While I am in general against imposing restrictions on the creation of new Wikipedias, from what I have observed so far those with test Wikipedias seem to be more successful: Cebuano and Kapampangan are growing very very slowly (didn't have test Wikipedias), while Scots and Võro are growing very quickly. Though, to be fair, those requests were around longer as well and so had more of a chance to develop a wider support base. Re artificial languages. While I agree that artificial languages (save international auxiliary languages with at least a minimal following, such as Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Interlingue [note the e; interlingua and interlinguE are different language]) have no place in Wikipedia, and that they shouldn't get test Wikipedias, the majority doesnt agree (cf http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages_equal_rights , where it was voted 30 to 17 that artificial languages should be treated equally by Wikimedia). I think that, in this regard, unless they have been explicitly denied, we really should allow them. This is indeed a problem, that the board (not in an official opinion, but in individual comments from Angela, Jimbo, and Anthere) seems to feel that most artificial languages should not qualify for Wikimedia projects, while the community seems to disagree. I'm not sure about my feelings here because while I believe that we should mostly limit projects to natural languages, I also respect the democratic process. I also think that in some cases, the Board should make explicit decisions regarding creation of specific new Wikipedias to establish precedent. I would feel uncomfortable just removing an old request altogether, especially if it garnered support (ie Quenya), but at the same time I feel that it is unlikely to ever come to fruitition so long as those in power seem opposed to the existance of Wikipedias for "recreational languages". Thus, I think that in cases like Quenya and Sindarin, the board should vote about whether we can automatically deny these requests based on a specific set of criteria. Also an issue are "play languages", cants, languages that aren't fully documented, and other requests. I think there needs to be a final decision to tell us for sure, finally, and forever that there will not be a Pig Latin Wikipedia, a Nadsat Wikipedia, or a Parseltongue Wikipedia (Pig Latin is a play language, Nadsat is on top of being a fictional language a sort of "cant" not suitable for more than the most basic communication, and all that has been said ever about Parseltongue is that the language consists, in written form, entirely of "ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss") Mark On 27/06/05, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE

Hi, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/Skandinavisk seems to be in "Skandinavisk". What is this language? I can't find information about it on either the English or the German or the Dutch Wikipedia. Is it an attempt to create a unified Scandinavian (Swedish-Danish-Norwegian, I assume?) language, thus artificial? Or is it a historical language? The test wiki doesn't seem to be very vivid. I really like the idea of test wiki's. I think it should become an obligatory step in the process of creating a wiki. One should prove a wiki can be active. regards, Gerrit. -- Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 28/06 10:55: 18.0°C Few clouds partly cloudy wind 2.2 m/s E (57 m above NAP) -- In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961

I just have to comment on what Guaka said. Regarding the languages of the Philippines, there are only two actual choices at present for the starting language in new Wikipedias in Philippine languages: English and Tagalog, since the Cebuano and Kapampangan wikipedias are still in the initial stages of work and besides as will be discussed below, speakers of Philippine languages who access the Internet tend to be conversant in either or both English and Tagalog. As a native speaker of Waray-Waray (a.k.a. Waray or Samar-Leyte Visayan) one of the Philippine languages, and the one who made the proposal for a wiki in Waray-Waray in the "requests for new languages" section let me speak for myself why English is a lesser evil than Tagalog as a start-up language even though I understand and am able to use both. (A third possibility could be Spanish but even fewer Filipinos speak Spanish than those who speak English). Firstly, many Filipino nationals and citizens (as opposed to a "native speaker of the 'Filipino' language" which is really Tagalog initially renamed as "Pilipino" and later repackaged as "Filipino" for the purposes of making it easier to force it on the non-Tagalog ethnic groups of the Philippines) are competent in both English and Tagalog, and most of those who have access to the Internet are fairly conversant in their use of English. Besides most software in use in the Philippines is in English, not Tagalog. As a practical matter, for computer users who are native speakers in Philippine languages other than Tagalog, it is of little consequence whether the start-up language is English or Tagalog. Which leads me to the second consideration. The next consideration is that citizens/nationals of the Philippines use Tagalog because of the pervasive and pernicious myth that one can't be a Filipino unless one uses Tagalog. In other words, they use it because they have been brainwashed to believe that to be Filipino is synonymous with being Tagalog. As one who was born in the Philippines I can attest that this belief is pervasive. To use Tagalog as a start-up language in new wikipedias for other Philippine languages would be a tacit statement of approval of this policy. This in good conscience I cannot do, and I know that neither Bentong (who proposed the Cebuano Wikipedia) nor Edwin (the proposer for the Kapampangan Wikipedia) accepts this. While I agree in principle with Guaka that it is a good idea to choose the "starting languages" of new Wikipedias, I would rather that the person or persons making the proposal/proposals choose the "starting languages". Regarding the paucity of articles in the Cebuano and Kapampangan wikipedias, I'll leave it to the native speakers to explain that. I can only speak for myself. For political reasons, I prefer English as the start-up language if my request for a wiki in Waray-Waray is approved because I can easily translate the English into my native language and also because I am firmly opposed to the current national language policy of the Philippines which is to promote Tagalog at the expense of the other equally worthy indigenous languages of the archipelago. Regards, --Harvey Fiji [en:Harvzsf] [es:Harvzsf] Guaka <guaka(a)no-log.org> wrote: On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:45 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote: Võro and Scots are spoken in countries that have significantly a higher number of internet connections in general, and broadband connections specifically. And you only need one active native speaker with a broadband connection to have quick growth... And, where people have more knowledge of the English language. For languages of the Philippines it would probably have been better to start with another language than English. I think it would be a good idea to wisely choose the "starting language" of new Wikipedias. If people can understand the interface they will be more tempted to add or change something... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com