Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Middle English 5

←main page

Request for a new language edition: Wikipedia Middle English 5

​

submitted

verification

final decision

This proposal has been rejected. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page. A committee member provided the following comment: Marking as rejected as well. Please do not create further requests without first talking to Langcom. --MF-W 21:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
• The community needs to complete required MediaWiki interface translations in that language (about localization, translatewiki, check completion).
• The community needs to discuss and complete the settings table below:

What	Value	Example / Explanation

Proposal
Language code	enm (SIL, Glottolog)	A valid ISO 639-1 or 639-3 language code, like "fr", "de", "nso", ...
Language name	Middle English	Language name in English
Language name	Middel Englissh	Language name in your language. This will appear in the language list on Special:Preferences, in the interwiki sidebar on other wikis, ...
Language Wikidata item	Q36395 - item has currently the following values: English label: Middle English native label (P1705): Middle English instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279): historical language / Anglic, English Wikimedia language code (P424): enm writing system (P282): Latin script number of speakers, writers, or signers (P1098): 0	Item about the language at Wikidata. It would normally include the Wikimedia language code, name of the language, etc. Please complete at Wikidata if needed.
Directionality	LTR	Is the language written from left to right (LTR) or from right to left (RTL)?
Links		Links to previous requests, or references to external websites or documents.
Site URL	enm.wikipedia.org	langcode.wikiproject.org

Settings
Project name	Wikipedia	"Wikipedia" in your language
Project namespace	Wikipedia	usually the same as the project name
Project talk namespace	Wikipedia	"Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Enable uploads	no	Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons. If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
Optional settings
Project logo	File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-enm.svg	This needs to be an SVG image (instructions for logo creation).
Default project timezone	Asia/Indonesia	"Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces		For example, a Wikisource would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk", "Author", "Author talk".
Additional settings	Wikipedia	Anything else that should be set
submit Phabricator task. It will include everything automatically, except additional namespaces/settings. After creating the task, add a link to the comment.

---

Proposal

I know what you are thinking, yet another request for Middle English Wikipedia to pass after 4 requests were already rejected, but please hear me out.

The wiki is growing steadily and has a viable community which is more active then the communities of many “eligible” languages. Some of those eligible languages don’t even have a test wiki despite being approved long ago. See Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Caribbean Hindustani. Middle English Wikipedia keeps growing despite the fact that it’s editors are constantly being discouraged. Therefore I humbly request that it gets verified as eligible or at least put on hold and that the decision will be based on evidence from the test wiki itself and not on feeling which wikis can succeed and which can’t.

Thanks in advance,-📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 15:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

•  Strong support as proposer -📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong support I am a fairly new editor but I can already see that this project has been growing steadily over the past 2 years I have been editing (previously on my IP). Many people are working hard to build this new wiki and could one day if it's big enough to give information to those who know the language, and maybe people who only know the Middle form of English. Thank you or Þancie þe, Amicus111 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose There's nothing new here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Prosfilaes:, isn’t the amount of content and activity, and more importantly the fact that the test wiki is considered active consistently during the span 14 months new? -📜GIFNK📚DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK⌚️📱⌨️🖥🖨🕹💽💾💿📀📸📹🎥📽🎞📠📺📻📡🔋CONTRIBS) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and not meeting the eligibility for a new wiki. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Other Comments/Discussion

• Former supporters/opposers: @Caesarion, Marcos, Jade Knight, Migdejong, and Californiacondor~metawiki:@Gertjan R., Agari, Sajasaze~metawiki, Gray Porpoise~metawiki, and Node ue:@Ted-m, Jim62sch, Erik, Erik~metawiki, and Raghav:@Wōdenhelm, GerardM, Arbeo~metawiki, Wikipedius, and Javier Carro:@Raetius, Lib~metawiki, Marcus Cyron, and Absar: Do we have ideas how the current situation is different by the former four rejected RFLs about Wp/enm? I think some fairly new arguments should be made instead of repeating "Hey I support it as it's useful" or "Hey I oppose it as it's not useful". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You forgot the supporters and opposers of Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Middle English 4. @LittleWhole, YoungstownToast, VIGNERON, Janwo, and DTL1234:. -📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 06:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Or from the 2nd and 3rd: @Prosfilaes, Kanzler31, and ScriptorHistoriae: ^^ Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• The previous request was rejected with This is still, as pointed out on the previous request, "an extinct proto-language". New Wikipedias in ancient or historical languages are not allowed by the Language Proposal Policy, and especially in this case, there is really no point in having a Wikipedia in a language that nobody uses anymore, while at the same time, Wikipedia in the current form of the language is alive and thriving. --MF-W 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC). That comment is just as true today as it was in May 2021, and there's no reason to think that more bludgeoning of the process will produce a different outcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pppery:, to begin with, it’s not a proto language because we have original preserved documents written in Middle English. But my main argument is the amount of content and activity in Middle English Wikipedia which imo deserves some sort of recognition. Also I don’t see what the current form of the language has to do with this. -📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    • As I said, more bludgeoning of the process with no hope of accomplishing anything. The prior rejections have nothing to do with the level of activity on Middle English Wikipedia, so that's another red herring. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Pppery:, are you willing to discuss the reason Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Middle English 4 was rejected (was it justified or not)? My claim was that despite the fact that it’s as you called it “an extinct Proto langage” it should pass because of the amount of activity and content. -📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 18:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)*
• Comment above its written “The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.” Middle English Wikipedia definitely passes those standards. Also I believe that approving of Middle English Wikipedia would be beneficial for the WMF because it would signify to speakers of endangered languages that they are also welcome to attempt developing test wikis in their languages. @Pppery: is this also bludgeoning? -📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 20:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Liuxinyu970226:, what do you think about those arguments? -📜GIFNK📖DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK🎙 | CONTRIBS) 11:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Gifnk dlm 2020 You may read the official suggestions on 5th rejection here. That said, the RFC you proposed will also likely to be failed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Liuxinyu970226:, but that won’t account for request rejected due to a lack of an active test wiki (Requests for new languages/Wikibooks Lojban), when the policy changed, or if they were not eligible then but are now. I think it’s pointless for langcom to discuss this twice if it’s eligible. -📜GIFNK📚DLM💻MMXX🏰 (TALK⌚️📱⌨️🖥🖨🕹💽💾💿📀📸📹🎥📽🎞📠📺📻📡🔋CONTRIBS) 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

        Believe me, this request won't be "eligible", because it doesn't look like, sound like and/or quack like an eligible request. Also, the policy won't be changed in any cut of our centuries, as non of the policy makers are interested in changing it. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)