This proposal has been rejected. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page.
A committee member provided the following comment:
Etruscan needs to meet the stricter standards for eligibility of extinct and historical languages. It is doubtful that it ever would, but certainly a test with only two pages does not. Test project can remain on Incubator. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
Item about the language at Wikidata. It would normally include the Wikimedia language code, name of the language, etc. Please complete at Wikidata if needed.
"Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Enable uploads
no
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
"Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces
For example, a Wikisource would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk", "Author", "Author talk".
Additional settings
Anything else that should be set
submit Phabricator task. It will include everything automatically, except additional namespaces/settings. After creating the task, add a link to the comment.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Etruscan civillisation was remarkably one of the richest and one of the most important civillisations at the time,therefore I think that if other historic languages are permitted to have a Wikipedia or even at least a Test Wikipedia then so should Etruscan.
Oppose For the love of... Seriously? No, we don't need Wikipedias in poorly attested ancient languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Etruscan is not that poorly attested.Online there are even Etruscan language courses and dictionaries and translators.Etruscan is poorly attested but it is possible to write at least some articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.164.82.242 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose roughly per Prosfilaes. Wikipedias in classical languages are one thing, Wikipedias in any extinct language that we happen to know are quite another. The main issue however is not that we don't need it, but that there are too few people who will write it. It would mainly be read and written by language geeks, and when the novelty wears off they are likely to quit their hobby. See also my own essay. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per the user that hasn’t logged in,I support this because me and my friends are linguists who will support this project and will keep making new articles until we think the Etruscan Wikipedia is good enough,at least we should have a test wikipedia — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruskiguy2.0 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@76.164.82.242 and Ruskiguy2.0: Notes from langcom: they will utterly reject this one, because this is unlikely to meet the Latin/Ancient Greek status. But the test project can be kept even rejected. --36.102.227.31 23:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
