Oppose !! Other
|-
| || [[User:GerardM]]<ref>see [https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/langcom@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JAGAHKBLZ6SBLVEHEYIRHR2U32BNN2GQ/ response]</ref> || Allow official but ancient<ref>[https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/langcom@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GB6N5D35LHQJYQSMVP6MTT2JJQHZES6E/ ''Langcom email list''; see email at 7.01pm, 9 Sep 2021]</ref>
|-
|| '''Total in favour: 0''' || '''Total against: 1''' || '''Total other: 1'''
|}
==Feedback requested on language study==
I would like some help framing the questions that could be answered on the [[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix III: Current Ancient language assessment|''Current Ancient language assessment'']] page, from both proponents and skeptics of this proposal. The idea is to get a better evidence base about the performance of the Ancient Language wikis, in delivering Wikimedia's mission and Wikipedia's purpose statement, which could bring this discussion to a more satisfactory and evidence-based conclusion.
I have suggested this to the Language Committee and noted what other external help would be needed to do this. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 20:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
==Feedback requested on ''Developing Ancient Language support''==
A big theme in the conversations so far has been criticism of the existing language projects and skepticism of their ability to deliver the mission. Notwithstanding any language study, another policy response to this should be to develop appropriate support to ensure that the ALWs progress and meet the mission.
This kind of work is within the [[Language_committee#Charter|Language Committee's scope]], as they are tasked with the "development and maintenance of … support and coordination for cross-language projects, helping smaller communities share resources and maximize their results."
Thus feedback from the Committee and others on this would be helpful at [[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix IV: Developing Ancient Language support|''Developing Ancient Language support'']]. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 20:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
:No idea that this [https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/langcom@lists.wikimedia.org/message/U7L5DXSQWZSQEW2NGLDVKAQGMXDH75GT/ respond] by GerardM can help you or not? [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 12:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks for that link, {{Ping|Liuxinyu970226}}. I could add to one of {{Ping|User:Ilario}}'s examples that I can see in that post: it's a detail maybe important enough in its way. The identity of Benedict XVI's successor was announced in Latin (that being the primary official language of the Vatican) and therefore it was broadcast live, worldwide, in Latin. Then there was a significant pause in the broadcast commentary while the commentators checked their lists and worked out who had been chosen -- but people who knew Latin, worldwide, knew already. [[User:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[User talk:Andrew Dalby|talk]]) 13:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
==Targeted discussion: audience development and producing specialist content==
Going back through the discussions, two concerns that were brought up a number of times related to ''audience development'' and ''producing specialist or deeper content'' to help meeting Wikipedia's mission of producing "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge". In the negative, this was framed as an objection in principle on the grounds that these were not achievable goals for an ALW, especially regarding Wikipedias. I have added this to the outstanding issues table below.
I think there are good mitigations available to ensure both of these take place. The common feature is that both require the Wiki projects to identify and develop ''areas of specialist content'' that provide a reason to use that Wiki over and above other Wikis, because it is either more comprehensive or better written. Like all Wiki projects, this would be best done through support programmes and collaborative development, but a simple and easy step would be to ensure that the Wiki projects have a plan to meet these goals early, rather than for instance developing many but shallow articles, in the case of a Wikipedia project. Feedback appreciated. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 13:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
: I have added this into the proposal above as
:: ''8. For a ''Wikipedia'' project, the proposal must show how it intends to develop specialised or deeper content and in which areas, in order to help meet Wikipedia's goal of being a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge". These should relate to those areas where the larget language can show a particularly high level of productivity, or has been the dominant or exclusive medium for the original area of activity to be documented. There should also be a policy to liase with other relevant wikis to ensure that some of this knowledge flows back into other Wikipedia projects as is appropriate.'' and
::''9 As Wikipedia's mission is to "benefit readers" by "providing an encyclopedia" and Wikimedia's mission is to "disseminate [educational material] effectively", the Wiki project should have a policy in place that shows what avenues it intends to use to promote itself and develop its readership, for instance through schools, universities or religious communities that have knowledge of the language..'' --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 13:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
====Summary of discussion====
There were more comments in favour than against, but points were raised about ensuring the WM mission is met, project sustainability and linguistic accuracy by people against the RfC that are important and need to be addressed if this is to be a credible change. There were specific concerns raised about Classical Chinese.
Those in favour pointed to the success of the Latin project and to a degree Sanskrit to show that these could be successful. There was much discussion of the suitability of Middle English, and on balance the discussion showed that it would be hard to justify, given the lack of standardisation, community knowledge and users. Ancient Greek was brought up as a particular example of an excluded language that has active language production, many competent speakers and writers, and a large number of potential readers. Attention was drawn to a deterioration of Ancient Greek content on the test wiki over time. Some felt that it would have been much more successful than it has been if it had been granted a subdomain and reached public attention. Some discussion advocated that only success in the incubator should be used as evidence of potential sustainability, largely as a way of allowing less used ancient languages a chance of success. Other discussion focused on the similarities between use of ConLangs and Ancient Languages, in particular that in certain cases they both have active users and active production and could therefore be capable of sustaining Wiki projects. Differences include that ancient languages can have many more readers than artificial languages, and many more competent writers, and drawn on a greater body of content, but entry into these languages is typically harder.
Opponents' arguments included that dead languages ''lack a natural audience'', meaning that they would not contribute to WM's mission, in that ALW's do "not contribute to making human knowledge any more widely accessible" because of the lack of a natural audience. Building on this theme, others stated that "An online encyclopedia is not a language classroom" meaning that Wikipedia projects are not provided as a means of either learning to write, or to read. Others stated that editors would be liable to poor language reproduction in the absence of native speakers and an understanding of idiom. Arguments for allowing more languages for reasons of expansionism were roundly dismissed. Some objected on the basis that ancient languages do not have the expressive ability for new concepts. Others opposed on the basis that ancient languages were on the verge of extinction and lack the ability to sustain projects. There was objection to the idea that unique content might be found on Ancient Language Wikis (ALWs) especially Wikipedias. There were objections made to the idea that ALWs had met with any reasonable level of success.
==Reponse from LangCom requested==
The discussion on the substantive proposal seems to have ended, we are no longer discussing additions or subtractions to the text. AIUI the proposal needs to be considered by LangCom, as they “own” the language policy and need to change it, or not. I have emailed them to ask for a response. If anyone feels this is incorrect please let me know. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 11:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:The Language Committee appears to be unmoved by the result produced by the RFC. Given they are implementer of existing rule, that they expect to follow rules that are already made, this might not be surprising. SO what's next? [[User:C933103|C933103]] ([[User talk:C933103|talk]]) 09:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::Let us see what they say and why. I feel the proposal here is pretty clear and reduces any dangers to a minimum. Although there has been plenty of debate relating to specific language proposals I see no evidence that LangCom have really had a chance to think whether there may be a meaningful compromise to be had regarding their ban on new Ancient Language wikis. And if we get turned down, and we can see their reasons set out, then we will be a lot further forward. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:::Here the zhwikisource also announced why they don't accept this RFC: [[s:zh:Special:Diff/2073831]]. [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 04:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|JimKillock}} Response from Gerard: [https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/langcom@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JAGAHKBLZ6SBLVEHEYIRHR2U32BNN2GQ/], seems that this RFC would unlikely to be approved, unless at least 2 other members against it. --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 09:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::Obviously a decline or refusal would be disappointing, but the more we as a community can understand the reasons LangCom has for this, the better. I am struggling to find the previous RFCs, in order to see any reasoning give regarding those also, any help with that would be appreciated. --[[User:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[User talk:JimKillock|talk]]) 11:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:::If you are referring to what "Phake Nick" on the langcom list said, I think he or she was talking specifically about this RFC only as having been derailed. - @Liuxinyu: I find your "message" to be very odd. Gerard has given a reaction there, I have also already seen a reaction from Janwo on Talk:Langcom, but there hasn't been a real discussion in Langcom yet. I think throwing out phrases like "oh I read X on langcom's list, your idea is dead unless you find 2 people who vote against him!!" is not helpful. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 12:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:Another response from Amir [https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/langcom@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3J2F456HJJDP5PF5UVUTFLRZ5SZQCVDK/], so far also an against comment, and doubt on "the success of Latin". --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 08:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
::These days, people mention "Latin" and "success" in the same sentence. Vicipaedia is getting somewhere :) [[User:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[User talk:Andrew Dalby|talk]]) 12:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
==Appendices==
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix I: ConLangs vs Ancient Languages comparision|Appendix I: ConLangs vs Ancient Languages comparision]]===
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix II: Prior policy documents and decisions|Appendix II: Prior policy documents and decisions]]===
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix IIb: Comparison of issues in archived discussion and current proposal|Appendix IIb: Comparison of issues in archived discussion and current proposal]]===
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix III: Current Ancient language assessment|Appendix III: Current Ancient language assessment]]===
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix IV: Developing Ancient Language support|Appendix IV: Developing Ancient Language support]]===
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix V: Discussion: putting an ''Ancient Language strategy'' together|Appendix V: Discussion: putting an ''Ancient Language strategy'' together]]===
===[[Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages/Appendix VI: Policy issues|Appendix VI: Policy and process issues raised but outside proposal]]===
| |||