Yes, and to emphasize Angela's (and others') points:
The relationship of Simple and English Wikipedias is not the same relationship as Simplified and Traditional Chinese. It's just an unfortunate clash of terminology as the former is about grammar usage and vocabulary, and the latter is about visual appearance of logographic characters.
-Andrew
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:13:28 +0100, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Mackinnon wrote:
I strongly request that the Traditional Chinese version of Wikipedia be given it's own language space...
A real good argument I can give for this is why does wikipedia have simple.wikipedia.org for "Simple English" instead of it being lumped into en.wikipedia.org?
I don't feel this is a strong argument for splitting Traditional and Simplified Chinese. The Simple English Wikipedia has only attracted 1500 articles so far. I expect it may have been far more successful had it been better merged with the English Wikipedia at the beginning.
Angela.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l