On 12/6/05, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
So, if Moldovan is nothing else than Rumanian, and it happens that some people write it in Cyrillic alphabet, you don't do one wikipedia only that can be written in both alphabets (I guess that's the way zh.wiki or sh.wiki work). Maybe I'm missing out something or I'm being too naive, and I beg my pardon for it, but this seems quite an easy and obvious solution to me.
Cruccone
Marco, your logic works very well only if we look at this in a linguistic vacuum without looking at politics or history. Linguistically, yes, Moldovan is the same as Romanian, and ro.wiki should be biscriptal. However, Romanian is never written in Cyrillic! If you go to Romania, you will never ever see Cyrillic script being used (just like in Italy you'd never see this). In Moldova, the majority of those who write in Cyrillic, which is a fairly small number anyway, refer to it as "Moldovan".
Putting Cyrillic content on ro.wiki would be quite strange because so few people use it when you combine Moldova and Romania together. Romanians would feel disillusioned in a way - it's not like Serbian or Chinese, where two scripts co-exist in general usage and both are significant.
I'll give you a hypothetical case. In Switzerland, Italian is an official language. Now let's say that until 1990, Swiss Italian was written in a different alphabet. After 1990, there was a significant movement to revert back to the Latin alphabet, and nowadays everyone uses Latin alphabet in Switzerland when writing Italian, except for a few who still prefer the old alphabet. Would it.wiki accept this new alphabet as part of a biscriptal Wikipedia? Considering that, say, out of a total of 70 million Italian speakers, only about 200,000 people still write in this strange alphabet, and of those, 180,000 can write well in the Latin alphabet? The case is similar to what the Moldovan-Cyrillic case is today.
Thanks,
Ronline