On Jun 2, 2015 02:08, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > Milos Rancic wrote: > >On Jun 2, 2015 00:39, "Benjamin Lees" <emufarm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>"Won't get a project"? Are you saying that new project language > >> editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language > >> are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.) > > > >[...] > > > >It would be useful for the sake of future arguments to have data how often > >people access to particular messages. > > Directly related: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T65416#1042471>. > Though upon re-reading it just now, the specific wording used at > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy> is actually > softer than I thought ("it is recommended" instead of a hard requirement).
Will read Phabricator discussion in the morning... Regarding LPP wording, as I mentioned above, it's theory. Practice is pretty hard and was even harder in the past. I remember Robin and I were waging hard battles for every set we wanted to remove from requirements. I am sure that's documented somewhere, but I forgot where. It should be somewhere on Meta. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
