Mark Williamson wrote:
Oh, also there is the additional option of setting up shop at a Wikipedia that has had little or no action. This is *not* something I would encourage! Please exhaust all other options first. Depending on which language you choose though, it could take a very short time or a very long time for anybody to realise what you're doing. And if you can round up a good sized group of contributors, and you get up a sizable number of articles, when you *are* eventually found out there is a good chance the content will be kept, but moved to a different subdomain (most likely ang:).
I don't mind if people squat on empty wikis, since their secrecy means that they won't be able to request help writing language files, or to ask for help in making interlanguage links. In fact, I'll happily create any wiki if the potential contributors agree in advance to use a language file which is already mature, and that you refrain from requesting interface customisations which require developer attention.
If that seems like a bizarre rule, then maybe you should re-read my posts, where I have repeatedly attempted to explain my objection.
James R. Johnson wrote:
I thought it would be created also...there was quite a bit of support when I originally proposed the idea, and then everyone started talking about Chinese and Gothic. The only reason I heard against it is that someone didn't feel like it. But, what about all the wikis with less than 10 articles? Looks like they don't feel like it either.
Same goes for you, unless you can convince one of the other developers to set this up. I find it hard to believe that I'm in this situation, that I'm the only one willing to even talk about setting up these wikis. It puts me in a situation of power that I'm not asking for. But if that's how it has to be, then I guess we have to talk about a compromise.
-- Tim Starling