[Foundation-l] LangCom meeting report

2011-05-17 Thread Milos Rancic
As you should know, thanks to Wikimedia Germany, Language committee had its first real-life meeting from May 13th to May 15th during the Hackathon in Berlin [1]. The meeting was very successful. We've made numerous conclusions. They need to be verified by LangCom members who didn't participate, bu

Re: [Foundation-l] LangCom meeting report

2011-05-17 Thread M. Williamson
Thank you for the informative message. If it is possible, may I be made an observer on the langcom list? Do I need to apply for such a position? Thanks 2011/5/17 Milos Rancic > As you should know, thanks to Wikimedia Germany, Language committee had > its first real-life meeting from May 13th to

Re: [Foundation-l] LangCom meeting report

2011-05-17 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Dear Milos, Thank you for the exhaustive report. May I react to one specific point? I did not totally understand the rules about "simple" languages. It reads as if the concept of simple language versions has only to do with lingua francas, so that the benefittors are people who are no native speak

Re: [Foundation-l] LangCom meeting report

2011-05-17 Thread Milos Rancic
On 05/17/2011 02:10 PM, M. Williamson wrote: > Thank you for the informative message. If it is possible, may I be made an > observer on the langcom list? Do I need to apply for such a position? I've recommended you to become an observer. We need 7 days for discussion on LangCom list. As I said, it

Re: [Foundation-l] LangCom meeting report

2011-05-17 Thread Ting Chen
Hello Milos, thank you very much for the report and thank you all from LangCom for the work done. It is a very interesting and informative report and very comprehensive. Greetings Ting On 17.05.2011 13:21, wrote Milos Rancic: > As you should know, thanks to Wikimedia Germany, Language committe

Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]

2011-05-17 Thread Lodewijk
Although you do have a point here, just to be complete, the number of characters for en.wikipedia.org is of course longer. You would have to compare en.wp.w.org/Example with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example - which makes it 12 vs 22 (+article name), which is already more significant. Of course unless

Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]

2011-05-17 Thread Casey Brown
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > Of course > unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example . "Did you mean to type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example? You will be automatically redirected there in five seconds." :-) It alr

Re: [Foundation-l] LangCom meeting report

2011-05-17 Thread Milos Rancic
On 05/17/2011 02:21 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Thank you for the exhaustive report. May I react to one specific > point? I did not totally understand the rules about "simple" > languages. It reads as if the concept of simple language versions has > only to do with lingua francas, so that the benefi

Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]

2011-05-17 Thread MZMcBride
Casey Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Lodewijk wrote: >> Of course >> unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example . > > "Did you mean to type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example? You will > be automatically redirected there