This may be a suitable GCI task.

Note: API action=query&meta=messagegroupstats exists, but without that parameter.

Thank you! Kartik, do you want to publish it as GCI task?

The requirements are unclear. As noted API module exists. Is this request for having server side language filtering instead of client side? Is the output expected to be a html table or what?

(In reply to comment #4)

Is this request for having server side language filtering instead of client side?

Yes

Is the output expected to be a html table or what?

If it's implemented as a Special page, yes. I would expect an output identical to Special:MessageGroupStats, but containing exactly the given languages.
(actually, it should be a modification of that special page, I don't think it makes sense as a new one)

What's the purpose/use-case here? Is this about languages which are considered to be in priority?

Yes, suppose we mainly care about 10 translations, but there are -perhaps incomplete- translations in 100 languages. That complicates verifying the completion status of those.
Moreover, a page with that would also allow to share the links with non-technical people.

Can you, from a look at [1] quickly determine the status of tier 1 and tier 2 languages as defined in [2]?

1- http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:MessageGroupStats&group=tsint-wlmsurvey
2- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2013-November/007026.html

Thanks for providing everyone with the context. :)

Given that specific goal, one could just add a column where to sort for "tier 1", "tier 2" and all the rest. If I was forced to immediately adopt a workaround on a wiki with manual workflow states enabled, I'd abuse them by making one state mean "tier 1" and another "tier 2", then I'd sort the table first by completion second by state. Alternatively, one would have to introduce multiple priority languages levels [hmm] and to move their list to the table itself [this sounds sensible], cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MessageGroupStats&group=page-Wikimedia+Blog%2FDrafts%2FOpen+letter+from+the+12A+students+of+Sinenjongo+High+School+in+South+Africa.

This just to answer your question and show how comment 0 is the result of some work you did to identify a specific solution to the problem; no idea what's best here.

Building a framework to tag languages by tier seems a much harder solution, but I agree it would also solve the stated case (at least until different people start tagging with criteria, such as “tier 1 for wikipedia” and “tier 1 for wlm”).

Change 118990 had a related patch set uploaded by Kunalgrover05:
Access Special:MessageGroupStats for a list of languages

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/118990

Change 118990 merged by jenkins-bot:
Specify languages for MessageGroupStats and groups for LanguageStats

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/118990

Kunal, the patch had to be reverted (see followup): can you please resubmit it?

Change 136626 had a related patch set uploaded by Kunalgrover05:
Specify languages for MessageGroupStats and groups for LanguageStats

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/136626

Nemo: You added the gci2014 whiteboard entry but there is a patch here awaiting review. Could you elaborate your intention? :)

(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #14)

Nemo: You added the gci2014 whiteboard entry but there is a patch here
awaiting review. Could you elaborate your intention? :)

The patch has a -1: the task would be to amend the patch to overcome the -1.

Some addition for a related use case. We (WMRU) organize many competitions, conferences and other short-term and long-term projects aimed at specific audiences. At the same time, we are involved in global projects, and are faced with the need to perform and refine the translation of pages that are originally translated into hundreds of languages.

But we would like to focus the attention of our audience only on the languages ​​that are native to them or neighbors (by geography or by language family). This would be handy and useful for tracking and encouraging our translators to compete with each other. A large list of languages ​​does not provide the necessary focus.

I'm also sure that any other regional organizations promoting Wikimedia among several language communities would appreciate the opportunity.