Is this asking for:

1. Creating a new interface language, tl-informal, in TranslateWiki.net
2. Creating a new interface language, tl-informal, in MW core
3. Creating a new interface language, tl-informal, in production
4. Creating a new content language in MW core, adding to tlwiki as a variant
5. Creating a new content language in MW core, adding to a new wiki (tl-inf-wiki)?

I think this is 1, 2, 3 and 4 but not 5.

Note that adding variants to a wiki is do-able but makes for a sucky experience in both editing and creating wikitext, and means that tlwiki wouldn't be possible as a release target for VisualEditor for at least some time whilst we wait for building out support in VisualEditor and Parsoid.

jamesjoshualim wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

Is this asking for:

1. Creating a new interface language, tl-informal, in TranslateWiki.net
2. Creating a new interface language, tl-informal, in MW core
3. Creating a new interface language, tl-informal, in production

Just these first three. For now, we're very undecided on pursuing the fourth option, as we have not yet agreed on having Taglish content on the Tagalog Wikipedia. For now, we only agreed on having a new interface language, and we will get to the issue of content languages when we get there.

jojit_fb wrote:

As a veteran editor in the Tagalog Wikipedia, I disagree with this. I think it's redundant and I am for only one interface language for Tagalog. I suggest that this should be discussed first with more editors.

jamesjoshualim wrote:

(In reply to Joseph Ballesteros from comment #3)

As a veteran editor in the Tagalog Wikipedia, I disagree with this. I think
it's redundant and I am for only one interface language for Tagalog. I
suggest that this should be discussed first with more editors.

It is not redundant when language issues are as divisive as they are on the Tagalog Wikipedia. Short of forcing everyone to abide by one standard (which will not happen, given persistent conflicts between purists, moderates and progressives/universalists) or creating two different Wikipedias for Tagalog and Filipino, this is the best solution that can be conceived.

(Also, I posted a discussion on this on both the Tagalog Wikipedia Facebook group and the Kapihan months ago.)

jojit_fb wrote:

(In reply to Josh Lim from comment #4)

(In reply to Joseph Ballesteros from comment #3)

As a veteran editor in the Tagalog Wikipedia, I disagree with this. I think
it's redundant and I am for only one interface language for Tagalog. I
suggest that this should be discussed first with more editors.

It is not redundant when language issues are as divisive as they are on the
Tagalog Wikipedia. Short of forcing everyone to abide by one standard
(which will not happen, given persistent conflicts between purists,
moderates and progressives/universalists) or creating two different
Wikipedias for Tagalog and Filipino, this is the best solution that can be
conceived.

(Also, I posted a discussion on this on both the Tagalog Wikipedia Facebook
group and the Kapihan months ago.)

We cannot accommodate everyone. We have to always look at what the majority of readers of the Tagalog Wikimedia projects understand. They don't understand what is kasaputan, lambat-lambat and what have you. I realize the need to translate the interface after conducting editing workshops across the Philippines. Most people in the workshops don't understand what is "lumagda." They understand the term "login" instead.

I bet that even some purists will laugh at the phrase "Wala ka pa bang kuwenta?" Do you even realize that in normal conversation the phrase may be translated as "Are you still a useless person?" instead of "Don't have an account"? I bet also that those so called purists also speak unpurely in normal conversation.

I believe it's still redundant and will add another burden to a handful of volunteers just to accommodate the principles of a few people.

Another thing, it's not necessarily informal or Taglish when you use borrowed foreign words in a phrase or sentence. There are words (especially technical terms) that are really untranslatable. Forcing the translation will result to lots of misinterpretation just like with the term "kuwenta." Thus, tl-informal is a misnomer and will just add to the confusion.

I haven't seen a discussion in the WP:KAPE (or the Kapihan in the Tagalog Wikipedia) about this. You are aware that I don't have a Facebook account and if you have posted that in Facebook, I haven't read it. Instead of Facebook (where not all people who are involved in the projects are there), I recommend that you start a new section at WP:KAPE and discuss this further. Please don't reply me here.

jojit_fb wrote:

One more thing, why is it the localization project of the Mozilla Tagalog interface has no problems with retaining the technical terms untranslatable? We can follow their example.

This likely should be discussed *within* the community in order to reach consensus and support, however http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:KAPE seems pretty inactive. Is there a better place?

It might be possible to implement informal variants using LanguageConverter; see T33015#3183625

Because language converter would need to cater to exceptions, the better way to do this is probably just open up a language and then only translate those that are different and then let the other terms fallback to Tagalog just like how zh_HK<>zh-Hant have been handled.

That is provided that if a consensus are to be reached.

Or even better: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Internationalisation_wishlist_2017#Better_support_for_formal_and_informal_variants

This assumes that it is only wanted for interface, and that differences are not that big.